User talk:.Raven

("User:Raven" on all -en- projects from Feb.2007 to Apr.2015, then usurped and renamed "User:.Raven")

---

Editing against consensus

Hello,

I just want to let you know your last few edits on the Eight-circuits article were against consensus, and contradicted FRINGE, PROFRINGE and UNDUE. Please don't do this anymore. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

> "your last few edits on the Eight-circuits article" – I have made, in total, TWO (2) edits there, of which the second was fixing several {{sfn}}s whose original problems I had not seen in edit/preview mode. Since I doubt that fixing faulty {{sfn}}s is "against consensus" anywhere on Wikipedia, that leaves "your last few edits" ONE, my first.

• WP:UNDUE says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."
  The one derogatory source I'd found so far – importing it from Neurologic (book)) – I quoted in a citation, attached that to a whole paragraph providing context for the criticism, and used the word "fringe" in body text for the first time. I've invited further critical references, which you folks should have been able to supply, since how else could you folks be so sure of your position? But silencing others' sourced statements isn't factually supporting your own positive assertion.
• WP:FRINGE says "... a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is."  WP:PROFRINGE (Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories) says "A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position."
  I was the one who changed the short description from "Hypothesis by Timothy Leary" to "Philosophical concept by Timothy Leary"; added "presented as psychological philosophy (abbreviated 'psy-phi')"; and clarified that "This model doesn't restrict its sources to just mainstream psychology or neurology, but uses concepts or metaphors from diverse modern sciences, transpersonal psychology, and Eastern spiritual traditions which perceive all objects and phenomena as various interrelated aspects of a single supreme reality. That blend has sparked criticism from some as 'fringe' science or worse."[cited] — which not only doesn't suggest that Leary's model is "more widely accepted than it is", but presents it as not being science at all.
  Compare Freud's "psychoanalytic theory", so called – which some call a pseudoscience because it is unfalsifiable (thus failing Karl Popper's test) – with its three-part model of the psyche (id, ego, superego). Is there more evidence for Freud's three parts than for Leary's eight? Or possibility of finding any? Arguably not even as much possibility, since at least Leary et al. invited experimentation, but what a discrepancy in treatment.
  See Berezow, Alex B. (July 13, 2012). "Why psychology isn't science". Los Angeles Times. — So calling any psychological model "fringe science" is actually unfair. You might as well call artistic styles like Impressionism "fringe science".

– .Raven  .talk 03:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, this editing behavior might be seen as STONEWALLING. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Have you not been reading the talkpage? There I was ***INVITED*** "to draft and add content to the article right this minute", and as my very first edit there (my first attempt, as I said in talk) did so, adding citations wherever "citation needed" had been marked, and adding cited critical responses to Leary's work – which you folks had complained were absent, but none of you had bothered to add yourselves – and, rather than ask for further text or documentation after that, or better yet adding it yourselves, all the group of you have done is delete the first of the very fixes the group of you had requested, indeed demanded; adding only a statement ("The model lacks scientific credibility...") that ironically you have offered no citations to verify – as the only reference you left after it quotes no "scientific" works, i.e. cannot verify that claim. Now I am forced to doubt the sincerity, the good faith, of both that invitation and those requests/demands, which previously I had assumed to be real. You disappoint me. – .Raven  .talk 00:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I just want to let you know your last few edits on the Eight-circuits article were against consensus, and contradicted FRINGE, PROFRINGE and UNDUE. Please don't do this anymore. Also, this editing behavior might be seen as STONEWALLING ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there some reason you are repeating the content of your previous two comments after I already replied to them?

Do you expect me to repeat my replies, or are you just playing? – .Raven  .talk 06:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you .Raven, for putting up with the slings and arrows of fringe editors on an article which arguably has nothing to do with fringe (see the commentary I've added on its talk page and on the ANI where you pinged me - I didn't even know that ANI was still in progress). Nice work on pointing out the obvious to them, but to each his own point-of-view, which is my triplely-pointed point. I hope this has not taken a Wikipedia or personal toll on you, and be assured that your analysis of the matter is one that takes logic into account (as I'm sure your detractors feel the same in their take on the matter). Maybe one thing to come of all of this would be a nice SMI2LE article in the future (and a pun or four). Randy Kryn (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I love puns; my wife _detests_ them — perhaps another point awarded to your triply-pointed-point.

