User talk:Exophagism

February 2025

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #100187

Is open. Any admins watching this page are welcome to comment. Pinging @0xDeadbeef, who was involved in the issue at WP:ANI#Admin Dismissal of Accuracy Concerns: Violated WP:ADMINACCT. -- asilvering (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks asilvering. What can I expect to happen next here? I don't expect 0xDeadbeef's cooperation given their conduct earlier, and in all truthfulness am a little fearful of them having any additional personal information that could be used to intimidate, harass, or doxx me based on the accusations they made earlier. Being dismissively accused of being a sock puppet by several admins simply for reviewing the legitimacy of information and the citations used for has not very encouraging. I don't feel like I need to spell out that engaging with a topic academically does not equate endorsing or supporting it, or how it's a travesty for the administration of a website that's determined to publish factual, accurate information to be prioritizing that information about something bad/evil be damning over it being accurate and cited properly. Exophagism (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Exophagism. Since you've replied here, I've closed the UTRS request. As for what happens next: the checkuser who blocked you has already indicated that any admin who believes that you will edit constructively and that the block is not needed is welcome to unblock you, so the next step is convincing an admin that that is the case. You can open a regular talk page appeal using Template:Unblock as described above if you like, but you don't have to. (You've already got my attention. If you want to get someone else's attention, use the template.)

Before I say anything else, I want to say that I'm sorry you've had a discouraging early experience with Wikipedia. One of your initial edits, before you were autoconfirmed, tripped an edit filter designed to prevent abuse. This was a false positive. This sort of thing happens all the time and is not usually difficult to deal with, but it can obviously be pretty disheartening. Having done nothing wrong, you went about addressing the issue in the normal way. Everything you did up to this point was perfectly fine and not something that usually leads to a block. From Special:Diff/1274797982 things start to go downhill.

I state all of this for two main reasons. First, I want to reassure you that your edits were well within normal for a new editor and that all of this has really very little to do with the content of your edits at all; an unblock here is perfectly possible. Second, I want to caution you that nearly everything that happens afterwards, at least as I read it, was significantly exacerbated by a lack of patience and good faith. Yes, it's true that you could have been treated with more patience and good faith also. That's on us. Sorry for the demonstration on why patience and good faith are so important. However, if you want to edit here, you're going to have to summon the ability to assume good faith of, for example, 0xDeadbeef, and, crucially, you're going to need to be able to maintain your cool when someone says something to you that's rather worse than I am not interested in talking to a chat bot over a real human being. If you cannot do these things, Wikipedia is not for you. In that case, I wish you all the best, but I won't unblock.

Regarding the AI use: your UTRS appeal, written without chatbot, was far better than the talk page post that was caught by the edit filter. Whoever convinced you that you needed AI to help you organize your thoughts was wrong. Your own writing is not "fine". It's much better than fine. Please don't use AI here - as you've unfortunately seen, it erodes other editors' WP:AGF very quickly.

Regarding threats and accusations: I haven't found any. I'm not sure if this is you being paranoid or me being dense. Can you provide diffs? I can tell you that you have nothing to fear from 0xDeadbeef or any other admin. If you are worried about the handling of any personal information, you may be interested to read our policy on WP:OUTING, and the information at WP:OS.

Regarding whether you endorse the organization you were editing about: irrelevant. That's not why you were blocked. You were blocked for misusing multiple accounts. You will probably be asked to accept a one-account-only condition in order to be unblocked. You were not accused of being a sock puppet by several admins simply for reviewing the legitimacy of information. You were confirmed as using multiple accounts, and while I don't know ScottishFinnishRadish's exact motivations for running the check, I doubt the content of your posts was the reason.

I expect you have questions. Please ask them. Please do your best to maintain patience and good faith, as I have done. Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi asilvering,

I just want to say first of all that i immensely appreciate you taking the time to address this situation, and all things encompassing it, and give it the proper attention and consideration, and for not passing judgement on me or my intentions. i also want to thank you for the reassurance and encouragement for my ability to write and articulate thoughts, as this is something i've had low self-esteem regarding and rarely hear any encouragement for.

