• WP:ARE#Petextrodon Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Sri Lanka

• All the present three users are on the same page to follow RfC etiquette
• Changes since DRN User Louis P. Boog and TheEagle107 agreed to sort out their expected updates in article body first by creating sandbox page with exact updates they expect are at User:Louis P. Boog/sandbox/Jinn sandbox 4-20-2024
• Update is requested there are 4 paragraphs, consisting 9 sentences around 12 inline refs and around 15 supportive refs in foot note by TheEagle107. User Louis P. Boog and TheEagle107 pl. count and suggest correction, if any. Please suggest if we need to number those paragraphs/ sentences for convenience.
• Can we divide RfC in two sets one set that intends to add emphasize upon importance of Jinn in Islam, Muslim scholarship and Muslim world; the second set that contains doubts about Jinn. The second set VenusFeuerFalle wishes to challenge under WP:NOTNP.
• We seem to need assistance in formatting RfC. We can ping admin and The WP:DRN the moderator User:Robert McClenon since they expressed their willingness to provide assistance in submitting an RFC if requested.

May be you know, here @ WP I keep taking some constructive initiatives to fill information and knowledge gap areas. Also have started doing little bit of content level of mentoring. Since last couple of months I am contemplating to take initiative to get couple of essays written from other experienced users.

One essay, I would like to take initiative, which would give glimpse of meticulous selection and application of academic scholarly sources that would have better chance to stand at GA, FA, CTOP and during any intense level of content negotiation. Some essay similar to WP:TIERS but with more practical examples and guidance.

Idk from where to begin whom all to request. I know as of now already there are good number of essays exist and still I do think there is scope for reviewing present essays finding and discussing gap areas and promoting one more essay as said above.

• Currently available sources: WP:RS#Essays, WP:ESSAYDIR#Verifiability and sources, WP:APPLYRS

Requesting inputs.

• "He who digs a pit for others falls in himself."
• Wikipedia:Follow the leader
• List of fallacies :
• Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
• The courtier's reply is type of informal fallacy, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism whatsoever.
• Appeal to the stone
• WP:OUCH in a nutshell: Consider your own behavior before bringing attention to the behavior of others.
• Nitpicking
• What is suggested is FAQ and VFF focus seem digressing from suggested solution towards user behaviour
• Example: Agreed raising a different issue suddenly may be surprising and discomforting some times, - Though ignored by everyone else, taking up this different topic suddenly by VFF some one could have easily objected to by VFF own standard why you are taking up different topic before finishing ongoing discussions at hand nobody did so. Eagle107 was a known user to VFF but what if an altogether new user would have appeared suddenly raised the topics raised by Eagle107; everyone would have had to address the topics as raised - then is not VFF overreacting that couple of topics were raised suddenly by Eagle107.
• Though Eagle107's RfC itself not nuanced so even responses too would have inherent limitation. After 25th May there was no other disruption from Eagle107 other than contesting on VFF on content and creating RfC bit in haste without waiting for more inputs for formation of question. Still RfC question is largely neutral and even in absence of VFF user - inputs are in VFF favor so far. Nothing new happened for VFF to get suddenly emotional at the article talk page. Personalised response at Article talk when non-personalised summary was expected when even user inputs in RfC seem favoring VFF line of contention.
• 5 Years back a user had said to VFF 'you are way too quick on the draw.' VFF still remains hasty then at least appreciate other new users too can make mistakes and one need to learn saying things without discrediting them unnecessarily.