Is that a d'k tahg (Daqtagh), by any chance? – .Raven  .talk 08:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The pun I was playing with was "a nice SMI2LE article in the future", referring to the SMI2LE formation coming about later (in both Wikipedia and according to its premise). I've not used the alphabet symbolism as a way of organizing a personal view of the overall structure, so haven't studied them (akin to the mountain having many sides that all meet at the top). Language as a map to these subjects falls outside standard English, although some forms come close. As you well know (another pun or four). Randy Kryn (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

A d'k tahg is a Klingon knife – triply-pointed – hence the link. – .Raven  .talk 08:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

A ha, Weapons in Star Trek#D'k tahg (AKA Daqtagh) (but please don't edit it too much lest it falls afoul of fringe). I clicked the link before replying above, because I've apparently never memorized the name of the thing, and I swear on a stack of Klingon bibles that it took me to a page which seemed to be only full of symbols so I thought it was a link to a magic alphabet. A nice triple-twist (and no, I don't usually write in puns but am used to it from communicating by text with a friend). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Page full of very BIG symbols? Usually means you have to clear the page through your browser security – NoScript, Disconnect, or whatever. – .Raven  .talk 09:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, big symbols, but I've never gotten that before and when I click on the link you gave it works fine both now and when I checked it before writing my last reply (without clearing). So I thought it was a magical alphabet page, but of course not surprised that that occurred (par for the course). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, well, it's not as though ***I*** ever had anything to do with magical alphabets!

But interesting to see where other things have ended up (see below). – .Raven  .talk 02:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ex-marines and the Killing of Jordan Neely article

Hi Raven--apologies for the intrusion. Just wanted to stop by and briefly note I appreciate your marine nomenclature at the article, and I confess, I did a double take too. But two quick quibbles: first there are ex-marines; they have been dishonorably discharged from service. Obviously, not really applicable here. Secondly, you are, of course, totally correct on marine usage. But Wikipedia is not necessarily bound to follow marine conventions in this regard. That's not to say your edits are wrong, it's just a question of how this encyclopedia wants to address it. Food for thought more than anything! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't want us to be the organization that tried to take on the U.S. Marine Corps. Historically, not good odds.

• United States Marine Corps rank insignia#Enlisted, e.g.: with Marines of these ranks serving as the senior enlisted Marines in a unit
• https://styleguide.militaryonesource.mil/terms/m
• https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/editors-desk/marine-vs-soldier-theres-a-difference/article_98e94b76-ec25-11df-b7c9-0017a4a78c22.html
• https://archive.nytimes.com/afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/when-every-letter-counts/
  We will now capitalize Marine and Marines when referring to individual members of the United States Marine Corps. Under the previous rule, we capitalized references to the service as a whole, but lowercased “marine” in referring to individuals. We used to say, “Three marines were wounded in the fighting.” Now we’ll say, “Three Marines were wounded in the fighting.” (We’ll make a similar change to capitalize “Coast Guardsman,” though that comes up less frequently.)

- .Raven  .talk 05:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, if the battle boils down to the creation of an encyclopedia, I'll take Wikipedia over the Marine Corps any day. And please do note that I didn't actually quibble with capitalization at all. If I might make a suggestion, attempting to be a bit more collegial and work in concert with others would be beneficial. That definitely does not mean you have to agree with anyone else, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No problemo. As for "I'll take Wikipedia", you'll note my first cite above *was* Wikipedia. These were in reference to your lowercasing "marine". The "ex-" part I addressed by copy/pasting cites from the article version I did NOT edit, here and linking that here, the latter to hopefully reduce the number of times I have this discussion. – .Raven  .talk 08:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeated bludgeoning on the Killing of Jordan Neely talk page

Hi, just wanted to drop in real quick and say it here instead of on the talk page: the repeated legal arguments, and overwhelming amount of your replies that employ this line of reasoning are beginning to get excessive, and I would strongly urge you to ease up and allow some space for others to engage in productive conversation. We've heard your very strong opinion that Daniel Penny shouldn't be named in the article, based on hypothetical legal concerns and potential future determinations. Thank you for your contributions, but please please WP:DROPTHESTICK and allow others to speak without the continued WP:BLUDGEON attitude. You have made your point, and I think that by re-asserting the same things over and over simply detracts from the argument you are making.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this, and have a good night! 72.14.126.22 (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven Several editors have asked you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Let other editors comment and walk away. Nemov (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

If I were repeating the same thing (even in different words) every time, there'd be stronger reason to say that. I believe I've said various different things. If these happened to be things with which not everyone agrees, that's... sometimes what happens.

