| Revision as of 09:28, 5 March 2023 view sourceRenamed user 8723489273 (talk | contribs)6,246 edits →User:Anne Ammundsen, bludgeoning, COI, and general competence issues: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:27, 11 January 2025 view source Black Kite (talk | contribs)Administrators85,253 edits →Review of an article deletion: done | ||
| (999 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description| |
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} | ||
| {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}} | |||
| <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>__TOC__{{clear}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize =800K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 1175 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(72h) | ||
| |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c | |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | ||
| |headerlevel=2 | |headerlevel=2 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{stack end}} | |||
| <!-- | <!-- | ||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | ||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | ||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | ||
| == Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from ] == | |||
| ], a known transphobic editor from pt.wiki, is after his actions led me to leave that wiki permanently. He has also harassed me on Wikimedia Commons. I don't know what to do anymore. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace. This is severely impacting my mental health. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You don't seem to have notified the other editor. This is mandatory and this section may be closed if you fail to do so. Use <nowiki>{{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> on that user's talk page. Additionally, you don't seem to have provided specific diffs demonstrating harassment. Please do so. --] (]) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::On pt.wiki, DarwIn proposed the deletion of articles I created about transgender topics ( and ), using transphobic arguments, including misgendering and questioning the validity of transgender children. After translating these articles to en.wiki, he is , again focusing on his personal transphobic beliefs - as it shows, he doesn't even know how DYK works. He insisted multiple times trying to include his transphobic comment on that page and has just edited it again. On Commons, for extra context, DarwIn unilaterally deleted images related to these articles, despite being clearly involved in the dispute. | |||
| ::Again, I just want to collaborate with trans topics in peace. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --] (]) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes. However, context is important. This is harassment that began on pt.wiki, has spread to Commons, and is now here. The history has been provided, but, sure, I can provide the diffs instead. He has unilaterally and , despite this being not how DYK works. This is because he really doesn't know, as he only sporadically edits here and only came back to harass me. is explicitly transphobic and doesn't focus on the article itself at all. After his comment was reverted by me, saying that I shouldn't call it transphobia, despite it being transphobia. After being reverted again, . I asked him to , but . | |||
| ::::I just don't want to be targeted by that editor here. I've left pt.wiki in great part for that reason. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace here. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like yet another cross-wiki troll by this user. Already , the account is now promoting their POV here, including spreading lies, hideous slurs and baseless accusations against me like "known transphobic", after two of their creations were taken to community evaluation at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for lacking notability. The user is also a known sockpuppeter, at the Portuguese Wikipédia. In any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this case in yet another project apart from the strictly needed, so do as you please.] ] 13:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have been blocked on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. ] ] 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And here's explicit transphobia. It's her '''daughter''', no matter how much you hate the idea of trans children existing. The story you've told is also completely distorted. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I simply don't want this editor targeting me with transphobic stuff here after he target me on pt.wiki (and left it permanently in great part for that reason) and Commons. I am considering taking medication because of these events. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive editing by Hawkers994 == | |||
| *:*'''Comment''' I would suggest Darwin review ]. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. ] (]) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:@] I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? ] ] 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::@], the bottom line is that ''you don't get to question that.'' As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is '''not''' the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them ''any'' good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. ] (]) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. ] ] 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::We're here because this "questioning" appears to be bleeding into transphobic harassment. I would support an indef based on edits like this ] (]) 15:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:The story told above is completely distorted to fit the transphobic's narrative. Simon223, if you want to get the full story, read ]' page or read its sources (with the help of a translator if needed). <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. ] (]) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. ] ] 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including ]) - otherwise you will be blocked. ]] 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::Sure, if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. ] ] 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::Just so everyone knows, the facts are being quite distorted here. It wasn't really an imposition — her daughter, did not want to play with "boy toys", even when being forced by her mom. That's why the mom said she plays with "girl toys" and everything else. The references on said articles weren't thoroughly read, apparently by everybody here. | |||
| *:*::::::Adding to this too: DarwIn, in some edits to the article in the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, added "quotes" on the word trans and some other parts of the articly, as if was his duty to judge if the girl is trans or not. Anyways, I think what happened in ptwiki stays there. | |||
| *:*::::::And I want to make clear that I'm only stating the things that happened so everyone knows. I do not support blocking him. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::Four year olds are generally not considered babies. You really need to drop this - and probably to avoid editing in the ] area.] (]) 16:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::I would suggest a '''topic ban''' is imposed. ]] 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::I would '''support''' a topic ban from ]. ] (]) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. ] (]) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::Topic ban from GENSEX and BLP, broadly construed, is fine for me. ]] 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::I do understand this Misplaced Pages rules on BLP. Isn't that not enough for you? ] ] 16:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::::Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. ]] 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::::You seem to have missed the part when I very clearly stated there that I retired myself from that DYN debate. ] ] 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::@] nice try, but I don't edit on that topic, anyway. Let's calm down and enjoy the Christmas season. ] ] 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. ] (]) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. ] ] 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::::You fundementally misunderstand the scope of ] and the concept of topic area as well. ] (]) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::::Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. ] ] 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::::::I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. ] (]) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::::::it was a collective you. ] ] 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::::::::The collective you did not pursue you here either. Only the OP appears to cross over. ] (]) 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::I noticed this yesterday but intentionally didn't mention it since I felt there had already been enough nonsense. But since DarwIn is still defending their offensive comments below, I'd note that the child was 4 years old in 2019. It's now 2024 and they've evidentally seen a medical professional. If at any time they express a desire for a different gender identity we will of course respect that whatever her mother says; but at this time BLP full supports respecting a 8-9 year old and not treating her as a baby. ] (]) 22:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::None of this is relevant. We follow sources and ]. There is obviously no Misplaced Pages position on when someone is or is not a "baby" and should have their self-identification reproduced in their biography. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :They cannot be trusted. Above they said "I'm retiring myself from this topic" and yet has continued to post. ]] 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've continued to post where? ] ] 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I've already walked away from it yesterday, why you're insisting on that lie? ] ] 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? ]] 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have ], and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -] (]) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. ] ] 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -] (]) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? ] ] 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] This one. -] (]) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@] I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. ] ] 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::@] Easiest way to defuse this is to post a '''bolded''' and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -] (]) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" ] ] 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::That is not an appropriate statement, it has your bias/agenda throughout it. Very concerning. ]] 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Heres the main point I can see RE "Cross-wiki harassment." If DarwIn claims they do not regularly edit this topic space and had not previously participated in DYK discussions how did they come to find themselves there just in time to oppose the contribution of an editor they had extensive negative interactions with on another wiki? ] (]) 16:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:that's old stuff, I already posted a note there retiring from that space yesterday. I'm really puzzled on what all this fuss is about. ] ] 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::This isn't about the transphobia, this is about the harassment (they are seperate by apparently related claims). So how did you find yourself commenting on that DYK? ] (]) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I expressed my disagreement with that note, justifying with my opinion, and there's not even any misgendering issue there, AFAIK. Not sure if expressing that opinion here is forbidden or not, but in any case I've posted a note retiring from it already yesterday, so I've no idea what more do you want. ] ] 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? ] (]) 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::precisely because we are currently in the process of evaluating the notability of that bio and association she created at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, so it's just natural that related issues on other wikis get monitored too, that's part of the process. You don't agree with that evaluation, and that's perfectly OK. To each Misplaced Pages their own stuff 🤷 ] ] 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. ] (]) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::it's the wikipedia articles created yesterday that we are evaluating, not any kind of DYK note. ] ] 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around ] (]) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::@] no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? ] ] 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Because of edits like this . ] (]) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::answering an accusation of being a dictator after flushing away the copyviios she uploaded. What's the problem? ] ] 17:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::No, that diff is the undo. Thats you edit warring apparent harassment onto someone's talk page on another wiki with a kissing face as the edit summary... In that context this does look like cross wiki harassment. Do you have a better explanation? ] (]) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Just answered the troll there with another, as I was on the middle of something else. Yes, I know, not the nicest thing to do, but whatever. And why are we discussing Commons here now, anyway? ] ] 17:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::We're discussing cross wiki harassment, that makes edits on any wiki relevant to the discussion. You appear to have been harassing them on commons and then followed them here to continue the harassment because a temporary block there (which you appear to have had a hand in) prevented them from being active there. You absolutely can not do that. ] (]) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::I ''answered'' a troll, if there was any harassment was from that account towards me, not the opposite. Please don't invert the situation. ] ] 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::Your edits on enwiki had nothing to do with trolling or other behavioral issues from that account, if your edits on enwiki were to address valid concerns informed by your experience on other wikis we would not be having this discussion. It was also you restoring your comment which they removed from their talk page, thats you trolling them and it makes their dictator claim look not like trolling but rather accurate. ] (]) 17:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::I confess I've no idea why we are still having this discussion, as they were just that. But for the 50th time, these interactions have stopped long ago, and for a similar amount of time I've devotedly accepted and committed to all your rules. ] ] 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::In my opinion we're still having this discussion because you are stonewalling, perhaps its a language barrier but you don't come off as trustworthy or engaging in good faith. ] (]) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Honestly, this is an interesting idea but I think this needs to become an Arbitration Committee issue. The community is so heavily divided on this, it’s actually ridiculous. This whole situation just is bonkers. Like why is this at ANI anymore. ] (]) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Hawkers994}} | |||
| ::By an interesting idea I meant my idea of it becoming an arbitration committee issue is an interesting proposal. ] (]) 00:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I believe it may help too, if Darwin will promise to avoid interacting on main space with Skyshifter. ] (]) 17:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This user edit only biased claims without providing sources in the articles about ]. As can be seen from this user's contriburions, they is a user whose sole purpose is to make edits in favor of Somaliland, not to add information, but to delete information they does not like, and to participate only in rewriting Somalia as Somaliland. | |||
| :Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway.] ] 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| keeps the sources he likes (reliefweb.int/report/somalia/catching-human-rights-needs-sool-and-sanaag-after-four-years) and deletes the ones he doesn't like(reliefweb.int/report/somalia/detailed-site-assessment-dsa-sool-region-somalia-march-2022). (Both of these sources are what I sought out.) These are information from the reliefweb.int and should have the same reliability. I have explained this to Hawkers994 in ] but they is not convinced. | |||
| :I think Darwin should avoid interacting with Skyshifter on all spaces on en.wikipedia.org. It's clear Darwin has made Skyshifter feel uncomfortable, and I don't appreciate it.]] 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. ] ] 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary ], broadly construed, as in effect.]] 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] yes, that's correct. ] ] 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I think a one-way interaction ban between the editors would be for the best here. While I think there is some merit to a Gender and Sexuality tban, as some of Darwin's recent edits appear to be about ] in the topic area, I believe the interaction ban would solve most of the issues raised here. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? ] ] 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::All your edits related to the subject, both here and on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] You're evaluating my edits on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages to punish me ''in the English Misplaced Pages?'' ] ] 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] Can you explain how my general edit history in wiki.pt is relevant in any way to an accusation of cross-wiki harassment? ] ] 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Would recommend that Darwin ''walk away'' from the general topic. This would avoid any need for topic bans. ] (]) 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In ], that Sool is Somaliland because it is effectively controlled by Somaliland; but about ], that since Badhan is not in the Sool, that principle does not apply. In short, in Hawkers994's mind, the conclusion that "xxx is Somaliland's territory" comes first, and they edits the article with his assertions and brings up rules that suit them. I explained this to them in ] as well. | |||
| ;Clarification | |||
| Editing without sources for a particular point of view is a serious violation of Misplaced Pages's rules. Note that knowledge of Somaliland and Somalia is not required to consider this issue. The only issue is whether their are consistent with ] and ]. ] (]) 00:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Hello @] - and others. Please recall that my opinion was specifically over the declaration of the child gender by her mother at or before her 4th birthday, by her mother own account based on classical gender stereotypes. It's specifically about that. I've no way to know what gender the child is or will eventually be in the future, and gladly accept whatever she chooses - as I would if she was my own child. I've eventually been harsher than needed in the DYK comment because that specific situation where a minor is extensively exposed with full name, photographs, etc. by her parents on social networks, newspapers and whatelse is generally condemned in ], to the point of eventually here. Obviously Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with that when it comes to the spread of information, but in my view - obviously wrong, from the general reaction here - exposing the child in yet another place, let alone wiki.en main page, was a bit too much. | |||
| :With previous consensus already taken place, this user has ignored all previous data and has chosen to make his own opinions, Without any external opinions. Ignoring updated sources infoboxes should relate to current updated sources. ] states opinions are not facts. ] (]) | |||
| *As for misgendering, I am one of the founders and former board member of ], which after 30 years still is the main LGBT association in Portugal, though not an active member for many years for moving away from Lisbon, where it's headquartered. For more than 30 years I've been on the fight against homophobia and transphobia, not specially in Misplaced Pages, but on the streets, where it was needed in the 1990s here in Portugal, when the whole LGBT thing was just starting and most people couldn't even tell the difference between a drag queen and a trangender woman. I was beaten up, lost my 2 front teeth on homo/transphobic street fights (the first one at 18 years old, for publicly defending from booers in the audience a trangender girl which was acting at a local bar )- and whatelse. I never had even the least impulse to misgender any of the many trangender people that always have been around me, and the few situations where that may have happened were online with people that I knew for years as being one gender, and took a while to sink they are another, because online there's not the ever helping visual clue. So it's kind of disheartening to be treated like this in a strange place by people I don't know just because I expressed an (harsh, agreed) opinion defending the age of consent for children, and condemning their parents interference on that. | |||
| ::That is not the answer. There is no consensus on the page you indicated. (If you say it has been obtained, provide a timestamp.) And the source you have shown do not answer the above question. ] (]) 02:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *The TBan is not very relevant for me, as I seldom edit here and despite the activism of my past days LGBT is not my primary interest on Misplaced Pages, but I'm considerably saddened by the misunderstandings, bad faith assumptions, false accusations that have been told here about me, though eventually the flaw is not in the whole group that has their own rules and culture, but in the newcomer which don't understand it well in all its nuances, as was my case here. | |||
| :::You have ignored all the sources in the articles and talk pages and have chosen to add your own opinion to these articles which goes against ] As mentioned there has been previous discussions on this subject which you have chosen to ignore and dismiss sources which you claim are in favour of article subject.] (]) | |||
| *Finally, as the misunderstandings continue, I never came here after Skyshifter, which as is public and she knows, I've always considered a good editor and helped several times with articles and what else (which is also why I felt confident to answer with a 😘 when she called me a dictator in another project, though it was obviously not the most appropriate way to answer it, and for which I apologize to Skyshifter). In this last row I wasn't even directly involved in her indefinite block in wiki.pt, despite being mentioned there. I didn't even touched the articles she created here on ] and ] or addressed she here in any way. I came here because of the DYK note, which, as said above, I thought was an exaggerated exposition for that case here on the English Misplaced Pages. As you extensively demonstrated here, it is not, and I defer to your appreciation. Despite that, after this whole situation I've not the least interest on interacting in any possible way with Skyshifter, with or without IBan. | |||
| ::::As you can see from the ] revision history, most of the descriptions of the relationship between Yagori and Somaliland were written by me. The sources are also what I found. You are the one editing without indicating the source. Most of the time for writing an article is spent researching sources. Those who edit with a source cannot compete with those who edit without a source in terms of editing speed. Do not describe without sources. ] (]) 13:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *And that's it. Hopefully you'll excuse my verbosity, specially in such a festive day, but I felt this last clarification was needed. I also present my apologies to all those who may have felt offended by an eventual appearance of cockiness or defiance which I inadvertently sometimes transmit in my speech. I'll return here if specifically asked to, otherwise I'll leave the debate for this community. Again, stay well, and have an happy new year. ] ] 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am neither pro-Somalia nor anti-Somaliland. ] is a Sool's town near the ], but the first edition was submitted by me and is presented as a town in Somaliland. I have also contributed Japanese articles on ] and ] to the Japanese Misplaced Pages as things in Somaliland. I am not in violation of the POV. | |||
| :::::The problems of this user are not only those listed above. At ], this user writes "", so when I pointed out this user's problem on the talk page, this user unilaterally ended the discussion and is still a problem they continues to edit. | |||
| :::::This user continues to make edits that do not indicate the source of the information. For example, as can be seen in the article in ], the sources listed in this article are all about Somalia or Puntland. However, the user has deleted Puntland from Country because of "." This user has no understanding of the basic principle that Correct is "information based on reliable sources" for Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :::::Even in the dialogue above, this user has not written an answer to indicate the date and time the consensus was made, or to explain why he changed the treatment of the two reliefweb.info sources. The user does not respond to any specifics. Is it possible to have a dialogue with such a user? ] (]) 11:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This user Freetrashbox ignored all sources in the mentioned article pages and only went by your own and even deleting and changing the wording of sources that i have added somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing overlooks this and reverts all sources and edits to your version.] (]) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{ping|Hawkers994}} Please answer the above question. | |||
| :::::::The point made by Hawkers994 relates to an addition on January 12, 2023: | |||
| :::::::{{bq|On the beginning of January 2023, the Minister of Interior for Somaliland Mohamed Kahin sat with the traditional elders and intellectuals of Las Anod today and discussed the present situation of the city where there have been protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod. }} | |||
| :::::::As we can see by comparing it with the source, this is almost a copy-paste of the source and is likely a copyright infringement. So I rewrote this as follows: | |||
| :::::::{{bq|Somaliland's Minister of Interior ] sat down with traditional elders and intellectuals from Las Anod to discuss the current situation in the city, where protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod are taking place.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Somaliland Minister of Interior and traditional elders held meeting over Las Anod tension |newspaper=somaliland.com |date=2023-01-11 |url=https://www.somaliland.com/news/somaliland/somaliland-minister-of-interior-and-traditional-elders-held-meeting-over-las-anod-tension/ |accessdate=2023-01-12 }}</ref>}} | |||
| :::::::I don't think my explanation changes Hawkers994's editorial intent, but what is the opinion of anyone other than Hawkers994? Does Hawkers994's addition not constitute copyright infringement on the English Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 22:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No source or dialogue seems to make this use Freetrashbox seem to understand that ] is based of facts and not how he wants articles to be perceived from his opinions. He had been told numerous times there is already a dispute article for this region with sources that articles are directed to and talk pages that somalia has no presence in this region.] (]) 10:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{ping|Hawkers994}} Are you satisfied as to why I rewrote your description about the topic in January 2023? Or do you still think my rewrite is unfair?] (]) 11:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposed Community Sanctions=== | |||
| Since the explanation has become lengthy and there are items added along the way, I will summarize them once and for all. | |||
| I offered DarwIn an off ramp above and their response was to reiterate their views on a highly controversial subject and their responses to concerns about their interactions with Skyshifter have been entirely unsatisfactory. This looks a like a pretty clear case of IDHT revolving around their strong disagreement with one of our guidelines. Frankly, I came very close to just blocking them after their response to my suggestion. This discussion has already dragged on long enough. For purposes of clarity, nobody is required to agree with all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. And yes, gender is a highly controversial subject. I have my own disagreements with parts of MOS:GENDERID. But as the old saying goes, themz the rules until they aint. Editors are free to disagree with community P&G, but are not free to ignore or flout them. It's time to settle this. | |||
| '''Proposed''' DarwIn is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to ] broadly construed and is subject to a one way IBan with user Skyshifter, also broadly construed. -] (]) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *This user deleted the same reliefweb.info information, leaving only what he liked. - ] violation. | |||
| *This user had a different editorial attitude between ], and ] & ]. - ] violation. | |||
| *This user says "use article talk page for disagreement" in ], but when the argument goes against him, he unilaterally ignores the argument and continues to edit. - ] violation. | |||
| *Almost copy-paste post from a news site. - ]. | |||
| --] (]) 03:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :As mentioned before user Freetrashbox ignores the sources in the mentioned article pages and even deleting wording of sources that i have added in these articles numerous times the sources make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet his disruptive editing ignores this and reverts all sources and edits to his opinion.] (]) 10:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Even if you feel that there was a problem with my edit, it is no reason for you to violate Misplaced Pages's rules. ] (]) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' -] (]) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This user's problematic behavior is still ongoing. This user replaced Somalia with Somaliland in ]. I also believe that El Afweyn is Somaliland territory, so I have no problem with that edit itself. However, the references cited at the beginning of this article all clearly state that El Afweyn is Somalia's area. If this is to be rewritten as Somaliland, it is common sense to at least provide a source that El Afweyn belongs to Somaliland. - ] violation. | |||
| *:I note that Darwin has agreed above to the IBan. -] (]) 18:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - He's already agreed to avoid that general topic area in future & Skyshifter. ''PS'' - If a t-ban is imposed? limit it to six-months. ] (]) 18:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Why should the community accept voluntary TBAN and IBAN which can easily be reneged on when we can impose it as a community sanction and ensure that any violation is actionable? '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban and IBAN''', both broadly construed - sorry GoodDay but I do not trust this user's words, and so we need a proper sanction. ]] 18:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Just read through the above and ''good grief''. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I said above I would support this proposal if it was brought forward, and I do. ] (]) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Why it should be a one-way iban? Skyshifter started this topic with the characterization of their opponent as "a known transphobic editor". A normal editor would be blocked just for writing this. I am not sure a iban is needed, but if it is needed it must be mutual. ] (]) 18:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This user got into an editing war with another user, and when another user committed a 3RR violation, he reverted it. The 3RR is a problematic action, but it is usually also a problematic action when the discussant reevrts it. And this Revert is also 3RR. - ] violation. | |||
| :::That's actually a fair point. -] (]) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent ] impulse. ] (]) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] You have been misjudging me - It was , actually, if it's worth anything. ] ] 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the ] area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. ] (]) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] OK, I didn't knew the child used those pronouns when she was 4 years old, I commit to use them here if I would ever talk about that issue again (which I definitely will not, anyway). ] ] 20:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If they weren't before they are now... ] (]) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, to be clear, I '''oppose''' a one-way IB. I do not find this argument convincing. ] (]) 19:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' this seems like a reasonable set of restrictions, I hope they can stick to it ] (]) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] I never edited in that topic here, as far as I can remember, not is it a primary interest I have, so it certainly will not be difficult to hold, even if it comes out to me as incredibly unbased and unfair. ] ] 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Your edits to DYK were within that topic area. ] (]) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] And those were the only ones, and I immediately after being reverted. How does that configure the kind of systematic behaviour that would justify a topic ban? I really apologize, but in this moment the way I see this is a kind of Salem witch hunt, with people accusing me of all kind of slurs and abominations, even when they are in directly opposition to . You seem to be punishing me for my opinions and the way I (supposedly) think about a very particular issue (if 4 years old have self determination or not), which comes out to me as really unfair and unworthy of a project like this. ] ] 20:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::How is that in direct opposition to your stance there? Your edit summary says "forgot that English has the neutral pronoun, which is useful in these cases. fixed." which suggests that it is in line with that stance ] (]) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] I'm sorry, I seem to have missed your point. What is wrong with correcting the gender to a neutral pronoun in such a situation? ] ] 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::This edit might help you get the point. At this point your conduct on this page is becoming a serious behavioral issue... you can't lie, sealion, obfuscate, and misdirect endlessly without consequences. ] (]) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::@] I can fix those too as I did yesterday, if you think it's important 🤷🏽♂️ ] ] 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::You are not supposed to edit comments after they have been responded to in that way. But by fix do you mean change to "she" or do you mean change to "they"? ] (]) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::@] Change to "she", following this wikipedia rules, certainly. So if I can't fix them, what do you propose instead to mend it? ] ] 20:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Given the sheer quantity of lies and obfuscations from you (the truth is apparently a last resort) the only fix I can see is a formal one, a topic ban and an interaction ban. Up above you so easily went from "I never edited in the topic area" to "those were the only ones" that I don't even think you understand that you were caught in a blatant lie. ] (]) 20:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::@] There was not any "lie", please stop ]. I thought you were referring to the main space only, which I believe is a fairly assumption to do, if the used word is "editing". ] ] 20:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::At best you're saying that you lack the competence on enwiki to adhere to any voluntary restrictions. This will be my last comment unless pinged by an editor other than you, my apologies that this has been an unpleasant process for you. ] (]) 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Darwin has a long history of editing in ] albeit generally less controversially. . ] (]) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::@] That's documented with the sources and all, and the proposition there was that the tupinambá was gay, not a woman. It's not even gender related. So you desperatly want something to justify a TB, bring it on. I'm fed up with what seems to be a circular and nonsense discussion on this board, where whatever I say is a lie and with bad intentions. I don't even edit here in the gender topic, but if it makes you happy, bring it on. ] ] 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::DarwIn ] covers gender ''and'' sexuality. You have been saying you aren't interested in the topic area. It appears to be one of your main areas of interest on en.wiki. ] (]) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::@] Thanks for clarifying that. Fact is that I don't edit much here. I've occasionally added or fixed some LGBT related stuff in the past when it crossed my main interest, History, but it certainly is not a primary interest, despite being LGBT myself. ] ] 20:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Bushranger. ] ] 20:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. As GoodDay noted, the problem appears to already be addressed. If the problem persists then go for a sanction. Look we let people argue their point here and it does seem like most of the support is because editors feel Darwin isn't contrite enough, not that they expect the issue to continue. Note that I'm not weighing in on any interaction bans. ] (]) 20:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' per Springee. This entire issue could have been dropped days ago when DarwIn acknowledged he would walk away, and instead seems to have been needlessly escalated again and again and again. ] ] 20:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Ping|Pppery}} days ago? I think you might have misread the time stamps. ] (]) 00:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' the TBAN; personally I'd have indeffed several outdents sooner, but here we are. No opinion on the IBAN. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Given what's happened, I think an enforceable topic ban is better than Darwin stepping away. IMO the BLP issues is far more concerning than gensex one so I'd support a BLP topic ban as well, but it seems likely a gensex one would be enough to stop Darwin feeling the continued need to express their opinions on a living person. Since Darwin is going to step away anyway and barely edits en, it should be a moot point and if it's not that's why it's enforceable. As for the iban, while I don't think Skyshifter should have described Darwin in that way when opening this thread, I think we can accept it as a one time mistake under the stress of apparently being followed and given questionable way Darwin ended up in a dispute here with someone they'd had problems with elsewhere I think a one-way iban is justified. ] (]) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? ] ] 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{replyto|DarwIn}} Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times ], ], ], ], ], ]. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. ] (]) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like ]. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here.] ] 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. ] (]) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. ] ] 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::], I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> | |||
| *:::::::{{Ping|Liz}} Thank you for the wise advice, I'll be doing that.] ] 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{reply|DarwIn}} you can think whatever you like about living persons. I have a lot of views on living persons which I would never, ever express on wiki for various reasons including BLP. Also you defence is bullshit. No one ever asked you to make accusations around living persons to defend your actions. And yes it is fairly normal that editors may be sanctioned if they feel they need to do such things about living persons on ANI as part of some silly argument or defence. I recall an editor who was temporarily blocked after they felt the need to say two very very famous extremely public figure living persons (and some non living) were sex predators to prove some point at ANI. And I'm fairly sure a lot of people have said and feel those people are sex predators including some Wikipedians I'd even probably agree in at least one case, they just understand it's not something they should be expressing here. ] (]) 23:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::For clarity, what I mean by my last sentence is that I'm sure quite a few people would agree with the statements. I'm sure such statements have been made elsewhere probably even in opinions printed in reliable sources (I think the editor did link to some such opinions). I'm sure even quite a few Wikipedians would agree that one or more of these people are sex predators, I think I'd even agree with it in at least one case. However most of us understand that our personal views of living persons, especially highly negatives views are generally not something to be expressed on wiki except when for some reason it's important enough to the discussion that it's reasonable to say it. When you keep saying something and in the same paragraph acknowledge the English wikipedia doesn't consider your opinion relevant, then it's clear there was no reason for you to say it. You're still free to believe it just as I'm still free to believe all those things about living persons that I would never express on wiki. ] (]) 06:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Support''' - Darwin's replies and conduct here indicates that he simply doesn't get it. | |||
| :]] 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Oppose''' - Per GoodDay and Springee. ] (]) 05:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' TBAN per Bushranger. Darwin has already agreed to the 1-way IBAN — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ])</small></span> 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Given the history at pt.wiki, I think this is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. There should be no interaction between the parties, which Darwin has agreed to.] (]) 14:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The agreed-upon IBAN takes care of the ongoing issue. While the edits related to the child were problematic, this doesn't appear to be case of significantly wider problems in this topic area, and the full scope of ] may very well be surprising to editors who don't do much in that area. I don't think there's been near enough here to no longer ]. ] (]) 15:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * <s>'''Support''' TBAN/IBAN</s> '''Weak support TBAN/Strong support IBAN''' - ] suggests that queerphobia is inherently disruptive. calling a queer activist a "troglodyte", the previous history of abuse on pt.wikipedia, and the current responses from Darwin indicate ] behavior. ] (]) 16:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::In addition, this user writed a on the talk page of the user who first committed the 3RR violation. For the first user who violated the 3RR, it would be difficult to understand why it is allowed and not allowed for his own actions, even though his discussion partner also violated the 3RR. - ] violation. | |||
| :: |
::This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.] (]) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. ] (]) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: This user Freetrashbox has completely ignored all the sources in these articles and only goes by his opnions, his disruptive editing and completing ignoring ] stating his opinions as facts. As the source clearly stated the town is in Somaliland he deleted it and wrote somalia which has no presence in this while regionn <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| :::: |
::::Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--] (]) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::::If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. ] (]) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Hawkers994}} You don't seem to have responded, can I assume that you agree with my comments above? ] (]) 00:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago , is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. ]] 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions and previous discussions which you have ignored ignoring ] stating your opinions is facts which is against Misplaced Pages rules, | |||
| ::::::::Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. ] (]) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. ]] 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::OK boomer. ] (]) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Well, you certainly put me in my place with that one. ]] 21:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I understand. Speaking up for the witch is a sign I too might be a witch. I'll try to be more careful in future.] (]) 20:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Misgendering BLPs is disruptive. A Johnny Cash related username is not. Suggest the IP ] - while we may disagree with Boynamedsue regarding their interpretation here they have done nothing wrong. ] (]) 21:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::No. It's stopping a disruptive editor from continuing to edit disruptively. ] (]) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}} NQP is an essay. Essentially it's an op-ed piece. It does not carry any force in the realm of ], and the views expressed there are controversial. (See the essay's talk page.). IMO words with some variation on "phobe/phobic" &c. are being routinely weaponized by people on one side of hot button cultural/political debates as part of an effort to demonize those on the other side of these debates. As such, I am inclined to view the use of such terms as a specie of WP:NPA. -] (]) 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::fair enough, i'll remove my vote for TBAN. | |||
| :::sidenote, I have no qualms with labeling a behavior as queerphobia. I don't think calling out discrimination or disruptive attitudes is inherently a vio of NPA. ] (]) 16:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::... I am indecisive.. I'll add weak support for TBAN, I still think the topic area should not have folks who are disruptive like this. ] (]) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Pervasively misgendering a child based on the belief that a child cannot express a desire to transition is a form of transphobic behavior. If it was a similar comment made about a BLP on the basis of religion or skin colour ''there would be no mention of WP:NPA''. Misplaced Pages is generally good about handling racism. It is a perpetual stain upon the reputation of Misplaced Pages that it's culture ''continues'' to worry more about the feelings of people who take transphobic actions than of the victims of the same. ] (]) 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Oppose''' as unnecessary given the commitments already given. ]] 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|1=Let's not. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC). <small>Edited to include edit conflict comment. ] (]) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}} | |||
| ::::I am assuming you haven't spent much time in places ] where religious belief and persons of faith are not infrequently and quite openly subject to ridicule. Racism is a subject upon which society has happily come to more or less full agreement. Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other. I shall refrain from further comment out of deference to WP:FORUM. -] (]) 21:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Fringe ideas get ridiculed at FTN regardless of whether or not they are religious... That so many fringe views are also religious is more a result of the supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual being inherently fringe than any problem with FTN. Religion which is rational and explainable isn't religion any more after all. ] (]) 21:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you for affirming my point. -] (]) 21:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Your point was that "Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other." Right? Like for example the ] or is that not the side you were thinking of? ] (]) 22:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No. I was thinking of people who regularly insult and ridicule religious belief and those who hold to it. Something which based on your comment, does not seem to be a source of concern to you. That said, this discussion is veering deep into WP:FORUM territory and I am going to move on. Have a good day. -] (]) 22:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't think I've ever seen any of those people suggest that trans people are demons, or did you mean demonize in a way other than literally saying that the other side is demonic/satan's minions? Becuase that would be highly ironic... ] (]) 22:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I am reaching the uncomfortable conclusion that you are attempting to be deliberately offensive. And for the record, you are succeeding. Good day. -] (]) 22:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::You weren't aware that a cornerstone of the gender controversy was religious conservatives resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other? Because that is well documented in reliable sources. I don't think you're the one who is supposed to be offended here, you're the one saying what appear to be extremely offensive things and are being asked to clarify what you meant. ] (]) 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{ec}} I think a significant point here is that while we may tolerate some degree of forumish and offensive comment about gender or race or religions from editors when they are restricted to largely abstract comment or even when they reference other editors, it's far more of a problem when the editors make offensive accusations about living persons especially when these are completely unrelated to any discussion about how to cover something (noting that the editor continued to make the comment even after they had noted how the English wikipedia treats issues). So for example, if someone says a specific religious figure is delusion or lying in relation to how we treat their testimony that might barely be acceptable. When someone just comes out and says it repeatedly for no reason, that's far more of a problem. Especially if the figure is someone barely notable and not notable (as was the case here for one of the individuals each). ] (]) 22:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| {{hat|1=This ''is'' affairs of other wikis. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *'''Comment''' This is definitely not the ideal place to discuss the subject since the whole problem originated with pt.wiki, but since the editor came here asking for help (for the right reasons or not), I will draw attention to the case of the admin accused of transphobia. This is not the first time that DarwIn has been singled out due to his comments on the subject (he has already given several examples of this here), but there is an where the editor has already been criticized for making such comments. There, they were also celebrating Skyshifter's ban (DarwIn commented something like "as a man he was 100%, after transitioning he became unbearable" to refer to her). As much as they try not to link the group to the project, to use this chat you need to associate your Misplaced Pages credentials, so I am concerned that pt.wiki admins could be seen spreading speeches against minorities in an official space of the project, since Misplaced Pages is the target of attacks for investing in equity and diversity. In addition to this comment, the admin was also extremely rude and crude towards a ]. | |||
