User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

Jan 2023

@TheTimesAreAChanging Hello, its one thing to make valid criticism of an edit, its yet another to make adhominem attacks against other editors like you did here with no regards to Assumimg Good Faith. If you have doubts regarding my WP:NPOV, you are welcome to discuss the edits with Civility and by focusing on the content, so long as you stop making Personal attacks. ~~ shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:58 28 January 2023

Here's the evidence I promised

Take a good look here. It won't take long to read it:

Then feel free to use that talk page and ping me. Point out anywhere I've gotten it wrong. That's entirely possible. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Valjean, your sandbox cites 31 sources, and it's not clear which sources correspond with which claims. This is a red flag that the material could be another synthesized compound claim that is not directly supported any of the individual sources, and/or that you are engaged in massive WP:CITEKILL with subpar, derivative opinion sources over something that should realistically require only one or two top-tier sources to document, and no more than a couple of sentences to summarize.
Skimming the sandbox, it remains profoundly unclear what is meant by the reference to the "multiple people" whom Trump supposedly lied to, who these unnamed people are, what Trump told them or when, what is meant by "[Trump] also created a timeline to support his false claim," where (and to whom) this putative "timeline" was shared, what its contents entailed, etc. Ironically, none of this appears to be factual.
The only facts that I am aware of were briefly described by a CNN news report ():
This could easily be summed up in two sentences, e.g.:
  • "The Comey memos document that on two occasions, Trump privately denied to Comey that he had stayed overnight in Moscow during the 2013 Miss Universe pageant, which was contradicted by flight records. Trump later acknowledged that 'of course I stayed' and accused Comey of mischaracterizing the conversations."
Why you need close to 30,000 bytes and 31 separate sources to embellish this he said-he said into something dramatically larger than it was, I have no idea.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't understand. There are 32 sources, and each bit of content has one or more references attached to it, just like we do in our articles. It can all be verified. If you can't access it to verify it, I will do it for you, so just let me know. I have access to the paywalled sources. This is no different than verifying content in any article. You know how to do it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
I instructed you to "feel free to use that talk page", but if you want to do it here, I can accommodate you. This will all be copied to that talk page anyway, so the historical record of this conversation will be clear. I'm also pinging someone trustworthy as a witness @Tryptofish:.
The 30,000 bytes are mostly the sources. They fill a lot when properly formatted.
The reason it takes more to cover the topic is because there is a lot more written about it. There are just over three years of events that we have never covered here. You seem content to focus on one or two sources you have read, from one little point in time, and that does not tell the full story. They hardly scratch the surface. I have nearly 400 sources on the topic, and they reveal a whole lot more.
There is a whole "pre-dossier" history to this. A lot happened during those three plus years before the dossier made the old rumor public, and Cohen's 2019 testimony provides important information previously unknown to the public about Trump's knowledge from back then, how the Russian public knew about the rumor, who else in Trump's close circle knew about it (we have the names of quite a few), and the efforts to find, suppress, and finally stop the alleged tape. A lot happened between November 2013 and January 2017. Don't you want to know?
I am providing you with an opportunity to learn from RS, and instead you are weaving around and wikilawyering and making excuses. You are refusing to learn. That damages your credibility. You are not acting like a truth seeker, someone who wants to learn the facts and understand what happened, even when the sources are provided to you. That's really sad, because on any other topic that does not touch Trump, you are suddenly fully capable of verifying content. Now you have seemingly "lost" that ability. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 12:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The Comey memos you mention show an example of Trump lying to Comey, and Comey says it. Two to three years later, when flight records and witness testimony before Congress, even from his own bodyguard, proved he had been lying, he came up with this weird lie on the spot that makes no sense (very typical behavior for him), claiming that it was Comey, and not himself, who was lying. We do not believe liars, so don't believe Trump's lie and stop there. That is not the end of the story. He is lying to cover-up something he doesn't want people to know about.

I believe we have at least three articles devoted to documenting Trump's lies. He lies constantly about everything. Nothing he says can be trusted. Fact-checkers have described how he is in a class of his own. They have never encountered anyone who lies so much. Don't believe Trump.

How dare you contradict RS by saying "Ironically, none of this appears to be factual." ?? Seriously? You won't even try to verify the content? The sources are attached to each bit of content. You can click on them at User:Valjean/Sandbox/False alibi. Wikipedia considers them reliable sources, so don't make up your own sourcing rules. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 12:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The "timeline" part is sourced, and the source even has a quote you can read. You don't have to access the source, because I have provided the quote for you, and it answers your questions. Here's the content and the quote:

  • He also created a timeline to support his false claim.[1]
  • Quote: "At least twice more in the ensuing weeks, Mr. Trump laid out a timeline for Mr. Comey and claimed that it showed that such a tape could not exist."

