Talk:Aziz Ansari/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reliable sources re: sexual misconduct allegation

Just a couple to begin with which aren't already in the article:

• 2020 reporting from India, "#MeToo cases in the US that hogged the headlines":

In 2018, an anonymous woman accused the American actor Aziz Ansari of sexual misconduct in a blog written on Babe.net. However, the opinion was widely divided as to whether the incident constituted sexual misconduct. Ansari denied the allegations, saying that the encounters were completely consensual. Ansari has been criticized for not directly apologizing for his alleged behavior.

• "The controversy around Babe.net’s Aziz Ansari story, explained", Vox Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• "A New Age of Believing Women? Judging Rape Narratives Online", Rape Narratives in Motion. Quote: one of the most polarised cases of the "Me Too" moment.

• "In a very dark sketch, SNL points out we still don’t know how to talk about Aziz Ansari", Washington Post Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I added the first three into the article.[1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I found a place that makes sense for the WaPo source about the illustration of the public reaction by SNL.[2] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Collaborating on sexual misconduct allegation text

Let's please slow down and discuss future changes to the section to come to a consensus beyond the stable version. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. "Stable version" is not the goal. Improvement is. I don't think it was very nice of you to have reverted SPECIFICO's nine edits that they made over the course of nearly four hours, especially with an accusation fo edit warring. Collaboration is good. May I ask what specifically in SPECIFICO's nine edits you object to, and why? - MrX 🖋 11:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not meant to be an accusation.  I felt that there was an edit war, perhaps the edit war was only on the lead, but regardless I felt an edit war was impending.  The goal is to deescalate, no offense was meant.  There is no consensus for these bold edits which changed edits which had been made over many hours previously.  I do not believe they best reflect the sources.  I am fine with the the physicist edit.  SPECIFICO, please revert your edit.  The ONUS is on those who wish to change the text; let's collaborate.  If I revert your edit then we would have an edit war, there's no need for that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