Long long ago, I got told I'd be "a wet blanket at a necktie party". One of the nicest things anyone's ever said to me. – .Raven  .talk 00:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Many of your comments have been rather repetitive. I've been there myself – I've been in discussions where I felt other editors didn't get it, and I replied to every comment that I felt was wrong... It doesn't work. At some point, you just get on people's nerves, and you fill the page with noise. Stop it. Cool down. Stay away from the page for a day or two. Do something else. I know it's not easy at first, but after a while it actually feels good. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm also stopping by to say the same thing. You've made over 90 edits in the past few days to this RFC. Please step back for a bit, then limit your participation going forward. Take pity on whoever has to read the entire RFC in order to close it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

"Edits" ≠ "comments". Thanks to my lousy new glasses, I am not catching all typoes in preview mode.

ETA: gehhh, including in this comment. Number of apostrophes and other punctuation being a major example. – .Raven  .talk 15:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Come on. That's a silly excuse. Few of your edits were mere typo fixes. By far most of them, I'd guess over 90%, were new comments/replies. Just stop it. If someone says something you disagree with, even if you think it's really stupid, just ignore it. Take a few days off from that page. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

> "I'd guess over 90%, were new" — Over 20% of my edits, per your own link below, were marked "edit reply". To see the character-count-change in low numbers, e.g. single digits, often in the negative direction (i,e, deletion rather than addition) should indicate fixes, but by all means look at them. – .Raven  .talk 15:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Combefere ★ Talk 04:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Partial block

You have been blocked from editing Talk: Killing of Jordan Neely for a period of one week for disruptive editing. Specifically, continued WP:BLUDGEON after being cautioned against doing so at ANI by multiple users, myself included (permalink). Since for whatever reason you seem unwilling or unable to take a break from that talk page, that break is now enforced. If you have any questions about this partial block (WP:PBLOCK), please respond below and please WP:PING me, rather doing so than anywhere else, like ANI or my own talk page. I prefer the discussion not to be split. Thank you. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  El_C 17:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@El C, for what it's worth, another user (Xan747) created a new topic on the talk page, to offload a portion of the discussion from the RfC. They specifically pinged .Raven to respond there. It looks like most of Raven's recent responses on the talk page were in this section, and were not a continuation of the repeated bludgeoning points made at the RfC after being warned. Combefere ★ Talk 19:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Combefere, good point. On the other hand in the ANI, when I gave him credit for pertinent contributions but asked him to recognize the behavioral issue of them being out of place, he continued to justify the past behavior. So I agree with the block. But if he appeals, and if in that appeal he makes an unqualified statement recognizing his ill-behavior, I'd be happy lifting the block early in recognition that he'd already begun amending his behavior. Xan747 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@El C: Interesting. I "seem unwilling to take a break from that talk page" AFTER having said (40 minutes earlier) "My last comment (and I very much hope I can mean last in both senses) noted WP:NOTVOTE..."? And see the comment by Combefere, certainly not someone who generally takes my side. – .Raven  .talk 03:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess the thing is that you posted five more comments on the page after you had been notified of the ANI, which was started after multiple users had asked you multiple times to take a break. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

And did you read those comments? Were they repetitive, spamming, disruptive, as Combefere had complained?

If what bothers you is simple quantity (79 comments total), did you do the same search on Combefere?

Does that quantity bother you? – .Raven  .talk 15:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

At least three of the five were unambiguously repetitive of points you had made previously. That's a very high fraction, even if we weren't taking a post-feedback sample. --JBL (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

#1: Notice what I was replying to, a comment which missed the point of that subthread. I clarified how, and that subthread ended... instead of circling endlessly as two different questions got mistaken for one.
#2: Commenter said the denials addressed only intent. (Note that "not 'squeezing'" denies an action, not an intent.)
#3: Asks whether preceding comment pertained to a comment just above it, as both referred to "anonymous sources." (It turned out, no.)
#4: Comment included "Nowhere does the assailant say 'it wasn't a chokehold,'" I noted that the witness had insisted [X] was "not 'squeezing'" — which is pertinent.
#5: In full, "So the closer may need to go through the extra step of clicking 'show', to measure policy/guideline compliance rather than simply counting what you call 'votes/comments': WP:NOTVOTE."