| :Again, this is not the ideal place to comment on these issues, but I suggest that the case be submitted to Wikimedia if any intervention or something more incisive is necessary. The local community can accuse me of anything for writing these words, but I am concerned about the escalation of editorial harassment within that space. | |||
| :PS: The editor was mocking this discussion in the Telegram group while I was writing this. ] (]) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions and previous discussions which you have ignored ignoring ] stating your opinions is facts which is against Misplaced Pages rules, | |||
| ::Came back after a month with no edits for this? It's quite clear Jardel is taking something personal with DarwIn here. Or he doesn't have anything to do at the moment. And he didn't have such great writing and narrative in his mother tongue, now is writing perfect, well written English. That gets stranger considering he's partially blocked in ptwiki for some beefing with other editors (] in portuguese)... Quite strange, to say the least. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::And yes, by "quite strange" I am talking about maybe ]. Nobody comes after a month without edits (that was preeceded by some other months before some 5-ish edits), to make an "accusation" based on unfounded arguments, especially after being blocked precisely for beefing and attacking other members of the community in his homewiki. Such a hypocrisy, a user banned for beefing accusating another user of attacks and using the word "transphobia" so vaguely. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I expected, the group participants started making accusations against me (that's why Eduardo G. appeared in this discussion) and wanted to insinuate that Skyshifter is writing this text, perhaps wanting to provoke some kind of retaliation later. First, I appreciate the compliments on my writing, which was 100% done by Google Translate; I think Google's engineering is to be congratulated. Second, I'm only here on this page because I noticed the links to this discussion in the Telegram group itself and decided to contribute with what I've been reading for a long time with great disgust. I didn't need to bring much, Darwin himself made a point of making abject comments in this discussion, but if you want, I can bring some screenshots of what they were talking about in the group. Third, I did go 1 month without editing here because my focus is not on en.wiki but on pt.wiki, where I make regular edits. I find it strange that you entered this discussion without refuting any of the arguments above, thinking that bringing up my tarnished "reputation" changes everything that was written by me or in the group. I believe it must be embarrassing to participate in a group where they are celebrating the sanctions that Skyshifter will suffer (thinking that place is a "private club") while at the same time you from the "public side" to the same editor, simulating virtue. In any case, my goal here is only to reinforce that there is indeed materiality in what Skyshifter said with more evidence and once again I recommend that the discussion be evaluated by the Wikimedia team knowing that attitudes that demonstrate prejudice against minorities go against the project's investments in equity, diversity and equality. ] (]) 03:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I will not pursue any retaliation. I'm just stating what I know of this case, and I even supported Sky when the edits were being made. People are celebrating because all of this discussion was brought to even another wiki by her. But I understand you might've written this text, and will not take the subject further. If anybody needs anything, please read the message below. Cheers. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So, I don't disagree with your argument about the sanctions she's passing on the other project, unfortunately. As for "not pursue any retaliation", I don't think that's what you mean by the phrase "4 successful DBs in a row is not for everyone." directed at me. ] (]) 04:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] You're wrong, twice. First, it wasn't me saying that. It was NCC-1701, and my user in TG is Edu. And at no point did I agree with NCC's messages. And secondly, the "four DBs in a row" wasn't in anyway directed at you. It was directed to Bageense, who opened 4 block discussions in the last 2 or 3 days and all of them were successfull. You are distorting the messages to condone your erroneous narrative. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 04:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well, if I am "distorting messages" to "tolerate" my narrative, anyone who wants to evaluate can join the group and read the messages posted there or see the pt.wiki discussion against the Projeto Mais Teoria da História na Wiki and talk to its ] to see what their opinion is on the matter. I may not be a perfect person, but what I see with great displeasure (coming from those who are "in charge of the gears") is not positive for the project. ] (]) 04:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Joining the group the community would then have no doubts about your intents and distortion of facts. You didn't deny the two things I said above — you know I'm right, you can't bend the facts this much. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 04:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''As a ptwiki user''' that know what's happening but talked to both sides of the discussion throughout it: This whole discussion started as a beef between Skyshifter and DarwIn. Skyshifter didn't accept some changes DarwIn made to an article "of her" (quotes because articles doesn't have owners. I respect her pronouns), and when discussing with DarwIn, called the whole Portuguese Misplaced Pages project a sewage ()/], thus being banned and the ban being endorsed on the ] <small>(in portuguese)</small>. The discussion was based on the references for the article, was solved in the ptwiki with an outburst from Sky, and that was it. | |||
| ::::::you have ignored all sources and have chosen to only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in these regions and previous discussions which you have ignored ignoring ] stating your opinions is facts which is against Misplaced Pages rules, <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| This whole problem was brought here for a single reason only: Beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. A single change or a single opinion on a DYK shouldn't be reason for a TB or IBAN anywhere in the world, especially considering that it was a difference interpreting the references. I know that my statement won't change anything, as there is an apparent "consensus" on TBanning and IBANning him, though I wanted to make things clear for everyone. | |||
| :::::::{{ping|Hawkers994}} Does your comment above mean that you do not intend to discuss this further? ] (]) 01:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::ignoring sources and stating your personal opinions after several discussions you have chosen not to discuss but to enforce your own views] (]) 01:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{u|Hawkers994}}, stop using ] as an edit summary unless it's actual vandalism. As you can see from the link it has specific meaning here and the most recent two in your edit history, do not appear to meet it. Better to ] when reverting and explain why. ] (]) 02:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{u|Slywriter}} that user in multiple times removes information with no edit summary or for no other reason or discussion <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| I am totally open for questioning regarding any of my statements above, and I will supply you with any proof I have and you need. Just ping me here and if the inquiry/proofs are extremely important, please leave me a message on my ] (). It can be in English, just for me to see you need me here. Cheers. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} the . I can understand his sentiment in deleting my description, but he should not delete the edits of an unrelated person. This implies that he is editing without much content review. ] (]) 10:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :This user ] has once again after many explanations and discussions keeps adding somalia with has no presence or authority in these regions in the info boxes even though there is a specific dispute article which highlights this he needs to understand that his opinions are not facts] (]) 12:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Hawkers994}} It would be more constructive to refute my explanation above. ] (]) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::This user is saying as if he is writing an article based on "presence (of country)", but I find it hard to believe. For example, the town of ], which he mentions immediately above, is the town that Somaliland acquired in 2022, as noted in the current article. By his logic, that would mean that prior to 2022, it was not Somaliland. However, this user rewrote the town's country of ownership from Somalia to Somaliland prior to 2022. In other words, he does not believe that "the country that occupies a town is the owner of that town." In his mind, he had concluded earlier that this town is a Somaliland territory, and he is just bringing logic to it. ] (]) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::numerous times the sources on the article pages make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing ignores this and you reverts all sources and edit according to your opinion.] (]) 22:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Hawkers994}} The article ] had 3,442 bytes in July 2021 before I started posting. All that was written was the location with neighboring districts and the economic relationship with neighboring cities where there were no sources of information. I have added over 9000 bytes to this article. When we read the current article, we will see how this small town has dealt with its larger counterparts in Somaliland and Puntland. In short, I wrote most of this article. I am also the one who searched for sources of information. What exactly are you trying to say to me that I am ignoring the source? In contrast, what contribution have you made to the article in this town? You have not written any article at all not only about this town but also Somaliland. You are just replacing the word Somalia with Somaliland. That Somaliland is a superior country is evidenced by the fact that the Puntland and Federal Republic of Somalia governments have adopted the system conceived by the country's leaders. If you want to tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland, I think you should tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland as it is in your articles, instead of doing nonsense like replacing one word with another. If you are not capable of doing so, then you should not be adding to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Your false claim that I have not added any articles to Misplaced Pages is untrue, and many other contributions you chose to ignore in your emotional rant were created by myself, similar to how you choose to ignore the sources on article pages. As for the boame article the sources show that it’s under Somaliland government control and cannot be ignored and that info boxes should show that. As explained before there is already a dispute article which highlights this which are linked to these articles.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| JardelW is a user who was banned from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages due to his detestable behavior. This individual used the same Telegram group that he is now criticizing. The editor was banned from this group due to his behavior, in which he called respected users of the community . And DarwIn is one of the administrators of the group where he is banned, so you can already imagine why he is here. Now, once again he is trying to destabilize the community by defending an editor who called the entire project a sewer and made unproven accusations against an administrator. At this point, the account is practically banned and the article that caused the discord has its deletion or merge defended by several editors. By coming here, JardelW and Skyshifter are, in a way, stating that the entire community is prejudiced. Yet another offense enters the list as proof of Jardel's destabilizing behavior. Furthermore, this user to carry out the same destabilization by contesting on meta the banning of IPs, a consensual decision among hundreds of editors. And when he was still blocked, in an attempt to intervene in the Misplaced Pages domain, where he is banned, simply because he did not agree with the deletion of an article. And this without presenting any evidence. It is clear that Jardel's objective here is to take revenge on the community, and he will be punished for it. ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| '''Comment''' Both users, Hawkers994 and Freetrashbox seem to be locked in de facto edit wars on pages I have reviewed. Even if they do appear to avoid 3RR. In general, the wall of text and back-and-forth arguing makes this difficult to follow. | |||
| :It is pretty clear thay the intents of Jardel here are disruptive. Your comment hopefully leaves no doubt to the community. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 04:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hawkers994 is editing in a strongly partisan fashion on pages like ] as an example. ] (]) 20:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :As I said above, I am not a perfect person. I may have used foul language to address some editors in a moment of anger, but I felt vulnerable and hurt by editors I held in high regard, and I apologize for what I wrote in the past. Likewise, I do not think it is right that a social channel that is reported as "linked to Misplaced Pages" is being used as a bar where people can say whatever they want, especially when it comes to prejudiced comments against minorities. At no time did I label all of them, only one of them demonstrated that she was doing so. If I happen to receive any sanction for this discussion, and knowing that bringing issues from pt.wiki here is not ideal, I will receive it for doing the right thing, because I want something to change for the better in a project that I have dedicated so much time to contributing to. I may be prevented from editing on Misplaced Pages, but if what I bring here helps to change something, I will be happy. ] (]) 05:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Your third edit? You should comment with your main account. ], ], ] 22:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ::Thanks CambridgeBayWeather, this is my main account however. ] (]) 22:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :] - this is your second edit ever, and your account was just created today - how did you get to this ANI post? ] ] 05:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Clearly not. You don't get to pretend to be new and file an ANI complaint with your third edit. Blocked. ] | ] 22:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I saw a discussion in the group and created the account to not appear as an IP. ] (]) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] This is not respectful to IP editors who want to make an account. Why would IP editors want to register an account if they could not use their new account just like people with Misplaced Pages accounts who have been here the same amount of time as them? <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: midnightblue; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 16:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] The objective of the channel is to be a more relaxed place. And it's not official, . Angry moment? Are you sorry? After your block, you attacked editors on a social network, as attested by a CheckUser: . And there are no prejudiced comments. That's a lie. Where are the links? And how much time have you devoted to the project when all you do is attack others? Enough of this nonsense. I ask that an administrator evaluate the conduct of this account. ] (]) 05:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't realize the discussion was closed. Sorry. ] (]) 05:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Supporting both IBAN and TBAN'''. Someone who actively believes in misgendering should not be allowed into this area when they have already demonstrably made another editor uncomfortable. The snarky reply to GiantSnowman does not convince me they would respond well if another editor brought up a similar concern in the future.--] ] 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Can't we give this child and her mother some privacy? What is it about gender issues, as opposed to other medical or developmental issues, that seems to give everyone a right to comment? Let's just report what reliable sources say and leave it at that. ] (]) 18:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.] (]) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. ] (]) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.] (]) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::talkpages def are covered by BLP as per the policy page.and the policy gives wide latitude about what the subject may have redacted if they object to info, even if they had previously or somehow otherwise placed that info in public domain. | |||
| :::::concerns about privacy have to weigh against dueness but arguing the book gives dueness to try to be internet sleuths and discover and identify a child is probs not gonna pass the smell test.] (]) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Misplaced Pages, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.] (]) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. ] (]) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Children cannot consent, their parents can. ] ]<sup>]</sup> 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I would totally agree, but that is irrelevant here, nothing Darwin did was related to revealing the child's identity. He criticised the mother in strong terms on talkpages and this is what the BLP argument comes down to.--] (]) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? ] (]) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--] (]) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Ask yourself whether Misplaced Pages would even entertain this discourse if the identity was anything other than a trans one. The answer is a flat no. Darwin's interpretation of the mother's interpretation of her daughter's identity is inappropriate for the project, is disruptive and is openly antagonistic toward trans editors. I think nothing more can be gained from endlessly debating whether we should pretend there is a carve-out to BLP requirements for children within oppressed minorities. ] (]) 17:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''', no comment on IBAN. . ] ]<sup>]</sup> 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Editors in this topic area can and often do disagree on the underlying issues, which often helpfully ensures that all such material on Misplaced Pages follows our policies and guidelines. However, the responses to Ad Orientem's request and various replies above shows that the proposed remedies would be appropriate given the BLP issues in play here.-- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose any sanctions''' I’m sorry if I’m interfering in something I’m not involved with, but I’ve been watching this discussion and I think it’s needlessly toxic. What I’m seeing is a misunderstanding of some inappropriate ] on a hot-button issue sparking a dispute that turned into “DarwIn is a transphobic bully” which I don’t think is true. I think the two main parties should simply avoid each other voluntarily and the situation will quickly de-escalate. ] (]) 05:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''', indifferent to IBAN. Having followed this topic for a few days, it's convinced me that a topic ban for both GENSEX and BLP is entirely appropriate in this instance. My initial scepticism passed after reading responses from the editor and realising that the understanding of BLP policy appears to be even more incomplete than I originally thought. The deceleration from the editor to avoid such topics voluntarily is irrelevant, as combined with the lack of understanding over the concept of broadly construed, commitments have already been made and broken within this discussion alone. So respectfully, I believe this ] type editing, whether it is attempting to ] or simply ] discussions, is nonetheless disruptive and uncivil at times. ] (]) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Dronebogus. I'd say "we're better than this" if I believed it. ] (]) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' ''Skyshifter'', if anything, is harassing Darwin in this instance. Darwin has agreed to an IBAN, never mind that he's expressed desires to descelate what has become the longest thread on AN or ANI as of writing. ''']]''' 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' This is a pretty explicit case of POV harassment. Their replies to the topic likewise do not give me faith they will adhere to a self imposed limitation. Darwin claimed to have agreed to step away before the ANI was created, but the edit history shows that Darwin continued editing the page up until an hour before Skyshifter created the ANI. Thus, there should be an actionable sanction. I fail to understand how it is Skyshifter doing the harassment at all as Cubby suggests. Darwin even called skyshifter a troglydite () to boot. ] (]) 15:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh my fucking god. This whole thread is nuts. I wish I could pardon my french but this is CRAZY. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Never in a million years would’ve I expected myself to be responding to a thread like this but I mean here I am. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Although Skywing’s concerns of harassment are valid especially if he’s being tracked across Misplaced Pages’s website, as far as I know, there are no guidelines that state someone can be punished for actions on another Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :'''I support''' the notion of Darwin being topic banned from gender related articles (especially trans ones), for the simple fact that his conflict of interest with transphobia has clearly caused a disruption to the Misplaced Pages community. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :'''I oppose''' with the IP-ban because if anything this '''SHOULD’VE''' ended a week ago when Darwin voluntarily said he would not edit those pages as well as avoid any interaction with Skywing. | |||
| :<br> ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. ] (]) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I understand, I meant that. Apologies. I misunderstood what it stood for. I would prefer if the IBAN was two way instead of one-way. Seems hardly fair in my honest opinion when both I suppose are equally responsible and to share the blame. This is a messy situation so putting the blame on one when both are equally responsible seems hardly fair. But that's my two cents. | |||
| :::NOTE: I don't condone homophobia or queerphobia or whatever the term is (I'm not really informed enough in this situation to know what Misplaced Pages calls it so I'm adding both just in case) so please don't take it as me defending either side as that is NOT my intent. | |||
| :::Cheers, <br> ] (]) 01:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This reply reminded me of the essay ]. ] (]) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Lol. It is accurate. That literally is what it is I suppose lol. ] (]) 01:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any sanctions against Darwin per Dronebogus. I wish we were better than this, but like TBUA, I don't actually believe that we are. ] (]) 20:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both TBAN and IBAN. Their behaviour at DYK might have been mitigated if they had taken responsibility here instead of doubling down. A TBAN and IBAN will reduce disruption. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at ] accusing me of coming to their talk page to "{{tq|further troll me with this nonsense warning}}". '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both. I'm baffled that some people above are saying "well, they agreed to stop voluntarily" - did they not read the massive post Darwin made above? It amounts to an extended "I'm sorry that you were offended." Trusting that someone will avoid the same mistakes in the future on their own requires that they understand and admit to those mistakes, which is obviously not the case here; how can we trust that an editor will abide by a self-imposed restriction when they won't even meaningfully acknowledge the errors that made that restriction necessary? Therefore, sanctions are necessary. --] (]) 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both. To make sure I haven't lost my goddamn mind, I read this discussion '''''twice'''''. I personally believe Darwin is in the wrong here. His behavior on enwiki violates both GENSEX and BLP sanctions (), and he doubled down when he had the chance to defend himself (] and comments above). Even if we play devil's advocate and assume Darwin's claims about Sky being a troll/vandal and sockmaster (which is a heavy accusation to make) on ptwiki are true, her work on enwiki has shown that she's changed for the better. This is coming from a person who has interacted with Sky a couple of times (], ], ]); she is an amazing editor on here. For the sake of everyone involved and to avoid another mess like this, the sanctions above should be enforced. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 08:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - the doubling (and tripling) down that this user engaged in above has convinced me that Misplaced Pages would be better off if {{they|DarwIn}} did not engage in the relevant topic areas. ] <small>(he/him · ] · ])</small> 17:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both IBAN and TBAN. With all due respect to Dronebogus, there is no way this can be chalked up as just an OR misunderstanding when Darwin has gone out of his way to repeately misgender the individual in question while throwing personal attacks at Sky. Regardless of any issue at another wiki, the behavior ''here'' is unacceptable per our rules and guidelines. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support TBAN and IBAN''': Really blatant transphobia. In case it gets lost in the weeds, Darwin's original comment sparking this whole thing was not just blatantly offensive but full of bullshit: {{tq|'''According to the sources in the article''', after forcing the child she and her husband wanted to have as a boy to "behave like a boy" for 4 years, forcing him to play with cars, football and Marvel heros and even listen to heavy metal at 2-3 years old, and chasticizing him for liking "girl stuff" and throwing away all his "girl like" toys, until the poor child was proposing to die and reborn as a girl so he could play with that stuff, this openly conservative women finally gave up imposing such "boy stuff" on him and at 4 years old decided he was a girl instead, thrusting that identity on the child since then and eventually forming that NGO to "spread the word". I don't know this section very well, so maybe such troglodyte and incredibly prejudiced display of behaviour is something so bizarre it would be worth to have here, but I have to disagree.}} | |||
| ** 1) {{tq|the poor child was proposing to die and reborn as a girl so could play with that stuff}} - no source ever said this kid said that "so she could play with that stuff". The sources just say she persistently wished she'd been born a girl and said as much repeatedly. Darwin's offensive speculation as to why is not supported by any sources. Here's a quote from her mother about this nonsense: {{tq|A boy who likes to play doll is not a trans girl. But a boy who besides liking to play doll, has desire to be the doll, be a girl, dress and have the look of the doll, then we are talking about a child who may have a gender issue.}} | |||
| ** No source in the article says her mom "decided was a girl, thrusting that identity on the child since then" - On her 4th birthday, she told her {{tq|My love, from today you wear whatever clothes you want, play with whatever you want and can '''be whoever you want'''}} - the mom said she'd stop pressuring her daughter to be a boy and that she could be who she wanted, and her daughter decided. | |||
| ** She is now 9 years old, almost 10, and happily trans. So, this is not even a case of insisting a 4-yr old can't tell they're trans, it's insisting that, after 5 years of being happily herself, it must have been forced on her. | |||
| : The only {{tq|troglodyte and incredibly prejudiced display of behaviour}} is expending this much energy attacking a fucking 9 year old and claiming her mother made her trans. I'm ashamed that PT wikipedia allowed him to do this there, and sanctioned Skyshifter for calling him on such blatant transphobia. We should have no tolerance for this bullshit whatsoever. ] (]) 22:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given that this involves cross-wiki behaviour, does anyone know if this is something which is actionable in the universal code of conduct? '']''<sup>]</sup> 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' formal TBAN, indifferent to IBAN ] (]) 21:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both TBAN and IBAN. ]. ] (]) 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I see no evidence that any sanctions are necessary to stop disruption; indeed to the extent DarwIn was disruptive (and I am not convinced they were the problematic party), they have stopped, out of what appears to me to be a genuine understanding of how to avoid the locus of disruption. --] (]) 23:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I read through this entire epic saga and left with the impression that they didn't really seem to get that the BLP and MOS issues aren't something they can just shrug their shoulders at. --] (]) 12:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === ] taking matters from another Misplaced Pages to seek revenge. === | |||
| {{ping|Hawkers994}} Okay, perhaps it was an exaggeration to say that you did not contribute at all in the Somaliland article. However, I checked your entire contribution history and found that, with the exception of the revert, you added more than 1,000 bytes only to the you listed immediately above. No doubt you have contributed little to Misplaced Pages. Also, as you can see from my explanation above, I am not talking about whether Bo'ame is in Somalia or Somaliland. Are you trying to deflect the conversation? I'm just asking you to write without arbitrarily choosing the sources. ] (]) 22:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|1=100% affairs of other wikis. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| : Once again you’re trying to change to the subject when i have debunked your lies, info boxes on these mentioned articles will relate to the sources and changing the subject to a users contributions will not change the fact that these articles have previously been edited and also changed by many other previous uses. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| {{atop|result=This entire subsection is about Eduardo Gottert casting aspersions on Skyshifter and providing no diffs or evidence of this "revenge" except for statements about what is going on on another language Misplaced Pages which have no bearing on what occurs here. I'm closing this now before this ]s on to Eduardo Gottert and editors start proposing a block for personal attacks. Baseless counter attacks are generally dismissed at the English Misplaced Pages ANI. Please do not reopen this section. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| On the 29th of December, ] started an AN/I based on a claim that ], a sysop at ptwiki, was cross-wiki harrassing her. To make up those claims, she used as a single proof, of him editing on a DYK nomination . AFAIK, DYK nominations are open for debate. | |||
| She accused him of transphobia, a very harsh word, over some 5 edits on the same page, and all the other arguments in her accusation were from the ptwiki with absolutely no relation to the English Misplaced Pages, and she tried to "force" that it was a cross-wiki harrassment, when it wasn't. The sole reason for that AN/I is a beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. | |||
| ::{{ping|Hawkers994}} If you are saying that I told lies, please show the edited difference. The garoweonline article you showed exactly reveals that Somaliland has effective control over Tukaraq, however Puntland is objecting to it. I wrote about it in the article ]. But you removed it. Can you explain the reasons for your edits? ] (]) 11:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : As the source states there is no somalia presence this region, why did you ignore the source and change the info box when there is already a dispute article as previously mentioned. You also changed the source of the article to confuse readers which i had to change back again. states that opinions and not facts so you cannot just change them to your own accord. | |||
| But all of this happened only, and just because of her banishment for the portuguese wiki. She is the cross-wiki harrasser in this situation, as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log. | |||
| Administrators and others: The conversation is going in circles. First, please give me your opinion on whether the copy-paste edit ("On the beginning of...") that Hawkers994 mentions immediately above is a violation of Misplaced Pages's rules or not. If this is not a violation of Misplaced Pages's rules, please your opinion on whether my rewrite ("Somaliland's Minister of Interior..."(the same link)) constitutes a violation of Misplaced Pages's rules. ] (]) 21:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : You lied about me of not adding adding any articles to wikipedia then when i debunked your lies you said “Maybe its an exaggeration” and when confronted your changed the topic to Individual user contributions while trying to confuse users that info boxes should relate to sources. It seems you are the one going around in circles.] (]) 23:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Then, I will talk about this one first. I have reviewed your history for the past 500 edits or so (about 2 years) and concluded that "''You have not written any article at all not only about this town but also Somaliland''." But you had an edit in the past that was over 1000 bytes. You made the edit 5 years ago and it is only 1 of your 900 previous edits. Given this situation, can we say that I told a lie? ] (]) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Both of you need to quit making contested edits for a minute and read ] ] (]) 03:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that I was not cool with the editorial with Hawkers994. For this reason, I have now stopped editing the article disputed with him regarding the nationality of the town. I have called for dialogue with him on ], ], ], ], ], and ], but he has not responded. Currently, these articles are written to his liking (except for the articles that have been further edited by another person). Dialogue is effective only when the other party responds, and is meaningless if the other party does not respond. I think just editing without responding to dialogue is a sufficient violation of Misplaced Pages's rules. ] (]) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, that's a step forward. Now, isn't ownership of these areas part of the ]? If so, the articles should just say that, instead of the two of you trying to fight the war on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I’ve mentioned that there is a dispute article many times on here for this region which these towns come under, yet this user ignored this as well as the sources which show control of these towns. Its pretty straight forward that info boxes should relate to that. User Freetrashbox does not need to change and deflect the topic.] (]) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Haven't you also pursued a campaign of assigning ownership of disputed territory to just one side? ] (]) 16:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: No, i mentioned that there is a dispute article for all these pages, and that the info boxes should relate to the sources that show control of the towns and are present on the ground since all these articles already mention that its disputed.] (]) 11:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::# Please ]. | |||
| :::::::# If I'm reading the diffs right, Freetrashbox wants to claim things for Puntland, and Hawkers994 wants to claim things for Somaliland. You both recognize that there is a dispute when it comes to adding claims, but you both have also removed claims. | |||
| :::::::Add sourced claims, removed unsourced claims, and quit being partisans for a side. ] (]) 13:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What I would like to say to Hawkers994 is to write based on sources, and don't erase it just because it is a bad source for him. Hawkers994 also claims that "the town is Somaliland because it is under the control of Somaliland", therefore, I have given examples where Hawkers994 edited that it is Somaliland even though it is not under Somaliland's control. I am not claiming that these towns are Somalia (or Puntland); I am pointing out that Hawkers994's editorial stance is wrong as an earlier matter. ] (]) 11:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: What i would tell Freetrashbox is to let the sources speak for these articles and infoboxes, as these articles already mention them being disputed in the article info section and the local governments that run these towns. Your editing attitude should also be straight forward without being indirect about users editing contributions.] (]) 09:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Hawkers994}} I think such a topic could be resolved on the article's talk page (of cource when you join the discussion.) However, your attitude of editing without sources, deleting sources you don't like, and your double standard by the article is unacceptable to me. ] (]) 00:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: You have made multiple violations including ] on these articles as well as lying about user’s contributions as your previous replies show. Choosing and ignoring sources to your liking and stating your opinion as fact goes against wikipedia rules] (]) 09:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I always explain with evidence, your opinion is always just some impressions... I don't need to tell you which is more contrary to ], describing one or both in a description of where there is a disputed. ] (]) 12:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Could you please provide some comments on whether Hawkers994's behavior is problematic, or totally acceptable, or problematic but within acceptable limits? ] (]) 12:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| This is all for revenge of some articles that are being debated and will be either deleted or merged with other articles, and especially over her permanent block on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, after calling the whole platform a sewage ( and in ]), ] over other users and using ] and ] to revert back the articles (one of her meats is currently being blocked from ptwiki too, see it ], with all the proofs). The ] taking place at the moment has 10 administrator votes in favour of the block, and absolutely no contrary opinion whatsoever. | |||
| :This user Freetrashbox avoiding sources and deletion of articles must be stopped, he has been warned many times in talk pages and doesn’t seem to care of the consequences. Misplaced Pages is not a place were you can do as you wish. His earlier replies indicate his behaviour wont change will be continue to ruin sourced articles ] (]) 13:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Despite some not-so-good arguments from DarwIn in the AN/I above, it is more than clear that the reason for the opening of the said AN/I was '''personal''' and for '''revenge'''. I'm open to any questions regarding this topic, as there is plenty of evidence to sustain my claims. All of this that she's doing would clearly fall under ], here called ] I think, and ]/], and in the AN/I above she's commiting ], repeating the eye-catching word "transphobia" over and over, without sustaining her argument accordingly, seeking to block a sysop at other 3 projects and rollbacker here, with the sole objective of tarnishing his block log, just for revenge and self-fullfillment. | |||
| I would appreciate any comments as to whether I am correct, Hawkers994 is correct, or both I and Hawkers994 are wrong... ] (]) 13:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{reftalk}} | |||
| <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Af420 == | |||
| :{{replyto|Eduardo_Gottert}} You need to provide evidence when opening an ANI thread, not on request. ] (]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Af420}} | |||
| ::'@] The evidences are above. I said if you need any '''further''' evidence, you may ask. All of the necessary evidence are on the request. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Where's the evidence? What we know is that DarwIn came here despite little involvement and made a highly offensive statement that can reasonably be characterised as transphobic. While I don't feel Sky Shifter should have described it so, better to let others decide, it was entirely reasonable for Sky Shifter to call for action against DarwIn for it. What is your evidence that they did it for revenge instead of for the fact that after a disagreement with DarwIn in a different wiki, DarwIn suddenly appeared in this wiki, one they themselves agree they barely edit, to make a highly offensive statement that Sky Shifter reasonably felt was transphobic. After doing so, they then appeared on ANI to make similar highly offensive statements were they made offensive accusations against living based on their own opinion. ] (]) 06:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Honestly, the argument is pretty clear above. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you agree you're wrong then please withdraw this ANI. ] (]) 06:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I did not agree in any place that I am wrong. I just stated that the evidence is pretty clear above, with all the block discussions and diffs needed for understanding the problem. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Your statement was very unclear. You said "the argument" which I interpreted to mean my argument. If you're still claiming your argument is clear, then please explain how it can be when part of your argument is it was unfair for Sky Shifter to go around saying "transphobia" when many of us agree that even if it was unnecessary, it was not unsupported given the comments DarwIn was making do seem to be transphobic. ] (]) 06:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::As we were talking about my evidence, I think saying "the argument" clearly refer to me. And as to the reason for the opening of this ANI, it's because the revenge seeking of Skyshifter. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I wouldn't say it doesn't considering as I said, one of the reasons your argument was flawed, but you didn't address that in any way. Nothing you've said above or since has explained why you're claiming Sky Shifter using the word "transphobic" is evidence for "revenge" when it's a reasonable characterisation of what DarwIn said. ] (]) 06:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{ec}} I would add it's very unclear what you thinking you're adding that wasn't already considered above. In the above thread a 1 way iban on DarwIn seems to be getting serious consideration. A two way iban seems to have been rejected based on the assessment that whatever the wrongs with Sky Shifter's approach, it wasn't serious enough to warrant an iban. The fact that Sky Shifter was in a dispute with DarwIn on other wikis, and DarwIn was involved in their blocked is likewise not a secret, part of it was stated by Sky Shifter when opening the thread and the rest was stated by DarwIn. The sock allegation likewise. So what do you think you're adding to the discussion that wasn't already considered and seemingly rejected by the community above? ] (]) 06:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It is time for a ]. You already said all of that above. You seem to have been canvassed here from a discussion outside of this wiki. Go back there and let them know cross wiki harassment will get you blocked here. ] (]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I added more evidence and context. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You simply cast aspersions as part of a cross wiki harassment campaign against someone over transgender related issues. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 06:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your statement doesn't even make sense. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We can add ] to the reasons you are blocked then. ] (]) 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Am I? And where am I in violation of ]? <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I used plain English and you said you couldn't comprehend it. ] (]) 06:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I thought it was pretty well determined in that prior ANI thread that DarwIn's edits and statements absolutely were transphobic and bigoted. ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| At ], Af420 initially made several attempts to remove Rumi's birth place being the present-day Tajikistan city of ], which is cited by ] (one of them being by the ]), replacing it with ], conveniently a city related to his country of origin (Afghanistan). After being warned of getting reported, he stopped removing sourced info, but still went ahead and added Balkh , cited by random, non-academic sources such as rumibalkhi.com | |||
| ::The reason for the AN/I opens is still the same, revenge. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I've read many of the posts on the Portuguese wiki, and it is pretty clear that the Skyshifter's complaint above is a deliberate expansion of drama from there. The Portugese wiki is not Uganda, people do not get banned there for being Trans, and former admins don't get banned without causing a lot of disruption. It is clear these two users really strongly dislike each other and need to stop interacting in any way.--] (]) 06:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:People obviously doesn't get banned for being trans. She was sysop there, commited some errors, but stayed there even after 5 months of being on estrogen. And the community knew it. What caused her block there was calling the project a sewage and then outbreaking and attacking other users. I suggest they get a two-way IBAN, at least, not the one-way as proposed on the other AN/I. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 07:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I would add that unless I'm missing something, the block discussion on the Portugese Misplaced Pages seems to have been started about 30 minutes before the ANI thread . It has no contributions by DarwIn . It is theoretically possible I guess it somehow factored into the motivation of Skyshifter opening the ANI thread, but this seems extremely unlikely. There's a good chance Skyshifter wasn't even aware of it when opening the thread. In other words, there's no reason to think Skyshifter was even aware they were likely going to be permanently blocked from pt at the time of opening the thread although they did say they weren't going to return. ] (]) 07:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Despite that, during all this time he so richly kept making ]/] to me; | |||
| ::She opened an NI, ptwiki equivalent of AN/I against DarwIn with crazy arguments. You can see it ]. It was prompty closed, and she was very well aware of the consequences she would face, and of the opening of the block discussion, and clearly opened the AN/I because of that reason. The block discussion started at 1130 UTC, and the AN/I was posted at 1300, at a time that Skyshifter had already taken notice of the discussion, as you can see . <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 07:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *This is ''very blatantly'' a tit-for-tat. As mentioned above there is the distinct smell of fishiness about it, and {{tqq|as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log}} - yes, the editor who has ''three FAs'' on en.wiki "came to this project" to do this. Suggest this be promptly closed as I hear a ] inbound. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * (this was very their very first comment towards me) | |||
| *:I am not saying she isn't an avid used of English wiki. I just stated that she took ptwiki matters here for revenge and self-fullfillment. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 07:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::If you aren't asking for any sanctions against Skyshifter, then why did you open this sub-section, just to sling some mud at her? Give it a rest already, you're just creating more drama than is necessary.]] 08:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think that the background of this dispute is very relevant. Obviously, neither Skyshifter or Darwin should face any repercussions here for behaviour on pt.wiki, but it isn't possible to understand what is happening here without discussing what happened there. For me, having read what happened over there is the main reason I wouldn't yet TBAN Darwin, and would call for a two-way rather than one way interaction ban.--] (]) 08:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ==Incivility and ABF in contentious topics== | |||
| * | |||
| ]'s uncivil comments and assuming bad faith on multiple contentious talk pages is not necessarily egregious but I suppose it ''is'' problematic and chronic, consistent and ongoing. I would appreciate some assistance. Here are some diffs from the past few days: | |||
| * | |||
| Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills. | |||
| After being unable to demonstrate that his random websites were WP:RS, he backed out from the discussion and said that I can do as I please; | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883 | |||
| And thus I reverted back to the original revision, however he then reverted me again, randomly saying that . May I be so bold to call this trolling at this rate? Anyhow, this user in a short span of time has violated ], ], ], ], ], WP:RS, ] and probably more. They're not exactly new here, having edited since 2016, so they should be well aware of this stuff. --] (]) 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Looking at those diffs and your edits, it looks like a regular content dispute. Their sources (not the rumibalkhi one) are just as good as the current ones. And it looks more like them getting frustrated with your ] and not ]. That's what it looks like to me. Could be wrong tho. ] (]) 15:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are wrong indeed. The first diff , for example, was literally their first comment towards me, in response my previous comment; . Two of the three cited sources are news articles written by non-academic, non-historians. The third is just a random site (that is the rumibalkhi one) - see ]. If you’re gonna accuse me of stonewalling and not assuming WP:GF, please at least this properly read into the issue. This user keeps accusing me of stuff and refusing to continue the discussion which barely even started, yet I am apparently the one stonewalling and not assuming good faith. ] (]) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Af420's latest (attempt at provoking) comment after their revert and this report . Still think I am the one ]? --] (]) 15:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: Dear {{ping|1AmNobody24}}, You are right, I just told him to use sources that can prove his point, but instead of doing that, he got serious with me:)) | |||
| ] (]) 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is just baiting at this point. Can an admin please deal with this person? --] (]) 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I agree that ] has probably violated a few policies. But you called the ] a random news Website. And that's just completly wrong. ] (]) 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I guess I could have been more precise in that regard; I was referring to their news article, which doesn't qualify as ]. --] (]) 16:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| WP:NPA | |||
| === Request closure === | |||