See the preceding thread. The only edit war on the lead was the one in which you were re-adding UNDUE BLP insinuation about Ansari. Whether your false edit summary is an "accusation" or merely a misrepresentation, the effect is the same. It corrupts our editing process. Please read the cited sources and other mainstream discussion of the Babe.net #MeToo incident. Use the talk page and explain any specific concerns about the text before reverting improvements to the article page. Also, please read WP:NPOV and the WP:ONUS section. You are repeatedly citing it incorrectly. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterizations, but let's move on.  I have read the sources, I have edited this article very carefully over many hours, and I disagree.  The ONUS is on you, unless you are ok with me individually reverting your edits, but going back and forth like that over many edits in one section doesn't seem like a good way to collaborate, and there has already been an editor war on this topic involving many editors. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No one likes to have their changes reverted. I think SPECIFICO's changes were generally fine so I don't think the wholesale reversion was warranted. However, KB challenged them via reversion. That is consistent with BRD as well as ONUS. That means per ONUS they stay out until a consensus can be established. Proposing changes etc here will likely make that a smoother process. In the case of the opening paragraph, I like the extra detail SPECIFICO added but I also like the removed statement that the response was polarized. I think a hybrid of the two would work nicely. Springee (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you find "polarized" passes WEIGHT? That appeared to be editorial OR evaluation of a subset of sources. Basically, Babe.net is criticized far and wide for ever having published the tale. Then the Babe.net writer goes on the attack, notably against womean journalist Ashley Banfield, for her over-45 physical appearance. Then the consensus of those commenting in the media is that, while there is no merit whatsoever to "grace"s claims, and that she could have walked away at any point in the evening, it's good to discuss the general issue of male and female perceptions of consent. The BRD and ONUS stuff is nonsense, in the context of a blind revert without any rationale other than the bizarre "edit war" aspersion. We need to stick to behavioral protocols here, or else editors will stop volunteering their time and attention and the article will get worse and worse. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I have explained my rationale that I disagree with your interpretation of the sources. Now that that is clear, please revert your edit so that we may proceed more smoothly. Or, I wouldn't think it would make a difference, but would you be ok if I reverted you but with a more careful edit summary this time? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I would have to check a number of sources to see if any say "polarized". You are correct that "polarized" may not be a neutral term. As I recall the reaction was some people were critical of Ansari and some of the accusations. Perhaps there would be some neutral way to note that the responses ranged from support of the accuser to criticizing the source for what appears to be a bad date story. Anyway, I generally agree with your edits but we still should respect BRD and ONUS. Springee (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've already mentioned the importance of BRD and ONUS to kb above, so we can hope that will not be a problem again. Meanwhile, those edits of mine consisted of a slight reordering of the sentences for better flow, an addition of an RS secondary source, an addition of RS context about babe.net, and a removal of misogynistic disparagement of Ansari's girlfriend. Hardly controversial stuff. If this incident is to remain in Ansari's article at all, it may need some detail about the attack on Banfield and on Ansari's most recent comments about it. The alternative would be to focus on the articles on #MeToo and Babe.net and trim the mention of it in this Ansari article. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I'm going to ask you one more time before asking for administrator assistance, please, in the collaborative spirit and as an act of good faith, revert your edit.  I disagree with your characterizations of your edits. (Although I see Ansari's girlfriend has recently completed her PhD). Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I mentioned this above, but looking over the history, the longstanding version is here; before that it had been almost entirely stable for three months (and reasonably stable for a full year earlier.) I think that that version is at least generally superior to the one we have now and should be used as the basis for tweaks going forwards; we ought to revert the section back to it (which means no mention in the lead for now) and discuss until / unless we reach something better, with a focus on first addressing the things that are most glaring (ie. anything that people say is completely unjustified by the sources.) Things I like about that version vs. the current version - it makes it more clear what the controversy was actually about without taking a side or going too far off-topic. I don't think we can avoid discussing it as a sexual misconduct allegation, which is how the more serious sources do; it is already merely an allegation. Describing it as a "dating incident" implicitly dismisses it entirely to the point where someone reading that version would have trouble understanding why it attracted so much attention - the fact that it was a sexual misconduct allegation is the most important part of the section by far, because the fact that an allegation was framed that way is what makes it notable. The older version also tends to cite more nuanced / sedate coverage, which weighs both sides and discusses its impact; the current version is overwhelmingly slanted towards sources that dismiss the incident, at least in comparison. --Aquillion (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus from everyone except SPECIFICO, whose edits would be reverted, that we should restore the stable version before moving forward. I would suggest restoring the 29 February 2020 version you found and then discussing the differences between that and the version which I had attempted to restore.[3] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a perfectly ridiculous proposition. You want to roll back six months, 100+ edits by 64 users? And falsely claim ONUS for that? If you have reasoned concerns about any of those 104 Edison, start threads here and seek consensus. Most of those edits were typical WP copyedits, reference improvements, and trims. Pick a few that most concern you and suggest alternatives. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We need to find the most recent consensus version. I understand there is implicit consensus for unchallenged edits older than a month, so do you support this version? That is the edit I made to restore the version before the disagreements about weight and interpretation of the sources which occurred only days ago. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the most recent stable version of the text would be. However, I would think any edit in the past few days/weeks would be considered new and, absent clear consensus, could be reverted per NOCON. Without citing a specific change I've generally felt that SPECIFICO and MrX's edits were improvements (call that weak support) but that doesn't mean a consensus exists for those changes. If they are reverted then the next step should be discuss here until a consensus for new text is reached. Springee (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Except that mounting a pitched battle over incremental copyedits and corrections is disruptive. We don't do mass blanket reverts. We improve articles be discussing specific issues, not weaponizing misapplied guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

How about restoring this version? Please stop making accusations. There is no need for it, we can restore copyedits easily once we've restored the version before the disagreements. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The disagreements? What disagreements? Put your top 3 up for discussion. Start sections and seek consensus. Drop the 6 month rollback idea. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The version I just suggested to you which you ignored is from two weeks ago. You know that the disagreements are about the interpretation of the sources related to the sexual misconduct allegation, and weight. The ONUS is on you to discuss your changes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Or this version from four days ago which is the same thing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