Guidance from essays

• Hanlon's razor : "Do not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by confusion."
• WP:CALM WP:LETITGO
• Essay referred by VFF: Wikipedia:Avoiding difficult users ".. instead, troublesome users are generally ignored, and so are their angry remarks about your wiki-reputation. .."; "..Most people have simply decided to ignore those difficult users and, also, ignore the veiled insults or other mud thrown at wiki-reputations. .."; ".. Instead, just keep a private list, off-line from Wikipedia, so that when the names of difficult users re-appear, you can review their infamous antics of the past, and take evasive action. .."
• WP:NOTTHERAPY Practice being sensible, sane, and productive, but know that your psychological state is not an acceptable excuse for disruptive editing.
• Address edits, not editors These are all ad hominem fallacies laced with argument to emotion as well – a.k.a. demonization. Focus instead on what was said, not who said it or why you imagine they did so:
• How positive responses benefit and negative ones don't help as much
• WP:DISCFAIL Wikipedia is built around a model of collaboration through discussion and edit summaries are not intended to substitute for that discussion.
• WP:DISCFAIL all content dispute resolution procedures – Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and Request for Comments (though the requirement is very weak there) – require thorough talk page discussion at the article talk page before a request for DR can be properly filed.
• Wikipedia:Avoiding talk-page disruption : Guidance for established users ".. A presently prevailing majority opposition does not validate a prima facie claim that the new proposal is an attempt to upset consensus. A new addition may, in fact, provide something new to consider, regardless of the immediate negative emotional response that such a change might normally evoke. ref Policy WP:CCC Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed).
• WP:SOLVE Sometimes, an editor will have the technical knowhow, emotional capacity, or simple desire to participate in only one of these stages. That is perfectly okay—this project is a collaborative, incremental effort in which editors can choose to volunteer as much or as little as they wish.
• WP:IDONTLIKETHEM At Wikipedia, we require the opposite to apply. Emotion does not trump logic. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not to describe what you "like" or "don't like". We are not trying to "win" what Steele and Beasor characterize as a "game". Wikipedia is not a business deal. It is an encyclopedia. Well-argued statements beat personal, subjective tastes.
• WP:MEDIATE : ".. Additionally, a mediator may strike out, collapse, delete, or otherwise close all or any part of any posting on those pages which is incivil or which comments upon or seeks to discuss user conduct. .. "
• WP:It's not the end of the world: ".. The Administrators' Noticeboard exists for the more extreme cases of harassment and general disruption towards Wikipedia. It doesn't exist for you to run off and complain because that nasty Wikipedian over there said something you didn't like. Don't shout your mouth off and throw your toys out of the pram, as that can make things worse. .."

• hasty generalization: Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization, which involves reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence
• The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. A trivial example might be: "This tire is made of rubber; therefore, the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber."

• 10 March 2024 LPB attempts to edit article Jinn almost after 3 years which is reverted.
• 12 March VFF reaches out at LPB talk page but 14 March LPB declares disagreement. (Irony: 12March VFF discusses content at user talk page after communication of disagreement and on 31 March indulge in clear Ad hominem at the article talk page as deconstructed below)
• 16 March LPB approaches at WP:3O
• 18 March: I approached VFF talk page from WP:3O to share my primary suggestions with both users since discussion at Talk:Jinn needed clarity. Also indicated VFF that, WP:Edit summary is usually brief statement to indicate what the edit is about and many times may not suffice as sufficient synopsis to understand the issue for other Wikipedia users. (even to share WP:3O)
• 19 March: User:StereoFolic reaches Talk:Jinn to share WP:3O inputs expressing similar constraints saying ".. It seems that several different pieces of content are under dispute here, but with the way this thread is scattered with lengthy quotes and subsections makes it difficult to understand. Lacking a clear, succinct description of exactly what the disputes are, I can only weigh in from my impressions..." StereoFolic also expresses their concern "..That said, VenusFeuerFalle I believe you would have better success in navigating disputes with more civil language, as edit summaries like this seem unnecessarily combative to me. .."
• 31 March 2024 In typical Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument: VFF in answer to StereoFolic's concern about combative tone casts further aspersions that too not related to article Jinn in any way and on 3rd April makes self admission to LPB "..Since this has nothing to do with the article, see personal talkpage.." First discredit the user in unrelated matter and asks to see personal talk page when asked for explanation, this also need to be noted that VFF was well aware that article talk page is not for personal altercation still used it to discredit LPB and avoid when own purpose is over. (Later get very angry when Eagle107 brings in previous altercations from unrelated pages as 'Eagle's grudge' but wish to remain oblivious to own prejudices from previous unrelated instances with LPB.)
• Though it was adhominem in relation to article Jinn on 3rd April I shared tips with LPB at their talk page and suggested to take VFF legitimate concerns in good spirit (see: Some friendly tips). I also suggested LPB to meet impatience with patience and focus on content dispute avoiding personal altercation, over all, LPB seem to be doing appreciably good on that count since then.
• 4th April LPB filed WP:DRN VFF replies once same day but skips subsequent discussion, though moderator Robert McClenon too said dispute seems resolvable with some more discussion; when reminded 12th April VFF repeats adhominem at article talk page but did not join again at WP:DRN. 15th April: Moderator Robert McClenon closed WP:DRN as WP:DISCFAIL due to lack of further response by one editor (VFF) and advised WP:RfC.
• 19 April In my further discussion at article talk, LPB agreed to my two suggestions a) to prioritize discussion on article body content before article lede discussion. b) Create own version of the article in own sand box with exact additions / changes they are seeking about. 22 April accordingly LPB presented their expected changes sandbox
• VFF is rightfully unhappy about Eagle107 casting aspersion, same time VFF does not stop own adhominem aspersion "..since noone except you and the user with the questionable edits since 2 years discuss this. .."[Sic] to discredit the disagreeing users.
• 7 May VFF raises, also CR, RS and OR related concerns. CR is addressed by myself, RS is referred to WP:RSN and OR is referred to WP:NORN
• Since 20th May Eagle107 begins removes content related to section comparative mythology takes objection over Infobox mention without ref and adds POV template. VFF and Eagle107 both engage in edit war until 25th May when admin increases article protection in anticipation discussion will take place
• 25th May VFF's WP:AIV report against Eagle107, but admin User:ToBeFree classifying edit warring is out of WP:content dispute in the edit summary protected the article Jinn per WP:PREFER up to 19:06, 1 June 2024 and also warned "further edit warring would probably cause a need to long-duration partial blocks to prevent the impact on other editors" in their edit summary. There was no doubt WP:DE issue on side of Eagle107 , but VFF too engaged in Edit war probably both crossed WP:3RR  ; Appeal to emotion There after rather than discussing at user talk page discussing behavioral issues at article talk and discrediting too is part of it Discrediting user Eagle107 on NPOVN
• Policy: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#User talk page: ".. If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article talk pages. .."
• Policy: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Noticeboards:If discussion with the editor fails to resolve the issue, you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). ... Administrators and the community will look to see if you have tried to resolve the conflict before escalating, .. "
• Guideline: WP:DDE
• Policy WP:VAND WP:NPA