You ask who the timeline was shared with. If you would read, it says right there. It was shared with Comey: "Mr. Trump laid out a timeline for Mr. Comey".

While it would be interesting to know the exact wording of the timeline, we only know its purpose because Trump said it was to show "that such a tape could not exist". Why do we know that alibi and timeline are lies? Because Trump's alibi and timeline were contradicted by flight logs, his bodyguard, the pageant's host Thomas Roberts, congressional testimony, photographs, his own tweets, and social media posts.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

That's a lot of RS sourcing that contradicts Trump, placing him in Moscow that day and night, in his room in the early morning hours, supposedly alone, but, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee (a RS), apparently not alone, with "a five-hour window" of unaccounted for time. He wants you to disbelieve all those sources. Don't do it.

Trump claimed he wasn't there, and everyone else said he was there, because flight records said so; they were with him then; he was at a planning meeting; he was at a restaurant; he was at Crocus City Hall inspecting contestants; people were taking pictures with him; he was tweeting, etc. etc. etc. Do you get the picture now? (Yes, of course this can all be sourced using RS.)

Even his own bodyguard said he was there. He walked Trump back to his room that night after a birthday party, and later testified that he "eventually left Trump's hotel room door and could not say for sure what happened during the remainder of the night".[8] That was the night before the pageant.

His own bodyguard could not give him an alibi! Let that sink in. So he created an alibi and timeline (that takes deliberate effort to deceive), and RS say it was "fake", "false", "a total fabrication", etc. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 12:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

So just ask yourself these three questions: "Do reliable sources...

  1. ... document that Trump spent the night of November 8-9, 2013, in Moscow?"
  2. ... document that he lied by saying he did not spend a single night in Moscow at that time?"
  3. ... label that lie an "alibi" and variously describe it as "false", "fake", "a total fabrication", etc.?"

That's really all there is to it! This happens to be a black-or-white matter. There is no middle ground because his statements are so clear, and the myriad types of sources that debunked his lies are also clear.

If you don't like that, don't blame me. Blame the RS. Oh, you already did that above! ("Ironically, none of this appears to be factual.") Do you have your own alternate reality? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 12:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)


References

  1. Schmidt, Michael S. (April 20, 2018). "6 Takeaways From the James Comey Memos". The New York Times. Retrieved August 15, 2025. At least twice more in the ensuing weeks, Mr. Trump laid out a timeline for Mr. Comey and claimed that it showed that such a tape could not exist.

May 2026

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  Doug Weller talk 13:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Unblock request

cross icon
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheTimesAreAChanging (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