ONUS is not about copyedits. State your #1 concern in a new section and invite discussion. Then we can go on to #2, etc. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a strawman argument. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a perfectly ridiculous proposition. You want to roll back six months, 100+ edits by 64 users? Not permanently, I hope, and just that section, not the entire article (aside from the mention in the lead the rest of the article doesn't seem to be in dispute), but, well... yes, at least until we reach a consensus on where to go from there. Hopefully some of the less controversial improvements can be implemented quickly and then we can discuss the more controversial ones. Keep in mind that given the fairly clear lack of consensus for any recent version, rolling back the section (and mention in the lead) so far is to a certain extent a concession to you - the more recent, serious revert-war followed your sequence of edits immediately after here. I think it's obvious there's no clear consensus for those edits yet, and they were pretty drastic and WP:BOLD, so we have to revert to some point before then until we can reach a consensus or compromise - would you rather we revert to there? My perception (granted that I didn't inspect every single edit, so feel free to correct me) is that after the earlier point I identified as stable, there was a slow-boil back-and-forth over the section and that your more recent dramatic changes were partially sparked by disagreement with the outcome of that, so rolling the section all the way back to before anything happened (to a point where it seems to have been unequivocally stable for months) makes more sense, at least temporarily. But that older version did receive a lot of discussion at one point and I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that the whole thing is such a glaring WP:BLP violation that it requires pushing through an emergency rewrite in the middle of a dispute, and it does at least keep the mention out of the lead for now (which seems to have been one of the main points of contention.) Basically, it was on that version for months with little controversy, so it's hard to see much harm being done by sticking to it for a few more weeks while we discuss improvements and run RFCs or whatever we need to do to produce an improvement that satisfies people. --Aquillion (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well kb has not given any reason for reverting 60+ of the edits that occupied quite a bit of my time and attention, all but a couple of them copyedits and conforming them to already-cited sources after I carefully re-read them. KB declined to identify, either real time or to this minute, which edits she disputes and why. This is against every policy and behavioral guideline regarding reverts. KB should either undo her blanket revert and go through the text offering improvements, or she should open sections for every one of my reverts and state her objection. A blanket revert is disruptive and the removal of obvious improvements without any explanation or edit to further improve them is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a false narrative. My edit summary[4] refers to this talk page where I have repeatedly explained my objections. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You've only made 29 edits since the 02:45 August 24 text I restored, and many of those were unrelated to the sexual assault allegations, or minor copyedits, and were preserved. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

As of this writing, you've only made 44 edits to the entire article,[5] and that's including reverts and minor edits. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see you backed off the threat to go back to last winter. So if you have re edged 40+ edits by 11 editors, you need to explain each revert for discussion. Of undo your mass revert and work through them seriatim. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I only undid edits by you, and one edit by Mr Ernie, and a weird misrepresented minor edit.[6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Restored August 24, 2020 stable version (preserved copyedits)

Restored with this edit, and I added a source to the previously unsourced text which stated his girlfriend Serena Skov Campbell was a "physicist" rather than a "physics student".[7] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Harmswhims, please undo your reversion[8] of the restored August 24th stable version which meets WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFIABILITY (which your change does not). The WP:ONUS is on those who wish to change the consensus version. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Harmswhims restored the current consensus. Half a dozen editors recently agreed it is better than "your" version. Feel free to propose specific edits. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Several other editors disagree with your version, and no one who supports keeping your edits in before further discussion has engaged in discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Harmswhims is a blocked sock. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Restoration following sock edits

I again restored the August 24th version, removing sock edits while preserving the undisputed edits which followed my previous restoration.[9] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Section heading

SPECIFICO, please revert your edit[10] where you changed the stable version of the sexual misconduct allegation subheading. You made this same change on August 24th[11] and there has been an ongoing edit war over the subheading: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Your version fails NPOV and the specific language fails WP:V. The stable version is NPOV, the language is the precise language used by the sources, and per WP:NDESC, articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law...are appropriately described as "allegations". Section headings should follow all the guidance for article titles. There is no evidence of a BLP violation; the ONUS is on you to gain consensus for this change. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The links at NDESC confirms the current heading, "dating incident" is correct, since there is no allegation of a crime. The Ansari gossip is like the allegations against Sen. Al Franken and other politicians where, due to their notability as politicians and public figures, baseless and trivial "allegations" about their behavior received brief coverage in the press. The same is true of Ansari, who has public attention due to his career in Milennial or GenX pop culture. The weight of RS discussion of this incident tells us that it was covered by the girls' site Babe.net more or less as gossip and not within the bounds and disciplines followed by true journalism. Unlike in the cases of Anthony Weiner, where a crime was committed, or even Elliot Spitzer where a possible infraction was investigated, there is no allegation of illegality in this matter. It's more like Hillary Clinton and "Benghazi". That's why, according to our policies and guidelines, we don't elevate "allegation..." simply because the woman who went to Babe chose to mischaracterize it in that way. Anyway, this doesn't need more discussion. We now have many editors endorsing most or all of the improvements, and only one editor insisting that a deprecated version is still "consensus." SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterisations and conclusions. I have given policy reasons for supporting the stable version, now please restore it and discuss further. The ONUS is on you to get to a new consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The former title, "Allegation of sexual misconduct", reeks of WP:POVPUSH especially as multiple sources questioned the validity of that allegation. "Dating incident" is much more appropriate, accurate and, more importantly, neutral - if not the most ideal choice. Using the former title would give undue weight to the accuser, discarding the various sources that are used in the rest of the section text. Harmswhims (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, the longstanding title which EvergreenFir added over a year ago[17] must be restored until there is consensus to change it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop bludgeoning the nonsense misrepresentation of ONUS. It has nothing to do with the section heading. Nothing. The POV heading is the same kind of UNDUE BLP smear that was initially inserted in the article about Al Franken and that KB tried to insinuate in the Michael Bloomberg article during his brief run for President. Also, this article topic is under at least two separate Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions topics. It's not wise to canvass. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I remind you of your logged warning that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors.[18] We will be pinging everyone who has edited or commented on the section title if we have an RfC; we have to start somewhere. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I just found this essay: WP:STATUSQUO, and the change to the heading does not meet the criteria of WP:BLPREMOVE. I want to emphasize again that I am happy to discuss this proposal in more depth once the collaborative process is respected.Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