You could argue that #2 and #4 were a repeated rebuttal... but then the comments they addressed had repeated the claim being rebutted. If repetition is the offense, then...? – .Raven  .talk 23:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Raven, I'm sorry, but even with you very much hop[ing] it'd be your last comment, I'm just not convinced. You've posted ~100 comments to that talk page recently, so you are likely to continue receiving pings about em, and I just do not feel confident that you'd be able to refrain from replying again. In that sense, this restriction is intended to remove any and all such temptation.

You more than had your say for the time being, so now allow others to do so as well, without the continued bludgeoning. I therefore maintain that an enforced one-week break from this one talk page is a fair response. And since except for it, every other page on the project remains unrestricted to you, I don't actually consider this sanction to be unduly harsh and I stand by it. El_C 11:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

> "You've posted ~100 comments to that talk page recently" — Kindly click on Chrisahn's link above, showing 107 edits total, and do a page search on the  m  [space m space] my UI automatically adds to edits of existing comments, all with confirming "edit" remarks; I count 28 (often with a character-count change of ±0–9, clearly typo fixes), leaving 79 actual comments, including where I was pinged to reply. (Now try the same search for Combefere, the original AN/I complainant of "has been tenaciously engaging on the RfC". No  m s, but several very-small-count or negative-number changes hint at such edits. The result?) There are words for that. – .Raven  .talk 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The other editor who was cautioned stopped commenting. You just kept going, just like you are now, which suggests that you're not really learning anything from this experience. If you're unable to learn from this and continue to point fingers at others this could become a larger problem. Nemov (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

> "You just kept going, just like you are now...."

Is replying civilly to accusatory comments on my own talk page sanctionable too?

Or is the real issue disagreement? Because I wasn't the most frequent commenter, and as for "bludgeoning"... how many times was it asserted as undisputed "fact" that [X] killed Neely, in advance of trial — the prosecution side — to the extent of demanding the defendant's and supporting witness's denials not be mentioned even once? Some neutrality.

If many newspapers howl guilt like "killer" or "murder", are we supposed to just uncritically repeat it (e.g. "murder" here, here, here, here, and here, comments unsanctioned and unwarned)? Then not only should we have done the same about the later-exonerated Central Park Five before their trial (as a wolfpack of news media did at length), we should also do it for every other person accused in the press, again without waiting for conviction.

But I'd rather side with (and cite) actual policy, like WP:BLPCRIME. As I did there. – .Raven  .talk 19:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Is replying civilly to accusatory comments on my own talk page sanctionable too? When the problem with your behavior is incessant bludgeoning, yes, replying argumentatively to every single comment (even on your talk-page, even civilly) re-enforces the problematic nature of your behavior, and the necessity of restraint. --JBL (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

> "incessant bludgeoning, yes, replying argumentatively"

In other words, disagreement. Thank you for making my point. Incessantly asserting guilt of "killing" or even "murder" ahead of the trial was not called "bludgeoning"; but pointing to WP:BLPCRIME, and saying we should therefore let the court decide that first, was. – .Raven  .talk 22:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This is also a part of the thing that you don't seem to be getting: here at Wikipedia, we follow what reliable sources say, not the courts. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME (People accused of crime) is part of the policy WP:BLP. Its first paragraph says:

"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

Note: even suggests, let alone flatly states as a "fact".

This has been emphatically disregarded, not only by the talkpage !votes/comments asserting as "fact" both "killing" and "murder" BY a named living person, but also by edits to the article itself saying "killed by __" in Wikipedia's voice — at risk of prejudicing jurors who read and trusted us.

That some news media have done this is on them; they don't follow our policies.

For us to do this, in spite of our own policy, is very much on us. We're WP:NOTNEWS, let alone an Op–Ed page. No quantity of news media's ethical failings excuses or justifies ours. – .Raven  .talk 05:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Raven, would you agree with me that if the consensus is that the issue has been seriously considered and the inclusion is still warranted, then WP:BLPCRIME is satisfied? Dumuzid (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS says: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. ... Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated." [emphasis added]

The 'Include' party in this case has chosen instead to disregard existing policies and guidelines, and to silence the objections of those [at least one] who disagree, forcing such editor[s] to stop responding.