| As demonstrated in this report, Af420 is amongst many things blatantly ] the dispute, openly saying that he won't take part anymore and that I can do what I want, whilst contradictory still reverting me. And now he has just resorted to taunting me, not even bothering just address one bit of this report. --] (]) 12:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Af420 does appear to be taunting HistoryofIran at this point. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: Dear, {{Ping|HandThatFeeds}} the reason I didn’t bother to answer is because Mr. HistoryofIran basically thinks everything belongs to Persian history, and he puts Persian above everything, here are some of his logs: | |||
| * he thinks ] a Persian game: | |||
| ** | |||
| ———————————————————— | |||
| *He took the the Azari language from the top and and then put it under Persian | |||
| ** | |||
| ———————————————————— | |||
| *He took away the text that says Azerbaijani people are Turkic people, instead he wrote that Azerbaijani people are Persian people. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324 | |||
| ** | |||
| And much more!!! | |||
| ] (]) 05:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :How is that evidence and have anything to do with this? This dispute still has nothing to do with Iran, unless you think Tajikistan is located there. Those are literally random diffs from 10 years ago (yes, I am not even kidding, he seriously went all the way back to 2013). And I also highly doubt you even knew of these diffs before now, which shouldn't justify your violation of multiple rules anyways. This is just more ] by this user, if not also lack of ]. --] (]) 12:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :HistoryofIran is a long-term user with a good record of edits. None of what you posted is egregious, and seems to reinforce that you're here to ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * Writing so it doesn't get archived. --] (]) 00:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bump. --] (]) 23:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :The UN and The New Yorker appear reliable to me. Either or both parties should seek input at ] instead of edit warring. I see some low-grade incivility from Af420, but he seems prepared to follow NPOV recommendation of presenting all views found in RS. ] (]) 03:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::No need, as they're not reliable per ] as mentioned up above. I fail to see how constant insults and taunts is only "low-grade incivility" and demonstrates that he is ready to "NPOV recommendation", even though he was also removing sourced information as mentioned above. Can an admin please address this? This is frankly getting ridiculous, is this how we now treat fellow users and engage in disputes? Is instant WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA, edit warring, ], taunting, the way to go in a dispute? Since it seems to be working. --] (]) 11:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are no clean hands here. ''One'' of the ''three'' sources was SPS. The appropriate resposne would have been to remove that one citation and ] the claim and its other two citations. ] (]) 13:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Kindly don't put me at his level, in no way did I behave even as remotely as him. Despite his persistent attacks and taunting (including in this very report), I have tried to maintain a calm and nice tone, only to get comments like "There are no clean hands here." This is what SPS says; "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". In other words, two news articles written by non-academic, non-historians are not ]. Either way, sitting here and discussing what is WP:RS and what isnt is pointless, since Af420 didn't even bother to do that himself, instead resorting to well.. I rather not keep repeating myself. The report here has more than enough evidence. --] (]) 13:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, discussing it here is pointless. Discuss it at ]. ] (]) 16:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sorry, but you're not helping. --] (]) 16:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Writing so it doesn’t get archived. ] (]) 08:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ditto. --] (]) 16:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support indeffing user:Af420'''. Said "user" is displaying some serious ]-ish behavior. And I don't think any of it should be ]'d. The fact that he <u>digged to HistoryofIran's edits dating back to 2013 (!), i.e. a decade ago</u>, i.e. years prior to him even registering on Misplaced Pages, and tried to use it against him when confronted with a bunch of awful edits made by himself, is quite telling and reveals the intent of said "user". The fact that the says he doesn't want to take part in further discussion is the cherry on top of the cake. I don't think the community benefits ''in any way'' by having such a user. Much less so when taking an actual look at the edits he made that resulted him in being brought to ANI. Said user has barely made 600 edits over 6 years and is now trying to convince us that his ] edits "were actually correct". How is user:Af420 editorial pattern a net worth to this project I wonder? Take a look at the thousands of disruptive accounts that have made a few edits here and there and have wasted the time of the community and that of veteran users, and please tell me otherwise. - ] (]) 23:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Were the edits correct? ] (]) 03:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Support'''. Editors who are here to "win" need to go. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: midnightblue; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 16:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Support''' as the one who created this report. If Af420 had been more active throughout these 6 years, they wouldn't even have been on Misplaced Pages for that long, cause they would have already been indeffed. This is not how you act on this website, or in general for that matter. --] (]) 23:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Support''' per LouisAragon. --] (]) 08:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *As far as I can see, this is a content dispute that has gotten out of hand. I will point out that in the version HistoryofIran reverted to, you can see that in one of the sources used to support Vakhsh as place of birth, the author writes, quoting a book by another scholar, "e further states: "Bahâ al-Din may have been born in Balkh, but at least between June 1204 and 1210 (Shavvâl 600 and 607), during which time Rumi was born, Bahâ al-Din resided in a house in Vakhsh (Bah 2:143 book, "Ma`ârif."). Vakhsh, rather than Balkh was the permanent base of Bahâ al-Din and his family until Rumi was around five years old (mei 16–35) " (see {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rumi&oldid=1139426047#cite_note-Balkh-3|name=here}}). This, coupled with the article on the UN website leads me to believe this situation is not as clear-cut as described, which in turn dissuades me from indeffing Af420. Yes, he is primarily to blame for inflaming this dispute, but, for my money, HistoryofIran is not entirely blameless either. He should have followed ] and taken the issue to ]. The rest of the disruption coming from Af420 is insufficient to support an indefinite block, in my opinion, once we rule out that his edits violated ]. Yes, he cast aspersions and, from the very first interaction, he was confrontational and personalised the dispute, and for that I can support closing this with a stern warning that continuing to engage in that sort of conduct will lead to sanctions, but I feel that the best course of action is to concentrate on the underlying content dispute. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']''' ''']'''</span> 09:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :*Approach RSN for discussing whether a press-release of UNO and a blog are decent sources for a biography on Rumi? I have no idea on why the situation is not clear-cut but it is consensus among scholars that he was born in Vakhsh. Will post some sources at the t/p. All I see is aggresive POV-pushing from Af420 using low-quality sources. ] (]) 18:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :*:That's not only a press release and a blog, one of the two sources currently used to say that he was born in Vakhsh actually reads "Bahâ al-Din may have been born in Balkh", although it goes on to add that "Vakhsh, rather than Balkh was the permanent base of Bahâ al-Din and his family until Rumi was around five years old". Now, I am completely unfamiliar with the topic and it's possible the consensus among scholars is that Vakhsh was definitely the place of birth and that's why I suggest following ], but I'm not seeing Af420 pushing a ridiculous claim, rather I see a nuanced content dispute. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']''' ''']'''</span> 18:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Profanity | |||
| == Advocacy editing by ] == | |||
| {{discussion top| | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966 | |||
| This has been a very voluminous thread, and it has been ready to close for some time. First, a few notes for transparency's sake. I had been following along on this thread, and first considered closing this thread about five days ago, but held off at the time. TheTranarchist then reached out to me about three days ago, asking me specifically to close this. At the time, I thought that request might in fact make me a poor closer. I then tried to find another admin who would be willing to close it, but with no luck. As this has continued to sit, with no close in sight, I think it is now the right time for me to close it. | |||
| Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor | |||
| My rough !vote count here was 35 in favor of some kind of topic ban, and 25 opposed. There was also four votes in favor of just a BLP ban, but not a topic ban, and one vote in favor of something nonspecific. There was also voluminous discussion around all of these votes, and a few votes that changed during the course of this thread. I do not claim that these numbers are 100% accurate, but given the votes in favor outweighed those opposed by a wide margin, I did not write down each individual editor's name and their stance on a pad as I have done in some closes; I instead did a checkmark tally under the general camps editors fell into. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877 | |||
| The !votes indicated that the community was generally in favor of a topic ban, so I then considered what factors might weigh against a topic ban. First, the fact that the filer was a sock. I think this has low weight. It might make or break in a close discussion, but this was not close. As much as we do not want to reward socking filers, it would also be a waste of the community's time to simply tear up a long discussion because of the filer. Even though the filing was in bad faith, once the issue was up, it became apparent that there was indeed problem's with TheTranarchists editing. Second, many editors pointed out that part of the evidence being relied upon was the off-Wiki Mastodon thread. But since TheTranarchist had clearly linked her social media, the post was directly about her Misplaced Pages editing, and did not otherwise doxx herself, I see it as fair game. | |||
| Unicivil | |||
| Beyond that, many of the opposes agreed that TheTranarchist had done wrong, but that the proper action was a warning. Overall, this argument was not as strong as those who argued that TheTranarchist's editing was severe enough for a topic ban. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027 | |||
| The ] topic area is a difficult one. It requires a commitment to neutrality, careful sourcing, and collegiality. While I think TheTranarchist was there in good faith, editors pointed out that she was approaching her editing from a ] perspective. Editors pointed out that her work on ] was evidence of her creating near attack articles. ] was also identified as a major issue. Now, I understand that these issues were mostly in the context of BLP's. But given that commenters leaned towards a topic ban, and that the BLP's in question were GENSEX BLP's, I think a blanket BLP ban is inappropriate here. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441 | |||
| All editors inherently edit topics they find interesting. Just because an editor writes about something does not mean they have ] problem. But there is a line between the two. The commenters ultimately agreed that TheTranarchist has passed this line: she goes beyond interest into trying to mold the topic area to fit her worldview. That is incompatible with Misplaced Pages. She has become a ] editor. Given all the factors discussed, there is '''rough consensus for an indefinite GENSEX topic ban.''' She may appeal it in no sooner than 6 months. | |||
| Contact on user page attempted | |||
| TheTranarchist is clearly a very dedicated editor who believes strongly in the work she is doing. I want to thank her for being engaged and responsive in the thread. She clearly showed an understanding of various aspects of her behavior. That was unfortunately not enough to outweigh the issues, but in my mind it indicates the community should be willing to accept an appeal here after a reasonable time frame of editing in other areas of the encyclopedia. Indefinite is not infinite. TheTranarchist: now is the time to get some experience in other areas of the encyclopedia, build up your editing knowledge, and use it to come back stronger. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795 | |||
| Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557] (]) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <del>I have become increasingly concerned about the editing of {{u|TheTranarchist}} since I first noticed a report about an article on the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. That article is about ], a young woman who has ]. The report expressed concerns about impartially. One editor stated that it "reads like an attack page". It is excessively detailed and relies mainly on sources which are antagonistic to Cole. Although discussions on the talk page don't seem to be getting very far, the content problems with this one article could, theoretically, be worked out, but this is only one of several problematic articles created by TheTranarchist.</del> | |||
| :Think this calls for a fierce ] slapping and some direct words. I cannot really endorse a ] according to ], as this is just an ] and frankly, I don't see ''direct'' personal attacks, I just see unfriendly behavior and prick-ish attitude, no outward disruption of the project either. Also, I have to ask for further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions, as {{tq|some diffs from the past few days}} are not indicative of chronic issue. The holiday times, like Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Years' can be some of the most stressful times for people during the year. Not saying I like seeing this, but I can understand the feeling. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 04:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <del>By their own admission, TheTranarchist is using Misplaced Pages as a platform to attack people and groups with whom they disagree. They link to their on their user page. There, they have said about ] (bolding mine):{{quote|These fuckers hide behind a very thin veil of vaguely scientific language and marketing to mask an incredibly anti-trans agenda: forced detransition and conversion therapy. | |||
| ::Would I be the person to provide you with that {{tq|further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions}}? I did think that it would be more than a ], since that's for {{tq|one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior}} and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern ]. ] (]) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| @healthliberationnow and @tsn have done some of the best reporting on them hands down. | |||
| :@]: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. ''Hob should know better'', and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to ]. But I would ''caution you'' about ] and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your , , and it seems like you're having a problem handling a ] and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith. | |||
| '''I myself wrote Misplaced Pages articles on them to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer'''. Their main strategy is appearing in right wing and far right publications often enough that liberal news organizations start uncritically treating them as merely concerned experts (don't we love the New York Times...).All hope is not lost though, as a little SEO trick, no matter how much they spend on marketing, '''their Misplaced Pages page will still be among the first results displayed if not the very first one'''. The truth of their positions and actions is on prominent display and they can't lie their way out of it.}}</del> | |||
| :Furthermore it does appear that you might be ] because your attempts at ] for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. , , , , , , and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding ] and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards ]. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. ] ] 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address ''unique issues'' as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. ({{tq|All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution.}} ]) Thank you for your time and input. | |||
| ::] (]) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hope the editors who read this will notice the ABF here: {{tq|trying to report other editors in bad faith}}. ] (]) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{OD}} | |||
| @]: Jay brought something to my attention with . It looks like there is ] (ChatGPT) text about "COVID-19 Natural Immunity" copied and pasted on there. What in the cheeseballs?? What made you think {{!tq|hmm, let's prompt ShatGPT to churn out 700 words about this random out-of-pocket topic, and I'm gonna post this on my Misplaced Pages user page for no reason!}} I'm confused. This specific revision also ] about IP editors, and here's the rich part: just as you copy-pasted text from ChatGPT about COVID to your user page, you go on to write a section that addresses use of AI. {{tq|Quoting from an AI chat bot without attribution is plaigiarism.}} I'm just confused with what you are doing here. So I'd like to ask you, ], what in the sam hill is going on here? If there is a reasonable explanation for this goofiness, I suggest you produce one, '''not from a prompt entered into ChatGPT''', in your own words. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It is an old version of their user page, and it is not plagiarism to quote from a chat bot even without attribution, so we must assume that you are attempt to detract from the OP's complaint. The issue at hand is an experienced editor who joins talk page discussions without understanding the topic at hand (which they admit in one instance ), and are frequently use derogatory language and tone towards other editors. This behavior does not seem like a new thing for them and they clearly know how to skirt the edge of what would be considered a personal attack by an admin, so this merits a formal warning. ] (]) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <del>Other comments on Mastadon have already been noted of another article created by TheTranarchist. Reading through The Tranarchist's Mastadon posts, it is clear that she and other editors as "transphobes" or "TERFS" if they disagree with her. TheTranarchist seems to be a and has does not seem to have heeded the advice about neutral editing that she has already been given.</del> | |||
| ::look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @], you should familiarise yourself with ]. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. ] (]) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a ] slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|BarntToust}} You're being ] and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. ] (]) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::well, I tend to get concerned when someone with LLM text pasted on their userpage comes up from the water. If that's considered bite-y to reiterate my concerns in intentional lighthearted analogy in order to seem less hard-headed, then I guess we're done here. @], I invite you to weigh in on whether you think a '''formal warning''' or a ] slap is what needs to happen to Hob. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :That content from ChatGPT was meant to go in my sandbox as experiment or for assisting with research into a future article. The LLM can generate wikitext with links to articles that already exist. ] (]) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are ] and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @], I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? ] (]) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@], I'm pointing out questionable content on someone else page. for ''context'', in which they copied ChatGPT text without attribution, then said that using ChatGPT without attribution is plagiarism. That contradictory stuff is what I was questioning. please click on the diff for context. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I use it more like a (really good) search engine or a thesaurus. It can give a lot of suggestions for a human writer, but ultimately you use your own mind and RS to formulate the facts and how to present them. ] (]) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks! *curtsy* ] (]) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *The lack of civility in this contentious topic is significantly hindering editing efforts, especially since most issues concern neutrality and tone, which requires a careful and nuanced approach. ] (]) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <del>Although I suspect TheTranarchist and I share similar views, Misplaced Pages is not the place for advocacy and attack pages. If she is unable to show that she can edit in a neutral way, TheTranarchist should be topic banned from gender and politics topics. ] (]) 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)</del> <small>]. ] (]) 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :I can't see anything in the original report that does anything other than show that Hob Gadling calls a thicko a thicko. What is wrong with that? ] (]) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Round and rounder}}, you seem to have a history of trying to bring in information about other people from outside Misplaced Pages, including trying to directly ] them, as you rather flippantly responded to . It's somewhat strange, coming from an account that started editing a month ago right away on the COI noticeboard and has been actively involved in noticeboard discussions since then. ]]<sup>]</sup> 21:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? ] (]) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::<del>@] {{u|Loksmythe}} brought up TheTranarchist's Mastadon account in . That's where I saw it for the first time, today. My "flippant" response to that other user came after a bizarre and completely false . I think I was being nice, considering.</del> | |||
| :::...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::<del>Any thoughts on TheTranarchist's editing? ] (]) 21:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)</del> <small>]. ] (]) 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::Yes, in British slang, "thick" = "stupid". ]] 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::My thoughts on their editing? They seem to actively focus on using proper reliable sourcing and call out sources with biased claims, especially claims that conflict with medical and scientific sources and therefore shouldn't be used as a source. There a lot of MEDRS violations in this topic area and TheTranarchist is good at calling that out and other reference problems. | |||
| There is not enough context for the examples of impatience from Hob Gadling which the OP offers. For example, Lardlegwarmers, do you really expect a warm welcome for your 'attempted contact on user page' ]? Or for your puritanical reproaches about HG's use of "profanity" (which normally turns out to mean using the word ''bullshit'', which is by no means banned from Misplaced Pages, nor is its expressiveness easy to replace with something more flattering). Considering what they're replying to, of another editor's intellect and reasoning skills"]] seems pretty temperate. And so on. ] | ] 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| :I'm not suggesting we should wash anybody's mouth out with soap. The editor's consistent uncivil behavior is more than just the occasional salty diction here and there. I mean, look at ] where an editor is asking for a discussion on why Hob Gadling reverted his edit. It seems as if the person was trying to do it on the talk page and was ignored. Hob Gadling gruffly tells the other editor to get lost. ] (]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::As for Loksmythe, they should also have to respond to bringing up outside Misplaced Pages info in that discussion over there in order to attack TheTranarchist's editing. ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :My experience is that this kind of aggression is standard operating procedure for the defendant. I'd basically given up on them seeing any consequences for it - it's been going on for a long time, so I assumed this is one of the cases where editors with enough "social capital" get an exemption from CIVIL. I doubt a trout will have lasting effect. - ] (]) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<del>@] What did {{u|Loksmythe}} and I do that was wrong? If TheTranarchist has her Mastadon account on her user page aren't we allowed to read her postings? Are we not allowed to quote them here? ] (]) 22:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)</del> <small>]. ] (]) 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::My experience with and attitude toward Hob is 100% the same as described here by Palpable. It goes back a while ... <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Loksmythe failed to actually discuss any specific concerns or improvements on the page and used my post about the article (published after the article itself) as evidence the page should be deleted. If your argument that the page is not neutral doesn't address any specifics and relies solely on linking to criticisms off the organization off wikipedia, that's not a productive comment at all. In short, they did not actually point out any NPOV concerns, they just claimed my own opinion on FAIR made the article inherently POV. Notably, the contents of that post heavily differed from the content of the article - as while I see no need to restrain my criticism of an organization off Misplaced Pages, on Misplaced Pages I stick to reliable sources, even if I feel they aren't explicit enough. If anything my posts show beyond a shadow of a doubt that I stick to reliable sources when writing articles instead of my own opinion. I called FAIR "racist" and "transphobic" on Mastodon. On Misplaced Pages, I objectively referred to the specific things they are known for campaigning against and not once in the article called them "racist" or "transphobic" as sources failed to specifically use those descriptors. ] (]) 22:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@round and rounder: Got a bit confused about the sequence of events there, so for clarity's sake: I did some digging and you appear to be misremembering. You asked that user if they were the same person as/were related to a small time tennis player whose article they created. The conversation you linked to only happened afterwards. ] (]) 22:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<del>@] That's correct. I asked them if they were that person and advised them to read ] if they were. Later, they made their strange claim after an IP editor accused us both of being sock puppets. That's when I wrote them off and deleted their message. ] (]) 22:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)</del> <small>]. ] (]) 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::I've no comments yet, but {{re|Round and rounder}} are you sure that you've linked the correct discussion and diffs here? The "in this talk page discussion" is a circular link back to this discussion, to which {{noping|Loksmythe}} hasn't contributed. ] (]) 22:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<del>Fixed, thanks. is the right link. ] (]) 22:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)</del> <small>]. ] (]) 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :This is rich. | |||
| :In regards to Chloe Cole's article, your claim {{tq|relies mainly on sources which are antagonistic to Cole}} is patently untrue, as most sources simply mention her notable actions. The fact that reliable sources that provide ] coverage of her tend to be critical is not my fault. | |||
| :Genspect is widely known for publishing misinformation and supporting forced detransition and conversion therapy, and multiple reliable sources have said so. I have no ethical qualms about being glad that when you search them you get a well-balanced article detailing what they're known for instead of their PR campaign. Notice I never used the word "attack", just "expose". Their is a very large difference between an attack and an objective and neutral accounting of their actions and reception in the medical community. Per ], an organization with fringe viewpoints is objectively described by noting their fringe positions and how it deviates from the norm. If you can find problems with the article, go ahead and discuss them on the talk page, claiming the article or my editing is a problem because I wanted to accurately cover them is laughable. | |||
| :Your linked post to support me calling editors as "TERFs" for disagreeing is ridiculous. For a start, Keen has repeatedly referred to herself as a TERF, and even then it is a neutral term not a perjorative. The bout of edits the screenshot is from came directly after Keen publicly complained about her article and it was met with a wave of vandalism, which resulted in the page being protected due to multiple editors having to try and stop it. For the first comment in that screenshot, they were arguing that her activities did not constitute harassment, a POV that only makes sense if you disregard how it's covered in reliable sources and consider activities such as 1) telling trans women they should not be allowed in women's spaces, 2) deadnaming a trans woman and accusing them of hating lesbians, and 3) publicly deadnaming and misgendering a trans child, as not constituting harassment. Ie, their position was very clearly in defense of harassing trans people. | |||
| :The accusation of "tendentious editing" was viewed by other editors as a personal attack that had nothing to do with the page's content, as it boiled down to just claiming my political position inherently makes the page unobjective. The editor who made that comment has made no effort whatsoever to productively discuss things on talk. The one who echoed the claim of "tendentious editing" has a huge undisclosed COI and a demonstrated pattern of tendentious editing on that article and others, which I have already notified arb-com about. | |||
| :In short, you have failed to bring up any issues with my actual editing and are just attacking my political positions without evidence they have made articles non-NPOV or that I have failed to seek consensus and work with others to improve articles when serious POV concerns are brought up in good faith. | |||
| :Echoing @]'s note, at a first glance your account history had seemed woefully suspicious, but I tried to assume good faith. Given the large amount of key-presses you've seemed to devote solely to attacking my editing, I think a check-user should look into your account and activity. ] (]) 22:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::<del>@] Just for the record, I haven't attacked your political positions at all. I don't have a problem with them. ] (]) 22:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)</del> <small>]. ] (]) 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::@] You have raised no evidence that my editing is problematic, just linked to people attacking me for my political positions. | |||
| :::A recap of your argument | |||
| :::* The concerns raised about Chloe Cole on the were not actually related to edits I'd made, and were criticizing edit's I'd also spoken out against. You said {{tq| this is only one of several problematic articles created by TheTranarchist}}, but the problems raised had literally nothing to do with my edits. As I noted there, the person who filed that seemed to do so in retaliation for my work on the FAIR article. A quick look at that section and Cole's talk page will show I have worked to productively discuss any concerns there. | |||
| :::* You claimed I create the article on ] to "attack" them. Per ], neutrally describing what they've done and how fringe their positions are isn't an issue. I take pride in making sure FRINGE ideas and organizations are presented as such, entirely in line with WP policy. Notably, you didn't bother to provide any examples of issues with the article, merely criticized me for describing them as fringe off-wikipedia and saying I wanted to make sure people got an accurate history of their actions and advocacy. | |||
| :::* You cited people calling me a "tendentious editor". The person in question raised no issues with the actual content, refused to discuss anything on the talk page, and and called for the articles deletion '''solely''' on the basis of me being critical of FAIR off-wikipedia. As I mentioned earlier, the only one to echo that claim has a large COI and their edits are truly tendentious. @], you're the only arbitrator I can remember off the top of my head, can you check the arb-com email and confirm that statement? | |||
| :::* You used a post about laughing about vandals as a supposed gotcha, when the screen-shotted comment in question had questioned whether harassment of trans people really counts as harassment. It is undeniably funny when vandals attempting to edit a page en-masse results in it being locked down. Poetic justice and all that. Keen's far-right ties have been commented on by numerous reliable sources, and per lead-follows-body they should probably be in the lead already. | |||
| :::{{tq|If she is unable to show that she can edit in a neutral way, TheTranarchist should be topic banned from gender and politics topics}} - You have given absolutely no evidence that my edits aren't neutral and your main argument seems to be because I've criticized transphobia and transphobic organizations off wikipedia my edits are inherently not neutral. My largest good-faith criticism I've received, which I'm trying to work on, is that my articles contain too many details and should be trimmed. Not that they're not neutral, but that I may be overly thorough. That's hardly worthy of ANI. Your recommendation reads less like a good faith recommendation based on substantive arguments and more a blatant attempt to try and stop me editing because you disagree with my political positions based on spurious grounds. ] (]) 23:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I suggest a '''boomerang''' per @]'s mention of Round and rounder's tendencies with ] and general uncivil behavior. ] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 22:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Speaking of boomerang, ] just blocked {{no ping|Round and rounder}} for being a sock of {{no ping|World's Lamest Critic}}. ] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 02:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' {{ping|TheTranarchist}} I haven't read through everything above, so apologies if this is already discussed, but there are a couple of things I'd like clarity on. 1: Your userpage appears to acknowledge that the linked Mastadon account is yours. Can you confirm that? 2: Were the quotes mentioned above genuinely written by you? I don't really know how Mastadon works, so it would be helpful if you were to either stand by them, or refute that they were yours. I think that clarifying these points would help us move forwards. Thanks ]] 23:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] I can confirm that's my account - I just object to the notion my posts there should be used instead of clear evidence of problematic editing. Like I mentioned above, while I don't hold back on criticisms there, my wikipedia edits have a very different tone and are based solely on reliable sources. Even when I want to say something about an organization, I have never inserted my own opinions into an article. Just what reliable sources say in language supported by them. Hope that clarifies things! ] (]) 23:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thanks for confirming that. Just for the avoidance of doubt, can you confirm that these words are yours: {{tq| I myself wrote Misplaced Pages articles on them to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer}}? ]] 00:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I can confirm that. Genspect is a fringe organization known in multiple reliable sources for publishing misinformation and presenting as impartial doctors while working with religious conversion therapy organizations. Is it problematic to desire to use Misplaced Pages to make sure ] organizations and positions are accurately represented? | |||
| *:::Preceding that quoted comment, I'd said they {{tq|hide behind a very thin veil of vaguely scientific language and marketing to mask an incredibly anti-trans agenda: forced detransition and conversion therapy.}} This is factually supported in reliable sources on every count. Nobody writes a WP article they don't want people to read or without reasons for doing so. If their are problems in the article, please note them, but otherwise I don't see how saying I tried to accurately represent a FRINGE organization as such is particularly noteworthy. ] (]) 00:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::We are writing an encyclopedia, we aren't investigative journalists. If a subject has already been exposed as a crock of shit, then it's fair enough to describe it as such (with appropriate attribution to the people who did the work of exposing it). Your goal here should not be to ''expose'' anything, it should be to summarise what authoratitive sources already say about it. Don't crow online about exposing stuff, that isn't what we do. ]] 01:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I am very well aware. There's a bunch of data on Genspect I have not included in the article as they are not reliably sourced or would be OR. I have only used RS in articles, and this seems to be a linguistic miscommunication since to my ear "exposing" does include the act of compiling what disparate reliable sources have said to create a full picture. One could say that while disparate sources may expose certain activities of an organization, exposing said organization includes the act of compiling them. | |||
| *:::::{{tq|Your goal here should not be to expose anything, it should be to summarise what authoratitive sources already say about it.}} - a summary of what reliable sources say about them still "exposes" them, as the definitions of "expose" include "To reveal the guilt or wrongdoing of", "To make known", and "To make visible". I fully agree with your take on what wikipedia is and is not, and as I said this seems to be a miscommunication. ] (]) 01:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I would suggest, however, that you, in your social media posts, make it clear that they have "been exposed", and you're going to make sure Misplaced Pages readers know that, rather than saying you're the one doing the exposing. The difference is that you're not engaging in original research: your Mastodon quote implies that you are, and casts doubt (incorrectly) on your contributions here, thus, indirectly, harming Misplaced Pages's reputation. — ] ] 19:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::@] Fair enough, I shall! ] (]) 16:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure how this should play out. On one hand, it's a problem when we find information off Misplaced Pages and then use it for discussions about editors on wikipedia. We should largely judge editors by what they do here, not elsewhere (absent things like doxing etc off site). On the other hand, TheTranarchist has shown poor judgement when creating new articles and several editors have tried to raise awareness on their talk page and on article talk pages and they were given a formal warning recently . The originally published versions of ] and ] showed clear bias in source choice, failure to use IMPARTIAL phrasing etc. The off wiki comments strongly suggest the intent was to make these, in effect, attack articles to warn others and that reflected their POV. The on wikipedia product supports that view. Honestly, this is one of the few times I've observed an editor and felt CIR applies. That said, I don't have time to dig up all the diffs needed at this time. I would oppose any boomerang since that ignores the issues with the original works. If the pattern of poor editing continues or a longer history is shown (I haven't interacted with this editor that much) then I would suggest a topic ban so they can prove competency in other areas. ] (]) 23:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fully digging out of the bottom of the barrel here - it's funny your first two sources are in regards to other editors with a COI. | |||
| ::Your first link is to a comment made by an editor with a large COI. Them saying "tendentious editing" is not proof I have done so. Others have pointed out how that whole section was a personal attack by an editor who thought that rather than raising any concerns about the content itself, they should say my description of FAIR off-wikipedia (which was very notably not mirrored en-wiki as sources did not consistently use that language) invalidates the whole thing. | |||
| ::Your second link was to an honest mistake on my part. An editor at ] had said another editor had a COI. Since that's a heavy accusation, I double checked to confirm whether it was true, and found it indeed was. I posted a link corroborating the statement as a comment. Wrong venue to do so, and very pointedly I reported the FAIR COI via the appropriate channels. @], was that incident in question proof I have shown {{tq|poor judgement when creating new articles}} or merely poor judgement reporting COIs? | |||
| ::If we look at the of the Chloe Cole article and compare it to the , where is the {{tq|clear bias in source choice}} and {{tq|failure to use impartial phrasing}}? Besides, there have been productive discussions on improving the content at the talk page. The only notable changes made have been 1) moving "far-right media" to "right-wing media", which I did myself in accordance with sources, and 2) removing the statement about how medical and human rights organizations have opposed legislation she's supported from the lead, which I did not contest. I initially included that per ], and have not said should go back into the lead but worked into the body, since it's factually verifiable and true that trans-healthcare bans she's supported have been protested by such groups. | |||
| ::At FAIR, I have attempted to work to discuss and improve the article in the talk page, including in terms of the NPOV concerns. Nobody can seriously claim I haven't. Notably, the first criticism was from an account with an undeclared COI and the second was from a SPA. The questionable sources were 3/41, which I discussed there then took to RSN, which has proved one generally reliable, one questionably reliable (I gave examples of ] since that was concern raised but have not heard back), and one unreliable (which, given a clear policy reason, I accepted was true). Currently, the article reads like an advert (thanks to the COI editor) - not featuring any of the well sourced statements about their general activities in favor of thinking the lead should just have their mission statement... | |||
| ::] is particularly rich coming from someone who spent about a dozen comments on the FAIR article trying to argue that the right to not be misgendered in schools does not actually count as "transgender rights"... Per CIR: {{tq|It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop}} and {{tq|It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor}} | |||
| ::{{tq|We should largely judge editors why what they do here, not elsewhere}} - Then do so. ] (]) 00:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not really having the time nor energy to read this whole thing, I've only read the paragraph I've been mentioned in, and haven't reviewed any contribs other than what I have already commented on. I feel that the oversighted content issue was an oversight in judgement, and from my discussions, I doubt it will reoccur from TheTranarchist. I don't think this rises to "poor judgement" as that would require reckless disregard (aka an intent to disregard), where as I see this as being unaware of the rules in a sensitive topic area. That is why I issued the formal warning and direction to be clearly aware of policies, and didn't go direct to block, AE sanction or similar action. -- ] 02:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Note:''' Springee appears to have been by Round and rounder after starting this ANI section and Springee also appears to be on ] that LGBT news sources like '']'' are "clearly biased sources" for defining whether someone is anti-trans or not. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :While I can understand the concerns about TheTranarchist having somewhat of a ] mentality, I do not believe it is in any way severe enough to warrant a topic ban. Also, it is very suspicious that Round and rounder's editing history is dedicated almost entirely to opposing this user. If someone else wants to raise issue with TheTranarchist's edits in good faith then I do not object. ] (]) 00:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * There is coverage of TheTranarchist and other editors in (Noam Cohen, ''The Atlantic'', January 22, 2023) e.g. "The main advocate for moving the page from Gregory to Gloria was an editor named TheTranarchist, and the main opponent was an editor named StAnselm, a self-described Calvinist who has created more than 50 articles about biblical characters and scenes. Yet the discussion on the Talk page was about facts and Misplaced Pages policies and guidance, not politics. “It didn’t seem culture warrior–ish,” said." ] (]) 01:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Weighing in as an un-involved non-admin: this really doesn't look good for anyone involved. {{u|Round and rounder}} seems to be approaching ], while {{u|TheTranarchist}} is likewise approaching ]. To {{u|Loksmythe}}, I don't know if there are any ''rules'' against citing someone's off-wiki activity, but I think conventionally there's a very high bar for it to be considered relevant. There may be merit to the suggestion that Round and rounder is a sock unless they have a good explanation for why their edit history begins with fairly involved challenging of user conduct. And I suppose only time will tell if TheTranarchist can beat the odds and become a rare ] that's a net positive for the project. For what it's worth, I don't support sanctions against anyone at this time beyond perhaps a warning about ], but would invite closer scrutiny on these editors and the application of ] restrictions as necessary. ] (]) 01:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Even ignoring the issues with the actual articles TheTranarchist has created for a second, can anyone explain to me how admitting to in order to , or adding calling a living person which she a "nazi", "liar", and "bigot", is not admission of ] editing? The last time I remember an instance of , they received a . Can someone explain to me how this is different? ] (]) 01:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :* I don't think that's a proper use of a userpage and that sort of addition should be removed completely. But, outside of that, the main difference is that TheTransarchist does write good articles following what the sources say. You bring up ] which, if you compare your initial edit link to the current article, has not had much of the original text changed or removed at all, just added to. Because the original article was written perfectly fine (if needing proper sectioning and organizing), following what the news coverage said about the BLP subject. So you can't separate the actual articles from the discussion here. The other editor you're comparing to did actually make blatant attack articles against what the sources said or misusing the sources. That isn't comparable here. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::See my above comments on the finer linguistic points of the word "expose". The "polemic" is a funny example. She publicly attacked the article and called me an "incel" and "trancel" and I listed that as an honorable mention. I amended "AKA Nazi barbie" after concerns were raised, but it should be heavily noted that the phrase linked to evidence of her '''literally using a nazi barbie as a profile pic''', which was later covered in reliable sources, and as your profile picture is on online representation of how you want to be known, "AKA" fits. It's purely factual that she has said called the article full of lies, I didn't call her a "liar", I noted the irony that she called the article full of lies, while '''verifiably "lying"''' about her past comments. Which brings me to the next point, is "you can't call someone who's said all trans men should be sterilized, worked with the far-right on multiple occasions, and has no notability outside of her bigoted campaigning a 'bigot'" really a hill you want to die on? Bigotry includes transphobia, a transphobe is by definition a bigot towards trans people, so unless you want to argue that Keen isn't known solely for her transphobia I don't see how bigot is not a neutral description. | |||
| ::Per ]: {{tq|Advocacy is the use of Misplaced Pages to promote personal beliefs or agendas '''at the expense of Misplaced Pages's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view'''}}. Is their evidence I have compromised verifiability or neutrality? I make no secret of who I am - a trans person. I make no secret of the fact I usually write articles documenting the anti-trans movement. Every editor has a niche, but there is no evidence that my articles are not neutral or verifiable solely because of the topic I tend to edit on. As I have provided ample evidence above, I have not promoted "personal beliefs", I have stuck to the sources even when my personal beliefs are far more critical. ] (]) 02:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Basically I agree with Silverseren here: Tranarchist's articles about anti-trans organizations are pretty good actually. Misplaced Pages policy doesn't prohibit ''having'' a POV or nobody would be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages. It prohibits letting that POV interfere with your editing, and I don't really see that here. ] (]) 02:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Personally, I feel at a minimum, TheTranarchist should be banned from editing the GenSpect article directly. Even if we can't identify specific problems with their editing, their acknowledged comments say that the are editing the article for the wrong reasons. ] (]) 03:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would find it difficult to believe that there's really any editor in such a topic area that isn't editing for POV reasons. Which is why we only care about actual editing and not personal POVs, unless their POV is actively making them edit non-neutrally. Editor Animalparty just below being another example of that. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I disagree. Editors are allowed to think an organisation is a disgusting piece of shit. I think that of Genspect myself. However I do not edit "{{tqi|to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer}}". That's an '''completely unacceptable''' reason to edit per ] and ]. You are supposed to be here to write well balanced encyclopaedia articles. In cases where you feel you cannot do so, you need to refrain from editing yourself or you will be forced out of the area. It may be that you believe that a well balanced encyclopaedia article is likely to reveal that they are a terrible organisation. I believe that on Genspect. However they key thing is I do not edit to 'expose them and help undermine that thin veneer'. I edit to ensure we have a well balance encyclopaedia article. If the sources disagree with my view, then I accept that and help get that into the article. This is impossible when by your own admission you are editing to "expose them and help undermine that thin veneer" since by your own admission you aren't here to ensure a well balanced encyclopaedia article but instead a different reason that is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of Misplaced Pages. We have always blocked and banned editors who have admitted they are not here to write well balanced encyclopaedia articles but instead for other reasons no matter if anyone can identify specific problems with their editing. Frankly my suggestion we only block them from directly editing that specific article is being generous especially given some of the other things they have said. ] (]) 03:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tq|You are supposed to be here to write well balanced encyclopaedia articles.}} Have you considered that a well balanced and sourced article on organisations like Genspect will by its very nature {{tq|expose them and help undermine that thin veneer}}? | |||