I was blocked by Doug Weller for "Personal attacks or harassment". This appears to be an erroneous block. I have not engaged in personal attacks, let alone "harassment". No diffs, noticeboard discussions, or other evidence of disruptive behavior of any kind were cited by the blocking admin, and this essentially came out of nowhere. Frankly, I'm not sure if the blocking admin blocked the wrong account or made a mistake, but this needs clarification or correction. Thank you. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block has expired. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The block was because of your edit summary “Undid revision 1355964938 by Valjean RV WP:COATRACK by an editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE to develop the Cover-up article, but rather to promote his personal pet theories using unreliable opinion sources. Not only are these sources NOT reliable for the information in question, only the first cited source (Rubin 2018) uses the term "coverup" or "cover-up"; the other two sources failed verification. ” .Doug Weller talk 15:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Doug Weller, this is as an editor rather than an admin as I'm involved with regards to Valjean, but that was removing a BLP violation from an editor with a history of riding that particular hobby horse, including other BLP violations while simultaneously casting aspersions by calling other editors pro-fringe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
SFR, I think you should examine how TTAC MISuses the term "PROFRINGE" to mean the opposite of its true meaning while using it as an aspersion against me, and maybe other mainstream editors. Here is an example of him using it against me. That's not the only time. He uses it in a very typical MAGA meaning used by editors who whitewash any content that might document any action by Trump that they see as negative. IOW, it flips the meaning on its head. Look at my mirroring his misuse as a "flipping it back to its rightful use." He used it first, and I corrected the usage.
Mainstream editors consider our articles, and their sourcing, on the so-called Russiagate topics (that Russia DID interfere, and that Trump and his campaign DID know about it and cooperate with the Russian efforts) to be accurate and useful. Mainstream sources confirm these things, and we use them in our articles.
Editors who get their information from decidedly unreliable sources (their arguments often use the EXACT wordings from Breitbart, Washington Examiner, Washington Times, and other fringe and deprecated sources) are, in my estimation, pushing a pro-fringe agenda. I use those words, not in a "my personal opinion of another editors" way, but as relates to how Wikipedia rates such sourcing and information. We literally call such sources and such POV "fringe" in our policies and guidelines. I am using the word in that sense, thus mirroring our official usage.
If an editor is pushing fringe ideas from fringe sources, they are a pro-fringe editor. If they are opposing mainstream views from mainstream RS, they are acting as a pro-fringe editor.
In this case, TTAC (like certain other editors) is reversing/flipping the wording, and then misusing it to claim my use of RS (to document factual events that are negative of Trump) is a fringe idea and the mainstream RS I use to be fringe sources. That's nonsense.
It's also deceptive to misuse our PROFRINGE words to mean the opposite of their real meaning. TTAC often uses these huge edit summaries, including personal attacks in them, against me. He has done it a number of times over the years, and I have not reported it, just endured it. I'm a peace loving guy. I am tired of it.
The latest abuse was when he started a thread at BLPN instead of properly using the Steele dossier talk page. I had thanked him for an edit that improved the article (my edit summary says that!), and my thanks was he started a mess at BLPN. That wasted a lot of our time and created a lot of stress for me. I don't need that kind of crap. @Tryptofish: has been keeping my head above water. They know the whole situation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
That's a link to them reverting your addition of a link to an article that couldn't even survive as a user-space draft, and where the consensus of editors supported TTAAC's argument, including this is an Infowars-style conspiracy theory tract about Russian spies, moles, and useful idiots controlling the U.S. federal government through "pee tapes" and kompromot (which the author always italicizes for effect), backed by sources that are either not reliable or that largely fail verification, yet one more example of "The Paranoid Style in American Politics", and seriously contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. as well as Tamzin's It reads like a Conservapedia article if you flipped the POV. I was going to quote all the weasel words and unchecked allegations in the lede, but then realized I'd just be quoting the entire lede. The topic is probably notable and splittable, but this partisan hatchet job is utterly unsalvageable and unpublishable in this form or any derivative form shy of blowing it up and starting over again. At which point, what we're talking about is indefinitely hosting a bunch of speculation about a living person in userspace with no realistic chance of it ever benefiting the encyclopedia You were being pro-fringe, and there is a strong consensus that your views on this are not mainstream. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
SFR, please stay on topic. This is about ONE edit at Cover-up. Don't drag the MfD topic or other stuff into this. This was a case where TTAC objected to three RS. I (and Tryptofish) were happy to just use one, and later I have approved of other options that didn't even use any of my original sources. So stay on-topic and don't pile on. You have also copied a whole mess that is full of untruths, exaggerattions and BS, with some good stuff that I agreed with. I was not allowed to defend myself there or debunk the false aspects. Since that is off-topic here, I should not have to deal with it here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
One was an opinion piece which you can't use for statements of fact, especially about a BLP, and the other two didn't mention a cover-up. This is on topic, your behavior around this topic is wildly disruptive, BLP violating, and bludgeoning. This is also not about that edit, it's about the block for the accurate edit summary. You're here to push your personal views on Trump, Russia, and urine. You need to stop it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
I didn't mention Trump at all on the page. What the RS said is true, not fringe. I did not edit war. I approved of other ways to deal with that content that not use those sources. I'll back out of this thread now as this is not useful. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish: I was going to take Valjean to AE if he continued pushing conspiracy theories (which, to be clear, the "pee tape rumor" draft and Valjean's comments at the MfD both were, in the way they were presented, regardless of whether the alleged thing did or did not occur), and User:Valjean/Sandbox/False alibi is certainly that. In a way I regret !voting at the MfD because I am not otherwise involved here and this is one of the most clear-cut cases I can recall seeing for an AMPOL TBAN. That said, I am currently uh, rather busy with some other things on-wiki, so perhaps you would like to file that, SFR. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Just dropped in to point in the right direction, if you feel you have to do something. Use the right board: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard That's where the experts are. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Valjean. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Even though this is old, September 2019,I think it’s still relevant: “To enforce an arbitration decision and for topic ban violations and personal attacks, as per the WP:AE request, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.”. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

You were also blocked for a week, in part for personal attacks, in September 2021.Doug Weller talk 15:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