El_C, can you tell me if I'm representing ONUS correctly? We're going in circles, and administrators haven't yet responded to requests for direction or enforcement.[19] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: which version represents the status quo ante? El_C 01:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

KB's grievance has nothing to do with WP:ONUS, despite the fact it's repeatedly being cited on this page. Anyway, half a dozen editors have worked to improve the article over the past several weeks, and KB alone is demanding it be frozen at a version from some time ago. I might add that this is a Class C article, not heavily edited (especailly if you take out unsuccessful edit-warring by KB and others to put the UNDUE dating controversy in the lead) and so past consensus at Class C is expected and encouraged to change as the article is improved. SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@El C: according to Masem[20] and Aquillion[21] the status quo ante is here. I had #Restored August 24, 2020 stable version (preserved copyedits) as a compromise. Masem hasn't weighed in specifically on whether that applies to the subheading, and no one has said what to do if ONUS has indeed not been respected. There are inaccuracies in SPECIFICO's comment I have previously addressed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ONUS is about whether to include well-sourced content. It's the other side of WP:WEIGHT. You haven't explained why you repeatedly cite it to support your POV as to content edits and you do not appear to have taken stock of the fact that half a dozen editors disagree with your view on this page while you've declined to offer any reasoned arguments as to what about the current version you wish to change and why. Under the circumstances, I'd be surprised if any Admin is going to take a position as to article content, but as I said above, it would be constructive if you would start threads on what you believe should be changed and why you believe it should be changed. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather not go back and forth on arguments we've already had, but I feel I cannot ignore false statements. I'd say there are about an equal number of editors on each side of the argument. I have cited policies for my reversion. We have both not given reasoned in depth arguments for why we support our respective versions, and the ONUS is on you to start threads after the stable version is restored. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The former title, "Allegation of sexual misconduct", reeks of WP:POVPUSH especially as multiple sources questioned the validity of that allegation. That is normal for an allegation! It is why we describe it as "allegation of sexual misconduct" and not "indisputable factual occurrence of sexual misconduct." But the allegation did occur, was widely-reported on as such, and was widely described in those terms; censoring even the mention of the allegation makes the sequence of events impossible to parse because it becomes impossible to understand why the people accusing him were so incised or why his defenders viewed the accusations against him as such a serious thing. Even the rewritten version has {{accused Ansari of sexual misconduct on a date}} in the first sentence; there's no dispute that that allegation is the central, defining fact of the incident. It was overwhelmingly how the topic is discussed in reliable sources, so it also passes WP:COMMONNAME, even if you are worried about POV issues. I think even that concern is completely absurd; it is indisputable fact that he was accused of sexual misconduct and that that accusation was widely-reported in as many words, by sources that manifestly treated it as at least serious enough to discuss. We have to avoid lending it undue credence or ever presenting it as anything more than an accusation, but... while I'm open to discussion about ways to refine the section, the proposed alternative is stilted, awkward, and has glaring WP:POV issues in that it is overtly dismissive of the allegation in a way that most sources are not. It is not just a POV problem - it is crude in how heavy-handedly it takes sides - my first reaction on seeing it was honestly bafflement that anyone could remotely consider such a heading acceptable. I am as strenuously opposed to it as I can possibly express. Where did that awful phrasing even come from? It certainly isn't the WP:COMMONNAME. We're not going to replace the terminology used near-universally in reliable sources with... that. I'm all for improvements, but this particular change is bafflingly indefensible. --Aquillion (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