| ::::::Genspect, like many related anti-trans organisations, are well known for promoting fringe ideas and misinformation about trans and non-binary healthcare. Because our articles are based on the reliable sources that those organisations either ignore or try to discredit, any well sourced and balanced article about will have the effect of exposing and undermining them. ] (]) 03:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's the thing you're not acknowledging. The articles that TheTransarchist has written are well balanced and following what the reliable sources say. There are tons of long-standing editors who purposefully created articles on notable topics precisely because it would showcase the negative aspects of them, all while following what the reliable sources say and being neutral even when "exposing" their negative aspects in the process. I wrote '']'' to "expose" the insane far right conspiracy claims pushed by Coulter. And I did so by just accurately writing what the reliable sources said about her book, including ones that praised it. I wrote '']'' specifically to have coverage on Misplaced Pages covering the pseudoscience nonsense made by Jared Diamond and his negative actions as an editor of the journal ''Nature''. I also wrote ] to ensure we had ongoing coverage of the company that had harmed so many with their fake products and defrauded schools and businesses in the process. I still covered it neutrally, including info on their origins, products, and awards. So, yes, you can purposefully create articles on subjects whereby their very existence will have a POV outcome on the world, while still covering notable subjects and writing the articles neutrally and completely by what the reliable sourcing says on the subjects. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{replyto|Silver seren|Sideswipe9th}} I feel I already explained this but I guess it wasn't understood. It's one thing to try and write an unbiased encyclopaedic article on a subject which you believe because of the subject will reflect negatively on the subject. If you have the right mindset then it's generally fine if that ends up being the case since you will recognise when it turns out you're wrong. But perhaps more importantly are significantly less likely to go further than you should. It's another to write an article which the express purpose of "expose them and help undermine that thin veneer" because you're unlikely to recognise when you're wrong and very likely to go further than you should. It's somewhat similar to an editor with a CoI, they may be great editors but once the CoI comes into play human nature means they often will not recognise when they're wrong, they'll downplay negative material and overplay positive material. The difference between wrong motivations and right motivations with an existing PoV, may be subtle but it's something all editors here need to understand. Their purpose here always needs to be to write balanced encyclopaedic articles. They may suspect that the end result will be an exposé on a terrible subject but they should never set out with the purpose of exposing something. They should always set out with the purpose of writing balanced encyclopaedic articles. Repeating since it's important, no editor should '''ever''' set out with the purpose of exposing anything, especially not a living person. The moment exposing something becomes an editor's purpose they need to stop editing in that area or be forced to stop. I already mentioned that I believe that balanced articles on GenSpect, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull and the largely unrelated Sanctioned Suicide and especially its founders will reflect extremely negatively on these subjects. While this is something that I probably won't be able to completely put out of my mind when editing, I hope I'll never edit with the express purpose of exposing them and especially not where we mention living persons. The moment I do so, I hope I have the fortitude of stopping myself. If I don't, I hope the community stops me since my behaviour has crossed way beyond the lines of acceptable behaviour here. It does not matter what editors can and cannot find with my edits, I'm editing for unacceptable reasons. P.S. I actually think Misplaced Pages would be a better place if editors with such strong PoVs on a subject that frankly motivations fall by the wayside refrain from editing especially directly. But for various reasons it's never likely to happen. ] (]) 11:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<p>(EC) BTW, while Genspect itself is not a BLP (albeit it is likely an article will name several living persons), TheTranarchist frequent editing in BLPs is an added reason why we should not tolerate any nonsense. </p><p>To give an unrelated example (albeit one which the sock seems to have involved themselves in) on ] we have a discussion about naming living persons. I first saw this thread IIRC with only 2 comments. I looked into it, and my first thought was "holy hell, those 2 people are absolutely disgusting individuals (from my PoV) and I'd really like to name them". However when I looked into it more my conclusion (which I didn't post since I was waiting to see what others had to say) was as much as I feel that way, I'm not convinced we should be naming them. Since removing their names does not seem to significantly reduce context etc. I was able to do so because I recognised I was not and should not be editing to "expose" anyone or help undermine anything. </p><p>Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull is a related example currently on ] as well. It's not the first time it came up, the first time I saw it my thoughts were as Black Kite, she seems to be an individual who's views are so out of mainstream that even people who share some of her views on trans issues often don't want anything to do with her. So it's likely that an article on her will be fairly critical. However again I was able to recognise we still have to ensure the article is fair with proper sourcing and wording, and without violating ] etc etc. </p><p>IIRC I never got involved in that article in any significant way. And I admit part of the reason is because of my personal views of the subject. Not because I felt I couldn't be sufficiently unbiased but because of how bad her views are I couldn't convince myself to spend the effort. That isn't ideal, but editors aren't required to edit so it's something we accept will happen even with BLPs. </p><p>However at a minimum all editors need to be able to try and put aside their PoV be here to help write balanced encyclopaedic articles when they are editing. They should never be editing "{{tqi|to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer}}" since when they are doing so they're not doing that. And so will want to name people even when we potentially should not. And won't care about getting the article on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull right if it reflects their PoV. Etc. </p><p>] (]) 04:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)</p> | |||
| :::::::{{tq|all editors need to be able to try and put aside their PoV be here to help write balanced encyclopaedic articles}} is there any actual evidence I haven't apart from speculation that I might have or might do in future? As others have commented, {{tq|to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer}} is encyclopedic when that organization is solely known for advancing ] medical theories and practices under the guise of impartial science. Are there any flaws with the article itself or evidence that I did not write it from a NPOV? {{tq|won't care about getting the article on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull right if it reflects their PoV}} - as other's pointed out, the article was well-written and sourced from the start - is there evidence I did not get it right to reflect my own POV? The linked BLPN discussion was started by the sockpuppet who filed this complaint, other editors did not support their claim it was an "attack page" and merely commented it was overly detailed, and a 5 second look will show that I endeavored to work with other editors to work on that. | |||
| :::::::Take the ] for example: I included the Mendoza case even though I personally agree with their position on it, and it makes the article reflect better on them (marginally, considering most of their activities are in other fields, but still). I am not in the habit of disregarding what reliable sources have to say on a topic, even when it is flattering. | |||
| :::::::Sidenote though, thank you for striking {{noping|Round and Rounder}}'s comments from various talk pages and noticeboards. ] (]) 17:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{e}} Pretty good? By what metric? I'm not here to comment on behavior, but I (and other editors) see excessively intricate detail, ], ], and subtle introduction of of POV by framing and placement, in multiple articles. Facts and citations are dumped in by the truckload, making it hard to discern the appropriate weight and relevance of any given aspect, contra ], ], ], etc. A laundry list of virtually everything done or said by or about a subject is neither encyclopedic nor good writing. My eyes glaze over just trying to find the relevant aspects to trim or emphasize. I will say the articles are thoroughly researched, and articles are always a work in progress. ] (]) 03:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The various ] shortcuts you've linked are not generally issues that we block or TBAN editors over. If anything I'd say that they're a sign of perhaps an overeager but inexperienced article creator, which is a skill that can be developed over time. ] (]) 03:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To be honest, those are criticisms valid for pretty much all articles in this topic domain. Their comments off-wiki aside, it seems this editor is being held to standards for the content of articles that is higher than the standard of articles written by other editors here who are eagerly seeking their topic ban. Their mistake on wiki would seem to be to write articles, you know, growing the encyclopaedia, and editors here thinking that on a "collaborative editing project" that the output of one editor's initial draft has to be perfect. A better approach would be to see if they work collaboratively with other editors towards a consensus. There are plenty editors here calling for a topic ban who are incapable of doing that. But they haven't made the mistake of creating articles and writing pages of article text. -- ]°] 20:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah it would be one thing if the editor was hostile to discussion or criticism, but that is obviously not the case here. ] (]) 20:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{yo|Colin}} If shoddy BLP-violating sourcing, undue weight and tendentious editing is a persistent problem for the entire topic area, then that's probably a larger area that needs to be looked at and cleaned up. First by the community, and maybe eventually by Arbcom. It isn't an excuse to do nothing about an especially clear example that's been brought here, we can begin cleanup after that. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 20:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Em, I haven't seen anyone demonstrate with diffs any "tendentious editing". Someone said those words at some point, that's all. This is the problem I have. They've written a fair bit of content for a newish editor and it isn't perfect but it is frankly no worse than any other article in this topic domain. That includes articles that have been argued over and edit warred over by editors on this page. All the "OMG BAN THEM NOW" reaction seems to be a mix of genuinely naive shock at how bad this topic area is, or feigned shock by activists on the other side. What they wrote on mastodon was stupid and I get how editors struggle to see how expressing those views isn't just an admission of being an ]. But as that essay says "Editors operating in good faith, not seeking to promote specific views, will usually try to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors" What that sentence doesn't require is that such editors make 100% perfect edits and have encyclopaedic knowledge of SYNTH. | |||
| ::::::Why are you being ask to look at this one editor to remove them from the project (which is what a topic ban will do)? You aren't being asked to look at all those articles and all the editors. You are being asked by a banned sock. That should give you some concern. Go read some of the other articles in this topic area. I think you'll be surprised. I don't think they will be improved simply by banning an editor who said foolish things on mastodon. Indeed, a topic ban here will likely embolden the idea that we can push editors off the chess board. -- ]°] 21:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''I think it's time to close this discussion.''' Most of the accusation is based on out-of wiki material that is ''only'' not ] because the accused linked to their social media on their userpage, and having gone through their edits for a bit, I don't see many edits to article main-space that are actually objectionable, a conclusion that is reinforced by the fact that anyone has yet to actually link to an objectionable edit in this discussion. There's about four or five of links to edits from other editors accusing TheTranarchist of things, but none that link to the actual supposed problem behaviour. As a case study, several of those accusations are about TheTranarchist creating an article about a WP:FRINGE organisation to make them look bad. As several editors here have pointed out, you can't always avoid making an organisation look bad if you want to be FRINGE compliant. Having looked at that article, I did not get the impression any material there was noncompliant or excessive. More importantly, every claim made was well sourced even in the first version of the article in question. The only example of someone linking directly to an edit by TheTranarchist is the now blocked Round an Rounder/World's Lamest Critic, who just links to a fairly short example of... What looks a lot like TheTranarchist complying perfectly to WP:BRD and taking a challenged edit to the talk page for discussion. I do not think there is anything here. --] (]) 11:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I was under the impression that the link to the off site material was not something TheTranarchist posted themselves. If they provided the link themselves and the link was/is on their user page then I think it's is completely acceptable to consider it when reviewing this topic. It's only one step removed form posting it to their user page. Combine that with the use of SYNTH to apply contentious labels to BLP subjects (see many of the proposed sources here and I think it would be best if they voluntarily step away from this subject area for a bit and edit unrelated topics to show they understand Misplaced Pages's standards for IMPARTIAL. ] (]) 14:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm not sure where you see the WP:SYNTH there, considering the first source contains the phrase "anti-trans activism" to describe the BLP verbatim. <sub>I also think it's a bit nauseating that every phrase in this topic space has to be fought over tooth and nail even when it's as blatantly obvious as it is here, but hey, that's probably just me.</sub> ] (]) 16:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Per your earlier comments about how ], you have spent an inordinate amount of time in the past few days arguing that 1) transgender students do not have a right to not be misgendered/deadnamed in schools and it's just "trans advocates" who say otherwise, completely ignoring the heaps of linked evidence in favor of pushing your own POV at FAIR and 2) arguing that Chloe Cole, who reliable sources call an "anti-trans activist", who is noted in reliable sources to support "anti-trans legislation" ('''including banning transition even for adults),''' is not an "anti-trans activist"... | |||
| *::Also, for context for all those watching, the largest reason I listed my Mastodon on my user page was I saw (off-wikipedia) people accusing others with the same username of being me, and directing harassment towards them. I put a disclaimer on my page that I do not use the username anywhere else - I felt it would be dishonest once I created my Mastodon account to not explicitly say it was mine. ] (]) 18:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:It is not ] when a person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. Arguing that linking to the posts from the very same social media account that they posted on their user page is constitutes a violation of the outing policy is incoherent. — ] <sub>]</sub> 08:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Please re-read my comment. --] (]) 13:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Just so it doesn't get lost in the middle: Round and rounder was '''blocked''' for being a sock of {{no ping|World's Lamest Critic}}. ] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 03:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::...welp. I guess that explains a fair bit. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''',''' support restriction on creating BLPs in mainspace''' without AfC or an EC in good-standing moving it from draft for them. I intially came here to outright oppose any sanction because they have been open to criticism and collaboration on-wiki. However, there off-wiki comments do raise concerns that their motivation and source selection is biased and that protection of BLPs is needed until they show they can operate within our guardrails. ] (]) 14:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:That is probably a good compromise. I would suggest extending it to any GENSEX or BLP topic but otherwise it would seem to address the biggest issues. ] (]) 15:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::The expanded universe makes sense given previous community issues and sanctions, support additional restriction. ] (]) 15:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::There has yet to be any evidence given that there's anything wrong with the articles they've been making. The sockpuppet OP was the one who brought the articles to BLPN and other editors there didn't agree that there was anything wrong with them. So your restriction here of "until they show they can operate within our guardrails" is meaningless, as you haven't shown they aren't already doing that. ]]<sup>]</sup> 17:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Edits like this illustrate part of the issue. The section heading "Undoing the whitewashing and advertification" totally fails to be impartial (a requirement even for talk page headings). The long list has good sources and questionable ones. How it is meant to be used isn't clear but the simple implication that editors are whitewashing is a problem given the contentious topic. That they would do that while this ANI is open is hard to understand. ] (]) 22:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::You seem to be the one with biased editing in general on these talk pages. Having just the group's mission statement in the lede and not a proper summary of the article '''is''' an example of advertification and seemingly whitewashing of the descriptive content. The section title is accurate and the discussion given by TheTransarchist in that section also seems like a good editor trying to make a proper neutral lede summary based on available sources. Some of the sources in their list are certainly stronger and more relevant than others, but those stronger sources still say the same thing as the others, which is criticism of the group. ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Which edit of mine are you referencing? I've made 3 edits total to the article. Which one was the issue? Conversely, are you saying it's OK to accuse editors of whitewashing on an article talk page? Are you suggesting that is a neutral topic heading? ] (]) 22:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You seem to have a major issue with LGBT news sources across various articles on topics in the LGBT topic area. And whitewashing can also be an issue of omission than explicit addition of improper information. Not having a proper lede for a group that sources refer to negatively is whitewashing those referenced facts from the opening of the article. Which can appear deliberate and quite possibly is on someone in the editing history's part, but could also just be a long-term editing issue with the article that TheTransarchist is trying to now rectify. ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose any action re: Tranarchist''' Yes, Tranarchist has very strong feelings about a subject that would inevitably color her contributions no matter how hard she tries to follow ]. However, so do many other contributors. It's always an issue with Misplaced Pages, and you can find subtle biases in even the best contributions. That's why we have multiple editors. This mechanism works well in highly-viewed articles and not so well in rarely-viewed articles, since the scrutiny by other editors is less. Misplaced Pages is not perfect, and putting restrictions on Tranarchist and other editors with strong opinions (as long as they edit reasonably close to a neutral view) in an attempt to perfect Misplaced Pages is a fool's errand, as we'll just harm Misplaced Pages by banning some of its best contributors. The best we can do is recognize that many editors have strong opinions, and, as editors, always think about ] when we're editing an article. — ] ] 16:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * All I can say is, it's a good job ''my'' Mastodon account isn't linked from my talk page. ] 18:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:<small>I see an ''all Cornwall topics'' ban in your future. {{Jk}}</small> — ] ] 18:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::You mean an 'all topics ban', surely... ] 18:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose any action against TheTranarchist.''' The person who started this topic has been banned as a sockpuppet, so hopefully ] doesn't apply when I say this was a gross attempt at intimidating a trans editor. ] (]) 19:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support some kind of sanction''' for creating non-NPOV pages intended to discredit their subjects. I do not edit in this topic area, but came across the discussion as an uninvolved editor. The Tranarchist clearly has a problem creating NPOV articles on subjects related to gender. Their original published versions of , , and are written from a clearly non-neutral perspective. Given The Tranarchist's honesty about their goals and actions, I believe they are here in good faith, but I believe they should either voluntarily agree to stop creating articles in this topic area or be appropriately sanctioned/warned. ] (]) 04:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Thank you for the assumption of good faith! Rare these days lol. I do want to make a notes however. The Cole article has barely changed from that original version and there is no evidence of being non-NPOV. The only notable change is {{tq|far-right media}} to {{tq|right-wing media}}, which I myself corrected upon reviewing the sources and realizing I'd improperly summarized them. The Genspect article doesn't prove a non-neutral perspective, and the majority of the edits there have been mine and made it more succinct and neutral. That diff version says how they describe themselves, how others have described them, and their notable actions, all cited to reliable sources. I'll also note that was one of my first articles, made while I was still getting the hang of formatting properly from the get-go (explaining the appearance as a chunk rather than a lead and well-sectioned body). The FAIR article has also barely changed, and other editors have agreed the article was whitewashed and advertified. The only notably differences are 1) the removal of attributed statements to Idavox, which I supported when presented with clear policy, and 2) {{tq|the "right" of students to misgender their schoolmates}} in the lead, which was based off reliable sources and my inability to come up with a more neutral description at the time (coupled with the fact FAIR frequently uses the language of rights to free speech and religious expression to justify those policies), which I myself changed on reflection to the more neutral {{tq|opposes policies that would prevent schoolmates and faculty from misgendering or deadnaming transgender students.}} ] (]) 16:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is simply incorrect to say that the "only notable change is far-right media to right-wing media" when half the lead has been removed and large chunks of content have been added/removed to the body, as well as many adjustments to word choice and sourcing (here's for your version to the current version). Many instances of non-neutral language have been removed by other editors. Frankly, it actually makes me feel worse about your level of good faith when you say it has "barely changed"; that is a seriously misleading statement. The same applies to FAIR (). I agree with others who argue you have the potential to be an excellent editor, but I remain concerned that you lack the ability to be neutral in this topic area. '''Support topic ban''' until the editor has proven their abilities in other areas of the encyclopedia. ] (]) 21:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My apologies for not referencing the half removed, however, I'd already it earlier in a response to another editor, the repetition has made it hard to keep up and make sure all points are noted in each reply. Please don't let that effect your perception of my good faith, I'm not trying to omit or distort anything I'm just getting exhausted from having to repeatedly respond to points already raised. The text apart from the removed half has indeed barely changed, and the part removed was verifiable and I included it for ] reasons, the question is more if it's due in the lead or just in reception. ] (]) 21:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We clearly have very different definitions of "barely changed". You have been involved in repeated discussions of the neutrality of the article on ] (and in edit summaries) since soon after you created it, so this is obviously no surprise to you. I think you really need to step back and take a moment to honestly reflect on whether you can be neutral in this subject area. It's clearly an issue which you care about a great deal (and that's good!), but perhaps you should take a break and edit in other areas for a few months. Misplaced Pages is not a good place for a ] mentality. Even though this issue is currently a cultural battleground, it's better for everyone if we can turn down the heat on Wiki. ] (]) 21:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<s>This discussion is spiraling out of control below. I urge everyone to drop the stick and back away. Let newcomers contribute to the discussion without bludgeoning them, give it some time, and let an uninvolved admin close this. ] (]) 11:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| </s> | |||
| :::::::Cannot follow my own advice, so striking for hypocrisy. ] (]) 13:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@], I'll try to give more thorough breakdown of the articles and associated discussions so you can see what I mean. Please read with an open mind and feel free to verify and check what I've said. | |||
| ::::::* For ], the text of the original lead and article as a whole has not changed much. I said "barely changed", not mentioning the paragraph removed since I'd mentioned it before and am getting exhausted by this. That paragraph was removed as a question of ], not ] or ], and I'd included it since I'd seen it be standard practice with ] to, if someone is known for their fringe position on a medical issues, highlighting what ] have to say about it instead. Below are the initial and current versions of the page if not focusing on that second paragraph, which I agreed wasn't due in the lead and discussed integrating into Reception/Activities, which I can hope you realize, has actually barely changed, the biggest things being far-right -> right-wing, which I switched, and the term "American", which is not ] related. | |||
| :::::::: Original Text: {{tq|Chloe Cole is an anti-transgender activist and detransitioner known for appearing on far-right media and with politicians before state legislatures to oppose gender-affirming care for minors and support bans on such care. After telling her parents she was a trans boy at 12, she started puberty blockers at 13, testosterone a month later, and received a double mastectomy a month before she turned 16. At 17, she detransitioned.}} | |||
| :::::::: Current Version: {{tq|Chloe Cole is an American anti-transgender activist and detransitioner known for appearing on right-wing media and with politicians before state legislatures to oppose gender-affirming care for minors and support bans on such care. According to her testimony, after telling her parents she was a trans boy at 12, she started puberty blockers at 13, testosterone a month later, received a double mastectomy a month before she turned 16, and detransitioned at 17.}} | |||
| ::::::Additionally, at the ], you see me putting my personal feelings aside to make sure we stick to sources and not introduce skepticism of her story into wikivoice. Another discussion is whether the attendance of proud boys at one of her events should be covered, which I argued with sources and context it was. Another is whether "anti-trans activist" applies, which was proposed by the sock who started this and taken up by {{noping|Springee}}, which I defended with reliable sources and other editors do not find overly objectionable. The final discussion on that page is from a SPA that has been trying to remove ] content. | |||
| ::::::For ], which was one of my first articles, it has changed a great deal. But the initial sourcing was not based on ] and wholly on ]. If you look at the current version, you can see that 1) I have been the largest contributor to the article and 2) sources have been added and the formatting cleaned up so as much as possible is more detailed and specific. The article has been stable and well-regarded for a while now. If we look at ], we see extensive discussion on improving the article, and me sticking to what ] have to say about them. (I will note, the second editor on the page {{noping|Swannieriv}}, had an undisclosed COI that I discovered only after they dropped the stick and stopped editing after rage-quitting because their OR didn't fly here). If you can see problems with the article as-is, please point them out, but otherwise I maintain that it's a well-written article formed by productive collaboration. | |||
| ::::::Finally, for the ], the article body itself has barely changed (with the exception of some removal of RS by a COI editor). But looking at the lead, which was the most heavily disputed, here are the original and new versions. | |||
| ::::::* Initial version {{tq|The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) is a conservative national nonprofit organization in the United States. FAIR is known for campaigning what they call Critical Race Theory (CRT), though critics have said they use it as a catch-all term for mentions of white privilege, and for the "right" of students to misgender their schoolmates. / FAIR describes itself as a nonpartisan group dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all, but critics have noted the board is made up of conservatives who've variously been accused of racism, pushing race science, climate change denial, sexual assault, homophobia, and transphobia. Notable members include former Fox News host Megyn Kelly, Christopher Rufo, Abigail Shrier, Steven Pinker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ian Rowe, and Bari Weiss. FAIR was launched in March 2021 by Bion Bartning, after learning Riverdale Country School, where his children attended, has developed anti-racist initiatives. / The Guardian describes it as having "sprung up to spread the fear of critical race theory far and wide." The Colorado Times Recorder listed it as a "conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist group". Media Matters for America described the group as "deceptively named" and the San Antonio Current described it as "horribly misnamed".}} | |||
| ::::::* Please note, for the line about the "right" to misgender students, that was based on a source and on my own reflection I updated it to the more neutral {{tq|opposes policies that would prevent schoolmates and faculty from misgendering or deadnaming transgender students.}} | |||
| ::::::* There was a brief intermediary period where the lead contained only their mission statement, and a look at JWeiss11's contributions to the page, talk, and the COI I've raised to arb-com showed blatant targeted advertification. | |||
| ::::::* Current version {{tq|The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) is an American nonprofit organization, founded in 2021, that campaigns against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and antiracism initiatives that it calls Critical Race Theory (CRT); it also opposes policies that would prevent schoolmates and faculty from misgendering or deadnaming transgender students. / FAIR describes itself as a "nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, and promoting a common culture based on fairness, understanding, and humanity." FAIR's board of advisers has included human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, musician and activist Daryl Davis, conservative activist Christopher Rufo, former Fox newscaster Megyn Kelly, journalist Bari Weiss, and academics Jonathan Haidt, Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, and Steven Pinker.}} | |||
| ::::::The SACurrent and Media Matters for America parts were recognizably undue, I'd initially felt it important to highlight that multiple RS had specifically pointed out how deceptive it's name was, but realized that was best saved for reception. The Colorado Times Recorder is recognized as ], provided ] coverage, and it was used for noting {{tq|the board is made up of conservatives who've variously been accused of racism, pushing race science, climate change denial, sexual assault, homophobia, and transphobia.}}, along with other sources who specifically pointed out how stacked it's board is with conservatives. Generally, there is current discussion on the talk page about how to properly include their criticisms in the lead. | |||
| ::::::If we look at the ], I have done everything I can to stick to reliable sources. I was wrong about Idavox, and recognized that was so when given a better reason it was not up-to-snuff than "it's left-wing". Various aspects are under discussion, but as you can see I took disputed sources to RSN, and more recently compiled what every RS had to say about them to propose a lead (which the current version is mostly based off of) ] (]) 15:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Please don't confuse things that haven't changed because they are good with things that haven't changed because editors are getting consensus, being cautious or are only beginning aware of the issues. ] (]) 15:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thanks for your detailed response, but I am unconvinced. It is more than possible to write an article made up of completely factual statements, sourced to reliable sources, and still demonstrate bias. For instance, I could write: "<small>Joe Biden, whose election as President was highly controversial, visited Kyiv recently, even though he has never visited Americans who suffered from a disaster on his watch in East Palestine, Ohio. Some Republicans say he has been "absent on the job" and "the worst President in US history." Biden, long known for his gaffes and controversial statements, said more money taken from American taxpayers would be sent to foreigners to fight a war that is thousands of miles from US shores.</small>" Every part of this is true, but due to cherry-picking, lack of context, and snide asides, it is entirely non-neutral. | |||
| :::::::In a similar way, you added little asides and pieces of "context" to the Chloe Cole article that have since been removed, such as (among others): "<small>reportedly being unable to answer some questions coherently but responding with apparently rehearsed answers to questions posed by Republican lawmakers", "none of whom were from Florida", "leading a transgender nonbinary person who signed up to testify but wasn't able to do so to state the event was 'obviously staged' ", "Many have speculated that her travel has been paid for anti-LGBTQ activists. Cole denied that and said her trips are self-funded with crowdfunding via Twitter tips. Others have questioned if she is being coached</small>," etc etc. | |||
| :::::::Similar issues crop up in the other articles you have started. To be clear, incidentally (and I think we're already on the same page here), I was not referring to the lead only but to the entirety of the articles you began. ] (]) 15:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No problem! If there's one thing I'm known for, for better or for worse, it's detailed responses lol. | |||
| ::::::::I just want to say, I recognize that the articles had some bias, but the cores remained unchanged. No editor can write a truly unbiased article, I just want to highlight that my articles are mostly unbiased. | |||
| ::::::::For example, with the Cole pieces mentioned, which I haven't contested, those are details explicitly noted in relevant sources that I thought relevant and due. Many were from the Blade interview, which was one of the most ] sources there that went in depth into her actions, story, and reception. The fact all people speaking against the bill were flown in was commented on by multiple sources and seemed noteworthy, but I may have been wrong. Same goes for the comment about the event being obviously staged, since that was a clear attributed comment noted from a RS saying a hearing she participated in was "staged", I thought it seemed due and noteworthy. But I was wrong. (A side note, I recently saw a reliable source confirming an anti-LGBT group paid for travel in one case that I've been meaning to add) | |||
| ::::::::Am I always right and unbiased? Of course not, as a general rule I distrust anyone who says they are. But my articles are written with an intention of sticking to ] and ], even when I don't like an organization/person (as evidenced by me arguing that skepticism of her name and story in wikivoice was wholly uncalled for on talk) I endeavor to improve articles and their NPOV collaboratively, for example see discussions on my talk page on Gays Against Groomers and the talk page for GAG itself, where @] has been supportively critical of my work and we've been working together to improve the article. | |||
| ::::::::Should I put my articles through a stricter review process before publishing? If there's one take-away from this whole thing it's that I absolutely should, to improve it and help ensure my unconscious biases don't make it in despite my best efforts. I have no issue with a sanction to that effect. A full on topic ban disregards just how much good work I do in this area and just how much of it is regarded as good and uncontroversial, when a more tailored sanction would be much more apt and deal with the specific issues raised. ] (]) 16:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban from ] who are related to the topic area of ]''', broadly construed. Much of this discussion has been ill-informed attempts by a sock of a prolific sockmaster to troll all of us. That being said, the user's behavior in this area has been a source of significant disruption and BLP issues, and I was extremely close to bringing them to AE relating to this behavior anyway, so here we are. They were given a in this area by {{u|AmandaNP}} no less than ten days ago, and the user has, even since then, continued to engage in disruptive editing that pertains to living persons whom they find to be unsympathetic.{{pb}}I will remind us of ], where a user {{tq|has engaged in a personalized, public, off-wiki dispute}} with a particular BLP, {{tq|while simultaneously making significant content edits}} to that same article {{tq|over an extended period of time}}. This sort of behavior is not acceptable, and can potentially demonstrate {{tq|a conflict of interest}} with respect to particular topics. The writings of {{u|TheTranarchist}}, as posted on the , reveals a great deal of the same sort of mentality that led to the problems that got Philip Cross the British Politics TBAN. And some of these edits include an absolute, premeditated, and egregious attempt to use Misplaced Pages for black-hat SEO gaming to attack particular organizations and people or to otherwise engage in ] rather than trying to build a neutral encyclopedia. These include: | |||
| *# <small>()</small> Indicates an intent not to edit neutrally, but to instead specifically spite people. With respect to comments on ], TheTranarchist wrote {{tq|TERFs are crying again, do you think they'll cry more when I mention Posie Parker's far right ties in the lead?}}. TheTranarchist then proceeded to sysstematically edit the article of Posie Parker (an alternative name of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull), including adding of the BLP that was dubiously sourced to and <small>(see: ], which notes that it is marginally reliable and attribution should be used)</small>. This was not the last of their editing to the BLP using dubious sources that portray them negatively, however; they would add material to the article sourced to a ''podcast'' from anarchist group blog and Trotskyist blog to portray Keen-Minshull in a negative light, despite neither of these having the sort of strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that is demanded of BLP sources. The user then continued to use fringy political websites to add contentious materials to the BLP, adding contentious material sourced to libertarian communist blog . The user then moved to , and later added contentious factual material about the BLP that is extremely clearly an opinion piece from anarchosocialist blog , the blog of a different anarchist group called , and the self-published blog . <small>(With respect to the lattermost source, they had and were told by multiple editors that it was not a good source to use in BLPs as it's self-published, but they decided to use it here anyway, so it's particularly egregious that they've decided to willfully ignore that.)</small> | |||
| *# <small>()</small> Reveals an absolute and premeditated attempt to create articles with the intent of covering organizations negatively, using Misplaced Pages as a tool to simply rank negative coverage of them high on Google. With respect to ] and ], TheTranarchist wrote that {{tq|I myself wrote Misplaced Pages articles on them to try and expose them}} and that {{tq|'''as a little SEO trick, no matter how much they spend on marketing, their Misplaced Pages page will still be among the first results displayed if not the very first one'''}}. | |||
| *# <small>()</small> describes TheTranarchist's belief they are in the group that uses {{tq|Misplaced Pages as a tool for combatting the anti-trans movement.}} | |||
| *# <small>()</small> appears to be a post in which TheTranarchist is seeking to have some newspaper publish screenshots of discord messages that they took from Genspect's discord. {{tq|check these out and try and get them viral as possible}}, TheTranarchist wrote. {{tq|extra kudos if they get picked up by a newspaper or something}}. | |||
| *# <small>()</small> is a self-description of their methodology to write articles, which is to say that {{tq|systematically search through every source mentioning the topic and take extensive notes then draft and publish an article}}. That's fine, but absent competent understanding of reliability of sources, this methodology leads to the exact sorts of issues with fringe blogs being included for contentious BLP content, and the user's compilation of fringe blogs to add to articles in order to make them more negative contributes to the problem of the user's repeated creating non-neutral articles in the ] area. A more recent example of this includes an ''obviously self-published activist blog run by a single dude'' for factual claims about the political contributions of a living person, even when the source itself declared itself to be purely speculating and even when {{u|Jweiss11}} had reverted their insertions. <small>(Frankly, if one cannot tell that is not the source we should be citing for BLP info, I would have strong ].)</small> | |||
| *# <small>()</small> TheTranarchist seems to be openly taunting the BLP whose article they are editing, saying, {{tq|I can't stop fucking cackling at the moment}} when describing the BLP complaining about the article. | |||
| *# <small>()</small> TheTranarchist describing the article they have written about the ] as being an article about the "enemy" and indicating a battleground mentality that proceeds from the belief in sort of real battle existing the editor and this group, writing that {{tq|Either way, the details don't lie and people need to know their enemy to fight them. Same people, same tactics, same fight.}} | |||
| :Taken together, yes, there is a battleground mentality here, and there's plenty of evidence here that we're approaching the level of having an editor who has personalized a conflict with Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull being the same editor who is adding poorly sourced contentious statements to her article. The warning received for general conduct in the area given by {{u|AmandaNP}} seems insufficient given that the above is clearly able to demonstrate an unabashed battleground mentality that has included repeated and intentional violations of the biographies of living persons policy in this area that continue through the present. I would kindly ask AmandaNP to apply this topic ban as a simple arbitration enforcement action, as the warning has not worked, and a topic ban is the only way to prevent future damage in this area from this editor. | |||
| :— ] <sub>]</sub> 08:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::A response to each point raised | |||
| ::1) In regards to the KJK article | |||
| :::: Per ] and ], her notability is incredibly tied to her affiliations to the far-right. Multiple reliable sources have commented heavily on such ties, and even people who advocate for exactly what she does have criticized her for such ties, so that by every means belongs in the lead, and I was planning to include it before the wave of vandalism. The linked is a ridiculous example, as {{tq|Keen opposes laws and policies that allow transgender women to legally identify as women, use public facilities for women, and compete in sports}} is neutral and fully follows the sources and body, since what she campaigns for should be mentioned there. As does {{tq|Keen has appeared on a podcast with white nationalist Jean-François Gariépy, and repeatedly praised far-right activist Tommy Robinson.}} are also all supported by the body and other sources used in the article. Robinson is also mentioned in the Byline Times, and Gariépy in the Progressive. Per ]: {{tq|As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, '''although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead.'''}} Regardless, when another editor raised notability issues, I found there explanation clear and didn't protest. | |||
| :::: It's Going Down has not been discussed much at RSN, but they have been to have published editorial standards and was re-publishing there was treated as reliable in the discussion. Workers Liberty has not been discussed, but they have clear info about their . Libcom has also been and considered either unreliable or reliable on a case-by-case basis. Notably, that was used to add that Keen had denied knowing who Lysglimt was, so that served to make the article more accurate and neutral. | |||
| :::: is not an {{tq|anarchosocialist blog}}. They are the oldest UK anarchist press, which also publishes books, and is attributed in the article. That being said, upon reviewing the source I now see it was marked as commentary (in small print) which I'd missed the first time since they also publish news and the article was well-written and sourced. The Anarchist Federation source is used for an attributed quote. In regards to TSN, I'd misremembered as sometimes due with attribution forgetting the caveat about BLPs, but they link to statements Keen has made and are attributed as having reported those statements. uses that particular article to cite the cross-over between transphobes and fascists. However, I do apologize for misusing the source in that regard, I'll be a lot more careful about citing TSN in future. | |||
| :::: And in regards to {{noping|AmandaNP}}'s warning, they actually contributed to this discussion (see above), clarifying their warning had absolutely nothing to do with my editing, merely me having confirmed a COI concern in the wrong place, so it's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. | |||
| ::2) They are fringe organizations. It is a purely factual statement, whether one acknowledges it or not, that the first result when searching anything will be the WP page if one exists. Fringe organizations known for promoting pseudoscience while masquerading as a scientific organization will be characterized as such by a well-written wikipedia article, no matter who writes it. Very notably, you haven't pointed out any issues with the articles themselves, merely my comment that a good wikipedia article on a fringe organization has the BLUESKY side effect of revealing they are fringe and countering their marketing as otherwise. | |||
| ::3) I also literally state this on my talk page so no need to go trawling through my Mastodon. If not taking out all the context from that post, you see my comment on how the Detransition article heavily relies on non-] sources written by prominent anti-trans activists, and made absolutely no mention that detransition can be legally forced. I've cleaned up that article in other ways to ensure it is ] compliant. In fact, you already link to a where I say (emphases added) {{tq|Misplaced Pages is a very important tool in combating the '''misinformation''' of the anti-trans movement more broadly. However, '''that depends on reliable sources''' (by wikipedia's guides) reporting on it themselves.}} | |||
| ::4) Is ridiculous. After I write the article, I check out their discord, where they openly admit to wanting to ban transition for everyone and focusing on those under 25 to spread their message, in addition to discussing putting adult children through conversion therapy and threatening them with homelessness. Please note, I have never put that information in the article, as it is not reliably sourced, true and verifiable as it may be. That is absolutely noteworthy and I do not see how recommending news organizations report on it and look deeper into them has anything to do with the discussion at hand. | |||
| ::5) Once again, no need to trawl through my Mastodon when my user page will do. There, I have a extensively detailing my algorithm in depth, where I explicitly state I reference ]. You seem to forget that when you brought up actual policy concerns with Idavox (whose statements I attributed in the article without using factually), I recognized you were right. Previously, every single comment by other editors had just referenced its political position as a gotcha. Notably, the other two contested sources were attacked on spurious grounds, one was considered generally reliable on every level, the other is still in discussion and does not lean towards wholly excluding it. If one checks the talk page for FAIR, we see all three were contested solely on their political positions. In fact, in that diff you linked, I'd undone JWeiss11's removal all 3 contested sources. If they had just removed Idavox, I probably would have kept the discussion on talk, at that moment I was trying to undo the removal of reliable content. And for the love of god can an arbitrator get back to me on how JWeiss11's massive undeclared COI has led to them whitewashing and advertifying the article? | |||
| ::6) {{tq|Taunting}} is an absolute stretch, I was referring to how funny the situation was and selective quoting and misinterpretation can't change that. I write an article, someone calls me an "incel" and says its full of lies, and I can't laugh about the fact they can't point a single "lie" out and the article was locked due to the huge wave of vandalism removing reliable sources that ensued? Or the fact an editor who was known for making editing a PITA for everyone else by repeatedly edit-warring and leaving transphobic comments was blocked (after multiple editors told them to respond to their AE case they were ignoring to edit-war more)? The editor was topic banned and tried to add a tweet to the article as a source FFS, shooting themselves in the foot that badly (practically with a blunderbuss) is humorous. | |||