A no warning block four days later, then after the fact digging up stuff from minimum 5 years ago? Nope, thats not great. Also look just above, stuff like Do you have your own alternate reality? or so don't make up your own sourcing rules or any of the ranting above. Could TTAC worded it better? Sure, but it was clearly removing an serious BLP violation. This block should be reversed. ~2026-30734-89 (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Okay, anonymous-but-obviously-experienced editor, what was the exact wording of my "unsourced negative" wording and source? (That kind of violation should be removed or fixed immediately. Strangely enough, during the entire MfD, no one did that, so everyone who participated in that MfD was in violation by allowing such serious BLP violations to just sit there. I suspect, like with the previous MfD, that they couldn't find such BLP violations, as was actually admitted at the time. Not one single BLP violation was found, and the result was NOT a "delete".) Please provide the words and the URL diff of my offense. You made the accusation, so you have the burden of proof. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Not one single BLP violation was found) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Donald Trump Moscow tape rumor and kompromat allegations#c-Rotary_Engine-20260507112900-Valjean-20260506003200. and the result was NOT a "delete" Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Donald Trump Moscow tape rumor and kompromat allegations#c-Spartaz-20260527084300 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
I was referring to the previous MfD ("like with the previous MfD") that did not result in a delete.
This thread and block are not related to the MfD, just the one edit at Cover-up. Stay on-topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
The block is based on the edit summary of the revert, demonstrating that you're here to disruptively push your POV about Trump, Russia, and urine is an absolute defense for claims of NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Doug Weller (or any other uninvolved administrator), other independent editors examined the underlying edits and found that the COATRACK concerns are justified and the original research/theories concerns are justified. Given these findings, I would urge you to reconsider this action, as we generally do not sanction editors for filing well-grounded reports concerning tendentious editing in contentious topic areas and BLPs.

I understand this might be rejected as WP:NOTTHEM, but the other party to the dispute, who apparently claims PTSD related to the recent MfD and challenges to his edits, was himself the subject of an AE civility sanction in April 2019 and a further warning in October 2023. Recent comments such as "I am providing you with an opportunity to learn from RS, and instead you are weaving around and wikilawyering and making excuses. You are refusing to learn. That damages your credibility. ... Do you have your own alternate reality?" may be viewed in this light. While NOTTHEM exists, all blocks should take into consideration the issues of fairness, proportionality, and how best to minimize the overall disruption to the encyclopedic project in order to be seen as legitimate.

It's certainly unfortunate if my challenge to Valjean's edit at Cover-up, or the MfD and BLPN discussions occurring around the same time, caused Valjean any mental anguish, but that does not make it "harassment" on my part, and there is a bit of a history here. Valjean's response to the April 2019 AE sanction included:

Years later in October 2023, Valjean's response to another MfD (this one concerning User:Valjean/Why Crossfire Hurricane?) included:

Most recently, Valjean's response to what he himself characterized as a "melt down" at Talk:Steele dossier (which left him "royally fucked and in tears and shaking") included:

Many will read these comments and naturally feel sympathy for Valjean. Nevertheless, I would like to caution that if a user is going through serious physical or mental health episodes that make editing and communication difficult or stressful, then the burden to avoid triggering the editor in question is not solely with the broader community. The editor himself/herself should also recognize that Wikipedia editing—particularly in the most contentious topic areas (e.g., AP2 and BLPs)—is not an absolute necessity for life.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe the edit summary constitutes personal attacks or harassment, especially since evidence has been provided to clear the hurdle of WP:ASPERSIONS (if accusing Valjean of being WP:NOTHERE is forbidden, then I need to be locked up too). If it were me, I personally would consider appealing this at WP:XRV to avoid any ambiguity about whether this should be considered a justified entry on the block log. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
In my opinion, the block is well-justified, and I thank Doug for making it. Calling someone NOTHERE is obviously a personal attack, and if anyone needs me to explain why, that falls in the category of "if you gotta ask, you'll never know". WP:2WRONGS don't make a right, and even if you abhor Valjean's writing, that's not a valid excuse for the PA. SFR, your lack of judgment here is very disturbing to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
How is that "obviously" a personal attack? WP:NOTHERE has 17,091 backlinks. Presumably most of these were instances of someone calling someone NOTHERE. Such as at least some of these 20 comments by you that use the term. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree that someone using an opinion piece and two sources that don't support the text about a BLP to shoehorn the only thing they've been editing about for a decade into an unrelated article falls under the umbrella of not at the article to improve it, but rather to continue flogging their hobby horse. People call out editors for NOTHERE behavior all the time, and this is about as clear a case as you're likely to see. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Tamzin: I see what you did there, hah. Of course, one can use the term "not-here" in an appropriate way. Obviously. But you aren't showing any evidence of me saying that about good-faith editors, or editors I'm in a content dispute with.
SFR: Cover-up is not a BLP. And adding "use of a false alibi" to the list of things that happen in cover-ups is not a BLP issue. I get it, that the three sources Valjean cited were Trump-related. It was an example of a false alibi. You should look at what I said at the article talk page. There were 3 sources Valjean cited, and Valjean readily agreed to remove the two that did not use the exact words "cover-up". The opinion pieces were cited as opinions about how alibis can be used in cover-ups. They weren't cited to say anything about Trump. As clear a case of not-here as I will ever see? Wanna bet? I just saw this today: . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I should note that as always (I think) I do not object to any uninvolved editor unblocking. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I've looked at the most recent edits at the Valjean AE, and I see that part of a comment by someone else was redacted as a personal attack, after Tamzin complained about it being a personal attack. So calling some people who wanted to file the AE something (that I won't repeat) was a personal attack, even if (as it sure looks to me) it was a tit-for-tat filing in response to the block here, but calling Valjean "not here" was just calling it like it is. The hypocrisy is appalling. Come on, people, I think that's pathetic. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
I did this: . No BLP violation, and I'm not not here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