i understand and acknowledge that i did come into this a bit anxious and with little patience (this is a personal issue i'm always working on). i do attribute a lot of that to my previous experience attempting to apply similar edits to the same page, back in mid-December, on the other account that i've mentioned but would prefer not to name publicly for privacy reasons; since it ties back to my given name and identity. this was explicitly the reason i created a different account to make the edits i attempted. if you review the edits [1], you will see my edits-- both those challenging the alleged associations between the two groups and my criticality of the sources supporting the claims, as well as me replacing language concerning CSAM that i feel has been used irresponsibly-- immediately being reverted by user RKT7789 [2] multiple times. the user rejects my claims; or rather ignores my claims, that the citations do not support the statements, and following this, leaves a unnecessary post in that account's talk page; essentially mocking my previously rejected page submission and belittling my contributions to wikipedia. at the bare minimum, i feel like they could have at least left my edits to the CSAM-related language, but they reverted those as well; effectively blocking out any contributions i attempted to make to this article. i also want to point out a few other things about this user. if you look at the edits that immediately followed mine (where some else skeptical of the article's content made edits), the same user did the exact same thing to their edits; AND left similarly intimidating/belittling post in that user's talk page. with all this in mind; if you look at RKT7789's user page, there's a blunt statement that "this user doesn't like nazis". i don't either. however, i'm inclined to believe that this user viewed my attempt to simply ensure that information regarding this subject was accurate, as some kind of sympathizing with these groups; which they combatively gatekept and attempted to isolate and belittle me for doing so. i do believe there is an element of this that violates WP:NPOV and should be reviewed. as for myself, i decided if i was going to attempt to address this information and the page itself again, i was going to give it more time, and i was going to write it out thoroughly and critically; which is what i returned yesterday to do. i wasn't exactly surprised to find response from that same user in the comments of my banning. i'm also unsure what exactly's being referred to by them, but i strongly suggest someone reviews this individuals conduct and their treatment of others in the realm of wikipedia. regardless of using a chatbot to help articulate it; i did go into explicit detail about how the sources didn't accurately support the information written on the page. they completely dismissed this, with no counter-argument, and chastised me simply for being critical of it.

so that was my first experience on wikipedia.

you asked i point out some examples of when i felt accused or threatened, that you may have overlooked. 0xDeadbeef's response to my post asking for help in their talk page would the main instance of this, where they suggest i'm "semi-related to these groups" and use that to justify not helping me. this is the antithesis of good-faith, and i don't know how else to articulate that. it was also a little unsettling how my report of their conduct immediately turned into a criticism of me, the content i was attempting to modify, and led to me getting banned, while my concerns about their conduct were totally ignored and not taken seriously. this was when i was labeled a sock puppet, and the "sock was put back in the drawer" as stated as the verdict by the admin. referencing the wiki for the term sock puppet account, this would mean "A sock puppet, sock puppet account, or sock is a false online identity used for deceptive purposes. The term originally referred to a hand puppet made from a sock. Sock puppets include online identities created to praise, defend, or support a person or organization, to manipulate public opinion, or to circumvent restrictions such as viewing a social media account that a user is blocked from." my other account i'd used before wasn't restricted or banned. and, unless i was indeed someone from one of the organizations relating to my edits (which i'm not) that was trying to deceive people's perceptions somehow by modifying information on wikipedia, i don't think there's any other context for me "sock puppeting", being labeled one, and ultimately being banned for it. since it was indeed alleged that i had connections to these groups i was attempting to modify information about, and that me doing so was criticized several times by admins commenting on the report, i feel somewhat conclusive that these allegations were being made about me. perhaps you're correct and that i'm being a little paranoid, i'm very open to that stance and while i say i'm somewhat conclusive about mine, i'm not married to it. i do ask that you please consider my perspective given what i just detailed. i don't wish to come off as combative towards the essence of good faith.

so, all this said, i want to thank you again for giving me the opportunity to discuss this incident, and for responsibly handling this situation in a way that reflects a very good-natured intentions of wikipedia's administrators, and community at large. i don't have as much fear of engaging moving forward, and appreciate being able to be transparent about my experiences with a receptive individual. i hope this transparency and this discussion can act as proof that i understand how wikipedia's community operates, the expectations we have of each other, the policies that exist and for what, and how to conduct myself on it. and with this, i would like to ask that you remove my blocked status and enable my ability to contribute, responsively and with good-faith, to wikipedia.

thanks again for your time and consideration. i'm sure i'll think of other questions and will write back with them if so.