| ::7) My characterization of an organization off-wiki as an enemy has nothing at all to do with the article in question. The organization fights to remove protections from transgender students in schools, so unless you're living under a rock, your average trans person is not going to support that organization. It's like saying an editor called NARTH an enemy of gay people, all their contributions on that article are invalid... | |||
| ::In short, you've only raised two actual pieces of evidence of me editing even semi-impartially. | |||
| ::* First, the KJK article, where I exercised some poor judgement in sources while mostly sticking to undeniably reliable ones, and even then their inclusion did not especially depart from what reliable sources had covered and were attributed. Had anyone raised concerns at the talk page about the sources in question, I would have responded and weighed the merits - I have no issue with being proven wrong about the reliability of a source. We all have biases, and I welcome editors to in good faith point out where they may have slipped into an article despite my attempts for them not to. There have been numerous occasions where, while compiling sources, I did not include some despite my personal support of them or the opinion on the quality of their reporting and I have strived to only use reliable sources on every occasion. | |||
| ::* Second, the FAIR article, where only one source raised was actually objectionable, and once given clear policy reasoning I realized you were right and '''concurred'''. If someone had raised actual policy concerns earlier, I would have concurred then, but the previous objections were solely its political position. Absent from that is the context that the article has been advertified and whitewashed (particularly by a COI editor) and editors there were trying to cast multiple sources as inherently unreliable due to their political position. Idavox had not been discussed at RSN, so I brought it there, as Daryl Lamont Jenkins is a Subject Matter Expert on far-right and right-wing organizing. | |||
| ::I will exercise even greater caution in my sourcing in future, but there's no evidence my editing is a particularly large problem. {{tq|A topic ban is the only way to prevent future damage in this area from this editor}} is extreme and {{tq|damage}} is unsubstantiated. I have written 14 articles and edited countless dozen more. Cherry-picking poor sourcing judgement (even with the fact those sources were clearly attributed and no means the basis of the article or substantially effecting it) on only 2 is hardly evidence of a persistent problem. Particularly given that on most articles I edit I tend to ensure ] sources are used instead of unreliable ones. I freely admit I did use poor judgement in those situations, sincerely apologize, and will do better (which you should by all means hold me to and consider in future sanctions should I slip), but a topic ban is an extreme over-reaction on many levels. ] (]) 16:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's deeply concerning that you would ever consider an anarchist blog/press site reliable for any contentious claim about a BLP subject. Here you added "{{tq|he Bristol chapter of the ] described Keen as a "known transphobe, islamaphobe, and all round bigot".}}" citing the Anarchist Federation itself. Can you offer any reasonable explanation why you would consider that to be a BLP compatible edit? If not, why did you use that source? ] (]) 16:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The press site being anarchist does not inherently mean "can't be used", as you seem to think it does. | |||
| ::::The ], which you linked to, is located at http://afed.org.uk/. The , which the content was sourced to, is independent of them and republished a statement from them, which was not used for any factual claims. The content added is an attributed statement to them. Did they not factually and verifiably protest her and {{tq|describe Keen as a "known transphobe, islamaphobe, and all round bigot"}}? An attributed statement as to why a group protested her seemed due, though I now recognize it wasn't. | |||
| ::::Regardless, since RTH objected, as you can see above I concurred and realized that was poor sourcing. ] (]) 17:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The use of controversial sources for BLPs is the issue being called out here, but doubly so when they're used in a highly targeted manner, as you've already admitted. While I firmly believe in your right to edit on Misplaced Pages, I suspect you may have too strong of a COI to continue editing in this space. I'd encourage you to continue editing on Misplaced Pages regardless of the outcome of this discussion, regardless. ] (]) 18:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Where have I {{tq|admitted}} I use sources in {{tq|a highly targeted manner}}? Where is the {{tq|COI}}? Trust me, I'm not notable outside of Misplaced Pages, I take great pains to stay out of public attention to keep me and my family safe, given how fucking scary it is to be publicly trans. I'd be happy to verify who I am, outside of countering misinformation on Misplaced Pages and occasional trans history (ex: ]), I mainly focus on work, finishing my under-grad, helping out my local community, and spending time with loved ones and I've had no interactions with any of the organizations or people I write about - the only connection to them is that I'm trans and I write about anti-trans organizations and activists. I only have a COI if gay editors have a COI about NARTH and Black editors have a COI about the KKK. | |||
| ::::::In terms of {{tq|continue editing on Misplaced Pages regardless of the outcome of this discussion}} - a topic ban would for all intents and purposes bar me from editing wikipedia. It is no secret that my editing focus and educational experience are in the GENSEX area. As others have noted, this usually takes the form of 1) ensuring misinformation doesn't spread and that ] are used and 2) writing articles about notable anti-trans organizations (which I must note, the majority of which have raised no objection and been praised). See my user and talk page and even the above discussion for evidence that my contributions in the area have generally been regarded well and level-headed, regardless of sourcing slip-ups in two sources, which I've freely admitted were mistakes on my part (and in one case, had recognized and concurred before this discussion was even started). ] (]) 18:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To paraphrase a previous statement of mine, we don't cite for the information it says and then slap on attribution ({{tq|according to a post on "She's a Homewrecker"...}}) as if it's some sort of band-aid. The same goes for other deeply unreliable or self-published sources. You're fully aware of this, and you participated in this ] RSN thread where multiple editors told you not to use a ''different'' self-published source in a BLP. As I told you then, and as I repeat now, {{tq|Source X is always reliable for the claim "Source X says Y", where Y is a direct quote. But ] says to "'''Never''' use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."}}. '''You were told about this ''exact sort of situation before'', and that this sort of "attribution-as-a-band-aid" was not compliant with our sourcing policies, yet have chosen to ignore this advice''' thus far. And so we are here, because you have ''intentionally'' continued to add negative and contentious statements to BLPs that were sourced to SPS and low-quality sources, even after being told not to do so by multiple editors. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have not {{tq|chosen to ignore this advice}}, I know the consequences and don't want to get banned, I can assure you I have no intention of deliberately shooting myself in the foot. There is ample evidence I am almost entirely by book and a collaborative productive editor - I have made statistically very rare errors in judgement and memory and ask you to assume good faith, give me ], and sanction me so I need to get my articles reviewed before publishing to mainspace to fully ensure that the content is neutral. I have never been opposed to good faith reviews of articles I write or when people point I've made an error in judgement. ] (]) 19:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::For the avoidance of doubt and in response to some !votes below, I will clarify that my proposed remedy of a topic ban is better represented by the ] of GENSEX and BLP than ] thereof. Should additional issues come up, this can be expanded, to be more broad in either scope, but I think that this restriction is both sufficiently narrow and preventative in nature. I think that the precedent in ] informs a more narrow TBAN here than "all of BLP and ''also'' all of GENSEX". — ] <sub>]</sub> 22:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support either ban authoring new GENSEX articles or outright Tban'''. This is based in part on the evidence presented by {{u|Red-tailed hawk}} as well as my comment above and the general lack of awareness when it comes to IMPARTIAL writing and the standards of sourcing needed to make value laden claims about subjects, especially BLP subjects. ] (]) 16:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose any sanctions''' there is no evidence that @] has been editing in a disruptive way or using anything but RS, or letting their beliefs actually impact the factual content of articles. This, coupled with the fact that OP was a sockpuppet, makes it ridiculous to actually consider sanctioning this user. ] (]) 18:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support Topic Ban'''. The editor in question has accused other editors of "cherry-picking" their edits, despite that's the entire reason why {{u|Red-tailed hawk}} went to the trouble to aggregate several examples. Why this is surprising or controversial is probably a good indication that this editor is doing precisely what they're accused of, which is advocacy editing. There is no shortage of evidence to support this claim, and while the sock puppet is concerning, it doesn't make this issue any less relevant. I understand that we're all human and we have bias, but there is a clear pattern of abuse here which is why I support the ban as to all the reasons pointed out above. ] (]) 16:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I have the right to defend myself and plead my case. RTH did not {{tq|aggregate several examples}} of my edits, they primarily aggregated comments I've made off-wikipedia '''without evidence they impacted the articles themselves'''. There is a {{tq|shortage of evidence to support this claim}}, as all serious complaints have boiled down to the inclusion of sources in only 2 articles out of the 14 I've written and the dozens more I've edited. While they have indeed proven unreliable, they were attributed even then, and I have not contested their reliability given evidence they aren't. A proper audit should take my general conduct into consideration, not just take two slip-ups as representative of my editing as a whole and evidence of {{tq|a clear pattern of abuse}} ] (]) 18:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::A quick look at the first bullet shows a good number of examples with that very same BLP article where you have chosen to use self-published and other ] sources to assert contentious facts and introduce negative statements about a living person into an article. The sixth bullet is a "appreciation post" written to that very same BLP, where you described yourself as {{tq|fucking cackling at the moment}} when you saw that the BLP was upset with Misplaced Pages's coverage of her. These are related, and say ''a lot'' about your BLP editing in this topic area. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::To the 1st: those were from a while ago, and please keep in mind that content is a quote from an organization that protested her as to why, which seemed relevant and contextually justified but I now realize should have been more strictly sourced. I have stayed off the KJK article for a over two weeks because I wanted to step away from the page and let others editors improve it and see/fix what I couldn't, even though multiple RS have been published with details I could include and feel I should, since even I'd realized it's gotten to personal and I have better things to do. And to the 6th, let's please keep in mind the context that someone w'''ho is known solely for campaigning against the rights of trans people''' got mad about an article about her, calling it full of lies when it wasn't and she could provide no evidence it was, and personally insulting me. I only learned about the tweet because because @] tried to insert it into the article and it preceded a huge wave of vandalism, which resulted in the page being protected, there having seemed to be a consensus among editors that the article contained no lies and everything was verifiable. | |||
| :::I don't want to ] any articles, though I want them to be well written and containing all relevant information to date from the start. I've written 2/14 articles that were not fully properly sourced, and even then only marginally when keeping in mind how little weight they had and how the article was overwhelming reliably sourced. Not to mention the dozens of other articles I've edited wholly uncontroversially to ensure ] and ] were used. | |||
| :::Please, I'm asking you to assume good faith, to give me the opportunity to be even more exacting with my sources, and to hold me accountable if I fuck up again - enough rope to hang myself and all that. I even thing it's a good idea for me to have to put BLPs through the AFC process to make sure I didn't screw up and to help fix up my articles and ensure they're as good as they could be, since that's what collaborative editing is all about and I have a history of, even when disagreeing, collaboratively discussing based on RS and wiki-policy (to such an extent even the Atlantic, who are among the last people I expect for unbiased reporting on trans issues speaking to my personal opinion, noted that). These may have been these major SNAFUs on my part, but can you at least acknowledge that I provide a lot to the encyclopedia and the GENSEX area and a topic ban would be extreme given the circumstances and a waste of valuable contributions? ] (]) 19:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support topic ban''', per {{u|Red-tailed hawk}}'s list and replies above. ''''']''''' (]) 18:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose any action''', this was started by a banned sock and many of the editors supporting it are only doing so because they are on the other side of the debate. The ''last'' thing we want to do is to remove one of the few editors from this area who are opposed to the worrying influx of "gender critical" editors. ] 19:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{re|Black Kite}} Aside from baseless ''ad hominem'' attacks, do you have any substantial comment as to the issues I've brought up? Anything at all? I'm not a banned sock, and these are real issues that the user has previously been told to correct multiple times in the past. — ] <sub>]</sub> 19:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::As a clarification, I believe Black Kite's comment about {{tq|only doing so because they are on the other side of the debate}} was not directed at you but rather editors such as Springee, who has in the last few day | |||
| *::: On ], compared LGBT magazines to car magazines and said they're too biased to use as a source to label someone an "anti-trans" activist, the person in question having no notability outside of mostly campaigning to criminalize transgender healthcare for minors, and also for adults under 21 or adults on Medicaid as well, which they ignored to repeatedly insist that Cole only campaigns against transition for minors, and therefor it's supposedly therefor not "anti-trans" | |||
| *::: On ] repeatedly insisted that trans students don't have a right to not be misgendered in schools, that campaigning against that right doesn't make an organization opposed to transgender rights, said only "trans advocates" thought so, and continued to deny denied there was evidence otherwise when presented with US Laws, and UN / human rights organizations statements | |||
| *::Who has, as shown below, mainly not brought up any actual reasons I should be banned apart from disagreeing with their ] positions on trans topics, until referencing their own disagreements with me once again but saying they were in addition to your note, which has been practically the only one to bring up any real wrong-doing. Not to mention that they were blatantly canvassed beforehand, apparently the only one to have been summoned like that. | |||
| *::Reviewing their reasons for why I should be banned in chronological order}} | |||
| *::# tries to prove tendentious editing by linking to an editor with a COI affecting the article saying I did so, who didn't provide any evidence. | |||
| *::# Links to a warning about improperly giving evidence of a COI as evidence of a problem with my editing, which the editor who left the warning stated it wasn't | |||
| *::# Provide the initial versions of Chloe Cole and Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism as evidence they were biased, despite the text remaining mostly unchanged after consensus has found they weren't, Springee notably being one of the most vocal opponents in those places. | |||
| *::# Notably, argued against an investigation/boomerang for the highly suspicious account who started the discussion and notified them immediately after, who's now been banned as a sockpuppet | |||
| *::# Supports a restriction on publishing articles directly to mainspace | |||
| *::# Using a section compiling all reliable sources titled "Undoing the whitewashing and advertification", which other editors have noted was an apt and neutral description, as evidence of my misconduct | |||
| *::# Rehashes your point about the anarchistfederation source at KJK, their own politics clearly coloring how they view source reliability by notably asking how an "anarchist" source can be reliable. | |||
| *::# Supports a full topic ban or the article publishing restriction, referencing they're earlier unsubstantial points but also citing your argument | |||
| *::] (]) 20:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| If I had to put my thoughts into a !vote, which seems to be the direction the discussion is taking: '''Oppose any sanctions'''. I should again stress that the only reason we're here is because some bad looking informal posts were dug up in bad faith by a repeat WP:OUTING violator that has been banned since 2018. I think that's called poisoning the well, and I don't think we should be rewarding that. Regarding on-wiki behaviour: I've seen worse behaviour in this topic area from much more experienced editors, and this is not a very experienced editor. Because I felt like I was going a little bit insane with how some of the editors in this thread talk about her behaviour, I've decided to put some effort into quantifying it: She has a total edit count of roughly a 1200. of which only about 4% have had to be reverted or otherwise deleted, a number that is lower than red tailed hawk's at 5.5% for example, who has had an order of magnitude more edits to learn the craft at over twenty one thousand edits total. considering she's operating in a topic area where getting reverted is almost the norm these days, I think that's actually a quite decent score. Another point I want to adres is that even in the main mastadon post at isssue here, (the one where the "these fuckers"quote comes from), TheTranarchist shows a clear understanding and awareness of wikipolicy regarding these matters, stating explicitly that reliable sources are needed to get anything included on wikipedia, which is correct. --] (]) 21:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' I don't edit in this area, but as an admin I used to patrol some gender-related topic areas that experienced significant disruption. The diffs shared above by {{u|Red-tailed hawk}} and others, especially the use of a highly inappropriate source to support contentious negative statements and the fact that this editor's userpage openly calls the subject of a BLP they've edited a liar and bigot, are extremely troubling. Collectively they have convinced me that TheTranarchist is fundamentally unable to edit this topic area (especially BLPs) in a manner consistent with our policies. I'll also note that this topic area is under ] for multiple areas, ] and ] so any uninvolved administrator may take appropriate action, or a consensus at this noticeboard also has the option of a ]. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 21:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:The raised questionable sources have been 3/4 out of the 100's I've cited in 2 of the 14 articles I've written and dozens more edited. With Idavox I took it through the appropriate channels and I'd recognized it as unreliable after being a clear policy reason before this whole thing even began. The BLP subject in question publicly insulted me and accused me of lying, has '''no notability outside of their bigoted actions''' and campaigning against the rights of people like me, and I didn't call them a {{tq|liar}}, I said they were {{tq|lying}}, which I provided a source to verify. That context matters. ] (]) 22:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I do understand what you're saying. Granted I'm somewhat of a BLP hardliner and have been for over a decade, but 3-4 out of hundreds on 2 out of 14 articles, when they're that egregious and especially when coupled with an open declaration of a desire to ], is simple ]. The attempt to manipulate search engine rankings is also something that has been noted as "an extremely serious abuse of Misplaced Pages" according to the Arbitration Committee. Editors with strong feelings about a BLP subject, especially negative ones, need to be extremely careful about editing those articles and should often choose not to edit them at all. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 23:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I can respect being a BLP hardliner, but I think a full topic ban is disproportionate given the circumstances. I've already stated I think ] and a sanction on publishing BLP's to mainspace would be a good solution that would prevent this sort of problem arising again without throwing away the baby with the bathwater. | |||
| *:::In terms of my choices for BLP subjects, I want to note that people whose only notability is campaigning against transgender rights will most likely have their article written by either 1) someone who supports such views, and is likely to embellish sources, whitewash them, and use the article as an advert, or 2) someone who is trans and is directly effected by such policies, which we can't really help. | |||
| *:::In terms of ], on my user page, I have a subsection {{tq|Choosing an article topic}} where I state, {{tq|Difficult at the best of times, and up to you. I find my time on Misplaced Pages is best suited to 1) documenting anti-trans groups and activists and 2) documenting trans rights groups and activists. Generally, Misplaced Pages can be a wonderful tool for shedding light on both those who fight to make the world better and those who fight to make it worse. We need to know about both. This is not contrary to ], as both tend to be covered in reliable sources.}} ] states {{tq|If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles.}} - the policy applies to ], not summarizing reliable sources as I overwhelmingly do and revealing well-sourced/documented wrongdoings. | |||
| *:::Regarding the edits, I'd like to say in my defense in context they are not especially egregious: | |||
| *:::: Idavox was used for a attributed statement to them. I initially thought them reliable as recognized experts and gave sources to support that belief, but I recognized I was wrong about their reliability and concurred before this discussion started when RTH raised wiki-policy to answer the question. | |||
| *:::: The ] protested one of Keen's rally, the content removed was an attributed statement to them. Other editors at the talk page considered it possibly due. I realized it wasn't when RTH brought up concerns here and did not contest it. | |||
| *:::: The Freedom News source would be reliable generally, and I wouldn't mind supporting that at RSN. The issue was it was a commentary, which I'd missed since it was in small print and read like a news article, and even then it was attributed. I still accept I fucked up there (for the fact it was a commentary I'd thought was a news piece, not for the source itself) | |||
| *:::: The Trans Safety Network source is a fully admitted fuck-up on my part and the most egregious of the bunch, as I'd previously discussed it at RSN but misremembered the caveat about BLPs. The content in question was an attributed statement to them on the overlap between Keen and Tommy Robinson, which they provided evidence of and links to her videos supporting the claim, and as I showed earlier (somewhere in this novel of a discussion lol) that article had been used in a reliable source to cite the overlap between the far-right and transphobes. Even then, when I RTH pointed out I'd fucked up by including it, I didn't contest it and realized I had. | |||
| *:::None of these sources have been used majorly in the articles, they showcase errors in judgement which I addressed through the appropriate channels and in one case had already realized was wrong before this whole thing started. The articles themselves are primarily compromised of ] and fully in line with wiki-policy apart from these minor SNAFU's. ] (]) 00:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban'''. I see this as similar to the ] from last year; intent matters, particularily for BLP's, and editors are expected to edit with the intent of improving the coverage of the topic and the articles compliance with policy. Sometimes, improved coverage and compliance with policy will expose wrongdoing by an individual or group, but exposing that wrongdoing should be the side effect of the goal to improve coverage not the goal itself. ] (]) 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Per ], setting out to right a good article on the group will necessarily expose their wrong-doing. Is there any rule that explicitly or approximately says {{tq|exposing that wrongdoing should be the side effect of the goal to improve coverage not the goal itself}}? They aren't mutually exclusive. ] (]) 22:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{tq|setting out to right a good article on the group will necessarily expose their wrong-doing}} It will, but your intent was to expose them, not to write a good article. This is likely to result in articles that violate ] and ], and did here as proven by Red-tailed hawk, as well as violate the policies underpinning ] and ]. ] (]) 01:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] Are exposing them and writing a good article mutually exclusive though? My intent was to expose them, or more accurately summarize how they've already been exposed by ] '''by writing a good article'''. Is there evidence that at ] or ] I've violated ] or ], engaged in ], excluded ] or otherwise improperly weighed them, or that they are not good articles? Why should the intent matter if the article content itself does not have issues? ] (]) 01:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The intent to expose an individual or group is incompatable with writing a good article, because {{tq|this is likely to result in articles that violate ] and ]}}. Evidence for such violations, including at specific articles, has been provided by Red-tailed hawk. ] (]) 02:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::RTH provided evidence of this at only one article, ] notably not either of the ones my "exposed" comment were referring to. The ] article had only one questionable source, Idavox, which I argued was due based on it's use by others via wiki-policy and the appropriate channels, which I'd already realized and concurred was an incorrect position before this whole thing started. Reviewing KJK: one source was an attributed official statement from a group who'd protested one of her events, one was included since "commentary" was in small print, but I maintain the source is otherwise reliable for its news pieces, and even then it was attributed, and one was the only actually clear sourcing fuck-up, since I should've remembered the BLP caveat from a previous discussion, which is a mistake I freely admit I made. | |||
| *:::::In short, only one source in one article was used in an especially problematic way (Trans Safety Network at KJK) - that is hardly evidence that the my articles as a whole generally violate ]. ] (]) 02:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I disagree with that simplification of Red-tailed hawks evidence but I don't think we are going to agree here. | |||
| *::::::However, I would support the topic ban even if Red-tailed hawk had not provided that evidence; I fully agree with Nil Einne's {{diff2|1140706601|comments on motive being a significant issue}}. I sympathize with your motive, but unfortunately your motive is not compatable with editing in this topic area; an editor who sets out to expose an individual or group is no longer capable of writing a neutral article on the topic, even when a neutral article would expose them, because they no longer have the intent of writing a neutral article. They are leaning into their bias, not attempting to control their bias. ] (]) 11:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weakly oppose TBANs at this time, support warning'''. I realize that there's already a recent logged warning, and I don't like back-to-back warnings in general, but also most or all of this conduct <em>predates</em> that warning, so a community warning here would really just be driving the point home. For all of the concerns about off-wiki comments, I do not see compelling evidence that there are systemic issues with TheTranarchist's articles. I'm open to being convinced otherwise there, but everything people have pointed to fails to sway me. At ] (Chloe Cole), for instance, there's some content that seems a bit anti-Cole, but also content that seems pro-Cole ({{tqq|At 12, Cole began seeing a therapist, who warned her parents against discouraging her from transitioning. ... Cole says a year after the surgery she realized for the first time she may want to breastfeed someday, which she now couldn't.}}). That is, to an extent, a failure in article-writing—] does not mean simply presenting both sides' narratives uncritically—but it's not a hit piece like some are characterizing it. Maybe I'm missing something? Some egregious pervasive bias in their articles? I welcome responses spelling it out. But what I see right now is someone who needs some advice on good article-writing, and who as a practical matter should probably step away from more controversial articles for a bit—and who, it should go without saying, should stop fucking making Mastodon posts that make themself and the project look bad. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 22:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'm not opposed to greater scrutiny/sanctions of my Mastodon posts. I can't help but fully agree that I should {{tq|stop fucking making Mastodon posts that make and the project look bad}}, which is a wonderfully direct and honest way of putting it. While I'd prefer to be given ] to post more tactfully in the future, as most of my posts there are a meta-commentary on Misplaced Pages and my edits here, if I have to stop posting totally so be it. While I'll be more a helluva lot more tactful regardless of how this goes, if consensus finds sanctions on my posting there are to be applied, I'd appreciate clear lines on what I can and can't post about to ensure I stick to them. ] (]) 01:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I don't believe that anyone is calling for banning you from making Mastodon toots about Misplaced Pages without oversight. We don't have that kind of authority. The general idea is that if you're going to be editing material about living people on Misplaced Pages, using social media (especially that is publicly linked to your Misplaced Pages username) to engage with and talk about the people you're writing about in anything but a polite or neutral manner isn't good. It can definitely lead to increased scrutiny and sanctions, ''even if you're right about them''. You're a newer editor so you may not realize, but there have been many cases before where editors, even highly respected content contributors and administrators, have been sanctioned for combinations of BLP-violating edits and off-wiki engagements with the BLP subject. The first one I can think of off the top of my head is ]. Additionally, if there is consensus then it could be possible to tailor a topic ban in a more precise manner other than ''all'' articles containing gender-related controversies/activism or ''all'' BLPs. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a tighter restriction, or a broad one that was limited in duration. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 01:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban'''. Their off-wiki conduct absolutely can be used against them ''when they themselves are linking it to themselves'', and beyond that it's clear there's a tendentious editing pattern here as discussed above. I don't know Tranarchist for their non-GENSEX contributions, but I'm willing to see they can be a productive editor outside of this topic. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''6 month TBAN on GENSEX''' - In the last few months the user has been using unreliable sources to propagate her publicly disclosed agenda to combat the "anti-trans movement." They appear to be an advocate. However, I would like it to be acknowledged that they are a new-ish user (been here about a year). I think once they get some more experience in other areas they could possibly garner a greater appreciation for Misplaced Pages's neutrality policies and guidelines and could successfully drop their advocacy problem. I see potential for TheTranarchist, but she needs to understand that this behavior is not acceptable. This temporary topic ban will facilitate that growth. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I just want to note, as I've done somewhere in this novel above, my precise quote on that was the "misinformation" of the anti-trans movement. ] (]) 01:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''' This is honestly a topic area I try to stay out of. I don't want to deal with the blatant anti-trans editors and their attempts to prop up pseudoscience about the topic of being transgender, such as editors who try to spread FRINGE nonsense like ] as legitimate through that and many other articles. Many of the editors in this topic area directly try to push just outright bigoted claims about LGBT people. Meanwhile, TheTransarchist actually follows what the sources say about these topics, which is frequently not complimentary and not surprising in being as such. You wouldn't expect editors working on articles about notable neo-nazis to not follow what the sources say about them being neo-nazis and their beliefs, would you? And having a personal view outside Misplaced Pages that bigots are...bigots is not an exceptional stance either. The articles presented, including the biographies, are written properly following what the reliable sources say about them. The sources are not complimentary, therefore the articles will not be complimentary either. If anything, TheTransarchist tries to focus instead directly on what the BLP subjects say and what their beliefs are according to said sources. The simple fact that those beliefs reflect negatively on the subjects is down to them themselves. I don't think removing an editor from a topic area who has been directly using the sources properly is appropriate, particularly not when pushed by a sockpuppet actively trying to go after said editor. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I ''would'' expect editors who present themselves as working on neo-Nazis to comply with ] and ], rather than regularly cite far-left blogs and engage in other problematic behavior. I would also be quite skeptical such an editor could distinguish between the center-right and fascists, especially if they are citing communist blogs that consider all conservatism or capitalism to be fascism or suchlike to support their labeling. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 03:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah yes, by {{tq|regularly cite far-left blogs}} you mean 1) Idavox, which I realized I was wrong on before all this started when presented with a clear policy reason that wasn't "I don't like its politics" and 2) an official statement from the ] on an event they attended, which I already recognized was a fuck-up when raised here regardless? I'm not sure exactly where 2 citations out of 100s is {{tq|regular}} - but apparently math works differently in Crossroads-land. I had a feeling I knew what your vote would be if you caught wind of this discussion but I expected you to be somewhat original..., but hey, padding your comment with a bunch of unfounded speculation on my political takes in a way completely irrelevant to the case was a nice touch! ] (]) 04:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|Ah yes, by regularly cite far-left blogs you mean 1) Idavox, which I realized I was wrong on before all this started when presented with a clear policy reason that wasn't "I don't like its politics" and 2) an official statement from the Anarchist Federation (Britain) on an event they attended, which I already recognized was a fuck-up when raised here regardless? I'm not sure exactly where 2 citations out of 100s is regular <s>- but apparently math works differently in Crossroads-land. I had a feeling I knew what your vote would be if you caught wind of this discussion but I expected you to be somewhat original..., but hey, padding your comment with a bunch of unfounded speculation on my political takes in a way completely irrelevant to the case was a nice touch! </s> TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)}}{{pb}} This is exactly the kind of unnecessary personalization I refer to in another thread below at ]. I have never before encountered Transarchist, but this response, along with Red talked Hawk's point, indicate that the GENSEX editing area will be better off without this person. Personalizing and belitting another editor while you are under scrutiny is not a good idea. You could have made the same point without all the comments I struck. '''Support topic ban and BLP ban''', per ] and ] and ] editing. ] (]) 21:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I concur, I've been watching this thread from afar and outside of weighing in as to whether or not this person can be productive I think you've illustrated how this person will likely be the source of malaise in the future for fellow editors regardless of the outcome. I honestly don't know what can be gained by keeping this ANI open any further, I don't see the conversation going anywhere but ] (if it's not there already). Admins should really consider closing this discussion and making a decision before it gets worse. ] (]) 23:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@], @], my first interactions with {{noping|Crossroads}} were at about whether it included trans people, which they stopped me putting in the lead even after I had already updated the body (which was filled with decade+ old definitions that didn't include gender, which I'd replaced with more recent statements from the organizations). The fact I have since always been able to tell what their position on any GENSEX discussion they step into will be is somewhat telling. | |||
| ::::::{{tq| Personalizing and belitting another editor while you are under scrutiny is not a good idea.}} - So what do you make of this accusation: {{tq|I would also be quite skeptical such an editor could distinguish between the center-right and fascists, especially if they are citing communist blogs that consider all conservatism or capitalism to be fascism or suchlike to support their labeling.}}? Is that not, as I referred to it: {{tq|padding your comment with a bunch of unfounded speculation on my political takes in a way completely irrelevant to the case}}. Furthermore, is 2 sources out of 100's {{tq|regularly cite far-left blogs}}? ] (]) 13:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That's a source-based observation, not a personal one like "math works differently in Crossroads land" ... extending to "I knew what your vote would be", etc. Further failure to get the point will only push me towards where I really think this thread should be going having seen responses so far -- I'd be fine at this stage with an '''outright indef for ] and ]''', since I don't see what value you are going to add to Misplaced Pages after a warranted GENSEX and a BLP t-ban. ] (]) 17:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::On the one hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with a little personalisation, when done in a sensitive manner and transparent manner. For example there are editors who I know when I'm working with them that I need to present proposals for text rewrites or additions in the exact context of the content surrounding it, while others I can just say I want to insert in . And when you're working with a smaller subset of editors, like in the GENSEX content area, you will start to get a general feel for the sorts of arguments that certain editors are likely to make in response to your contributions, and can use that to pre-emptively tailor proposals to account for that to try and address their arguments in advance. | |||
| ::::::::And in any sort of social or parasocial environment it's also human nature I think to form and hold opinions on people. But there is a difference between ''thinking'' "I knew User:Example would say this" or "I knew User:Example would revert this without discussion", and actually ''saying'' it on an article talk page. There's a time and place for raising and discussing editorial conduct issues, and it is never on the article talk pages. | |||
| ::::::::And that's the problem here. Thinking "math works differently in Crossroads land" and the rest of the text that Sandy has quoted and struck, is on a different level to actually saying it. Sandy's right, you didn't need to say it, it doesn't add anything to your argument, as it's basically just attacking another editor. ] (]) 19:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This is probably the rudest thing I have ever seen someone write on Misplaced Pages. Are you saying this user, a trans women, cannot add any value to other topics except to those on gender? It seems at this point that you are attacking another editor who has made MOSTLY constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::@]: That's obviously not what she's saying, and suggesting as much is not cool. You should find somewhere to participate other than ANI, at least until your account is extended-confirmed. ] (]) 22:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I would greatly appreciate you explaining what she meant then, and I will not be heeding your suggestion on that. Is there a WP policy stating you cannot participate in ANI until being extended confirmed? If so, please direct me to it. ] (]) 23:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Normally I wouldn't speak for another editor, but in this case, it's pretty obvious that Sandy's comment had abso-f'ing-nothing to do with anybody's gender identity, and was instead expressing the belief that disruption in one topic area would only continue in other topic areas post-TBAN, and thus a TBAN wouldn't be enough to prevent disruption. The policy stating you cannot participate in ANI until being extended confirmed is ]. ] (]) 23:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Sandy produced no evidence that the user would be disruptive in other areas, hence I do not think your reading is correct. And while I have only started regularly editing Misplaced Pages three weeks ago to a level where I thought I should make an account, I have made minor edits for many years. So be willing to listen to all voices. ] (]) 23:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Thanks for pitching in during my absence, Levivich. What I meant, LegalSmeagolian, is that since most of this editor's contributions are in the GENSEX/BLP area, I did not see what their value would be if they were banned from those areas (which is the direction this thread is trending). You are free to read too much into that statement if that helps you. And you're free to come up with contributions outside of those areas I may have missed, but that's not going to change my overall impression of a combative, personalizing, RGW, Advocacy editor who isn't getting the point. ] (]) 21:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::You barely researched then... see the editors contribution to as well as , both of which are well written and suggestive that the editor can contribute productively outside of BLP and GENSEX. A full ban is simply unwarranted, and obviously from your statements and rush for an indef ban that your opinion of her will not change. ] (]) 16:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{quote|The fact I have since always been able to tell what their position on any GENSEX discussion they step into will be is somewhat telling.}} Could it not be said that if the roles were reversed other editors could make the same claim? (this is a rhetorical question, btw). I'm of the same opinion as @] with regards to how this discussion has evolved. My observations is that you've sought to undermine the credibility of Wiki through WP:ADVOCACY, and all throughout this discussion you've put in a herculean effort to defend your actions while taking as little ownership as possible to many of the issues that have been identified with your articles and edits. I'm not opposed to reversing my !vote, but I've yet to see a clear reason why I should. ] (]) 18:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@] At multiple times throughout this discussion I've admitted to my fuck-ups and how I plan to do better when actual fuck-ups were raised. Poor sourcing choices (statistically rare and by accident, not intention) -> I will be even more thorough with them and ask for ] to hang me if I use improper sourcing ever again, as I normally take extreme pains to stick to only ] and ]. My mastodon posts -> bloody stupid, and I'll make them less frequently and more tactfully or not at all. My user page -> similarly stupid, and I'm going to clean it up. My unconscious biases slipping into articles I write -> I should put articles through AFC for review. | |||
| ::::::::The most {{tq|herculean}} of my efforts have been in response to criticisms that aren't actually based on my '''edits'''. Like ], where people have quoted my Mastodon post repeatedly '''without anyone raising any evidence the article has issues'''. Or people quoting ] or ], which are '''very specific''' about there being a difference between what ] have to say on a topic and ], which nobody has shown any evidence I do. ] (]) 01:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Per @]'s comment below, I apologize for the over-personalization in that comment, as my personal opinion or not it was bloody stupid to say. I'm letting this ANI case get to me too much... ] (]) 00:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban'''. Advocacy editing is advocacy editing even when the cause is righteous. RTH's evidence shows TheTranarchist targets certain subjects with the foremost intent of damaging their reputation, and predictably the articles on these subjects often suffer from problematic sourcing choices and excessive negative detail. That's what happens when you write on a topic you have strong feelings about: you unconsciously rely on the same biased sources you used to form your opinion in the first place because you're already familiar with them, while you're much less likely to be aware of RS with more neutral or opposite perspectives. You can be editing in good faith with the greatest intention of reporting content "neutrally", but when you have extensive prior engagement with literature on one side of a controversial topic then of course you're going to believe the preponderance of all RS support that side. We naturally avoid cognitive dissonance and seek confirmation of our biases, and that makes it very difficult to even identify which aspects of the opposing views are DUE let alone write a thoughtful summary of them. ] (]) 02:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:] states {{tq|Advocacy is the use of Misplaced Pages to promote personal beliefs or agendas '''at the expense of Misplaced Pages's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view.'''}} | |||
| *:{{tq|TheTranarchist targets certain subjects with the foremost intent of damaging their reputation}} is completely false. RTH's evidence, as broken down in my comment to {{noping|The Wordsmith}}, amounts to problematic sourcing choices in 1 article, the other had already been resolved and I myself recognized it wasn't a RS when presented when a clear policy reason why before this whole thing started. To cherry pick '''at maximum 4''' sources '''used for minor details and attributed statements''' out of the over-a-dozen articles I've written, hundreds of reliable sources they are based off, and general history of editing dozens more articles to make sure they are in line with ] and ], is not evidence that {{tq|predictably the articles on these subjects '''often''' suffer from problematic sourcing choices and excessive '''negative''' detail}}. Excessive detail is not a topic-ban worthy offense on any level - if nearly all RS are critical of an organization or person then it being intricately detailed is not non-], but a question of style and content editing. | |||
| *:{{tq|when you have extensive prior engagement with literature on one side of a controversial topic then of course you're going to believe the preponderance of all RS support that side}} is ridiculous, you're hypothesizing that I have {{tq|extensive prior engagement with literature on one side of a controversial topic}} with no evidence, and no evidence that the ] do not overwhelmingly support that {{tq|side}}. There is no evidence I have ommited, ignored, contested, or otherwise not properly incorporated all ] on any subject. I challenge '''anyone''' an article I wrote that is not comprised of RS and accurately reflective of them or even a '''single''' due RS I did not include. ] (]) 04:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::In what possible way is your avowed goal of promoting negative information on a subject--"{{tq|a little SEO trick}}"--''not'' an intent to damage the subject's reputation? | |||
| *::From NPOV: {{tq|Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail}}. | |||
| *::{{tq|you're hypothesizing that I have extensive prior engagement with literature on one side of a controversial topic with no evidence}} Are you claiming you formed your strong opinion on Keen etc. ''after'' you started writing articles on them? Forgive me for thinking the advocacy you announce on your linked Mastodon account reflects an informed opinion or relevant background on the subject! | |||
| *::My comment was merely to explain why it is so incredibly difficult for ''anyone'' to edit neutrally--even when actively trying--on topics they have strong feelings on; the "you" in all those cases should be interpreted as the "royal you" not ''you specifically''. ] (]) 04:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Their whole MO is hijacking SEO to push misinformation about trans people, that is commented on by numerous reliable sources. {{tq|as a little SEO trick, no matter how much they spend on marketing, their Misplaced Pages page will still be among the first results displayed if not the very first one.}} - BLUESKY, that's just true. A well-written article on an organization known for pushing misinformation will refer to how reliable sources have described them, no matter their marketing. | |||
| *:::My opinions on Keen were formed by not especially partisan sources commenting on comments she's made and things she's advocated for. That includes trans publishers, left-wing publishers, centrist publishers, right-wing publishers, and even anti-trans publishers. Anti-trans publishers often give the best view of them, once you cut out the puffery. Your insinuation was my opinion was formed by {{tq|literature on one side of a controversial topic}}. Compiling all the reliable sources merely strengthened how right criticisms of her are. | |||
| *:::While your comment may have been about the {{tq|royal you}}, it was in support of a topic ban against me, so unless it was a royal topic ban responding to your points raised seemed relevant. ] (]) 05:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Being an advocate cannot be grounds for a ban.''' If that were the case, most sports editors here would be bannable, as most seem to be supporting specific teams or players. A ban has to be based upon continued disruptive behavior such as described in ] or other bannable behavior. — ] ] 04:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * If I wasn't clear enough with my previous comment here, I am currently '''opposed to a topic ban''' from ]. Topic bans are generally reserved for cases when it is very obvious that a user is incapable of editing constructively in a given area, and this isn't one of those cases. ] (]) 01:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban'''. Whatever side of the argument is advocated, Misplaced Pages cannot be allowed to become a battleground for POV wars. ] (]) 02:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC). | |||