In truth, I'm just not familiar enough with the material that pertains to the respective allegations. But, to reiterate: broadly, if there is still significant opposition to a change that was introduced recently, then the status quo ante version is the version that should display while the dispute remains unresolved and the matter is being discussed. El_C 02:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@El C: so what do we do if ONUS is not respected? WP:AN3? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• For other parts of the section it is complex because a long-running dispute seem to have started shortly after here. But for the subheading, it was stable until SPECIFICO changed it here a little under two weeks ago, after which it has sort of gone back-and-forth. --Aquillion (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please observe WP:ONUS while the dispute remains outstanding. Two weeks is not long enough to be considered longstanding text. El_C 02:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ONUS is not about "longstanding". I have no problem with Aquillion's edit, because it is based on a reasoned argument. That was not the case when you were pinged here. I gather we are now at a stable version, so that's fine. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion's argument is the same argument you disagreed with above. You were told to observe ONUS, and now are fine with the stable version. But regardless, please revert to the stable version. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop misusing "ONUS". I've said this several times. You can always ask for help understanding policy at various venues. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

How is ONUS being misused? I'm not sure I follow your train of thought. El_C 02:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO often responds to pedantic misinterpretations of my comments. He likely was interpreting "you were told to observe ONUS" as when I told him to observe ONUS rather than when you told him to observe ONUS. I'll speak precisely: SPECIFICO, after you were told SPECIFICO, please observe WP:ONUS while the dispute remains outstanding. Two weeks is not long enough to be considered longstanding text at 02:32, 5 September 2020, you had no problem[22] with Aquillion's edit[23] even though Aquillion's arguments are the same arguments which you disagreed with through this talk page before you were told to observe ONUS. Feel free to disagree, but please don't strawman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@El C:I've replied in the thread on @Bradv:'s talk page. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

KB, it is not OK to misrepresent other editors' comments. This page is under multiple DS topic areas. @El C:. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Aquillion's arguments are satisfactory. I'm convinced. Harmswhims (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

So will you revert back to the stable version of the paragraph before your edits? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the section title change, not the section body, the current version of which is indeed an improvement over the version you are desiring to revert to. Harmswhims (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

And yet there is no consensus, so ONUS must be observed. You just created your account on August 10th, so if you are not familiar with WP:ONUS, please read administrator El C's comments above where they state that if there is still significant opposition to a change that was introduced recently, then the status quo ante version is the version that should display while the dispute remains unresolved and the matter is being discussed. Now that you understand will you restore the stable version? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

No one, including the administrator El C, has confirmed that your desired version (prior to the six months, 100+ edits by 64 users) is in fact the status quo ante version. Harmswhims (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The number you're looking for is 143 revisions by 68 users[24] as of this writing. You're using the same numbers SPECIFICO made above.[25] while pedantically ignoring every one of my responses, proposed and executed reversions. As I said above,[26] my #Restored August 24, 2020 stable version (preserved_copyedits) only undoes edits by SPECIFICO, one edit by Mr. Ernie, and one minor edit by another editor (and now all the edits you've made since you joined the edit war four days ago to edit the body[27] after SPECIFICO stopped editing the body. Shall I ping El C to clarify the expectations to observe ONUS or will you restore my reversion? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

KB, all the discussion about restoring the section header related only to that change. Please post any comments about the article text within to the approapriate talk page section. The two issues are unrelated. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, El C asked you to please observe WP:ONUS while the dispute remains outstanding. The dispute is not limited to the subheading. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you referenced WP:QUO here,[28] as did I above.[29] Please observe QUO as well, which also requires that the version of the paragraph before the dispute be restored pending consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Please carefully review the applicable policy that is linked RE: stonewalling. Unlike QUO, that is Policy. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It would not be possible for me to status quo stonewall until the status quo is restored, so save that false accusation until then. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is making accusations. If you would state reasoned views, as Aquillion did, you would find the community ready to consider -- if not agree with -- your point of view. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That is a reversal of ONUS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussing proposed edits

SPECIFICO, now that the sock is gone and a stable version has been restored, you are welcome to discuss your proposed edits. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Racial issues wrt the allegation

I see that this HuffPo opinion piece broaches the obvious question of race in the dating incident. In light of the recent incident with the Central Park Birder and other recent events, this piece seems on point and relevant for our readers. I wonder whether there are other sources to draw on relating to the aspect of a white woman accusing a dark-skinned man in this way. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please provide them and offer a suggestion. Other people don't need to feel like it's their idea. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)