[Alpha3031]

You've openly stated that you were intentionally acting in bad faith, hounding other editors to provoke them and doing so while logged out to evade scrutiny. Retreating to "you can't prove I did anything wrong" is not the defense you think it is.

[econ]

It's kinda sad to see the only website with such elaborate guidelines fail to follow them.

Your argument appears to be that you don't need real evidence to dispose of editors.

It seems we agree?

[Alpha3031]

Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. If you consistently aim to disrupt the project then you obviously should be CBANed. I can't comment on the evidence available in your block discussion, only what you've presented here.

[econ]

I have no block discussion. I just read other peoples talk pages.

Besides from the obvious cases it is quite subjective what disrupting the project even means.

I'm not trying to stop the character assassination article but I will be a nuance to the process. I will argue this valuable to the project.

Im kinda curious, if a topic is considered a fringe theory, say fringe physics (where the consensus among surviving editors is that it must be denounced as fake until published in a high quality journal) would you oppose including other high quality sources or would you exclude them to help portray the topic as fake?

If one was to reliably demonstrate 1) there to be [say] a giant time travel laboratory, 2) a hundred million research budget and 3) prominent names involved.

Should they now be banned?

(No, I don't believe in time travel)

[Alpha3031]

I will not concede that it is at all "subjective" what being disruptive means in the specific case of your intentionally bad-faith trolling. You may choose to categorise that either as an obvious case or refer to my previous comments.

[econ]

Larry Sanger was right.