| :* Do you feel that way about editors dedicated to upholding FRINGE and fighting against pseudoscience in every form? Since that's a "POV" stance. The issue here is that there isn't a "side of the argument" going on here, there is just what the sources cover, which is negatively about the topic area of bigoted people and groups. There's no way around that coverage, because that's what those notable subjects are about. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban'''. Reading through all of this, I'm not at all convinced this user is being objective, and it does seem to come across as slanted against the gender critical movement in the way they frame information. I don't think they should be banned, but a topic ban seems valid. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''' - this section was opened by a (now-blocked) sock. Most of the !votes in favor of a topic ban come from editors who have disagreed with TheTranarchist about GENSEX topics in various fora, including some editors who hold perspectives hostile to the community consensus around ] and the professional consensus around ]. Editors hoping to remove an opponent from a topic area should not be rewarded for their efforts - a warning about the value the community places on high standards for BLP content is the most that this discussion calls for, in case some Admins feel that this message has not yet been received. ] (]) 03:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Regarding {{tq|the value the community places on high standards for BLP content}} and Newimpartial's rather unorthodox take on the subject, people might like to take a look at this discussion on WP:RSN. ] (]) 03:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::An attributed comment by a notable group about a relevant event to the subject? The only thing that needs to be changed is "reported" to "claimed" in the sentence, since it is a claim by the group in question about what occurred. But so long as attribution is properly given to this being a statement by the group, that seems like fine commentary to include. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I think that gives a bit too much credence to the preceding comment. AndyTheGrump is just about some ] here, and saying something quite tangential to my !vote. ] (]) 03:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::True, it's basically Andy attempting some whataboutism obfuscation with those who disagree with them in this section. And I would know, I'm the one that made the ] article. :) ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::How could I be {{tq|attempting some whataboutism obfuscation with those who disagree with them in this section}}? I hadn't commented in this section at all prior to the above post. Nothing to disagree with. For what it's worth, I've yet to make my mind up on whether I think a topic ban for TheTranarchist is necessary. ] (]) 04:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Notating here that the editor had a second anarchist blog, a highly questionable source with no attribution inserted into one of these BLPs, and it ended up being referenced 3 times in the article. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 04:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :* You're referring to anarchist news site '']''? Looks like the article in question is a Featured one done by the actual staff. You can use a primary source from Salem News if you want instead, though that isn't usually advised. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::And another one. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 04:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Which is '']'', one of the longest running Marxist news publications in the world. Do...do you just have an issue with someone using far-left news sources? ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To clarify, I was referring to Unicorn Riot. I took a quick look at People's World and it at least seemed to have a history and reputation for editorial oversight. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 04:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Totally...get it. I personally would be...staggered, if Unicorn Riot had any sort of...reputation for editorial oversight. However, as despicable as they (or far-right blog reciprocals) may be...if they have editorial oversight...they get...to be included.] (]) 05:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Unicorn Riot does seem to have a reputation for being a reliable source. Both and have favourable articles on them, and their reporting. amplified The New Yorker's profile of the publication. Snopes has cited their content in a , and used some of their other content in their reporting of the . ] extensively used their content in an . The ] that {{tq|They are clear about their methods and their goals; they eschew traditional ideas of objectivity while striving for factual accuracy.}} ] (]) 05:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's...not much better. While '']'' is certainly not as high profile of an RS as ''People's World'', it is still a news source. And the article in question used as a source was written by journalist Dan Feidt, one of the founding members. So it wasn't one of the random contributor articles they have in a different section. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I responded more in-depth there, but 1 claim was corroborated by an undeniably ], one is supported by Workers' Liberty and evidence (a link to a video), and 1 was her appearance on Salem News. The article was written by IGD staff and details of how IGD is used by other RS and their editorial policies are there as well. ] (]) 05:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * In case it wasn't clear from my previous comment, I '''oppose any sanctions''' against TheTranarchist. This whole debate was started by a blocked sock who fairly clearly was trying to harass Tranarchist. I don't see any problems with Tranarchist's actual output. So this whole case rides on what she said on an off-wiki site, which shouldn't even be ]'s business at all, for one. For two, I don't find having a motivation to edit the wiki problematic at all. There's plenty of articles I've edited because I thought they were biased, and in several cases specifically because I thought they were biased against trans people. That's not a violation of ] because ] doesn't prevent editors from personally having opinions, even opinions about Misplaced Pages. It's not a violation of ] to say you think a topic area is biased, or that editors with a certain bias have taken over a topic area, or that you think the bias resulting from biased editors taking over a topic area needs to be fixed. Heck, we currently have an ArbCom case about to open because an academic said in public that a bunch of Misplaced Pages editors are biased regarding Polish culpability for the Holocaust. I don't think anyone would advocate for banning the authors of that article because of their opinions off-wiki, right? ] (]) 04:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose sanctions, warning at most''' The onwiki conduct, not offwiki, forms the grounds for the ban and in my opinion it has not reached that point. The onwiki evidence presented thus far can be boiled down to a content dispute on one article, and many voting here are involved in that dispute. '''] ]''' 04:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support topic ban'''; TheTranarchist is a textbook example of ] and ]. From her mission statement on her user page, to her pattern of edits, to her painfully lengthy defenses when challenged, she seem constitutionally unable to decouple her own polar political perspectives from a true honoring of ]. While in her own mind I'm sure she thinks she's doing the lord's work, she's subverting the integrity of this project. ] (]) 05:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :* This editor above is the perfect example of the conspiracy and pseudoscience nonsense being dealt with on the right wing groups and anti-trans subject articles in question. a talk page comment of theirs on ] after TheTransarchist suggested a lede change that actually summarized the body of the article, rather than just having the mission statement of the group as the lede: | |||
| ::: {{tq|While the lead in current state less then ideal, I certainly object to this proposal. FAIR is not a conservative group. It's an alliance of conservatives, centrists, and liberals. And the part about CRT is loaded POV pushing that advances a word game to whitewash far-left ideological excesses in education and academia and attempt to delegitimize anyone who complains about it.}} | |||
| ::Several above have stated that having a POV off-wiki from TheTransarchist is reason enough to topic ban them from this subject area. What about this sort of POV pushing done on-wiki? ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, stepping back for a moment to offer some clarify and reset from a politically centrist perspective is surely harmful to Misplaced Pages! The spurious suggestions of "conspiracy and pseudoscience" are evidence that our ] and ] problems run deeper than TheTranarchist. ] (]) 05:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To be candid, the most aggressive POV-pushing and ADVOCACY I have seen on Misplaced Pages has generally come from editors who see themselves as occupying an Archimedean {{tq|politically centrist perspective}}. These editors frequently fail to recognize that they are acting out of a POV, even as they ignore the community's expectations around sourcing and neutrality in service of their own (unacknowledged) POV. ] (]) 06:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|Jweiss11}} I just want to stress here, lest it go missed: Misplaced Pages articles are not written from a centrist perspective, any more than they're written from a leftist or rightist perspective. They're written from a perspective that is neutral with respect to the views of reliable sources. Often that coincides with centrist views. Often it doesn't. Perhaps you misspoke and conflated "centrist" with "neutral", but if you really are saying that you were trying to bring the article to a politically centrist perspective, that would ]. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> :::(she|they|xe)</span> 16:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Tamzin, I agree that a centrist perspective does not always align with a neutral POV. Imagine an article about a political election between three candidates, one right-wing, one left-wing, one centrist. If we wrote an article that cherry-picked positive coverage of the centrist candidate and negative coverage of the other two, we would have a pro-centrist and very biased article that violated the principle of NPOV. But when we have an article that has a strong left-wing or right-wing bias on a topic that tracks fairly well on a left/right spectrum, as was the case when the FAIR article was first published to the mainspace, efforts to make the article more neutral by removing the most politically biased content and/or adding more neutral content will axiomatically also it make the article more politically centrist, at least until a point where things change so much that the article tips toward bias in another direction. Any decent Misplaced Pages article will reflect what the reliable sources say on a topic. But the set of reliable sources on a topic will say a lot of different things, often things that are in conflict with one another. They will typically contain a mix of clear facts and opinions of the authors. When you're contributing to an article, how do you go about evaluating the relevance and relative reliability of the various sources in a way that you're sure is free of political bias? ] (]) 01:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeahhh, you have been engaged in blatant whitewashing of the FAIR article and have a massive undisclosed COI so... glass houses, stones. ] (]) 05:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::TheTranarchist, would you care to expand on my alleged COI? I think everyone knows I was interviewed by John Stossel last year about Misplaced Pages bias. ] (]) 05:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't want to get in trouble with ], but don't worry, I already disclosed it arb-com and they're discussing it! Thank you for your lead suggestion which is so blatantly whitewashing it will probably cinch the case. ] (]) 06:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::And your past edits, particularly talk page discussions, have been generally regarded as extreme POV-pushing. If we look at we see bludgeoning, pushing ], trying to defend a source that consensus was incredibly obiously against, and general tendentious editing. | |||
| :::Frankly, I think {{tq|polar political perspectives}} is so laughable considering you've made comments like {{tq|No one is saying is "black people are genetically inferior to white people in intelligence". I do, however, believe that the mean and distribution of genetic drivers for intelligence is not identical for each every and ethnic group of humans. Basic logic demands me to believe that.}} ] (]) 05:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Evidently you have a problem with basic logic. Your favorite psychologist, ], has plenty to say about "the fear of inequality" non-sequitur you're operating with, cf. ]. ] (]) 06:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It doesn't matter how right or wrong you are on these issues (I can see you're right on some based on the talk page), but this is an unwinnable argument. Just hope the consensus here goes your way, otherwise stay involved with these pages and fight for balance. But we've gone past the point of productiveness here.] (]) 06:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think it's best to stop engaging with Jweiss at this point. Further interaction won't be productive. ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<sub>how many more users will have been WP:BOOMERANG'd before this discussion is over, I wonder.</sub> --] (]) 13:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * I think TheTranarchist's cause is a worthwhile one, and it is one that she should continue to pursue. Attempting to pursue it ''here'' discredits both the cause and the encyclopedia, and I have very little patience for ] on Misplaced Pages in any form. While I previously expressed my reservation about sanctions, I have since seen continued ] and ] behavior in several discussions related to this issue, I have learned that there was already an official warning in place from earlier this month, and (most concerningly in my opinion and not getting enough attention) I have seen an inability to discern reliable from unreliable sources in areas relating to GENSEX and anarchism. Finally, the collection of statements compiled by Red-tailed hawk brings it beyond a shadow of a doubt that TheTranarchist is ] to build an encyclopedia. As such: | |||
| ** I '''support a ] topic ban''' for {{u|TheTranarchist}} until she can demonstrate improvement in battleground behavior, an understanding of reliable vs unreliable sources, and the accurate use of sources without ], ], or ]. | |||
| ** I '''support a warning''' for {{u|Jweiss11}} for battleground behavior. Why they chose to come in here swinging and then leaned into the race issue is beyond me, but I also reccomend closer scrutiny of their conduct based on the comments above. If it is representative of how they discuss race on Misplaced Pages, then I will support anything ranging from a topic ban on race and ethnicity to a full indef for ]. | |||
| ** I '''support a warning''' for {{u|Newimpartial}} for the same battleground behavior and sourcing issues as TheTranarchist, as demonstrated in ] at the reliable sources noticeboard. | |||
| ** I reccomend looking more closely at how we address articles relating to transgender people and surrounding political issues. This situation is just a symptom of an underlying issue: we are clearly not doing enough to combat transphobia on Misplaced Pages, creating a vaccuum that encourages ]s. | |||
| ** I invite all involved editors to read ]. It's very short. | |||
| :] (]) 07:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thebiguglyalien, I leaned into the race thing? First, I was pinged here. Second, TheTranarchist, not I, introduced a comment of mine from two and years ago on another topic. I didn't bring that up. And describing a banal comment about the statistical complexity of our universe as "disruptive hate" is outrageous and Kafkaesque. ] (]) 07:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You're right, why go two and a half years ago when I could have just linked to your more recent clear POV pushing on trans topics and what you see as "left-wing activism" as examples of disruptive behavior. Like policies that prevent the misgendering of students as {{tq|aggressive ideological authoritarianism}} and saying that stating an organization campaigning against such protections {{tq|opposes the rights of transgender individuals is merely the idealogically-motivated opinion of hard-left activists}}. Or how on a at RSN you deadnamed Brianna Ghey without any need, then continued to claim you were {{tq|being censored}} because your public deadnaming/BLPPRIVACY violation was oversighted, as multiple editors explained on a human level and policy level why that was the wrong thing to do. Notably, you didn't apologize at all, you said {{tq|How is it a privacy violation if it's public information as it was published by mainstream news sources}}, linking to an archived version of the Times article where it deadnamed her. You also the charge against Idavox, Passage, and the Colorado Times Recorder, the latter two of which you stated were {{tq|non-notable left-wing opinion/essay sites. None of them should be cited as they are in the article.}} The trip to RSN concluded CRT was blatantly obviously GREL, and Passage is MREL/GREL and still in discussion. | |||
| :::::Frankly, context for all, my own defense of Idavox was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to people on the page opposing it and the other two '''solely''' based on it's politics and not solid wiki-policy, lumping them all together. Had anyone at any point cited the relevant wiki-policy and in good faith shown it was unreliable, I would have realized I made a mistake much sooner. But instead I got stuck trying to defend the page from advertification from an editor with a COI who tried to cast as many sources as they could as left-wing and therefore overly biased, despite 2/3 in question being very reliable and ] coverage... ] (]) 08:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::My "cause" is, if anything, combating misinformation on and through Misplaced Pages. I have done that almost entirely with ] and ], apart from the few instances noted above, which are not representative of my editing as a whole. | |||
| ::Could you please provide examples of ] and ]? Especially in regards to the latter, if a source is resolved as unreliable I don't use it (except for that one slip-up with TSN). For the former, others have noted that even when defending me, so I'd like to see some examples so I can do better. | |||
| ::In regards to the warning, which multiple people have brought up, please note that it was '''wholly unrelated to my editing''', it was improperly reporting a COI, as {{noping|AmandaNP}}, who left me the warning, testified above when asked for comment. | |||
| ::In regards to {{tq|an inability to discern reliable from unreliable sources in areas relating to GENSEX and anarchism}}, other editors have commented on how I ensure RS are used in such areas. The only anarchist-related questionable sources have been 1) an attributed statement from the ], who had directly protested an event of Keen's and 2) an attributed statement from Idavox, which I thought due given their ]. For the latter, I realized I was wrong when RTH brought up policy concerns before this whole case started. For the former, I realized my mistake and freely admitted to it. | |||
| ::RTH's compiled comments aren't evidence I'm ], but merely corroborate what I have always been open about, I strive to create encylopedic content on anti-trans groups/people, trans groups/people, and ensure that misinformation on either doesn't proliferate on WP. | |||
| ::I also strongly object to claims that I have engaged in ], ], or ]. If I'm wrong, please provide diffs or example of any cases where I've done so. ] (]) 07:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I feel that I owe you at least a reply to this, but I have to say that this really doesn't inspire confidence. At its core, the issue is that throughout this discussion, you haven't demonstrated an understanding of ''why'' your approach isn't tenable. You've said multiple times that you consider Misplaced Pages to be a means to combat specific individuals and groups, potentially doing legitimate harm to them. But you now describe that as "combating misinformation". There is a huge difference between distributing free knowledge and using Misplaced Pages to gain some advantage over people you disagree with. I will not comment on whether these individuals and groups deserve to have attacks against them, but that's not relevant because either way it's damaging to Misplaced Pages. There's likely a ] concern at this point. My advice right now would be to ask yourself why your edits are seen as problematic more so than other editors that edit in GENSEX topics. Are some of the editors opposing you just transphobic? I'd bet life's savings on it. But several well-respected editors have expressed legitimate concerns about issues related to advocacy, BLP, sourcing, and off-wiki activity that "brings the project into disrepute". ] (]) 09:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, I led the charge against Idavox, Passage, and the Colorado Times Recorder. Challenging questionable sources is supposed to be some sort of misbehavior on my part? It did not occur to me that stating Brianna Ghey's birth name on a discussion page, since it had been published publicly by a mainstream source, would be a policy violation of any sort, much less one that would that require oversighting, much less an act that could endanger anyone, like Ghey's surviving kin. My modus operandi here is always to assemble the clear-cut facts. In the mainspace, our articles for ] and ], state each individuals birth name, in bold letters in the lead. If we have have rules in place here that prevent us from discussing verifiable facts about notable subjects, that's a subversion of the project's central mission. Brianna Ghey's killing was an atrocity. But discussing her name at birth is not going hurt someone like uttering Voldemort's name. I understand that this apparent murder is upsetting. But when we come here to build an encyclopedia, our feelings are less important than the quality of the documents we produce. Redacting or oversighting an editor's comment is indeed censorship. We do censor here on Misplaced Pages, most commonly when an IP or vandal posts something of no value to the advancement of the project. We indeed censor, and my comment was indeed censored, justifiably in the opinion of some. It was certainly a learning experience for me. ] (]) 09:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We have a consensus, based on discussions on-wiki, about how we do and do not include the former names of trans people, in article and Talk space. BLP rules apply to Talk as well as article space, BLP-based protections still apply to the recently deceased, and deadnames by which people were never notable are not included anywhere (and are typically oversighted when introduced). And what is your reaction when you add the deadname to a Talk page, and all this is pointed out to you? You pretend it hasn't been, and whinge about censorship. And then you have the audacity to pursue your "opponents" to ANI. That must take a good deal of, err, self-confidence... ] (]) 10:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@], thank you for the reply! A few notes to clarify things | |||
| ::::* In the quote that people are using to attribute attacking organizations/people to me, in full context, I explicitly do say their misinformation. It's like saying "combating the misinformation of the anti-vax movement on WP", they are a ] position that have been introduced to numerous articles. For example, I cleaned up the ] article to not repeat the misinformation that most trans kids desist, as such misinformation is incredibly damaging. | |||
| ::::* In terms of {{tq|why your edits are seen as problematic more so than other editors that edit in GENSEX topics.}}, I have fully admitted my Mastodon posts were tactless and I'll do better or if it's best just avoid them in future. Also that I fucked up on sourcing and should've been a lot more strict. But, quoting {{noping|Licks-rocks}}: I have {{tq|a total edit count of roughly a 1200. of which only about 4% have had to be reverted or otherwise deleted, a number that is lower than red tailed hawk's at 5.5% for example, who has had an order of magnitude more edits to learn the craft at over twenty one thousand edits total. considering she's operating in a topic area where getting reverted is almost the norm these days, I think that's actually a quite decent score.}} | |||
| ::::Most comments have been on the basis of my political positions, and how they influence who I choose to write about, without evidence it has effected how I choose to write about them. For example, while numerous have referenced my (admittedly tactless) comments on ] and the ], nobody has raised evidence they are unencylopedic, rely on ], or don't accurately reflect what ] have to say about them. | |||
| ::::In total, the most objectionable '''edits''' referenced have 4 instances of improper sourcing for minor details, which I've broken down before, but which constitute less than a percent of the sources I've ever used and are in regards to only 1 article I've written (given I realized how wrong I was about Idavox before all this started when RTH gave me a policy based reason for why). I've even said I think it would be best to step away from that article given how personal it's gotten after the subject called me a liar and an "incel"/"trancel" (for writing the article) despite nearly everything in that article being impeccably sourced and verified. ] (]) 15:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *<p>'''Support''' a topic ban from GENSEX preferably indefinite but I'm fine with a time limit if others feel that is better. I don't feel any minimum appeal period is needed. </p><p>Although as often with these things, I think the community would probably reject anything coming sooner than 3-6 months. It's a pity it came to this. It's even more of a pity that this came from a thread started by an LTA. I hate this sort of thing and would much rather it was clean, but unfortunately when socking is only expose late in the day stopping discussion just to get someone clean to start can be even more unhelpful. </p><p>I was hoping that we could settle this either with a lesser sanction. Or if we were lucky TheTranarchist would demonstrate an understanding that is is completely unacceptable for them to edit with the express purpose of exposing stuff especially living persons, rather than writing balanced encyclopaedic articles; and perhaps voluntarily refrain from directly editing in such areas until they better learn why they are here. But I haven't seen that in their replies. It may not help that other editors also seem confused about the difference between editing with the intention of writing balanced encyclopaedia articles which you believe will probably reflect negatively/expose/whatever a subject; and editing with the express purpose of exposing stuff. But TheTranarchist is ultimately responsible for their editing so it's on them an no one else. </p><p>Note that while I rarely edit in this area, my views of the issues themselves are likely fairly close to TheTranarchist which you can probably find from stuff I've said well before TheTranarchist started editing. So any suggesting I'm trying to get rid of an opponent is highly flawed. It would be good to have editors like TheTranarchist but only if they're able to understand how and why they should be editing here. Some have mentioned that they're still relatively new and inexperienced. While there are understandable reasons why it happens, it's always risky when someone with very strong views starts their editing in a highly contentious area. Sometimes it goes okay. Often it does not, as here. If TheTranarchist is not willing to edit other areas that is unfortunate but by this stage it's looking like it's best way for them to learn why they're here and why it matters. And sanctions ultimately need to work for the community and Misplaced Pages, not the editor they're imposed upon. </p><p>Note while this is clearly my preferred option, I'd support any lesser sanction e.g. an AFC/draft requirements for new BLPs or GENSEX. </p><p>] (]) 10:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)</p> | |||
| *:I explained why I felt their incorrect motivations for editing where enough for a tban and I didn't look much into their editing. I then visited their talk page and found a discussion over this notification/comment . If you haven't seen that before, try and guess now what the basic dispute is about. There's a big clue in the wikilink to the discussion it's about whether ] should be in ]. The fact it's not an RfC lessons canvassing concerns but it's still just a terrible notification or comment given most readers will probably have zero idea what the basic dispute is. When challenged over it their response was . While I agree with them on the location point, there's no way thay is a neutral notification. Even the title cannot be considered neutral considering it doesn't reflect what the dispute is about. (To be clear, the issues they mentioned are only one aspect of whether FAIR should be in that category probably small ones at that.) I'm not surprised, this is why I didn't feel the need to explore their editing in great details. As I said, when you've here with the wrong motivations, we have good reason to expect poor editing ] (]) 12:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::@], for context, it should be noted that in order of objection raised on the initial talk page discussion at FAIR, the arguments were: | |||
| *::{{noping|JWeiss11}}: {{tq|Compelling the speech of people who are not transgender is not protecting rights of those who are transgender. It's aggressive ideological authoritarianism. The idea that FAIR opposes the rights of transgender individuals is merely the idealogically-motivated opinion of hard-left activists.}} | |||
| *::{{noping|AnimalParty}}: {{tq|you need to provide sources that explicitly state it is opposing the rights of transgender people, not that it is simply advocating for measurers that activists think might lead to rights erosion, or that you think are opposing rights}} | |||
| *::{{noping|Springee}}: {{Tq|Certainly saying the use of a deadname is a violation of a right is a claim that would need some strong evidence, evidence which you haven't provided.}} | |||
| *::I provided numerous sources detailing their activities, and proving the fact that the right to not be misgendered/deadnamed in school is considered a right. Notably, Springee kept shifting the goalposts as I provided the evidence they asked proving it is generally indeed regarded as a right. To quote myself from that conversation {{tq|if multiple reliable sources note that an organization is known for opposing same-sex marriage, but don't specifically call it an LGBT right, is it SYNTH to LGBT rights, given that same-sex marriage is very much recognized as an LGBT right}} The opposition was clearly based off the POV that it isn't a right, rather than whether it is recognized as such by the US, UN, and various human rights groups. ] (]) 15:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::With ] replies here and below, I no longer have any doubts about a topic ban. It's clear that they do not understand why their notice and framing of the situation is decidely unhelpful to resolving the dispute. This is similar to earlier when it seemed clear they had trouble understanding why people, even many who agree with their PoV, had trouble with their apparent motivations. I see no hope they will understand anytime soon. Unfortunately it's become clearer and clearer that this is one of the many examples of why someone editing here for the wrong motivations harm Misplaced Pages. If you're here to right great wrongs, no matter how noble the desired correction may be, you cannot set when you're actively harming Misplaced Pages. Be it by including material that shouldn't be included, framing disputes in ways that make it more difficult to resolve, and already heated discussions even more heated than they need to be; noting that often such actions end up harming your noble efforts since even editors who largely agree with your PoV think WTF? when they see your edits (as here). To be clear, I can understand why TheTransrchist was frustrated by many of the comments on that discussion, but this doesn't mean it was okay for them to make it worse by encouraging even more of a battleground. I encourage anyone whatever their views on categorisation and trans rights issues to look at the notification and consider carefully whether it was likely to help or harm efforts to resolve the dispute about whether FAIR should have be in ]. If you agree it was likely harmful, does the fact TheTranarchist not understand this concern you? ] (]) 10:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support GENSEX topic ban or similar''' - Red Tail Hawks' evidence is rather telling; Trananarchist is clearly editing in these areas for the wrong reasons. Yes, I understand everyone has their own private POV, but let's just say if User:FamilyValuesRepublican started using blogs to portray negative information about drag queen BLPs and then bragged about "exposing" them I don't think we'd take this long to come to the conclusion that their motives were testing ] and that they were a liability to our BLP coverage. -] (]) 10:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support topic ban''' (with conditions) for TheTranarchist and others: I know there are certain areas on Misplaced Pages I should not edit; LGBT+ issues are at the top of the list. I think if I was working with other neutral and knowledgeable editors I could make a contribution, but the reality of Misplaced Pages is very different. Some editors need help defining these limits. | |||
| : | |||
| : This brings me to what I think is the '''most important issue here''': there are editors that have enabled and encouraged conflict in this situation rather than consensus building and collegial behavior. If Transanarchist is sanctioned with a t-ban, those that fanned the flames need a t-ban as well. If this is not possible, I '''reverse my !vote to oppose'''. Admins need to examine everyone's behavior in this situation. The fewer combat editors are involved in an area, the easier it is for others to work together. | |||
| : | |||
| : I would also ask the t-ban '''not include''' talk pages, so that the editors have a chance to show they can productively contribute to discussions in this area, then when after a period of time (I think 1 year) they can appeal and have evidence to show they are able to productively edit in this area. | |||
| : <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 10:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't know this editor well enough to have an opinion on their edits. I think they recognise they posted some foolish stuff on Mastodon. But I'm not seeing editors post convincing links of behavioural issues on Misplaced Pages. The editor has posted opinions on talk pages about some organisations (e.g. Genspect) but that's not a whole lot different to medical editors moaning about Wakefield and autism or the Daily Mail and cancer and so on. Has their opinion reached a level where they are just using talk pages as a forum, or are they within the tolerance we all permit to talk about our subjects with more freedom on talk pages than we can on the article? Mostly though I'm very concerned that a sock account, now blocked, has created an AN/I section, which involved some degree of OUTING behaviour and focused mostly on what the user has written elsewhere, and which is now being voted on by editors with clear anti-trans editing history with arguments basically that they should be topic banned for being pro-trans and anti-gender-critical, and admiting such. I think for a topic ban, we'd need clearly demonstrated evidence that the editor is causing problems on Misplaced Pages. Like edit warring and consistently pushing unreliable sources, not listening to warnings on their talk page, etc, etc. I do recommend an admin consider some sort of procedural close. This is a dreadful way to go about reviewing a Wikipedian, and if a topic ban is enacted on the basis of sock puppets outing editors, well, that's a sorry situation to get ourselves into. -- ]°] 13:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree that the procedural issues here are genuinely problematic, but I wonder if you looked at my conversation with TheTranarchist above. Their initial published versions of at least three articles in this topic area were highly problematic. Even more egregiously, TheTranarchist misleadingly downplayed the changes made to the pages since to improve their NPOV, saying that the articles have "barely changed". I don't know if it's because she genuinely cannot grasp the degree of improvement needed (in which case a topic ban might give them time to gain perspective), or because she is not acting in as much good faith as I'd hope, but it convinced me that they are not capable of editing neutrally in this topic area right now. ] (]) 13:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''' - Good, sourced editing CAN be ] or POV. This is certainly a contentious issue here on WP but ultimately I have to agree that this user's editing is at odds with our policies. Tranarchist has openly admitted and owned their stances and editing intent in this topic area and it's pretty refreshing to see, but it is ultimately advocacy as many users above have pointed out, and Tranarchist doesn't seem to see how it isn't a fit for Misplaced Pages. Its regrettable in many ways that this thread has come to this but in the interest of keeping WP a NPOV, balanced, encyclopedia, I think Tranarchist needs to put the pen down in these topic areas and reflect on their editing style. Regardless of outcome, I hope Tranarchist continues to fairly and productively contribute to WP and fight the good fight '''off-wiki''', but not ]. ] (]) 13:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === arbitrary break === | |||
| *'''Oppose TBAN, Support Warning''' - Just another comment from a non-admin here. I guess this boils down to a fundamental philosophical difference with many of the people here. For me, being ] and ] are not binary propositions. Indeed. the latter policy nods to this when it says {{tq|Advocacy is the use of Misplaced Pages to promote personal beliefs or agendas ''at the expense of Misplaced Pages's goals and core content policies''}} (emphasis mine). The logical follow-on from that is advocacy is perfectly fine when it conforms to goals and policies. Indeed, who among us does not have political beliefs that influence their editing in both conscious and unconscious ways? Though I have great respect for ], I do not agree with ]. Misplaced Pages's neutrality is not a feature which inheres in individual editors, but is rather an ] which results from editors of various backgrounds and beliefs engaging in a civil but sometimes adversarial process. I do not like the stance of "pretend you have no strong stances." To that end, I find the posts linked above not great, but nothing so bad that on their own they strike me as a big problem. The sourcing issues ''do'' strike me as a problem, but one that many people have gone through, and at first glance, it seems Tranarchist is willing to adapt to the community's expectations here. So for me, the question becomes: what sort of response do the on-wiki acts demand? And for me, it's a warning. I don't see a TBAN as necessary to prevent disruption unless the posts elsewhere are taken in the least charitable light. Combine that with the idea that ] is cheap, and this one strikes me as a bit of a tempest in a teapot. That said, reasonable minds can certainly differ, and I may well be in the minority here. Cheers to everyone whatever the outcome. ] (]) 14:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''' - User has made it clear they cannot edit the topic from a neutral point of view. By their own words, they are here to right great wrongs.] (]) 14:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''' per many others above. I am sad to say it, but where it concerns gender politics there are certain number of "usual suspects" who are clearly not editing neutrally and are here to push a PoV. Disappointingly, it's often ideologically motivated. I do find it both funny and frustrating that when a discussion is taking place regarding these topics it's almost predictable ''who'' will show up, almost on cue, and it's even very easy to guess ''what'' they'll say, regardless of policy or context (indeed, this very discussion has demonstrated this). I believe TheTranarchist has been more overt with their tendentious editing, and I do believe their edits fail ]. As Lulfas above me said, {{tq|By their own words, they are here to right great wrongs.}} — ''']''' 15:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **Following on from this, I've just read through the collection of comments collated by Red-Tailed Hawk above, and all I can say is, '''good grief'''. While many here are saying that their off-wiki activities should be discounted, I firmly disagree. Not only does she link to her social media on her user page, but it's a pretty telling admission of a desire to use Misplaced Pages as a tool (her words) to clearly push an ]. TheTranarchist is ]. — ''']''' 16:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose TBan''' - While TheTranarchist has made some mistakes while editing, they've also been willing to try and correct them, both before and after this thread started. As for making intemperate social media posts...I mean, who among us? No one should be sanctioned for that unless it creeps into their editing, and the evidence it has in this case is pretty thin. A more targeted restriction such as a requirement that all BLPs written by this user go through AFC as suggested above could be reasonable, though. ] (]) 16:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''', regretfully, from GENSEX and BLPs. I wanted to vote for a warning but this just now: "If multiple reliable sources note that an organization is known for opposing same-sex marriage, but don't specifically call it an LGBT right, is it SYNTH to LGBT rights, given that same-sex marriage is very much recognized as an LGBT right?" The answer is ''yes!'', and that TheTransarchist still doesn't grasp this, even at this late stage, shows she has much to learn before she can competently edit in these very sensitive topic areas, particularly when coupled with the blatant advocacy on- and off-wiki. It's not just 'at most 4 bad edits', she doesn't seem to understand ''why'' everyone else thinks her editing is not policy-compliant, and I think that's because she doesn't actually understand our policies, as evidenced by this quote. "Indefinite is not infinite", but she needs to edit elsewhere and really learn how to properly summarize sources, and how to identify reliable sources, and how to responsibly use social media, before she edits GENSEX topics, especially contentious BLP content (which is almost inseparable from GENSEX). I feel bad because I think this new editor is suffering the consequences of being led astray by more experienced editors who should have, but haven't, offered course corrections. This is the harm that echo chambers cause. I would support a warning, but only if I actually saw her take some corrective action or at least some genuine self-reflection, but all I see is doubling-down. At bottom, the need to be fair to BLPs is more important than being nice to a well-meaning editor, so I regretfully support. ] (]) 16:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:For what little it's worth, and recent comments were intended as course corrections. As well as observation. ] (]) 16:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::You're right: credit where credit is due, those were attempted course corrections, thank you for trying. ] (]) 16:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I a few times too, in a sort of "take my advice, I'm not using it anyway" kind of way. ] 22:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:In regards to the point about categorization, that is a more nuanced discussion than framed here, a position that others agreed with me on there, and a categorization question, not a SYNTH question, as I never said "the organization opposes transgender rights" should be anywhere in the lead or body. I think it would be best served as an RFC on how to define LGBT rights or a discussion on appropriate categorization and scope at the category's page. For example, if "organizations that oppose same-sex marriage" was a subcategory of "organizations that oppose LGBT rights", that would be based on reliable sources generally noting that same-sex marriage is a right at the category page. If sources frequently concurred an organization opposed same sex marriage without explicitly calling it "opposed to LGBT rights", we could still say they "oppose same-sex marriage", which would still be a subcategory of "opposed to LGBT rights", regardless of people's opinions on whether same-sex marriage is a right or if sources said the organization opposed LGBT rights. Frankly, I'm fine with the (somewhat overly specific subcategory) "organizations that oppose rules against misgendering", and a discussion at "organizations that oppose transgender rights" as to whether that's a valid subcategory. | |||
| *:Regarding my {{tq|genuine self-reflection}}, in this discussion I've variously acknowledged | |||
| *:* I majorly fucked up with my Mastodon posts, no question there. I should post a lot less and more tactfully or not at all, as I'd ditch Mastodon posts in a second if that's what consensus calls for since I care more about editing the Encyclopedia than posting about editing it | |||
| *:* I fucked up by including unreliable sources in a BLP, and I should be a helluva lot more careful ensuring sources are up to snuff, and I will do a lot better and should be given ] to not introduce them in future | |||
| *:* I should work on my ] mentality, as even supportive editors have noted it | |||
| *:* While I genuinely try to write neutral articles, any editor will let bias slip in, so I think reviews and good faith discussion and collaboration to address such issues would be a good thing | |||
| *:* Relatedly, I fully support sanctions on publishing articles directly to mainspace and a requirement I go through AFC, since I want other eyes to ensure I've introduced no accidental bias and the article is as good as it could be | |||
| *:] (]) 16:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::We can all read ], where many (all?) of the things I've said were brought up by others. | |||
| *::Saying it's {{tqq|a categorization question, not a SYNTH question, as I never said "the organization opposes transgender rights" should be anywhere in the lead or body}} demonstrates a lack of understanding of ]. See specifically, ]: it should not be a cat unless it's a defining characteristic, in which case it ''should be'' in the lead, and anything in the lead ''must be'' in the body. | |||
| *::We're not going to have an RFC or a discussion about "how to define LGBT rights" because we would ''never'' define LGBT rights (]). The only time we ever say someone or something is "anti-LGBT rights" is when there are many high-quality sources that say that, and never under any other circumstances ("exceptional claims require exceptional sources" is ]). | |||
| *::See also ]: Y is a subcat of X if all Ys are Xes (an "]" relationship), but all Yx are Xes does not mean all Xes are Ys. So "opposed to SSM" is ''not'' a ''subcat'' of "opposed to LGBT rights", even though SSM is a subcat of LGBT rights, because while SSM is a type of LGBT right, not everyone opposed to SSM opposes LGBT rights. For example, gay people who oppose SSM but support civil unions are not anti-LGBT rights. Trans people who oppose gender-affirming care for minors, or oppose trans women participating in certain women's sports, can still support other trans rights; it doesn't mean they are anti-LGBT rights. That's why if RSes say someone opposes same-sex marriage, we say they oppose same-sex marriage, we do ''not'' say they oppose anti-LGBT rights; we categorize them as opponents of SSM (''if'' it's a defining category), we do not categorize them as anti-LGBT rights. | |||
| *::I checked your Mastodon today and I did not see you delete/remove/whatever any of the problematic posts, nor make any kind of correction, apology, or other mea culpa. If you realize you majorly fucked up with your Mastodon posts, tell your Mastodon audience; un-fuck-it-up. ] (]) 17:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::As I showed above somewhere, the editors opposed were largely basing it off their opinion that it is not a right, while I provided evidence that it is a recognized right. So in that case, I think a discussion on whether "organizations that oppose band on misgendering students", which is a defining characteristic of the organization and already noted in the lead, is a subset of "organizations that oppose transgender rights" is called for. A categorization disagreement, which I based off reliable sources saying it is a recognized right of transgender students to not be misgendered, is not grounds for a TBAN. | |||
| *:::In regards to Mastodon: I was planning to do that after all this anyways - post a brief note, apology, clarification, and notification I will either not be posting further or purely post uncontroversial edits (like "check out this article I wrote <link>" with no further exposition). I have not made private my Mastodon account or deleted my posts since I wanted to be fully transparent, and not seen as trying to delete the evidence or tamper with it after the fact. I wanted to post about this whole situation but have been very purposefully avoiding further interaction with it. Damned if I do post, damned if I don't apparently. I will do a thorough review of my Mastodon and add clarifications and apologies where needed after this whole thing is over with. ] (]) 17:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::While there are other reasons, I don't think your focus on the editor not being an expert in SYNTH or SUBCAT is usefully a reason for a topic ban, particularly as nearly all the other editors on this page would struggle with those at times. The category system is a dreadful way of classifying things in the real world and nearly all other modern knowledge databases use keywords, tags and other looser things. That someone hasn't fully grasped the awful Venn diagrams one needs to create in order to get that right on Misplaced Pages... well... you don't have to be perfect to edit on Misplaced Pages but can you collaborate? That surely has to be a better question for topic bans than whether every single edit complies with NPOV. Because if you think that is the standard for topic banning, I've got a list... -- ]°] 20:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::It's not just misunderstanding ], it's also not understanding ], ], ], ], and being argumentative throughout (see below). I support a TBAN to protect other editors from having their time wasted arguing things over the basics. ] (]) 21:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::<s><small>] {{diff2|108525567|forget}} ]... ] (]) 02:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)</small></s> | |||
| *::::::Whether that was ] has been disputed by other editors, and there isn't evidence I don't understand ], ], or ]. ] is a new one though... Any evidence of that? ] (]) 04:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Sorry, I got mixed up with which thread this was. ] (]) 06:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::No worries, seems to be a lot going on on this board lol. GNG just through me for a loop since I know for a fact I've stuck to that one ] (]) 17:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Yeah, I don't think failing to navigate the alphabet soup of categorization guidelines is grounds for sanctions, topic bans, or ANI in general. If I saw a list of "Famous performers of Beatles cover songs", I wouldn't immediately assume that each person on the list performed more than one cover song, even though ''songs'' is in the plural. Likewise, a list of "Proponents of conspiracy theories" could include people who only advocate one conspiracy theory each, and a list of "Opponents of LGBT rights" could include those who oppose only one such right. There's no ''synthesis'' in that, just the squishiness of the English language. ] (]) 19:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:A side note that's maybe not directly relevant here: | |||