User:VenusFeuerFalle some times comes across as quite reasonable (For example this 2019 interaction in between VFF and LPB - so I also had positive impression about them when I began my discussion facilitator role with positive expectation). They (VFF) also seem to gain trust by convincing they use RS sources with possibly some access to good sources; to my recent updated understanding, at other times they seem to throw various surprises (They ask RS from others and on their part can also wish to get away with answer Sky is Blue instead of serious attempt to find sources or support with logical deduction) and indulge in avoidable personal altercations, discredit users at article talk page/ notice board effectively having WP:LEADER benefit by Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument, casting unproven aspersions, in spite of admins asking them to not to do so.

• Misrepresentation:

@ VenusFeuerFalle About this comment,

1) Keeping with my approach to prioritize content -If you loose track, go back to the track- I suggested you all to attempt/ work for WP:FA.

2) If one tries to continue cycle of prioritizing finding faults in users one disagree with than prioritizing content, then can end up making mistakes of misrepresentation, as explained below-

a) VenusFeuerFalle says in their comment ".. Maybe because most of them were not even admins?.." Factually three out of four, User:Doug Weller Doug Weller, User:Daniel Quinlan Daniel Quinlan, User:Joe Roe Joe Roe are admins to whom User:Louis P. Boog seem to have approached for guidance and help. Though LPB's approach to User:Gaismagorm ‎and Joe Roe seem to be in initial confusion, but is in good faith.

b) This Xtool analysis shows no edits by User:TheEagle107 at User talk:Joe Roe, but still VenusFeuerFalle is including link to Louis P. Boog's edit at User talk:Joe Roe in their ANI report against TheEagle107 claiming to be 'serious threat'! (Louis P. Boog and TheEagle107 seem distinct users to my editorial understanding so far). Seems, VFF is simply inadvertently mixing up unrelated, and over reacting on that basis ending up misrepresenting. Which, I would urge, VFF need to reflect and refactor.

• On 25 April 2024 Eagle107 communicated at my talk page about their 'Cherrypicking' concerns link at Talk:Jinn, then through 26th I remained busy in analyzing sources presented by them at LPB's sandbox for example my this response clearly states a limitation in one of TheEagle107 - so I am neutral while analyzing potential issues in their sources and guiding them about the same. On 27th I replied LPB and Eagle107 with applicable policies to sort out content issue as I prioritize content side.
• When on 30th April Eagle107 complained personalizing altercations at my talk page after an edit war broke out with VFF What is my reply? Just not to personalize! and also a long advice not to personalize at Eagle107 talk page How this is not neutral or blurred by Eagle107's accusations or favoring Eagle107? Eagle107 replied once again at my talk page at least saying it's not about being personal.
• The way I had suggested LPB to work on their version in their on sandbox (and they did) similar suggestion was also given to Eagle107 to work on own version in own sandbox to achieve consensus before editing article. Idk where from VFF is inventing any favor, non-neutrality or getting my vision blurred due to Eagle107's accusations?