By such means, Wikipedia's definition of (true) consensus is prevented from occurring.

What is left is called WP:False consensus; note there, "In particular,... coordinating actions in order to drive off or punish perceived 'adversaries' goes counter to the necessary collegial atmosphere required to write an encyclopedia. ... After unwanted opponents leave, it is possible to achieve the false consensus between remaining participants or simply make the wanted change assuming that 'no objections is a consensus'." That "is against Wikipedia policies and should be dealt with accordingly."

That action prevents your question from applying to this particular case any longer.

But even if it hadn't been taken? As much as I myself want to assume good faith, I note that those presuming the man's guilt, calling him killer and murderer, as "fact" from the very start — and steadfastly refusing to reconsider when called on it — would surely have been excused as jurors for cause, i.e. inability to follow the law due to bias. To claim they could "seriously consider" it, or in this case the advice of WP:BLPCRIME, would strain a judge's ability to suspend disbelief. It's a pity there wasn't an impartial discussion using (instead of refusing) such terms as "alleged", and distinguishing truly known fact from opinion. Maybe some entirely different group of people could do that.

I suggest finding out. It would be wonderful to see a true consensus reached, truly respecting policy (and each other, despite differences). That would satisfy me.

And I already understand that this answer may not satisfy you. – .Raven  .talk 07:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand your answer here, but my apologies for fumbling my own question! I meant to ask if you think "serious consideration" could ever satisfy WP:BLPCRIME on any page? Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

That's literally what WP:BLPCRIME requires. I quoted it verbatim above.

But I suggest, for context, you go up a level to the principles expressed in the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees resolution on BLP. That doesn't use the words "serious consideration", isn't so much concerned with precise process as with outcomes, one issue of concern being: "People sometimes make edits designed to smear others."

When one's professional reports are subject to review and audit, to imagine that auditors are always looking over one's shoulder can help one stay focused on carefully getting those reports right. (I used that mental image myself.)

I think it might be helpful in an case like this to imagine the Board, or Arbiters, reading both the article and talkpage to decide whether we committed such a "smear", and if so, whether it was intentional on any participants' part. – .Raven  .talk 17:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

And to be clear, you think in this case they could come to any other decision than that some editors have done so? Dumuzid (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't mistake my opinion for what unnamed others' opinions will be.

I do think assuming the highest peak of their perception and objective judgment (as with those auditors) is a healthy mental image to use.

I'm not saying "assume the best" only because like "hope for the best" that sounds like "most favorable to my side". If I'd imagined the auditors would favor my side of things, perhaps I might have gotten sloppy, thinking they'd overlook it. So instead I imagined a cold and utterly unsympathetic (to ANY side) group fiercely looking for errors or misrepresentations, and unwilling to take excuses. That meant I couldn't afford to make any of those three things.

This may overstate the reality. (As far as I know, my work was never actually audited.) But as a mental image, it's a useful guide. – .Raven  .talk 18:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess what I am asking is: is it possible you are wrong on this one and other people might be right? Dumuzid (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure. It's even possible that I'm wrong about the existence of the physical world, because this is all a simulation.

But I haven't been persuaded of that yet. – .Raven  .talk 00:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven: And you're also still in this mode where you can't escape the need to continue to deny reality: the material fact that Daniel Penny killed Jordan Neely is not a crime, nor a suggestion of a crime, etc. It is a medical fact, and well reported by reliable sources. Whether or not Penny is found guilty or innocent of the charges that have been brought against him is another story. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

> "... that [X] killed Neely... is a medical fact...."

The Medical Examiner's own spokesperson contradicts you: the ruling was homicide, but not by whom, i.e. did not name a killer; "culpability... is for the criminal justice system to consider". So "that [X] killed Neely" is not a "medical fact".

That [X] has been accused both in the press and by prosecutors is also not a "medical fact".

If and when [X] gets convicted, then that would be a "legal fact".

I really wish the difference between fact and opinion were more respected. – .Raven  .talk 16:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:PST, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

RSs are very clear in their interpretation of the communications from the ME office: the ME report establishes that Penny killed Neely. The statement about culpability refers to criminal culpability; it refers to whether or not Penny is guilty of manslaughter or another criminal offense (hence the reference to the criminal justice system). No RSs interpret the statement to indicate medical uncertainty as to whether Penny killed Neely. None.