| *:{{tq|"If multiple reliable sources note that an organization is known for opposing same-sex marriage, but don't specifically call it an LGBT right, is it SYNTH to LGBT rights, given that same-sex marriage is very much recognized as an LGBT right?" The answer is yes!}} | |||
| *:I've been editing almost as long as you have and I think this is a ''transparent'' over-reading of ]. I'm honestly flabbergasted that anyone could say this. This is like saying that we couldn't report that ] climbed a mountain from the sources that said he climbed ], because who's to say Everest is a mountain? ] (]) 19:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::RSes say that Everest is a mountain, that's who. ] (]) 20:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::But let me guess, if the sources saying Hillary climbed Everest don't explicitly state the BLUESKY fact that Everest is a mountain, then the editor who says it's obviously a mountain, and even provides sources showing RS generally classify it as a mountain, while others insist it isn't a mountain based on their FRINGE opinion, is guilty of violating SYNTH to the most extreme degree and should be topic banned? ] (]) 20:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I am 100% sure that: | |||
| *:::1. There are a profusion of reliable sources that say that gay marriage is part of the category "LGBT rights". | |||
| *:::2. The fact that gay marriage is an LGBT right is ]. | |||
| *:::Which is to say, this response does not make your response make any more sense, and in fact mostly just makes it more confusing. My instinct is that if there's any argument at all here, it's whether "opposes an LGBT right" and "opposes LGBT rights" are synonyms or not, not whether gay marriage is an LGBT right. ] (]) 21:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::They are most definitely synonyms in the present case. @]'s fringe hypotheticals aside, if you oppose SSM, a fundamental LGBT right, it is safe to say you oppose LGBT rights. ] (]) 21:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::By comparing: | |||
| *:::::*whether ] is "an anti-transgender activist" or "opposes gender-affirming care for minors" | |||
| *:::::*to whether ] climbed "a mountain" or climbed "Mt. Everest" | |||
| *:::::...you are making a number of serious policy mistakes: | |||
| *:::::#Chloe Cole is a ]; Edmund Hillary is not | |||
| *:::::#Being an "anti-transgender activist" is an ] claim; Hillary climbing Mt. Everest is not an extraordinary claim | |||
| *:::::#Being an "anti-transgender activist" is "contentious material" within the meaning of ]; climbing Mt. Everest is not | |||
| *:::::#Being an "anti-transgender activist" is a ]; climbing Mt. Everest is not | |||
| *:::::#Mt. Everest ''is'' a mountain, but "opposing gender-affirming care for minors" is ''not'' "opposing LGBT rights" (or "anti-transgender activism"). Being opposed to ''one'' LGBT right is not the same thing as "opposing LGBT rights" because "opposing LGBT rights" means opposing ''all'' (or most, or at least many) LGBT rights. ''And your opinion doesn't matter; it's the RSes' opinions who matter.'' So unless an RS says it, we don't say it, period. | |||
| *:::::#Putting it all together: '''the only time we say a living person is 'anti-X' is if RSes ''widely'' say 'anti-X'; ''never'' ] ]s in a ]'''. | |||
| *:::::Because if you do, you will probably get TBANed. ] (]) 22:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Regarding point 5 - @] stated it best - "Quick note, trans kids are not magically not trans people. Campaigning to forcibly detransition people and deny them access to transgender healthcare is indeed anti-trans activism, regardless of their age." | |||
| *::::::Is the above not true? It also seems like coverage from "reliable sources" like the ] or other conservative outlets who focus on such individuals are likely to use veiled language or dogwhistles. ] (]) 22:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::And to add to that. Sources directly call her an anti-trans activist, especially SIRS ones. Others note she lobbies for anti-trans legislation. And even if we put aside bullshit arguments about "think of the children", one would hope you read the article or talk page, where you could see she has supported bills that would criminalize or restrict access to trans healthcare even for adults ] (]) 22:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Climbing a mountain might not be A MOS:LABEL but being a mountaineer is. Are we not allowed to refer to edmund hillary as a mountaineer if we only have a source referring to him as having climbed multiple mountains? I don't think calling someone who is on the record touring across the country to campaign against the right to transition an "anti-trans activist" is anything even ''remotely'' close to a an extraordinary claim. --] (]) 22:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::No, "mountaineer" is not an MOS:LABEL. Did you even read the page? Sheesh, <del>noobs</del>. ] (]) 00:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I also want to clarify since I left my earlier comment while travelling - my comment about Mount Everest being a Mountain was not in relation to Chloe Cole at all (who is so blatantly an anti-trans activist, which is so unequivocally covered by RS, that it's hard to understand why you'd argue otherwise). It was in regards to FAIR and opposition to the rights of transgender students still being counted under opposition to transgender rights, per BLUESKY and reliable sources categorizing it as a right. By your example: if I categorized Hillary as "known for climbing mountains" since sources repeatedly noted they had climbed Mt Everest, Mt K2, and Mt Kilimanjaro (just examples, not sure if he had), without explicitly saying they were mountains and people objected on the basis '''they did not believe those to be mountains''', and when presented with RS that they were mountains, called it SYNTH, they would be laughed out of the discussion. ] (]) 00:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:@], @], @], @], @], @], @] - I'm notifying y'all as editors discussing this here of an RFC I started on the ] page to address this (apologies if you're already watching), I'll abide with whatever consensus finds I just think this ANI discussion is not the correct place for the discussion as to the merits of this argument either way. ] (]) 17:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I see two issues with how you are conducting this RfC and the notices. First, the RfC question isn't neutral. That violates the basic rules of a RfC. Next when you post the entire non-neutral question here it fails as an appropriate notification (see APPNOTE). You further violates APPNOTE by selectively pinging editors. Given all of the discussions over there last few days you are making the same errors again. It didn't install confidence in your ability to make appropriate choices going forward. ] (]) 17:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I pinged all the people here who weren't already heavily involved in the page but who discussed the topic here, as I didn't doubt you, Jweiss11, and AnimalParty were already watching the page... Half the people pinged here disagreed with me ffs so that by no means fails APPNOTE - I just wanted this discussion moved to a more appropriate location. I also see no evidence posting the question for context fails APPNOTE, and given that I was told I improperly worded the question before, quoting directly what was asked as an amendment to the OP and apologizing for the OP is now a problem? Finally, how on earth is that question not neutral? It lays out the situation and the relevant categorization issue, and it could have just as easily been written by someone who disagreed with me per ]. Springee, it doesn't inspire confidence that you seem find a problem with everything I do, including accusing me of {{tq|selectively pinging editors}} when half disagreed with me, and casting me apologizing for a non-neutral notification with an attempt at a better one and an update as evidence of not being neutral... ] (]) 18:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Phone reply so this will be short. You can ask the question but the moment you start putting up the arguments, evidence etc you are no longer asking a neutral question. When it comes to pinging editors it's best to do mine or ping them all. Again, my concern is you don't see a problem with your ways and this it doesn't seem likely they will change. ] (]) 18:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Springee, {{tq|the moment you start putting up the arguments, evidence etc you are no longer asking a neutral question}} - '''where in that question did I actually do that'''? I didn't offer any {{tq|arguments}} or {{tq|evidence}}, I laid out the question, and the two options which have been debated, with no comment or evidence either way... | |||
| *:::::From now on, I'll be sure to ping you even on articles I'm 100% sure you're watching, just in case... And in further terms of improper pinging, I was not the one canvassed in by a banned sock, who then called for a topic ban by 1) providing a link to a COI editor calling me "tendentious" without evidence 2) providing a link to a warning about improperly reporting a seperate COI as evidence there were problems with my editing (], you should have read the section you linked) 3) providing a link to an article that has remained fairly stable and 4) providing a link to an article that has mostly remained stable, save for the period of whitewashing and advertification... You continued to raise ridiculous charges, such as referring to a section title called "undoing the advertification and whitewashing" as evidence, which other editors agreed was an apt description of the article state per ] & ]. Frankly, the only real problem with my editing you've raised wasn't even original, it was just saying you concur with Red-tailed hawk after every one of your complaints had been proven irrelevant by me or other editors... ] (]) 19:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I wanted to corroborate what @] said about actively trying to improve the article ] to maintain NPOV. She has been very responsive and open to constructive criticism, illustrating her commitment to editorial integrity. She is passionate, yes, but is also a hard-working editor. Because I have been helping with the article, and can be thus perceived as involved party, I will refrain from making any judgements regarding taking action against the editor. At the same time, I want to stress that there are editors in this discussion, most notably Jweiss11, who had previously made POV statements in TheTranarchist's articles' talk pages and who should immediately recuse themselves. That they attempt to influence this discussion and openly recommend a TBAN is just grossly unethical. I urge everyone, and the administrators in particular, to be very vigilant when gathering and assessing community consensus. ]] 17:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any sanctions as non-productive. TheTranarchist has been editing in a highly charged area while adhering to ], with a few heated moments of poor judgement. She acknowledges those missteps, and I don't see any benefit to the encyclopedia for forcing her out of this area of editing. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>Support topic ban.</s> Both their off-wiki tone and on-wiki editing fall below the threshold of someone we want involved in contentious areas. I appreciate their suggestion that they will moderate their approach going forward, but it's a bit 'closing the barn door after the horse has bolted'. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:...you already !voted, right? Just yesterday in fact? ] (]) 20:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah weird to vote again so recently. @] will you strike this !vote? ] (]) 20:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support topic ban from biographies of living persons who are related to the topic area of WP:GENSEX'''. If one of the subjects of the posts/biographies described above were to pursue legal remedies (perhaps before a jury in Mississippi or another jurisdiction where trans rights are not recognized/respected), the off-wiki posts referenced above (including a statement of intent to "expose" and "undermine" such persons) would provide evidence of ]. And if Misplaced Pages failed to take action to limit further editing after such actual malice was brought to the community's attention (as had been done in this discussion), such failure could be viewed as ratification of the comments. It would be reckless of us not to impose a topic ban under such circumstances. ] (]) 21:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Cbl62}}, are you implying the community should impose sanctions on an editor based on the possibility of legal consequences? I would find that an unlikely possibility and a weak source for wiki interpretation of PAGs so want to understand your perspective further. — ] <sup>( ] / ] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> ]. </small> 00:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Nil Einne, Red-tailed hawk, and BilledMammal set forth valid reasons for the topic ban. As for "legal consequences", I simply think it is extremely reckless to make statements essentially admitting that ] (a desire to "expose" and "undermine") is the reason for one's edits. A TBAN sends the message that Misplaced Pages does not tolerate or ratify such malice. ] (]) 03:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Nil Einne referenced a non-neutral notification I posted, but as I showed in my response, in the discussion it referenced, those who opposed did so on the basis of flat out not considering it a right for transgender students to not be misgendered in schools, and ignored the RS and evidence provided that is generally recognized as a right. That is important context. BilledMammal said my comment about "exposing" Genspect/SEGM was an issue, but the articles themselves are fine, and nobody has been able to prove otherwise. Please note, the comments about "exposing" and "undermining" explicitly used those in reference to "'''misinformation'''". A motivation for writing an article has nothing to do with the merits of the article itself. Even then, I've already spoken about how "expose" was a linguistic miscommunication, as I relied exclusively on ] to write the articles in question. I've already re-hashed Red-tailed Hawks points multiple times, but a miniscule fraction of poor sourcing judgements compared to an extensive history of ensuring ] and ] are used, do not justify a full TBAN. | |||
| *:::A TBAN would send the message that Misplaced Pages tolerates ] and will ban editors who try to stick to it. ] (]) 04:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose TBAN''' so far none of their onwiki editing has risen to the level of meriting such sanctions. (] · ]) ''']''' 01:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose TBAN, neutral on warning''' Watching from the sidelines, I think Dumuzid's comment characterizes my position well enough, except that I'm not sure what purpose a warning would serve, apart from a bureaucratic one (should another ANI come up, people could say "editor has previously been warned"). ] (]) 13:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:People have compared this to the Stuartyeates case. Well, I thought that was a risibly over-broad topic ban as well, given the extraordinarily narrow focus of the disruption. ] (]) 12:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:And having read the Mastodon posts that are being repeatedly invoked as evidence of ''battleground behavior,'' I have to say... that's it? A few intemperate expressions of emotional investment in a topic that naturally invites emotional investment, and statements recognizing that articles have to be built on reliable sources? Remind me never to start a social media account and talk about the fringe physics articles I've !voted to delete, because heaven forbid, I might express some feelings there. ] (]) 12:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::They were at times outright admissions of using Misplaced Pages as a tool to promote certain views, or attack opposing views. It's clear ] behaviour. — ''']''' 14:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So is making actual physics more prominent than perpetual motion machines. So is making medical facts about COVID more prominent than 5G conspiracy drivel. The creation of a 💕 is, at root, ''righting a great wrong.'' The social-media posts in question made clear that reliable sources have to come first — that Misplaced Pages's job is to follow rather than to lead. Questionable judgment about what sources are reliable for which purposes is a legitimate concern, but not a sanction-worthy one. ] (]) 15:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Yikes, xor. ] (]) 15:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Absolutely not the same. It's not questions around science, it's ideologically motivated. — ''']''' 15:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I will refrain from deep philosophical musings, but I will point out that the last few years should be ample evidence that the borders between "science" and "ideology" are porous at the best of times. Cheers. ] (]) 15:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Actually, many of the issues that have arisen about ] and are best understood in relation to WP's ] policy framework - some views of the underlying medical and psychological topics are mainstream, some are FRINGE and there is a spectrum in between. Political actors in this domain often dismiss or distort the scholarship and professional practice in the field, presenting "scientific facts" as "ideological opinions". This aspect is part of what it makes it difficult to edit in the GENSEX area. ] (]) 15:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] quite a lot of my edits have been ensuring that sources are ] compliant and that ] is upheld... ] states {{tq|Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Misplaced Pages doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do. If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles. Remember that you can reach out to a relevant WikiProject or the neutral point of view noticeboard if you need help.}} RGW is not a question of attitude, it is a question of ]. There has been evidence of a very minor number of poor sourcing choices, not evidence of ] or departing from ] ] (]) 15:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Countless pro-science, anti-pseudoscience edits get smeared as "ideologically motivated", or words to that effect, by the pseudoscientists who get upset that we report on them accurately. My entire involvement with this project could be smeared as "ideologically motivated", if somebody felt the desire to do so. ] (]) 15:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The problem with RGW as a shortcut / section-heading is that a desire (whether hidden or shouted loudly from one's mastodon account) to right great wrongs is not actually a problem. Not at all. But it gets waved about by editors (not accusing you of being one) with conservative beliefs in their battle against "woke" editors or anyone who expresses a progressive opinion. For example, many medical editors view their mission to counter all the nonsense people might otherwise read in the newspapers and internet and promote evidence based medicine. Nobody seems to mind that much, except for those who keep getting their herbal cures removed from cancer articles. As XOR points out, all of us are righting great wrongs by making educational information free. That's quite a subversive activity. | |||
| *:::The specific issues that the RGW section is dealing with is editors pushing something that goes beyond the mainstream, beyond the facts supported by reliable sources. Editors doing that will find themselves in conflict with our basic restraining policies about original research and verifiability and so on. The containing essay ], is about problematic behaviour, not problematic beliefs or opinions or motivation. It explains "{{tq|It is important to recognize that '''everybody has bias'''. Few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles.}}" | |||
| *:::Czello, when you say this is "ideologically motivated", I think you are heading into dangerous territory. That's language used by activists (on both sides, but mainly on the gender-critical side) to dismiss opponents. For example, the use of "gender ideology" in scare quotes to reduce a relatively mainstream concept into something like a cult. Well, others have made this point too. There are similarities for example between ] and ] (the latter is an article where we pull no punches and call him a fraud). Both are attacking mainstream medicine and both have their followers and fans. One may well have a view that mainstream medicine gets it wrong but then you'd be the one on the wrong side of RGW. | |||
| *:::The point is, we need evidence of behavioural and editing problems (and for which there may well be) so posts that simply say that this editor has strong beliefs that motivate their reason to edit here are unhelpful. And frankly chilling on whether editors are open about their beliefs or identity. -- ]°] 15:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Replying to "all of the above" here as there were many replies in a short space of time, and I don't exactly that to turn this into another bludgeoning battlefield-thread. To be clear, just in case there's an unspoken implication here (especially given mentions of conservative/woke beliefs or the language used by transphobic public figures), I'm not suggesting that issues around gender are unscientific, or that gender is biologically immutable, or anything else that invalidates the existence of trans or non-binary people. I'm talking more about the motivation behind editing that I saw on the above social media posts - for example posts #2 and #3. Any quashing of fringe medical sources I wholly advocate. — ''']''' 16:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I've read the same social media posts. I've re-read posts and just now. Yes, they make the underlying motivation clear. But I keep cycling back to a single question: so what? Who edits without being motivated? I could turn out a social-media post in the same tone about cleaning up ], if I were honest about my feelings and expressed them in the common idioms of social media. The point is not motivation, but ''conduct,'' and whether the conduct is so beyond the pale that completely shutting out an editor from a whole topic area is the reasonable response. I don't think that it is. And I think that when the topic is emotionally fraught, we have to work deliberately to avoid jumping to the conclusion that evidence of strong motivation is evidence of incorrigible conduct. ] (]) 16:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::And post #2 displays a good understanding of how Misplaced Pages has to follow the sources. And post #3 doesn't look all that different from some post at ] where someone asks for help with an article that is clearly written to promote some fringe medical/health beliefs by true-believers, and needs some work done on it to reset things. -- ]°] 16:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::This is "<del>#3</del> <ins>#2</ins>", emphasis mine: | |||
| *::::::{{tq2|These fuckers hide behind a very thin veil of vaguely scientific language and marketing to mask an incredibly anti-trans agenda: forced detransition and conversion therapy ... I myself wrote Misplaced Pages articles on them to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer ... All hope is not lost though, as a little SEO trick, no matter how much they spend on marketing, their Misplaced Pages page will still be among the first results displayed if not the very first one. The truth of their positions and actions is on prominent display and they can't lie their way out of it. <p>'''Misplaced Pages is a very important tool in combating the misinformation''' of the anti-trans movement more broadly. However, that '''depends on reliable sources (by wikipedia's guides)''' reporting on it themselves. '''This can pose a problem''', Misplaced Pages coverage helps reliable sources report on them more accurately, but '''that doesn't get the ball rolling in the first place, only we can do that, by putting pressure on news organizations to cover these issues and if they aren't willing to help, reporting on it ourselves in the hope one picks it up'''.}} | |||
| *::::::{{tqq|So what?}} Are you kidding? ] (]) 16:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::: I'm struggling to find something objectionable here. I also have opinions about how I hope Misplaced Pages will cover certain topics, and realize that I am constrained by what reliable sources say about those topics. --] (]) 19:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Here's how I read that post: '' and are {{tq|transphobic bigots}}. {{tq|I myself wrote Misplaced Pages articles on them to try and expose them}}. {{tq|iberal news organizations}} like {{tq|the New York Times}} (aka ]) {{tq|start uncritically treating them as merely concerned experts}}, but I created Misplaced Pages articles about them {{tq|as a little SEO trick}} so that {{tq|their Misplaced Pages page will still be among the first results displayed if not the very first one}} and {{tq|The truth of their positions and actions is on prominent display and they can't lie their way out of it}} no matter what the NYTimes writes. The {{tq|problem}} with Misplaced Pages is that {{tq|combating the misinformation of the anti-trans movement ... depends on reliable sources (by wikipedia's guides) reporting on it themselves}}. If the reliable sources do not report on it themselves, we do not summarize what they say, but instead we should {{tq|put pressure on news organization to cover these issues}} (aka say what I want them to say about it), and {{tq|if they aren't willing to help, reporting on it ourselves}} (aka ]) {{tq|in the hope one picks it up}} (aka ]) (all of which might even cross into ]).'' I see a lot objectionable there, but YMMV. ] (]) 19:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::This is clearly the most cynical reading imaginable. Note just how much of that you had to make up. ] (]) 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::@Levivich,''' show problems with either article, proof they depart from the weight or ] or engage in ], or stop ] about it and putting words in my mouth'''. | |||
| *:::::::::* The NYT article '''did not''' provide them SIRS coverage, it quoted them without much further exposition, AKA they did not have the excessive ] you seem to think they. What recieved more weight and attention than their coverage was how much they were criticized in other RS for not mentioning the true extent of Genspect's campaigning (such as against bans on conversion therapy or for forced detransition for those under 25). That coverage is in the bloody article, mentioning how that article was cited to ban trans healthcare in a State's deposition, and also look at ] for general track record on it. The overwhelming lean and weight of RS, from investigative journalism to ], is "Genspect publishes misinformation and campaigns against trans rights". | |||
| *:::::::::* I explicitly said I stuck to RS, the NYT is a source with a horrendous track record publishing on trans topics, and coverage of this fact was reliably sourced and in the article. | |||
| *:::::::::* I say wikipedia relies on RS, so unless RS cover it we can't, so to get the ball rolling trans people should research and document them '''off wikipedia'''. I reference two trans publishing collectives in that same post that have written amazing research on Genspect, which has been picked up and referenced by RS. That is not ] by any stretch of the imagination - which is OR or a false claim being put in article, '''which I have never done'''. I never said I was engaging in ] or ] there, have never advocated for it, and casting a comment about how I stick to ] as evidence I do not is such a BS argument it's hard to assume good faith... | |||
| *:::::::::] (]) 20:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::], I really don't get the impression you're assuming good faith here. Rather the opposite, in fact. --] (]) 17:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::: Did you really just bold 1) me saying I combat misinformation 2) me saying I stick to RS as defined by WP even when I wish I could include others and 3) me noting that RS only report on trans topics accurately when pressured or we (as in the trans community, not Misplaced Pages) have already done the research ourselves, a somewhat BLUESKY statement, as evidence of a problem? Do I admit to ] or not using ] or not specifically targeting ]? ] (]) 17:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist | |||
| *:::::::Chiming in only to say that emotions are already running really high and maybe it'd be best to not regurgitate the social media posts when one had a chance to present their point of view, as it is clear some people view it differently than others. I fear this can inadvertently take a combative turn and any further ] accusations here is the last thing we need. Again, I am all for constructive and continued dialogue, and certainly am not trying to take anyone's right to present their honest and analytical take on the issues involved; just asking to not dwell on it to a point where it's unproductive. ]] 17:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::No, I'm not "kidding". Replace "anti-trans" with "antivax" in that paragraph with all the bolded text, and you'd have a humdrum description of how editing on ] operates. ] (]) 17:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Levivich, other than the swearing, I'm not seeing much different to 101 interviews Doc James ever gave about why he was on Misplaced Pages as a Wikidoc. (I'm only mentioning Doc James because he was the most high profile wiki doc and gave lots of interviews about why he was on Misplaced Pages). Yes, having our articles at #1 of google search results is pretty high on the motivation reason for a lot of Wikipedians. I get that some people are shocked that anyone might actually be motivating to edit here, vs just so bored they have nothing better to do, but that's not a policy compliant reason to ban someone, on its own. -- ]°] 17:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::I cannot understand for the life of me why editors are targeting you over this and not just giving you a warning for running your mouth on other platforms, which is the only thing you really did. In terms of your actual contributions to WP, they haven't been non-constructive. ] (]) 18:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''' This is cut and dry tendentious editing. Looking at their contributions, I'm surprised support for a TBAN isn't unanimous. ] (]) 15:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Support'''. Editors who are here to "win" by defaming people cannot be allowed to stay here. This should be her last chance. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: midnightblue; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 16:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Confused to where the editor defamed someone? You are also one to talk, based off of all the issues with BLP on your talk page. ] (]) 16:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I have only spoken truthfully about the identity of Soldier F, which Misplaced Pages has decided to censor for some reason. That is different. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: midnightblue; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 16:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::It is because he has not yet been charged/tried and doing so could actually constitute defamation, so actually not that different. ] (]) 16:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] You have just blitzed the ANI posting at least 11 comments in a span of 18 minutes in a variety of discussions that have real consequences for involved editors (as @] has already mentioned to you). It's disrespectful and, frankly, suspicious, especially for a new editor with a very limited experience; out of almost 170 edits you have made so far since registering in late December 2022, over 50% are on various noticeboards, including ANI and AfDs. I'd caution you against rushing into these important discussions. ]] 16:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *All editors have a PoV, but a Misplaced Pages that allows itself to be used as a vector for deliberate ] failed to learn the right lessons from Gamergate. ] (]) 16:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:As someone who made his Misplaced Pages bones during the Gamergate donnybrook, I find this analogy inapposite. No esdisrespect intended. Cheers. ] (]) 17:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Oppose T-Ban and any other ''sanctions''. Here we have before us an editor, {{u|TheTranarchist}}, who makes constructive, important, contributions to Misplaced Pages. Who strongly supports human rights. And who is a particularly strong advocate ''outside of Misplaced Pages''. And who feels strongly about the denial of rights that most strongly affect herself. Linking her Mastodon account to her User page is not forbidden, is it? Shall we dig through evidence linking all Misplaced Pages accounts to external internet accounts? To me, that would signal an authoritarian trend. | |||
| :I think TheTranarchist has made tactical mistakes in not expecting that links to her off-Misplaced Pages advocacy could be used to attack her on-Misplaced Pages work. But not mistakes that warrant any sanctions. If TheTranarchist is sanctioned, why should I not be sanctioned? Just because I have not signaled ''my'' spheres of advocacy off-Misplaced Pages, why should not my choice of articles to edit, my edit summaries, my talk page contributions be examined for suspect tendencies? If TheTranarchist is T-Banned, why not Neonorange, or ...? This threat is as chilling as any I've seen on Misplaced Pages. In fact, T-Ban me, just in case. | |||
| :Misplaced Pages should be a safe place to edit. We must judge editors by what they contribute ''here''. | |||
| :—] (]) (he, they) 21:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC) — | |||
| ::well said ] (]) 22:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was convinced to support a topic ban solely by what I saw on Misplaced Pages, on three articles that TheTranarchist started (see our conversation above). I still hope that they are acting in good faith, but they do not currently have the ability to edit neutrally in this area. Advocating for rights is one thing; writing non-neutral pages designed to make BLPs look bad is entirely another. Being unable to distinguish reliable sources from entirely unreliable ones is also a major issue (see RSN discussion linked above). ] (]) 22:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tqq|We must judge editors by what they contribute ''here''.}} OK: | |||
| ::*In ], she refers to as an {{tqq|RS providing ]}}, even though ] came to the opposite conclusion because ''Passage'' only publishes opinion and analysis. | |||
| ::*In the same contribution, in support of categorizing FAIR as "opposed to transgender rights", she cites about {{tqq|recently added protections for transgender students encountering misgendering in school}}, and she writes that FAIR {{tqq|opposed a full ban}} but doesn't mention that the source says {{tqq|While FAIR very much supports the additional protection for transgender students, they were pleased to see the document’s new language including the term “malicious” to help discern between events of malintent and free speech.}} | |||
| ::*The description of also contains selective quotation: TheTranarchist writes, {{tqq|They reported as doing the same in yet another source, where FAIR opposes state it's unconstitutional to 'teach students that they must use alternative pronouns' due to the 'first amendment' and 'religious freedom'}}, while the source says something more nuanced (all emphasis mine): {{tqq|While children should have the right to declare a personal pronoun voluntarily, FAIR says “Teaching students that they '''must''' use alternative pronouncs '''and announce their own''' '''''may''''' also violate their religious rights.”}} | |||
| ::This sort of thing wastes editor time. ] (]) 05:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::* The reliability of Passage is not fully settled there, and others said their vote would depend on use by others, which I later demonstrated but have yet to hear back from. By my count in that thread, there are 3 who consider it reliable, 1 who considers it partially reliable but thinks other sources would be better, 2 who wanted to see evidence of ] who haven't yet responded since I added it, 1 who voted not reliable based on a lack of notability (before I'd published the USEBYOTHERS), and 4 who consider it unreliable (including your recent comment last night and an editor with, as previously mentioned, a COI in this field, that has led them to not edit/discuss this article neutrally repeatedly beforehand). That's hardly the overwhelming consensus you seem to think it is... Not to mention, a RS mentioning FAIR directly cites the Passage article in question as evidence of its statement about FAIR's activities. | |||
| :::* The accusations of selective quotation are laughable. If a source states "organization opposed <LGBT right> - in a comment they said they support LGBT rights", the relevant part is the first half, the second half is immaterial. The puffy language they used matters less than what RS sources explicitly noted their actions to include, and in both cases it was opposing a ban on misgendering schoolmates. Arguing the puffy language they used means they didn't objectively oppose that right? {{tq|This sort of thing wastes editor time}} | |||
| :::] (]) 07:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support BLP and GENSEX topic ban''' per copious evidence above, especially from Red-tailed Hawk, of an ongoing pattern of problem behavior. Continuing to use fringe blogs as sources on a BLP, even after being informed not to do this, is a major problem and a time sink for more experienced editors, and will bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute. Furthermore, as noted above, this is very similar to the Stuartyeates case where the user ]. The clear goals and intent here are much the same and are incompatible with neutral editing, especially neutral application of ] and evaluation of sources. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 03:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reluctant Support''' I really have nothing else to say beyond what others have mentioned. TheTranarchist, whatever the outcome of this discussion, I encourage you to rest for a bit and maybe choose another topic to edit for some time. You'll only end up burning yourself out if you edit exclusively in a charged area like this, and continuing to edit elsewhere will likely placate these concerns given time. ] ] 03:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support both a TBAN and a restriction against creating new BLPs in mainspace''', per the clear evidence of programatic abuse of WP as a platform for advocacy and smear campaigning. It's just not excusable, even if many of us agree with the general socio-political viewpoint being pushed. This just is not okay. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose TBAN or any other sanctions'''. I see no evidence that {{u|TheTranarchist}} has been editing in a disruptive way or in bad faith. There is also no evidence that she allowed her personal beliefs to impact the content of articles she worked on. So far, her work here proved that she is a constructive and productive contributor to the project, who use reliable sources. In the end, is it even necessary to mention the fact that OP was a sockpuppet, and how ludicrous would it look like if we impose a TBAN or some other restrictions based on a report initiated by a proven sockpuppet. — ] ] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 08:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''<s>Support TBAN</s>''' From this long discussion I find that {{u|TheTranarchist}} has been editing in a disruptive way and creating biased attack BLPs to suit a POV: totally unacceptable. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| :: {{yo|Xxanthippe}} Is there really a need to vote twice... ] (]) 15:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist | |||
| :::Sorry about that. I can get lost in these long debates. ] (]) 21:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC). | |||
| *'''Support TBAN'''. Round and rounder has laid out the evidence that this editor clearly views Misplaced Pages as a battleground. is particularly egregious as it's obviously intended to rile people up and is bad publicity for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 09:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:How is "bad publicity for Misplaced Pages" a bannable or topic-bannable offense? If I discovered a nest of horribly NPOV, COI editing that had snuck under the radar, and I made a social media post about it, that would be "bad publicity for Misplaced Pages" in that I'd be publicizing how imperfect we are. Should I then be topic-banned for upholding policy? What if I posted about the ]? That would be "bad publicity for Misplaced Pages" because I'd be devaluing the Good Article status. Should I be topic-banned for alerting people to the problem? ] (]) 12:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I don't have a problem with constructive criticism, but consider the following: "TERFs are crying again, do you think they'll cry more when I mention Posie Parker's far right ties in the lead?". This is not constructive, and is obviously intended to provoke. ] (]) 03:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I don't see how it's {{tq|obviously intended to provoke}}. That would presume that the message is being directed at an audience of TERFs, rather than people who follow TheTranarchist on social media because they like what TheTranarchist has to say. The latter audience would be amused, not provoked. Is it a bit juvenile? Maybe so. Is it constructive? Maybe not. Is it a topic-ban-worthy offense, or even a contribution to that side of the scale? Hardly. {{pb}} It's social media. Snark happens. ] (]) 20:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::It's a public platform that anyone can see, linked from her userpage. Yes, it's obviously designed to provoke. — ''']''' 20:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::It's a public post on a service where people choose whom they follow. Maybe it was "designed to provoke", rather than to entertain, but I can't in good conscience see it as a bright-line violation of a conduct policy, such as would warrant sanctions. ] (]) 20:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You don't need to follow this user to read her posts, and she explicitly links it from her user page. Am I also correct in remembering this is a user who has been mentioned in journalistic outlets? She knows that her political opponents are likely to read her social media posts. — ''']''' 20:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Over the years, I've seen editors collect statements on their user pages about fringe figures they've angered, niche publications that have denounced them, and/or wiki-drama they've been involved in. It's arguably in poor taste, but getting upset about it veers far too close to getting angry that people edit for emotional reasons rather than Vulcan ones. And now we're speculating about the social-media audience that an editor might or might not have, and debating whether to TBAN that editor because of who might or might not be in that hypothetical audience? Sorry, I'm just not seeing it. ] (]) 21:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::{{re|Czello}} Yes, TheTranarchist has been mentioned in an article by . That article references the February 2022 move request of ], and the quotation from the expert that The Atlantic cites was favourable of both TheTranarchist and {{noping|StAnselem}} (the other editor mentioned by name) conduct in the discussion stating "It didn’t seem culture warrior–ish". ] (]) 21:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::How favouriable the article was wasn't my point. I was drawing attention to the fact that the Trananarchist's social media isn't some isolated, lesser-seen platform of her views. It's directly linked to her account. — ''']''' 22:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::@] My userpage has received more in the past few days over this case than at any point prior. | |||
| *:::::::::On I have 77 followers - hardly a celebrity, even a micro-one. The way Mastodon's algorithm works is, unless you 1) already follow me, 2) are searching for a hashtag I used in a post, or 3) look up my username, you won't see my posts. ] (]) 23:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::None of this really addresses my former point - you link you social media from your user page. Yes, you understandably would have received more attention in the past few days: because it's been the subject of a very big ANI thread. — ''']''' 23:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Trying to address that directly (please let me know if I'm still off the mark): | |||
| *:::::::::::# Linking it there was bloody stupid, nobody has disagreed on that, least of all me. Same goes for how the posts were tactless and sent the wrong message | |||
| *:::::::::::# I mentioned this somewhere in this forest of a thread lol, but I originally stated on my user-page I don't use the username anywhere else (partly due to people directing harassment towards people with my username). It felt it would be duplicitous for me to not explicitly confirm it was mine when I created it. | |||
| *:::::::::::# The posts in question usually entail me stating how I use wikipedia: 1) to combat ] misinformation (see below where I give a list of non-BLP GENSEX articles I've edited) and 2) to document the anti-trans movement (in accordance with RS, and never with OR). I have never been anything but open about that, that's even on my user page. | |||
| *:::::::::::# You originally said my edits fail ]({{tq|An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. }}) and quoted another editor saying {{tq|By their own words, they are here to right great wrongs}} (] states {{tq|If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles. }} - I have always been explicit that I write articles based on RS (very very rarely, I have mistakenly used non-RS, but never has an article depended on them for anything other than a brief detail) | |||
| *:::::::::::::: On my user page, I explicitly state in a subsection titled {{tq|'''Choosing an article topic'''}}: {{tq|Difficult at the best of times, and up to you. I find my time on Misplaced Pages is best suited to 1) documenting anti-trans groups and activists and 2) documenting trans rights groups and activists. Generally, Misplaced Pages can be a wonderful tool for shedding light on both those who fight to make the world better and those who fight to make it worse. We need to know about both. This is not contrary to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as both tend to be covered in reliable sources.}} | |||
| *:::::::::::To try and make a more personal case, I see you created and did great work on ]! (An aside, hadn't run across that article before but it's great, hits very close to home as the situation was very similar in my mother's country growing up) Taking it as an example, if you had publicly said you were on Misplaced Pages to document violence against women and protests against such violence, and after you wrote the article stated you supported such protests and some less tactful statements like directly saying "fuck the Iranian government", how would you feel if editors took you to ANI without evidence the article itself has faults, but over your comments? And to relate the example more to this case, after the case had already been going on, if it was revealed you fucked up on a just a few of the sources therein (which you would've realized and fixed had anyone raised it on talk)? Would you accept categorizations that you were here to ] and engage in ]? ] (]) 00:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] I just want to note, the only publicity for Misplaced Pages I have received has been the Atlantic saying: {{tq|The main advocate for moving the page from Gregory to Gloria was an editor named TheTranarchist, and the main opponent was an editor named StAnselm, a self-described Calvinist who has created more than 50 articles about biblical characters and scenes. Yet the discussion on the Talk page was about facts and Misplaced Pages policies and guidance, not politics. “It didn’t seem culture warrior–ish,” said.}} ] (]) 17:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I think one of the concerns is that this editor is diving into controversial topics and doesn't know how to work within Misplaced Pages. Consider that after all the discussion the editor opens a non-neutral RfC ( 17:44, 22 February 2023 ). After several editors reject the desired outcome TheTranarchist starts a second RfC ( 21:23, 22 February 2023 ). Yet a few hours later when I note there was no reason for the second RfC ( 04:31, 23 February 2023 ) they unilaterally closed the first RfC ( 04:42, 23 February 2023). Shortly after {{u|Levivich}} replies to the second RfC in a way that doesn't support TheTranarchist's desired outcome. Levivich's reply is met with a wall of text largely repeating earlier claims . It appears this sort of behavior is what we can expect from this editor even after all the above concerns and the risk of a topic ban have been placed in front of them. ] (]) 12:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I literally advised closing the first RfC and starting a second, more specific one. (Just prior to my making that comment, Animalparty had said {{tq|I think the scope of this RfC is too broad}}). If there is a concern that an editor {{tq|doesn't know how to work within Misplaced Pages}}, what's wrong with learning? ] (]) 12:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Nothing is wrong with learning, but perhaps staying away from contentious topics while you are learning will let them establish a firmer footing, and be less likely to create time sinks for other editors. ] (]) 13:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{u|TheTranarchist}}, do you think it is reasonable to suggest editors who disagree with your edits at ] have COI? {{tq|"That article was whitewashed and advertified by a COI editor."}} ]. You also suggest an editor was canvased. Making accusations against other editors, even if you don't specifically name which of the small number you are thinking of, is not CIVIL. One of my serious concerns with your behavior is that I don't see any contrition for the way you have acted on site. You may be trying to distance yourself from your off wiki comments but unlike the discussion of another editor a few sections below, I don't see that you are really recognizing and acting upon the problems with your own behavior. Continuing to battle, even if only on your talk page, is not a sign that you have turned over a new leaf. ] (]) 03:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@], I'll name them for you | |||
| *:::* '''JWeiss11''' has a monumental COI and a look at their edits on that page confirms a pattern of advertiifcation and whitewashing. Others here have already explained to you, a lead containing only a mission statement fails ] to an extreme degree. I reported this a week ago via email with copious evidence and a few days ago. Believe you me, as soon as arb-com gives me the green light to make a case (and confirms there are no outing issues) I will demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jweiss11 has 1) friendships with FAIR board members 2) relations with FAIR's activities and campaigning 3) a demonstrated history of working with FAIR and 4) their edits on the page have been obviously effected by this and they've indeed worked to whitewash it. | |||
| *:::* '''You''' were ], the only person the banned sock who started this reached out to. Multiple other people here have noted this. I do have contrition for the way I've acted on this site, that doesn't mean I should not make criticisms of 1) a COI editor who jumped on the TBANdwagon or 2) a canvassed editor who has repeatedly tried to raise a problem with nearly everything I do, even as other editors say "that isn't actually a problem", who's now apparently stalking my talk page... | |||