exophagism Exophagism (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Not even commenting on you trying to reframe me trying to hash things out in the talk page as "intimidation/mocking". I'm assuming good faith, but...what's up with trying to remove references to neo-Nazis on multiple pages like Clandestine Blaze. Good to hear you don't like Nazis. I didn't assume you did, but, you know, I'd like to hear your side of this.RKT7789 (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to reframe you of anything, I'm letting the way you operate speak for itself with your very obvious agendas with the way you handle the information on this site and the way you treat others if they don't approach it the same way. Your talk page posts on my current account and former account, and other users' pages, were not friendly or even cordial, they were unnecessary and condescending and I don't see anyone else posting stuff like that on peoples' talk pages. You know exactly what you're doing, and I know it violatesWP:BULLY Exophagism (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Weird how you just ignored half of my post but okay. Your very first post was on DrRandallPhilip's page, with whom I had a small disagreement, but he was able to take constructive criticism and thanked me for it. Could it be that it's you, not me, as you seem to butt heads with a lot more users than just me.RKT7789 (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Look can you stop harassing me? I don't know why you felt the need give me more citations for the conduct of yours I was addressing with an admin, and then do the whole gaslighting thing by trying to discredit me for doing it. Exophagism (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

My conduct was criticized, I don't think I was out of line by posting, but fine.RKT7789 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Well... @RKT7789, I think you could have been less sarcastic about it in your first comment, but this is a pretty good re-illustration of the problem. @Exophagism, you were asked why you were trying to remove references to neo-Nazis and your response has been to say the other editor has very obvious agendas and accuse them of being a bully. You haven't even answered the question: why remove that material? I'm not even sure what "very obvious agenda" you're supposing that RKT7789 has. (Anti-fascism? That would make three of us... right?) As far as edits on other users' pages, I found things like Special:Diff/1265983082, not exactly damning stuff. Their comment on your old user talk page was rude, yes. For comparison, the standard wikipedian response in an edit war is:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Would you have found that less rude? I suppose I can only speak for myself, but I don't think the template is very friendly. -- asilvering (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I've looked through trying to figure out what edits you're talking about on 764 (organization). Do you mean Special:Diff/1263546820 and User talk:DrRandallPhilip#Hi? What's happening here is WP:BRD. This is an extremely common way to edit on Wikipedia: one editor makes a change, another objects to the change, and then discussion follows. It's one of the many ways by which we achieve consensus on what an article should say. The message RKT7789 left on that editor's talk page, Please don't be discouraged, though! Just giving a heads up so your work doesn't go to waste. And welcome to wikipedia. doesn't come off as mocking or belittling to me.

Regarding your content edits not being taken seriously, the AI certainly didn't help. But I also don't see any other comments of yours on the talk page. Yes, those AI ones were caught by the filter, which is unfortunate. (I presume this is why RKT said tries to link inappropriate material on talk pages - if so, they were incorrect, but it's a reasonable thing to assume about something caught in an edit filter.) But there's nothing from December either. So try to imagine this one from the point of view of the experienced editors who are watching the page, like RTK and PARAKANYAA. They've watched as multiple new accounts have shown up, added or removed material inappropriately, edit warred to try to force it in or out using verbose edit summaries... and you show up and do the same thing. RKT concluded that you were kind of...suspect. This is an understatement. You were definitely extremely suspect. And I can tell you that in my own experience, the people who try to seek out individual admins to fix a problem they're having with getting their information into an article are almost always editors with a conflict of interest. So basically what happened is that you waved nearly every red flag you possibly could on your first day of using a new account. You didn't know that's what you were doing, but there we are.

Lessons hopefully learned:

• Wikipedia's "immune system" is turned up pretty high (sorry). You will be through the worst of it by February 13, and through most of the rest of it by the time you reach 500 edits and 30 days of account age (see WP:XC). I hated it too, and I was editing on much less contentious topics than you are.
• Having your edits reverted is normal, though it can be pretty annoying. If this happens, go to the Talk page and discuss. Otherwise, follow WP:DR. (No comment on what specifically tripped the filter that disallowed your edit, but you won't trip it anymore once you're WP:AUTOC. In general, if you get caught by an edit filter, remember they're there to catch vandals and long-term abuse. I'm sure you can imagine the kinds of words we tend to need to filter.)
• In particular, new accounts removing information that has a source on it tends to spook other editors.
• Don't edit-war. The unbreakably hard line is WP:3RR. You can get blocked for much less.
• Absolutely everyone will see through an attempt to do a WP:CLEANSTART if you edit the same article you were editing before. Yes, we do broadly consider that to be WP:SOCK behaviour. In the end, this is what got you blocked. WP:AGF runs low fast when people have undeclared alt accounts.
• We're all supposed to be WP:CIVIL. Some people are not. Some typically civil people have bad days. To speak frankly: since you're new, you have to be extra civil. If you lose your cool, you lose, full stop. You don't have hundreds or thousands of edits behind you that can vouch for you as "committed to Wikipedia and definitely not a vandal". Meanwhile, someone like Deadbeef spent a whole week having their closet examined for skeletons and we decided they were pretty swell after all. They get more grace if they slip up than you do. It is what it is.
• WP:ANI is almost the very last resort at the end of the WP:DR train. If you go there, you are under the microscope too. If you're unsure of what to do in any kind of dispute, you can ask at WP:TEA.

I got most of this written before you added your other comment - will reply to that momentarily. asilvering (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I only didn't respond to that because I wasn't sure if this was the place to have that conversation, and wanted to stay on topic with what we were discussing prior to RKT7789 appearing in these comments. I don't really have that much memory of doing that or remember when I did; just meaning I didn't invest much time or energy into it, I think it was more of a passing thing, though the more I think about it, I seem to remember encountering the page for whatever reason-- I may have been looking for some basic info on the artist myself-- and feeling like it was kind of weird that there was virtually no information about the band as a musical entity, and then a massive monolith of text outing one of the member's ties to things both on the extreme end of edgelordism, and to things blatantly and shamelessly fascist. However, I don't believe there was any mention of this tying back to the music of the band itself or if this subject matter was addressed in their music. Again, I don't think anything about the music was mentioned on the page of this musical group. And I'm pretty sure that my edit included a suggestion that, if someone wished to address the politics of an individual, that they publish a page about the individual to do so, instead of taking that up on the page of a musical group they're a part of.

Though, I am realizing now that I may have been mixing up Deathspell Omega and Clandestine Blaze. The groups share a vocalist, who is the individual in question, however, DSO are absolutely not a fascist band and I think my misunderstanding was that they were the ones being depicted as fascist-sympathizers. Working with Aspa absolutely warrants a critique when a project identifies as Bataillian leftist (I am, or was, quite deep in the noise scene so that jackass was always with a few degrees of separation which I was never able to feel comfortable about), but I do feel that a specific page for an individual would be a better place to address the individual. Especially when we're talking about someone with maybe over 100 monikers and projects they're part of.

User:Asilvering; regarding the edit war, I don't know if I'm missing the point here but shouldn't I have been the one to address the edit war, since I was the one having my edits reverted? I believe I made a series of edits consecutively, had all of them reverted, the points I made about the citations dismissed by the user while they implied-- with no reference to the citations contents-- that simply because the content of the article had a citation attached to it, it was therefore objective. And, then to top that off, reverting all my edits where I replaced the term c**** p*** to CSAM, back to the original text as well. The citations regarding O9A and 764, and the unethical, irresponsible use of language used to refer to CSAM are two completely separate issues being addressed on the same page. Sadly, I don't have any good faith for why RKT7789 reverted those edits too, and endorsed the usage of the term "child porn" over something more appropriate; which ultimately lead me to believe that ethics really had nothing to do with this, Exophagism (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Re: your changes to the band's page, glad to hear you say all of that. For what it's worth, I think you were probably actually correct, policy-wise, to remove that information. Relevant policies are WP:BLP and WP:DUE. But I think you can see why removing that and also making edits to 764 would give people the heebie jeebies. In general, the place to take concerns like that is WP:BLPN. My guess is that a discussion there would agree that some reference to the far-right stuff ought to be there, but that it shouldn't make up so much of the article.

Re: the edit war, the onus was on you in this case. If you're going to remove sourced material, and other editors don't see your reasoning as sufficiently obvious and revert your edit, now you've got to convince them that the removal was warranted. As for simply because the content of the article had a citation attached to it, it was therefore objective, you're going to get that a lot here, I'm afraid. A calm and thorough explanation on the talk page, with links to appropriate sources, tends to work out. If it doesn't, well, you can't win 'em all. Come back to it later when you're more experienced at that kind of argument and see if it's worth making again. It helps to keep in mind that, a lot of the time, people removing things from articles are cranks who don't actually care about things being accurate. Other editors don't know you yet and they don't know you're not one of those cranks. Being patient and calm helps convince them otherwise. Presuming that they know what they're doing will help, too. They probably do.