Your interpretation of the ME's statement is novel. It is not supported by any RSs, and therefore violates WP:OR. Just to make the difference crystal clear, examine the two quotes below.

.Raven: The Medical Examiner's own spokesperson contradicts you: the ruling was homicide, but not by whom, i.e. did not name a killer; "culpability... is for the criminal justice system to consider". So "that [X] killed Neely" is not a "medical fact".

NYT: The city medical examiner’s office ruled his death a homicide two days later. (That ruling determines that Mr. Penny killed Mr. Neely but is not a finding of criminal culpability.)

And as you read this, I can already feel you ready to shout "but the NYT's interpretation of the ME's office is factually incorrect, and mine is right!" This is indeed why I filed the ANI in the first place. You seem determined to cherry-pick primary sources and use your own novel interpretations of their meaning to support your claims. This is disallowed by Wikipedia. When you are unable to produce reliable secondary sources that support your claims, and when faced with multiple reliable secondary sources that contradict them, you attack the idea of using reliable secondary sources altogether. This pattern of behavior is extremely disruptive to our efforts to build an encyclopedia where all of our information and analysis must be verifiable by its attribution to reliable secondary sources.

It is this refusal to accept the fundamental basis of our encyclopedia, and the consistent WP:NOTGETTINGIT attitude that I find far more troubling than just WP:BLUDGEONING a point, although clearly other editors are fed up with that as well. Combefere ★ Talk 19:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Look further:

• LA Times: "The man’s cause of death was determined Wednesday to be compression of the neck, or a chokehold, according to Julie Bolcer, spokesperson for the New York City medical examiner’s office. The manner of death was homicide, the medical examiner concluded."
• Newsday: "Julie Bolcer, the spokeswoman the city's chief medical examiner's office, said earlier this week that an autopsy concluded that Neely died due to compression of the neck in a chokehold. The manner of death was homicide, Bolcer said, a conclusion that means a person died due to the actions of another, not that those actions were necessarily criminal."
• News9Live: "The city’s medical examiner determined that Neeley died from compression on his neck and ruled the act as a homicide."
• CBS58: "Neely died Monday due to 'compression of neck (chokehold),' a spokesperson for the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner said. The manner of death was ruled a homicide, but that determination is not a ruling on intent or culpability, which is for the criminal justice system to consider, the spokesperson said."

Note that even those of the above news reports which otherwise blamed a named person in their texts carefully did not say the Medical Examiner did so.

Putting the blame (culpability) on any named person was not part of the ME's ruling; as the ME's spokesperson said, "culpability... is for the criminal justice system to consider".

That some news media either misread or synthesized the ruling with other info is no excuse for us to do likewise; we're WP:NOTNEWS. – .Raven  .talk 00:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You do realize there's a difference between causality and culpability, correct? You can kill someone and not be criminally culpable? Dumuzid (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I note that you are adding the modifier "criminally" before the unmodified word the ME's spokesperson used, "culpability".

Merriam-Webster, for instance, defines that word as

responsibility for wrongdoing or failure : the quality or state of being culpable

... and gives as examples:

moral/legal/criminal culpability

He refuses to acknowledge his own culpability.

Culpability for our failure to reduce petroleum imports falls across the political spectrum.

Clearly, "criminal culpability" is not the only type.

Dictionary.com (Random House Dictionary) defines it as:

guilt or blame that is deserved; blameworthiness.

Cambridge English Dictionary defines it as:

the fact that someone deserves to be blamed or considered responsible for something bad

But let's even say you're right, that "criminal culpability" was the specific type the ME's spokesperson meant.

1) That's precisely the kind we can't even "suggest" belongs to a named person unless and until a conviction is reached.

2) The ME's spokesperson's statement, as quoted by many sources, did not mention anything else about assigning responsibility (except that bit about it being others' job). It did not tag "causation" to a named person, either. If it had, we would surely have heard it quoted verbatim by now, instead of as third-person-indirect words even by the news media attributing X-killed-Y to the ME's ruling. – .Raven  .talk 02:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

And as you read this, I can already feel you ready to shout "but the NYT's interpretation of the ME's office is factually incorrect, and mine is right!"

...