While I won't comment on whether the block was necessary, personally I feel saying an editor is NOTHERE in an edit summary is inappropriate except in case when an editor is making a comment in a discussion somewhere appropriate (i.e. on the user talk page, one of the administrative noticeboards or on AE) where they are calling the editor out for NOTHERE behaviour; along with cases where the editor has already been blocked or banned for NOTHERE behaviour. I would say this is the same for most behavioural accusations against editors.

Firstly, I hope we all agree behavioural accusations generally belong on such places and not in article (or other page) talk pages. This would also apply to edit summaries. And in many ways leaving them in edit summaries is worse since these cannot be easily removed and they cannot really be replied to in the medium where they were left. (We definitely do not want a counter edit even null one to leave an edit summary saying why the NOTHERE accusation was unfair.)

Second, it's very difficult bordering on impossible to give sufficient evidence to demonstrate NOTHERE in an edit summary. And if it's an article, it's extremely unlikely you can demonstrate it in the edit itself. Yes you could open a discussion somewhere else where you provide your evidence but this is still fairly disconnected.

Third I hope we all agree that while saying an editor is NOTHERE isn't always a personal attack, it definitely can be. If we get back to an IMO more appropriate example, where someone says an editor is NOTHERE on ANI they will hopefully provide evidence or are commenting where evidence was already provided by others to demonstrate this. If they provide no evidence and none was provided, they need to provide it ASAP when challenged otherwise they're casting aspersions and therefore making a personal attack. If they provide evidence and the community agrees with them, them then all is good.

OTOH, if they provide evidence and the community feels it's so weak and in no way supports the accusation, then it's reasonable to say they made a personal attack. If it's a single instance, they often won't be blocked over it although IMO a good editor will generally clearly withdraw their earlier accusations and apologise. (If they continue to argue it when the community has said you're wrong, they might be blocked.)

If they provide evidence and the community feels it's not strong enough to establish NOTHERE, but there is enough that it wasn't clearly inappropriate this falls into a tricky area. IMO it's fair to say that the original accusation was a good faith mistake and not a personal attack, but now that the community has concluded they were wrong, they do need to drop it and any further accusations without more evidence will be a personal attack and should lead to a block.

BTW, this also demonstrates another reason why making behavioural accusations in talk pages (and therefore edit summaries too) is such a bad idea. We don't want these lengthy back and forths about whether the accusation was appropriate. So while the simple accusation may not take up much space, all it leads to does and it's mostly or completely offtopic.

P.S. I don't get why there's such a one side is good, one side is bad in this whole thing. Personally I'm perfectly fine with seeing that maybe TheTimesAreAChanging made a mistake and a block was necessary. But that Valjean's behaviour has also been a problem and an AE case to change to deal with that is a good idea. If it's felt TheTimesAreAChanging's misbehaviour has been enough of a problem outside this edit summary, then I don't see a problem with editors opening an AE thread on them either. This sort of 'one side is completely in the right, the other side is completely in the wrong' sentiment some seem to be expressing is so weird since it's the opposite of what most of us with experience should know is the norm on wikipedia. Where most of the time there's fault on all sides and we need to decide how to deal with it. And trying to be as fair as possible to everyone without concern to whether we agree with their views or even their ultimate goals etc, and even their goods edits should not override any misbehaviour that comes with them.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I am glad to see the AE for Valjean. I think it should end up with a topic ban, and meanwhile he has a self-requested 1 week site ban. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)