As for removing all of your changes, you made them all in one edit, and so they were all removed in the revert. No one is going to have the patience to go through and carefully remove only some of what you did. When you're working on something contentious, you may want to work one step at a time, consensus first. So, explain the CSAM thing on the talk page first, get consensus there, then make that change. Then discuss the sourcing issue. Etc. -- asilvering (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Understood and noted, just to be clear though- I'm talking about the first edits I made back in December on the other account, that RKT7789 reverted within seconds, without enough time to review the sources I was taking into question. I do believe those were not all made in one go. I made all the edits on this current account to that same page yesterday, however those were reverted automatically because I was a new user. however, i wasn't really familiar with the function of talk pages at the time, and how i should have used it first. when i returned this weekend to re-address this information, I did attempt to take these issues up in the talk page with a very lengthy post (the one I had some chatgpt help writing), which was also automatically flagged and blocked as a false positive; which i sought the help of a random admin about having approved, and... yeah you know how that all went over.

I can recognize how the nature of what I was doing could cause people to be defensive, i guess i came into it hoping that the amount of research i had done, and the extent of the citations i brought attention to, would speak for the legitimacy of my intentions and that people would have good faith because of that. i guess i don't have a solution for how a community should trust the intentions of someone modifying information regarding groups made up of the worst humans to exist on this planet, when its often those exact individuals attempting to modify the information themselves with insidious motives.

i haven't really stated this in this discussion yet, but my intentions for making the distinction between the groups 764 and O9A is that my research has given me a lot of reason to believe that people associated with 764 and all the online abuse networks have no understanding of what exactly O9A actually is, beyond it being seen as something that's the most extreme of extremes, and that they're blindly endorsing it, or claiming affiliation with it, strictly for superficial reason. In reality, people participating in these groups revolving around 764's orbit are mentally ill, damaged humans who are obsessed with depravity and the challenge of descending as deep into a vortex of extremity for depravity as they can push themselves and each other to go. These are mindless, empty shells of human with no bigger picture, no condemnations, and no world beyond the feedback loop of depraved obsession spinning in their heads. Any political or religious endorsements or self-proclaimed affiliations are just bumper stickers or pins on a jacket here.

On the other hand, O9A is something extremely, extremely complex, that has written tens of thousands of pages of highly dense literature about its deeply esoteric beliefs and philosophies; which I can say I don't truly understand the grand scope of, and having researched it, I don't know if many people do in general. The commitment it requires of its participants is equally complex and demanding, and requires operating in secret. However, the fact that this organization, or adherents of its philosophy, operate anonymously, decentralized, without a leader, or without a spokesperson or so much as platform for it to declare what it is or who it affiliates itself with, has allowed groups like 764, AWD, etc free reign to co-opt its aesthetics and the public's perception of it as a Satanic Neo-Nazi doomsday cult, for their agendas that mostly involve posturing. I just want to clarify; I don't say this with any sympathy for it, and i do believe it's likely very dangerous in its own right. i do think that it's misunderstood, though, and if you look into what led to it being perceived as a Neo-Nazi doomsday cult beginning in 1999, while having only been known as an esoteric, anti-establishment fringe occult group since the 70's until then, it's something to take into consideration. i'm skeptical of whether the threat assessment of it is accurate or something we're watching as closely as we think we are, and if some kind of modern satanic panic is playing out that's allowing other dangerous fringe groups with very different motives to operate under its guise while subverting subverting what we actually know about it and what's lying beneath the surface. Exophagism (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering also, just to be vigilant, I think this transparency here is necessary, though it might be a good idea to also consider a possibly scenario where this latest response be removed from public visibility and be ready for it. Exophagism (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Speaking generally, the kind of problem you've jumped right into is one of the trickier things Wikipedia editors ever have to deal with: what if our sources disagree, or are just plain wrong? We have to work things like that editorially, on a case-by-case basis. In order to participate in those kinds of discussions, you need to be able to accept that you might be wrong, or that consensus might go against you even if you are correct.