"That some news media either misread or synthesized the ruling with other info is no excuse for us to do likewise"

Well, you certainly didn't disappoint. Good luck avoiding any further sanctions in the future. With your attitude, you'll need it. Combefere ★ Talk 04:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Your challenge was "to produce reliable secondary sources that support your claims"; I produced four, to your one. But now you charge "attitude"? – .Raven  .talk 04:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven: What aren't you understanding about this? It's not up to the medical examiner to determine who killed Jordan Neely, simply the manner and cause of death. The actual act of the killing (Daniel Penny's chokehold) was caught on video, widely reported by reliable sources, witnessed by many, etc. It is indisputable and undeniable. Please give it up already. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

> "It's not up to the medical examiner to determine who killed Jordan Neely, simply the manner and cause of death."

There I agree completely, and have been blasted for saying as much by people who insist the ME's ruling did name Neely's killer — as a "medical fact", no less.

> "The actual act of the killing... was caught on video"

The video doesn't tell us alive or dead (vs. unconscious). Sources differ on whether he was still alive when police & paramedics took over. He wasn't declared dead until the hospital.

What happened between those two points may or may not become an issue at trial. We don't know whether the defense will bring it up. But with the defense having the option to cast doubt on the defendant's being the one who caused this death, it's not our place to jump in bed with the prosecution — we can and should wait for the verdict.

Whether or not the news media do.

WP:BLPCRIME doesn't offer an exception because any given number of newspapers declared culpability or guilt: it bluntly says, "unless a conviction has been secured." – .Raven  .talk 07:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You produced no RSs to support your claim:

"that [X] killed Neely" is not a "medical fact".

Some of the RSs do not claim that it is a medical fact (most of the ones you cited do, but you simply pretend that they don't), but none of them claim that it is not a medical fact. None.

You again invented your own novel interpretation of a primary source (the ME's report) by claiming that the a secondary source (the NYT) "misread" it. You also accused the NYT of "synthesizing" the ruling, which as an RS is indeed what they are there to do. In fact, editors have reminded you of this at least three times now, but you still seem to not understand the policy.

See WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."

It's not "now" that I charge attitude. I said originally in my ANI, again in my first comment above, and a third time in my most recent comment above that the problem was your attitude towards reliable secondary sources. You simply don't respect them. You cherry-pick isolated facts from primary sources, and invent your own novel interpretation, analysis, and evaluation of those facts. You completely disregard the analysis, interpretation, and evaluation from reliable secondary sources, and even outright disparage the idea of relying on reliable secondary sources. This is antithetical to our project as an encyclopedia.

I would encourage you to actually read the Wikipedia policies that I've cited above (particularly WP:RS), or even just the sections of them that I've generously copied and pasted into this thread for your convenience. But it would be inexcusably naïve at this point to believe that you'll do so. The fact that I can (as I've demonstrated) predict your pattern of disruption so effectively indicates that it would be pointless to continue. The WP:IDONTHEARYOU earmuffs appear to be on deliberately. Combefere ★ Talk 05:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The people asserting that "'[X] killed [Y]' is a medical fact" have consistently attributed that to the Medical Examiner's ruling... which doesn't make that statement. If in future the ME (or some other medical source) does state that [X] killed [Y], there would then be some foundation to call it "medical fact"... assuming it's not some country MD far away who never examined the body and was merely opining like any other news follower.

"Facts are different from inferences, theories, values, and objects." -and- "The definition of a scientific fact is different from the definition of fact, as it implies knowledge." (Is a medical fact a scientific fact?)

In the meantime, what you have are inferences and theories, not facts. – .Raven  .talk 06:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

"The people asserting that "'[X] killed [Y]' is a medical fact" have consistently attributed that to the Medical Examiner's ruling... which doesn't make that statement.

Yes it does :)

The city medical examiner’s office ruled his death a homicide two days later. (That ruling determines that Mr. Penny killed Mr. Neely but is not a finding of criminal culpability.) Combefere ★ Talk 06:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This violation of WP:OR is next, right?

And as you read this, I can already feel you ready to shout "but the NYT's interpretation of the ME's office is factually incorrect, and mine is right!" Combefere ★ Talk 06:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself.

I addressed that above.

If all you're going to do is go in circles, you can go do it elsewhere. – .Raven  .talk 07:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The amount of self-awareness is zero. Combefere ★ Talk 14:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that we should not name the person, but why not use the term "killing" when it is omnipresent in the sources and by itself does not mean criminality? Dumuzid (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

"Naming inclusion" is the title and topic of the RfC, and I was one among a number of editors who !voted "oppose/exclude" on that question.