I'm only speaking generally here because if I become involved with the content itself, I'm no longer able to take administrative actions there. (See WP:INVOLVED.) I think that's the last big misunderstanding to clear up. When you went to Deadbeef to ask about the edit filter, and then went to ANI about the exchange saying that an admin was disregarding the facts, it seemed like you wanted an administrator to intervene in a content dispute on your behalf. Admins don't do that. Whether you're right or the article is right is an editorial concern. It's something that needs to be worked out between editors, as part of the normal process of building an encyclopedia. Admins only get involved in that kind of thing when there's also some significant behavioural problem that is preventing that normal consensus-building process from occurring. In this case there was, and you were blocked.

I don't think that block is necessary anymore, so I will unblock you. I strongly suggest that your next edits are to talk pages - ideally, to Deadbeef's and to RKT7789's, to apologize, but it's up to you. Do your best to be collaborative and things will work out, even if you hit some snags. Otherwise, you may find yourself blocked again. WP:TEA is a good place to ask newbie questions, and my talk page is always available too. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm just now realizing that the talk page post i've been referencing throughout this discussion wasn't posted by me into the talk page-- and then blocked; i was never actually able to cement it into anything because of the filters, leaving no record of it. i found a backup of it, and am currently making some edits but will be posting it shortly, i'll make it known once i do. thanks again for everything. Exophagism (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I know you told me to go away, but since I was brought up again, if I may in the most respectful and polite manner depart with a single nugget of wisdom: Get familiar with the WP:OR policy. We aren't allowed to take primary sources (that being, ONA texts in this case) and interpret them ourselves, and that was kind of the vibe I got. If I am wrong, and you are able to find secondary sources that prove that 764 aren't ONA despite of...evidence to the contrary, I will be happy to take them into consideration. No need for apologies, I just wish to prevent you from wasting your time.RKT7789 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

You're correct, I did tell you to go away . @Asilvering may trust your intention and the way you operate. I think you can't sit still thinking about someone contesting this topic that you're not open to being wrong about, to the point where you're repeatedly disregarding boundaries I've attempted to set, to discourage me from feeling like I even have something worth saying, creating pretense that anything I attempt to say and cite is already inferior to what you've determined to be objective, and that if anything confirms that gut feeling I've had this entire time-- but with @Asilvering's stewardship, have done my best to be patient and not as pessimistic about-- it would be that last sentence.

I've made not one reference to an O9A text in any capacity nor insinuated familiarity with any specific content in any specific publication drafted by their hand. I don't plan to either. I acknowledged an awareness of them having written text. Maybe it would help if you tried reading what's being said without these presumptuous "vibes" you speak of.

I've also seen nothing that qualifies as evidence for the statements made within the article that I did diligence with reviewing the citations for, observed the lack of substantiated or credible information for it to meet Wikipedia's policies and expectations for being valid external references, and went about modifying and clarifying. That is not me being opinionated, or doing original research deemed non-credible; that is a neutral person observing information, and the information that surrounds it, and discovering what is, metaphorically, an unbalanced chemistry equation, that therefore cannot yield a balanced chemical reaction like it's been made to appear to.

I don't need to find secondary sources; the article lacks valid primary sources. That has been the point the entire time here, and that is what I am going to prove.

I'll put this a little lighter than the way I heard it in my head initially; but you've gotta be kidding me if you think I'd go through everything I just did here over this with so little faith and confidence in what I just went through the hard version of Wikipedia Bootcamp basic training for me to be able to say, and that after all of that; you're just going to simply prevent me from "wasting my time". But thanks for the consideration; really. I can't even begin to imagine how this is about to go. Exophagism (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't need to find secondary sources; the article lacks valid primary sources. That has been the point the entire time here, and that is what I am going to prove. Erm...Wikipedia sums up valid secondary sources, not primary sources. WP:PSTS. Although sometimes an exception for reputably published primary sources may be made.RKT7789 (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Sometimes, a primary source disagrees with the secondary sources that are in an article, and it's the secondary sources that are wrong, and we as editors can determine that relatively easily. More often, that's not the case. We're always looking for the best possible sources, so if there are newspaper articles saying that 764 are part of ONA, but you've got a scholarly journal article that says they are not, I expect that editors would go with the scholarly article.

@Exophagism, it's not fair to say that RKT is not open to being wrong. RKT is not open to being convinced by your arguments in the absence of compelling secondary source evidence. That's how Wikipedians are supposed to operate. -- asilvering (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)