But I also said the problem was conjoining "killed" and "by [X]". Removing either one would help.

The first would have to cover the title as well. – .Raven  .talk 06:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

But why is the latter a problem without the name? Dumuzid (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

D, I'm using [X] to stand for his name, because I don't want to use his name in this context. I don't think it should have been used in this context at all, while the title of the article says killing, let alone with the accusations "killer" and "murderer" that you can see on its talkpage. WP:BLPCRIME. – .Raven  .talk 06:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Can you explain why the title is inappropriate? Dumuzid (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

If [X] is named in the article, then we are suggesting he's the "killer" before that has been legally determined by a court verdict (even a verdict of "negligent homicide" would still be "homicide").

If [X] is not named in the article — nor identified so specifically as to be equivalent to a name — then there's less "suggestion" (as WP:BLPCRIME put it) that "the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime" in advance of such a verdict. – .Raven  .talk 07:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

"Killer" is not a legal determination. If, for instance, the action was found to be self-defense, then there would be a killing and no crime. But if I understand correctly, if the suspect is not named in the article, the title is acceptable? Dumuzid (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Self-defense (or even other-defense) would be "justifiable homicide" (which is also "homicide"="killing").

But that again would be a verdict we should wait for, not anticipate.

What if the jury simply acquits him altogether, as in having reasonable doubt HE (and not another) was the one who caused this death? With Neely not being declared dead until the hospital, others had the opportunity to do neck-compression, and after Neely's many troubles with the law, perhaps also motive. Again, George Floyd and Earl Moore, Jr. (who both died from similar causes) provide precedent, perhaps even enough doubt.

After that, if we've put ourselves on record as calling him even a "killer", he'd have a case against us — especially since we disregarded our own policy WP:BLPCRIME to do so.

Since it seems I'm readily misunderstood by some of you, I'll stress now that I'm not suggesting this IS the case, just that due caution on our part should lead us not to jump to conclusions about the outcome.

So if we title the article "Killing of", we really should avoid naming a "killer". If we leave the identity open, less problem — as the ME ruled homicide, but likewise left the identity open. – .Raven  .talk 08:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Disagree with blocking .Raven. His behavior at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely does not look like bludgeoning to me, and I think that we should follow the normal protocol for resolving content disputes. I have not read through the entire conversation, but I have not seen anything in what I skimmed that indicates bad faith. This block looks more punitive than preventative, which is an abuse of administrator privileges. Any long-running content dispute is going to be mildly disruptive to those who fail to disengage, but sanctions against those with minority views gives the impression of a sham consensus, which in my view disrupts Wikipedia far more.  — Freoh 23:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think .Raven has been acting in bad faith, quite the contrary (they very firmly believe what they are saying is objectively true and that all others are wrong, which is part of the problem). But they also haven't been listening to editors who have warned them about over-stepping some basic norms and boundaries, as well as the importance of following Wikipedia policy regarding our reliance on taking the lead from WP:RS, and the significance of no original research etc. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

> "... that all others are wrong...."

I've said (and "believe") no such thing. Now you appear to be denying either the existence or the expressed positions of others besides me on the article talkpage in question — all the "oppose/exclude" !voters, in fact.

> "... the importance of following Wikipedia policy...."

Wie WP:BLPCRIME, which doesn't say to take the lead from news media, but rather from the court's verdict. – .Raven  .talk 05:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Similar behaviour at WP:VPP

.Raven, it's been less than three days since the partial block started. In that time, at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Proposed_addition_to_MOS:GENDERID_-_when_to_include_deadnames, you have contributed at least eighteen replies, to:

• Graeme Bartlett once [1]
• FOARP once [2]
• Folly Mox twice [3] [4]
• Ravenswing twice [5] [6]
• Dumuzid once [7],
• Mitch Ames thrice [8] [9] [10]
• Locke Cole at least seven times [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
• SMcCandlish once [18]

... and on top of that, you've twice [19] [20] gone to PriusGod's talk page to discuss the RfC of the killing of Jordan Neely. Frankly, it seems that you are continuing the behaviour that you were partially blocked for ... too argumentative. starship.paint (exalt) 15:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)