| *:::* Jweiss11 has a verifiable COI. You were verifiably canvassed. Taking an issue with me pointing that out is a ridiculous new low. Continuing to ] and call for a ban with spurious evidence is not ]. Give other editors a chance to speak, because it doesn't look good for you or ] to repeatedly try and attack me for anything you can think of. | |||
| *:::] (]) 14:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Can you support this COI claim against {{u|Jweiss11}} else you are deep into ] territory. Secret hidden emails don't excuse publicly calling out an editor. Do your obviously, strong, negative feelings about these groups constitute a COI? Do you think the other editors who see your behavior as improper also have COIs? As for the canvassing issue, I have no idea who was notified about this discussion. Are you suggesting that I wouldn't have noticed had it not been for that editor? That seems unlikely. It would have been proper to notify all involved parties rather than just me (I am taking your word on that). However, it's hard to believe that notification would have mattered in the end given how many editors have replied. You are of course free to request sanctions again the editor responsible for that improper notification. Regardless, what I see is an editor who doesn't see that they need to fundamentally change how they approach this topic area. Since you don't see that I support a tban so you can edit other areas and show you understand the rules before returning to this area. Do note that tbans indefinite doesn't mean permanent. It means until the admin/community agrees that the problem has gone away. ] (]) 14:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Unquestionably yes, and I have, and the only reason I didn't do it publicly from the get-go was concerns about ]. I just linked to an admin confirming the email was received and it's under review (and in my past experience, they respond much quicker when there isn't a case). I have only said 1 editor has a COI, because he does - he's publicly friends with many FAIR advisors and has worked with FAIR in the past. I've asked admins and arb-com to for the love of god give me the go-ahead to disclose the evidence publicly multiple times here, especially since they came in here swinging for a TBAN and a ] is called for. | |||
| *:::::{{tq|Do your obviously, strong, negative feelings about these groups constitute a COI?}} - No, for the BLUESKY reasons that gay editors don't have a COI about NARTH, Black editors don't have a COI about the Klan, and Jewish editors don't have a COI on the Goyim Defense League, even if they publicly say about them "fuck these homophobes/racists/anti-semites" off wikipedia. | |||
| *:::::Multiple people have pointed out that you were canvassed here. Round and Rounder the case, notified me 8 minutes later, and you 5 minutes after that, '''notifying no other editors'''. You jumped straight in suggesting a ban with the totality of your evidence being 1) aforementiond COI editor called me "tendentious" without evidence 2) a warning about improperly disclosing a COI you apparently never bothered to read 3) ], which you never pointed to any evidence there were problems with and 4) ], where you accused me of clear bias in source choice without evidence and ignoring the fact I'd already realized I fucked up including Idavox. ] (]) 15:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I jumped straight in? And what sanctions did I suggest when I jumped right in? Well if you look at my first edit in this long mess I said that I'm wasn't sure. I specifically said I hadn't dug into all the edits that might apply and, "'' If the pattern of poor editing continues or a longer history is shown (I haven't interacted with this editor that much) then I would suggest a topic ban so they can prove competency in other areas.''" That means I didn't call for sanctions absent a further review of your edit history. The thread had grown quite a bit before I finally endorsed {{u|Slywriter}}'s sanction suggest which was nothing more than a restriction on releasing new BLP or GENSEX articles. I was not supporting a tban at that time. Your behavior since is why I changed and now support the tban. I'm clearly not alone in seeing these issues. What I can clearly see now is you are a time sink. The results of your edits are often poor quality and need to be reviewed by others. It would be better if you learned the ropes more before returning to this topic area. ] (]) 15:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::By the time you called for a full TBAN, the evidence you had raised (since your original post) had been 1) I was using SYNTH to say someone who RS described as an anti-trans activist and consistently noted to campaign for anti-trans bills (including making transition for even adults a felony) was an "anti-trans activist". 2) I made a talk section header titled {{tq|undoing the whitewashing and advertification}}, which other editors agreed was an apt description of what had been done to the article (A COI editor replaced the lead with its mission statement...) 3) after I'd already apologized for the inclusion of an attributed statement to the ] (an <u>organization</u> that was present, not just an {{tq|anarchist blog/press site}}), you tried to reiterate the point. By the time you called for a full TBAN, the only serious evidence of any improper editing had been the sources on the KJK article, which I'd already admitted I'd fucked up on and promised to do better in future. Multiple other editors had said my articles were good, well-researched, I stuck to sources, and that this whole case was fishy considering how accusations of bias relied more on my off-wiki comments than any links to my actual edits. One even pointed out how the Atlantic, a publication whose track-record on trans topics I abhor to say the least, stated my edits stuck to facts and policy, not being "culture warrior-ish". But somehow that constituted enough of a {{tq|pattern of poor editing}} to you to call for a full TBAN... ] (]) 16:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I didn't call for a tban until Red-tailed hawk had presented more complete evidence. Prior to that my feeling was the evidence was likely there but as I had said, I hadn't seen/found it yet. Saying a tban may be the answer isn't the same as saying it is the answer. The additional evidence and your behavior here pushed me over the edge. ] (]) 16:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Red-tailed hawk's evidence was still barely grounds for a TBAN, as the only evidence of improper sourcing was on the KJK article. The rest was linking to statements about dealing with ] without linking to evidence the pages themselves were effected. ] (]) 17:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{multiple image | |||
| | direction = horizontal | |||
| | align = right | |||
| | total_width = 300 | |||
| | caption_align = center | |||
| | image1 = Leer - Neue Straße - Garrelscher Garten - Kommen und Gehen 08 ies.jpg | |||
| | image2 = SnowyandHazy.jpg | |||
| | caption1 = {{right|Casting of ass}} | |||
| | caption2 = {{left|Persians}} | |||
| }} | |||
| *:::::Not the ass Persians! <small>Sorry, figured this thread could use a little levity.</small> <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:So first you complain the original RFC was not {{tq|non-neutral}} (which you still have yet to provide any evidence for...). 4 people leave comments, two of which (on both sides) say it's too general, so I create a more specific one. You call for closing the specific one, which people on both sides of the argument thought would be better. Per ] {{tq|The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC would normally be the person to remove the { { rfc } } template}} and {{tq|The dispute may be moved to another dispute resolution forum.}} Levivich responds directly to my comment, saying of the 4/5 sources presented there are only 1, and I respond and add extra quotes from the sources questioned. For the love of god come here with some real concerns and stop picking random things to find wrong nobody else even agrees are problems... ] (]) 15:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:The wording of the first RfC was imperfect, but the flaws were not fatal. Any advice to redefine it after so many responses already understood and spoke to the proposal was misguided. There was clearly a consensus forming against the intent of the proposal (and not so much against the wording.) Framing the replacement as a choice among | |||
| *:# TheTranarchist's PoV | |||
| *:# Also the Tranarchist's PoV | |||
| *:# Undefined "other" | |||
| *:is substantially worse than the original. It just got a lot harder to believe the protestations that her ardent political commitments don't compromise her editing objectivity. ] (]) 16:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I don't think the replacement is {{tq|substantially worse than the original}}. At worst, it's a lateral move. I mean, it's not like people will refrain from suggesting whatever "other" they prefer. And TheTranarchist clearly prefers one out of the three; I don't think two of the three can be called "TheTranarchist's POV". ] (]) 16:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I think it should be classified as XYZ, other editors agreed, some disagreed. I start an RFC, I'm told from both sides it was overly general. Not to mention, the original RFC assumes no sources have called it a right, but as I showed in my response to the later one they do. So I create a specific RFC raising the 3 options that the various past discussions have raised 1) XYZ, 2) subcat XYZ, 3) neither - as in you oppose including using that cat or a subcat. There have been no other options raised. An overly general case with an analogy in hindsight was obviously a worse idea, and I say that as the person who wrote it. How the hell is the new one by any stretch of the imagination {{tq|substantially worse than the original}}? At least be creative... ] (]) 16:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::This is why we have ] before starting RFCs. ] (]) 16:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Yes, a rush-to-RfC can lead to wasted time and energy, and even ill will. But there's a gulf between "that could have been handled better" and "the handling was so bad that it's evidence the editor should be barred from the whole topic". I'm seeing the former, not the latter. ] (]) 17:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I'm noticing there's a lot of "yes X could have been better, but" throughout this thread. — ''']''' 17:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::That sounds entirely typical for situations where suboptimal behavior leads to a dispute involving more heat than light. ] (]) 17:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Indeed. If "could have been better" is our measuring stick, just block everyone right now. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of Misplaced Pages, as someone once said. Cheers. ] (]) 17:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Like Czello points out, there are a number of times people have said, "Well <this one thing> isn't enough...". No, no it isn't. But you combine them all, and you get: whatever you may think of the social media posts + whatever you may think of the neutrality of the articles she created + citing obvious non-RSes + taking obvious non-RSes to RSN + ignoring the RSNs + two RFCs without an RFCBEFORE + categories + SYNTH + MOS:LABEL + BLP + AFAICT fixing nothing but creating ''new'' problems ''during'' the TBAN discussion + bludgeoning = enough for me to !vote for a TBAN. She means well, but she's swimming in the deep end before she's ready, and burning a bunch of editor time as a result. ] (]) 17:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::social media posts everyone agreed were stupid + articles that are generally considered to adhere to NPOV + very rarely mistakenly citing non-RSes while citing RS the majority of the time + being mistaken about the reliability of a source when given no better explanation than "it's leftist" and immediately dropping it when a solid policy based reason was given + sticking to the RSNs + a poorly formatted RFC turned into a better more specific one after feedback from editors on both sides suggested it should be that way + what you call SYNTH but other editors have disagreed + LABEL (which last I checked an editor raised by saying someone who reliable sources call an anti-trans activist and note to campaign for anti-trans legislation can't be called an "anti-trans activist" despite having no other notability) + a BLP fuck-up on 1 article which I already admitted to and said I'd step away from anyways + continuing to work on the GAG article (AFAYCT, {{tq|creating new problems}}) + responding to points raised by people calling for me to be TBANned (apparently, BLUDGEONING...). {{tq|you combine them all, and you get:}} not enough grounds for a GENSEX TBAN, and at most a solid case for putting BLP's through AFC first to ensure no mistakes are made. ] (]) 23:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Casual reminder that as I pointed out above in my !vote, Tranarchist has only 1200 edits as of when I voted. I don't think a bungled RFC should get to count as evidence of malice here. --] (]) 17:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN from BLPs and GENSEX, boadly construed''' per Red-tailed hawk, The Wordsmith, and Levivich. Creation of BLP attack pages like that is completely unacceptable on Misplaced Pages, and my impression is the problem won't be solved unless the editor is completely kept away from her areas of advocacy on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support TBAN from BLPs and GENSEX''', {{u|Red-tailed hawk}} is an excellent editor and whose opinion I deeply respect and the list of evidence they provided is very compelling. It is important to remember that no matter how much we agree with an editor's POV that doesn't excuse bad behavior. Separating our opinions from guidelines isn't easy, but perhaps a break from this topic will allow the editor to grow. Thanks! ] (]) 15:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose TBAN, neutral on warning''' As far as I can tell, TheTranarchist is working very hard to stay within WP's guidelines and policies. This is an effort to be valued, not sanctioned. --] 17:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose any sanction''' per Colin, X'OR. --] (]) 19:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support TBAN from BLPs and GENSEX''' per {{u|Red-tailed hawk}}. ] (]) 20:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose any sanction'''. I think The Hand That Feeds You offers the best short rationale. We do not want to be driving away good people, who do good work, for making mistakes in what is one of the most difficult and stressful topic areas we have at the moment. --] (]) 20:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *{{strike|'''Refer to ArbCom'''}} This discussion was started by the sock of a LTA to stir up a mob from the community and this issue will not be resolvable via freeform discussion. Trans people are not inherently biased or ineligible to edit in GENSEX and I worry that there is a bad precedent that would be set by rushing to impose sanctions. I personally would oppose sanctions, but need to see the evidence of biased editing on-wiki in a more structured manner (as an ArbCom case would require presenting) rather than the sprawl of accusations back and forth mixing off wiki and on wiki remarks and behaviour to be confident of this. ] (]) 04:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{replyto|Lizthegrey}} Can you list any editor in good standing who has suggested that trans people are inherently biased or ineligible to edit in GENSEX? That's a very serious accusation, as it's a very serious wrong doing. It's the sort of comment which IMO would be enough to justify a community ban or hopefully a no fuss instant indefinite block. And whatever else happens here, if something good can come out of this mess it would be in kicking such editors out ther door, I wish to push that process along as need be. P.S. If this thread has been closed, please post any editors who did so on my talk page if they're not already blocked (hint, hint to closing admins!) ] (]) 04:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::@] Nobody has done so in as many words; however, there has been the repeated underlying implication that trans people who happen to be advocates for their own human rights off-wiki who are editing in GENSEX are here to ], not here to build an encyclopedia, and that we should held to an extra high standard wrt what's ]/], POV pushing, etc. | |||
| *::As per @], there's a ] -like set of conflicts going on that are not going to be addressed by singling out and sanctioning one editor. Any such sanctions (especially broad ones like the union of all BLP and all GENSEX, rather than the intersection thereof) will have a chilling effect upon _any_ knowledgeable trans person editing in these areas in the future. As @] put it, we can't have a state of affairs where people who are members of a majority group are the only people deemed "neutral"/unbiased enough to edit on groups that oppose minority rights, because members of the opposed minority are deemed non-neutral. ] (]) 21:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::<s>@] regarding your request - see by @], for instance, regarding whether someone who is a public advocate for X can also participate in discussions of X as a ''new'' editor. I'm very wary of the no true scotsman fallacy here because Snow suggests that trans editors can edit GENSEX only if they're experienced, but that new trans editors ''must'' get that experience elsewhere in the project first, which is not a burden we put cis editors through, plus how many of those experienced editors are there out there? :(</s> ] (]) 05:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Nope, nope, nope: that is not remotely what I said. And look I get that emotions are running a little high in this thread and there's so much to keep track of, but let's please try not to read assumptions about eachother's positions into the record which have not actually been stated by said party. I definetly do not believe that all new editors who are trans should be required to avoid trans topics. I ''do'' believe that all editors, whatever their particular background, should be careful about editing in topic spaces where they have particularly passionate views, however they come by them, and that this caution ought to be particularly pronounced when someone is at the outset of their tenure on this project, and still familiarizing themselves with and internalizing this community's standards and priorities. But I would never urge a strict prohibition on any demographic group as I would find such a propisition probelmatic, inadvisable, and impractical to implement besides. | |||
| *:::As I have made efforts to emphasize throughout my few contributions here (as an uninvolved community respondent), I am basing my feedback not on any vague, monolithic aspect of the editor in question, but on the very particular conduct that has been discussed here, as well as TT's responses to those concerns. I chose to !vote as I did based on those specific editorial actions--and to a lesser degree on TT's very public declarations of the motivations behind those actions. I believe this specific editor has demonstrated reason to give us concern about competence in this area at the present time. Not because she is trans or new(ish) to our community, nor because she sits in the intersection of those two things, but because of an self-avowed activist/RGW motivation and how that mindset seems to be influencing her editing in this area. There are plenty of trans members of this community who leap straight to editing trans topics as new editors, and no one is suggesting we habitually warn them away from doing so. Rather <u>this particular editor</u> has evidenced some behaviour that was enough to convince me to endorse the TBAN, albeit with mixed feelings, given the nuances of the situation. '']]'' 07:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Sorry for my misinterpretation. Withdrawn, as you note temperatures are running hot and AGF and giving a chance to cool off definitely applies. ] (]) 01:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Thank you Liz: I very much appreciate that. '']]'' 07:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Amended: endorse @]'s remedy: '''Warning, mainspace creation only through AfC''' as ] (]) 01:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban'''. TheTranarchist could stand to use better sources, but the sourcing on those articles isn't at the level where it would justify a topic-ban with no warning or prior history; likewise, we don't topic-ban people for a bad RFC. More importantly, the off-wiki discussions people are linking specifically say that her goal is to write ''accurate'' articles and push back against what she sees as POV-pushing and disinformation on Misplaced Pages. I personally feel that falling too far into that mindset causes problems of the gazing-into-the-abyss, he-who-fights-monsters sort; but the community decided to delete ] (a decision pushed for, as I recall, by several of the people now arguing that TheTranarchist should be topic-banned for, essentially, POVFIGHTER behavior?) If it is ] to spend one's time on Misplaced Pages trying to push back against what you see as misinformation, POV-pushing, and misrepresentation of the sources, then we need to come to a proper agreement on what it looks like and how it would be defined. And to do that there needs to be at least ''some'' recognition that large parts of this topic area have broken down into a ] of rival camps whose editing focuses on "defending" Misplaced Pages from what they see as the biased editing of the other camp, which is the sort of thing better unravelled by ArbCom if we're going to try to get to the root of the problem. --] (]) 11:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support TBAN from BLP and GENSEX main space''' - I think this discussion raises serious concerns about where TheTranarchist is in her development as an editor and supports a sanction to prevent harm to the encyclopedia. I have not yet reviewed all of her work, but in this discussion, I note {{u|Silver seren}} wrote at 01:46, 19 February 2023, in response to {{u|Endwise}} about the ] article at that time , "if you compare your initial edit link to the current article, has not had much of the original text changed or removed at all, just added to. Because the original article was written perfectly fine", but I have spent several days trying to clean it up, and from my view, it was not and is not perfectly fine, e.g. (negative statements about the subject added at article creation by TheTranarchist without support in the sources), (in this close paraphrase of a source added by TheTranarchist , the word 'alleged' was dropped to make directly negative statements about the article subject). I have not yet fully checked the article to determine the origin of all additions. | |||
| : Also, in the comment by Silver Seren noted above, in reply to Endwise linking to what they described as "", Silver Seren states, "I don't think that's a proper use of a userpage and that sort of addition should be removed completely." After I removed the similar 'Nazi Barbie' social media profile "accusation" from the ] article, TheTranarchist questioned this on the article Talk page , and part of my reply included reference to "], we should {{tq|Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article}}". I mention this because as of the time of writing my comment here, TheTranarchist has not updated her userpage , and the Honorable Mentions section still says, "So KJK, who has literally used a Nazi Barbie to represent herself", with a link to a third-party tweet. From my view, this userpage conduct emphasizes the ] issues - while I support TheTranarchist's ongoing participation on Talk and draft space as she continues to learn, it seems necessary to implement a restriction from main space for the contentious topics of BLP and GENSEX to prevent harm to the encyclopedia at this time. ] (]) 14:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] the article was indeed overly detailed and intricate and needing serious work. In past when editors have raised that I've agreed and wanted to work on trimming it down and on the talk page, while I've made small notes on only some of your edits, as I've mostly thanked you for trimming it down and stepped away myself. I've acknowledged here multiple times it got too personal (after she publicly insulted me and called me a liar). | |||
| ::* In reference to , that was overly detailed, but it still stuck to the source. I just felt it encyclopedic to mention what her tweets contained that people found objectionable rather than reference the tweets without explanation. | |||
| ::* For the Stephen Bates paragraph, that seems a linguistic error, Bates himself did not say alleged, he directly said all those things - he did not say "her visa should be revoked because of her alleged XYZ", he directly said "because of her XYZ". | |||
| ::* I've been avoiding my user page and mastodon until this is over since I don't want to be seen as tampering with evidence, but I'm planning a thorough overhaul of both when this is over. For my honorable mentions, I was already planning to restrict it to just quotes rather than my own response to them (since I think whether I linked to the archive.ph link of her own profile or the National article noting it or both there would still be issues). I will say, I've never used a tweet in an article, the only time I cited one was that one location in my userpage, in my response to her publicly insulting me. | |||
| ::] (]) 14:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::The article has taken a lot of time for me to clean up, and my experience with discovering misused sources is broader than the examples I added here - this is more than too much detail, and I noted in my edit summaries when I was removing other content unsupported by sources, as well as other issues - I just have not spent more time reviewing the edit history to determine who made the additions, because my focus was on clean up. But to address your specific points: | |||
| :::* It does not stick to the sources if none of the sources mention the contents of the tweets. It is ] to find tweets and associate them with what was reported by the sources, and the tweets are not even cited. Even if the tweets were cited, no RS cited clearly associates those tweets with the investigation, so it would be ] that no secondary source supports. | |||
| :::* The use of the word "alleged" by a news source is not a linguistic error, it is a standard practice in journalism. Bates published a letter that intentionally removed Keen's name from the publicly-available version, and a secondary source reported on the letter as containing allegations. Again, we cannot conduct ] with primary sources, especially to bolster negative statements about a living person, and cite it as if a secondary source supports this when it clearly does not. | |||
| :::* Unless revdelled or oversighted, the edit history of your userpage remains visible to all of us, so altering it over the course of this discussion is not tampering with evidence, it is an opportunity to show you are listening and directly responsive to concerns raised about your conduct. I am glad that you recognize that an archive link to her alleged profile or the National is problematic, but it is not great to hear a justification for using the tweet on your userpage being related to a personal conflict with the subject of the article. | |||
| :::And to clarify, because it probably sounds harsher than intended, when I speak of 'preventing harm', I am referring to harms such as the amount of time needed to clean up after your edits, to explain core content policies, and the potential impacts on living people when errors are not noticed or fixed by other editors, which is what tipped my view on a restriction at this time, to balance what I think is your clear potential for development as an editor and the needs of the encyclopedia in the meantime. ] (]) 16:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* I came to say I never did ] on the tweets, but reviewing the sources I see where I fucked up my reading of the sources as to the tweet's specific contents. The tweets were part of the investigation: {{tq|Two officers travelled to Wiltshire where lives, and questioned her for several hours over six Tweets she had posted.}} But on review that source and another covering it simultaneously described similar cases against KJK and Caroline Farrow and interweaved them a lot, so when I read {{tq|The conservative Catholic commentator, was contacted by Surrey Police on Monday asking her to come in for an interview over a series of comments she had made towards Ms Green on Twitter. The mother of five claimed she had been told she was being investigated because she had misgendered, Ms Green's daughter}} in the same source I'd thought that was Keen. | |||
| ::::* The same source that described the letter also said that Bates later explicitly confirmed the letter was referencing Keen. {{tq|The member for Brisbane listed a litany of concerns about Kellie-Jay Keen included alleged violent incidents at her events, her alleged links to far-right groups known for racist and anti-Semitic statements and her alleged harassment of people who are transgender.}} I'd thought by saying Bates listed the concerns that made it obvious he was the one to allege them, but I accept I was wrong on that | |||
| ::::* In that case I suppose I'll start cleaning up my userpage today! Leaving after this comment though so it will have to wait until tonight. I must admit, I lost my cool when a prominent bigot insulted me and called me a liar, so I'll try and have a more measured response if that happens in future. I also want to say, while I think a BLP and GENSEX TBAN (UNION or INTERSECTION btw?) is extreme and a requirement GENSEX BLP's I write go through AFC first would better suit the situation, I really appreciate you having actually gone through the article to improve it, and appreciate and want to improve on what I can tell are clearly good faith concerns/criticisms you've raised. | |||
| ::::] (]) 17:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you for your thoughtful reply - I feel your response helps bolster my perception of your capacity for ongoing development as an editor and your intent to figure out how to effectively participate here. In the meantime, I think a mainspace topic ban for now on each of the contentious topic areas is warranted based on various examples of your editing history raised in this discussion. It may also be helpful for you to consider the ] program, and apply for a mentor through that project. Thanks again, ] (]) 18:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Also, while this is just a detail, but potentially relevant to the issue of using sources, I do not see anything in that says "Bates later explicitly confirmed the letter was referencing Keen" - the source states Keen later confirmed the letter was about her, and the source connects the letter to her, despite Bates' attempt to redact her name. While I am glad that you recognize my concerns as being in the good faith in which they are intended, I am sorry that this review of your work is happening in the high-stress forum of AN/I. ] (]) 21:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] I know I asked to move everything to the associated talk pages but I recalled I needed to address this point here. I misspoke, since as we both know this is distressing and not exactly the most conducive environment for thorough collaborative content discussions. In that source, it was Keen who explicitly confirmed it was her, the article repeatedly states in its own voice Keen is the subject of the letter, and the linked letter lists specific actions of Keen's that leave no doubt to the imagination who she is. While I've found some comments here in less good faith than others, yours have consistently conveyed the utmost good faith, especially given you've actually done the work of improving the article's issues collaboratively (though I certainly wish you'd came across the article before the case began lol). ] (]) 06:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thank you, {{u|TheTranarchist}}, and I look forward to working on articles with you in the future. ] (]) 06:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support TBAN from BLP and GENSEX main space''' - I think Beccaynr's approach makes a lot of sense to address the problematic editing issues, at least for a period of time, while permitting TheTranarchist to participate in these topics via the talk page. ] (]) 15:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't remember the last time I saw an ANI TBAN thread with five non-XC editors voting (on both sides). Closer take note. ] (]) 22:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] I see your point, and I raised a similar concern regarding one specific editor earlier, though I am also wary of uniformly applying the xc criterion as a benchmark for community participation. It might inadvertently alienate a lot of people who would otherwise offer thoughtful and potentially valuable opinions. This kind of assessment should be done individually, I believe, and when it's warranted; otherwise, it feels a bit like pulling rank. ]] 23:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Hob Gadling failing to yield to ], apparently missing both the discussion and RSN link from the talk page. Asserting an unreliable source as reliable in order to describe the subject as having a ‘victim complex’. ] (]) 23:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===arbitrary break 2=== | |||
| *'''Oppose any sanction''' This was started by a blocked sock of an LTA clearly trying to remove an 'opponent' from the topic area, and while I don't doubt many of the supports are coming from a place of genuine concern, it is absolutely not merited here. Frankly, the recent usage of RGW at these noticeboards feels like it's application has turned from "don't be a crank trying to make the wiki support your crank view" to "don't be a real person, with real feelings and opinions." Its usage like this absolutely benefits people gaming their online identities to be as "who, me? i'm just a humble neutral person with no connections to anywhere else online" and penalizes anyone who isn't overly obsessed with opsec. Humans have biases. Every single person edits the wiki with bias. Bias is fine. It's the material effects of bias that matter. It's why we aren't given random articles to edit. You edit the things that matter to you, whether its social issues, or world war 2 planes, or bus stations in the south of France. You're passionate about them. If this leads to '''bad edits''', we intervene. But to simply say "Ah ha ha, well this person clearly seems like they're GOING to edit with bias!" (This is not every supporter. Don't @ me, colloquially.) is just horseshit. ] (]) 11:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' GENSEX and BLP tbans. I fail to see a difference between this case and that of Stuartyeates, where it is the intention to create/edit for purposes other than those of the project which is problematic (in other words, per BilledMammal and David Fuchs and others). As to the point immediately above, "started by a blocked sock...", so what? It was started, perhaps, by the wrong account/person, but the complaint has merit regardless, and should be evaluated on that merit. Happy days ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 15:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Regarding the vs this one. | |||
| *:* Yeates created articles that ignored most ] and most of their activities to highlight one thing they were involved in - I've created articles that use every RS, the biggest criticism is I, <u>very statistically rarely</u>, let non-RS slip through, which I acknowledged I fucked up on and vowed to be even more careful about. Generally, if anybody had pointed out I included a poor source on the talk page, I'd have removed it myself, glad my error was pointed out. Instead my honest mistakes are being cast as evidence I should be banned. | |||
| *:** It should also be noted, I've included things about organizations I can't stand that make them look good and which even I agree with, such as the Mendoza case at ] | |||
| *:* In the Yeates case, {{noping|Rfjaffe}} called for a 3 month BLP ban, here they called for no sanctions. {{noping|Slywriter}} called for an indef BLP ban, here they called for me putting my articles through AFC to make sure they're fully reviewed first, which I think is a good idea and have no issues with. | |||
| *:* Yeates was banned from BLPs, people are calling for me to be banned from GENSEX at large as well | |||
| *:** My to GENSEX, which account for the majority of my contributions, have been wholly uncontroversial. I've ensured ], ], and ] stick to ] and don't spread misinformation. Same for ], which was so wildly out-of-date it inspired me to join WP in the first place. I even created ] to make sure that the ] articles are kept up to date. | |||
| *:** Even articles I've written which intersect BLP and GENSEX have been uncontroversial. For just some examples: ], ], ], ], ], ], and ], which have been based wholly off reliable sources and nobody has shown have serious issues. I have never been anything less than honest about the fact I write articles about organizations that oppose transgender rights. If I engaged in ], the articles would be much longer, but I have always taken the greatest of effort to ensure my sourcing is impeccable and I do everything by Misplaced Pages's standards. | |||
| *:] (]) 19:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::The specific problems pointed out in this thread are not the ''only'' problems. The very articles you point to here, and others you've started or worked on, still have RS problems, like citing sources that are yellow at RSP. ] (]) 19:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I wasn't aware that an ANI case should take into consideration problems that haven't been pointed out here... I'd hope we operate based on "innocent until proven guilty". Perhaps you could point to examples of issues? Also, last I checked, yellow at RSP means {{tq|No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context}} - not {{tq|can't be used, and if you do, it's grounds for a TBAN}}... ] (]) 19:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::This is what I mean when I talk about swimming in the deep end before you're ready. "Yellow at RSP" means ''don't use it for contentious material in a BLP'', so for example no ] and ]. You should take into consideration problems that ''have'' been pointed out here, like "poor sourcing". It's not anybody else's job to point you to each and every single mistake you've made. "very statistically rarely, let non-RS slip through...nobody has shown have serious issues", I can't believe you seriously believe this. BTW, for example of another problem, your userpage still violates policies like ] and ] in my view, even after your clean-up. ] (]) 19:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::"Yellow at RSP" ''probably'' means "don't use for contentious material in a BLP", but that's not spelled out as an absolute rule anywhere I am aware of. The explicit statement {{tq|it should never be used for information about a living person}} is down at the "generally unreliable" status. ] (]) 20:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Red means don't use it for ''any'' information about a living person (or anything else, really); yellow should not be used for ''contentious'' information about a living person (but might sometimes be OK for something else). ], aka "marginally reliable source", is poor sourcing, and thus shouldn't be used as ]. Perhaps we should expand WP:MREL to say that explicitly, but most editors AFAIK won't use MREL for negative BLP content. ] (]) 20:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Blaming a new editor for not picking up on implicit standards that may or may not be how most editors do things seems poor form. ] (]) 20:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Your list of things not worthy of a TBAN keeps growing: | |||
| *::::::::*{{tqq|failing to navigate the alphabet soup of categorization guidelines}} | |||
| *::::::::*{{tqq|A few intemperate expressions of emotional investment in a topic that naturally invites emotional investment}} | |||
| *::::::::*{{tqq|Questionable judgment about what sources are reliable for which purposes}} | |||
| *::::::::*{{tqq|a rush-to-RfC}} | |||
| *::::::::*{{tqq|not picking up on implicit standards that may or may not be how most editors do things}} | |||
| *::::::::And yet {{tqq|not sure what purpose a warning would serve, apart from a bureaucratic one}}. Look, whatever happens, the important thing is that nobody use MREL as BLPRS. ] (]) 20:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Yes, I still think that none of those are worthy of a TBAN. They're not even separate things; the latter three items are all the same thing, AFAICT (one count of "not being magically aware of sourcing standards written up in no one place, when they are written at all"). ] (]) 21:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::The fifth is duplicative, but the third is about RS and the fourth is about RFC. I don't really care if she gets TBANed or not, I care that problems improve (or, from the half-empty perspective, that disruption decreases), however that's accomplished. Statements like {{tqq|I've created articles that use every RS}} and {{tqq|based wholly off reliable sources}} and {{tqq|I have always taken the greatest of effort to ensure my sourcing is impeccable}} yet there has in fact been questionable judgment about what sources are reliable for which purposes, across multiple articles. {{tqq|if anybody had pointed out I included a poor source on the talk page, I'd have removed it myself, glad my error was pointed out}} yet e.g. in the case of ''Passage'' at RSN, that's not what happened at all. Describing her contributions in the topic areas as {{tqq|wholly uncontroversial}} and {{tqq|nobody has shown have serious issues}} is straight-up ] when there are dozens of editors supporting a TBAN. I wish there was a door #2, maybe like what Beccanyr suggested, I'm all for whatever works. ] (]) 22:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::The is nowhere near as clear-cut as you make it out to be. I've posted more information there. It doesn't help that one of the editors calling it unreliable has a COI that's led them to do everything they can to mute criticisms of FAIR... | |||
| *:::::::::::{{tq|there has in fact been questionable judgment about what sources are reliable for which purposes, across multiple articles}} If there are issues with the use of MM4A in the GAG article, raise them there at the talk page - there's no rule that says you can't use it, and you have yet to show it is used in a problematic way. No editors involved in that page have raised any issue with it, and I'd already been trying to reduce its use, so the onus is on you to show it is being given ] weight or is being used improperly. | |||
| *:::::::::::{{tq|there are dozens of editors supporting a TBAN}} - and there are dozens opposing. Saying I agree with <insert editor>'s point is not '''more''' evidence, especially when I've already responded to points raised and agreed. | |||
| *:::::::::::Notably, of the list of non-BLP related GENSEX articles I'd listed above (or even the broader pool to draw from), not a single editor has a raised a single complaint about my edits there in this whole discussion. Of the approximately a dozen BLP related GENSEX articles, nobody has shown inarguably improper sourcing at any apart from KJK, which I've fully admitted to and repeatedly stated I'll step away from, and one source in ] that doesn't actually contribute anything not already covered by other sources. | |||
| *:::::::::::{{tq|I don't really care if she gets TBANed}} - sure doesn't seem that way... ] (]) 22:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::In my initial review of ], I notice that the first graf in the History section is cited to ] without attribution, and another ] source is one of three sources cited for several sentences of content in the next graf, also without attribution, and then twice without attribution for the final graf in addition to a news source. ] is the only source cited (again without attribution) in the Incorporation section that follows, and it is cited in the Legislation, Other, and Reception sections without attribution. ] is also cited in the Other section, and ] is one of several sources supporting a large graf in the Reception section. ''The Daily Dot'' (a yellow source at ]) is cited multiple times in the article, and ''The Intercept'' is cited twice. Due to the amount of clean up that appears needed and the substantial reliance on these sources, I think ] could be appropriate per ]. ] (]) 19:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I think some of these articles need to be reviewed against ]/] but I was going to wait until these ANIs closed to bring that up. ] (]) 19:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::] is tagged for notability, although an attempt at draftification may be a helpful first step in advance of a potential AfD. ] (]) 20:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::@] before this whole ANI case started I was planning to prove how it met the GNG guidelines on its talk page, which I shall get to at the first available opportunity. ] (]) 20:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] I don't see any benefit from saying this on ANI rather than the talk page. And, in any case, draftifying suggestion is excessive. The article overall has improved significantly since it was first published and TheTranarchist continues to actively address outstanding problems, particularly those related to sources. She's pretty much doing all of the heavy lifting in that article, following consensus to the best of her abilities, while most of the other editors pop in to point out everything they think is wrong with it. Clearly, having gensex articles that are well-written and researched serves ] so why not just help her make it better? Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you have made any edits there or participated in the talk page discussion. ]] 20:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Hi {{u|Ppt91}}, I was responding to TheTranarchist's question above {{Tq|Perhaps you could point to examples of issues?}}, so I made an initial review of the article and identified examples of what I see as issues relevant to this discussion. I have not edited the article nor participated in article Talk discussion - I was offering my initial impression in response to the question here. I am familiar with the amount of time and effort that it took to review and clean up the ] article, so I am hesitant to continue investing more time in what appears, from my view, to be another article in need of a in-depth review and overhaul, that may be best served by incubation in draftspace. ] (]) 20:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::@] Thanks for your reply and explanation. I understand the motivation, though I guess I am questioning whether that course of action is the right one to take, especially at this point, and if it will benefit the article. I think that Gays Against Groomers is a different case from the one you mentioned in that it seems to be improving daily and conflicts are being actively resolved on the article's talk page. Look, I realize TheTranarchist needs to work on her combative approach, and I think she is very much aware of it, but I also hope that it will not overshadow the hard work she is actually putting in. ]] 21:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::It is my understanding that there is a difference between an opinion attributed to Media Matters for America, and a purely factual statement sourced to them. Multiple other unquestionably RS already cited in the article have repeatedly cited or referred to MM4A's reports on GAG. Even then, I have been undergoing efforts to reduce the amount cited to MM4A in that article. | |||
| *:::::] states {{tq|It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question.}} If there is doubt about the veracity of MM4A's ] reporting on GAG, it should be discussed on the talk page. | |||
| *:::::For the ], it states {{tq|There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.}} Even though it's use is ok here, it can be removed as it doesn't seem to be adding any information not covered by the other RS there. | |||
| *:::::For the Daily dot, RSP says {{tq|There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact}} - which is what it's used for in the article | |||
| *:::::With regards to ], that source can be removed no problem. I hadn't seen that at RSP and the rest of the sources already cover it. | |||
| *:::::@], do you think ] is called for? ] (]) 20:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::@] No, per above. ]] 20:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::@] I posted right after you did so missed it lol ] (]) 21:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I do think this is ridiculous. TheTranarchist, a relatively junior editor, has created articles in a really difficult domain, with a mix of sources and is being blamed for the worst sources that a highly experienced editor can find. Yet nobody looks at the other articles in this topic domain and says that well most of those sources are crap too, and yet experienced editors here (some calling for bans) have edited those articles and sometimes argued and edit warred to retain the crap, but they escape censure because their total contribution to the article is minor. And that's the problem... many editors (I'm no exception) editing in this space have actually contributed very little to the article space. Levivich, you are placing this one editor under the magnifying glass because (a) they actually wrote material with citations, which isn't true for most of Misplaced Pages and you know that and (b) because a banned account who socked created this AN/I to attack this editor. I'm frankly disappointed, Levivich, that you can't spot how unfair you are being. Go pick any other editor in the gensex arena and look whether they are here to build encyclopaedic content or just revert stuff they don't like, and include shit they found that day on Google, look to see if they are any good at 100% using reliable sources, look to see if they aren't also an argumentative PITA. You are being ''used'' Levivich, and you've swallowed the bait hook line and sinker. -- ]°] 19:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Yeah, this is pretty ridiculous, and the fact that it's being held about an editor who has made positive contributions to GENSEX articles, despite being relatively junior, is a real shame. Has she made a few mistakes along the way? Sure, which is normal for Misplaced Pages editors starting out. The editing process and ANI should not be used as a way to bludgeon a new editor like this. ] (]) 17:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose TBAN.''' It is immensely dishonest to claim that ''anyone'' in this topic area doesn't have their own views on the subject. TheTranarchist sets out to write negatively about these subjects precisely because it is her – totally legitimate – opinion that such is the RS stance on these organizations and people. That is precisely what a Misplaced Pages editor's task is. I understand some would prefer if Misplaced Pages could only be edited by appropriately detached, viz. cishet, white, etc., editors. This tactic of using "neutrality" as a cover to abuse marginalized people is nothing new. That she has been involved in disagreements, some of which have concluded with a consensus contrary to her opinion, is hardly remarkable. Neither is it that she sometimes has been mistaken on the existing consensus regarding certain sources, or that she may have applied disagreeable taste with regard to the appropriate time of opening an RfC. All of these are completely normal things that happen on Misplaced Pages, especially so in GENSEX. If the sum of it merits a TBAN in this case, we might as well delete the entire ] tree and go home.{{pb}}As an aside, shouldn't Rounder and rounder's contribution be ]? ■ ∃ ] ⇔ ∃ ] ''';''' 01:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Is there a specific policy-based reason why you oppose the TBAN? Or lack of policy-based reasoning in the initial proposition that you are protesting? ]. '']'' ''<sub><small>]</small></sub>'' 08:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::The latter. The section starter was a trolling sockpuppet, and the rest of the comments calling for sanctions seem to me to be trying to make something out of nothing. On a scale from ''normal GENSEX disagreements'' to ''TBAN'' I rate this a nothingburger. ■ ∃ ] ⇔ ∃ ] ''';''' 12:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Thank you for elaborating. ]. '']'' ''<sub><small>]</small></sub>'' 19:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've now {{diff2|1141767875|struck}} the sock's edits per SOCKSTRIKE. The original notifications from {{noping|LilianaUwU}} that {{noping|Round and rounder}} was a sock are kinda lost in the sheer length of this discussion. ] (]) 18:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN for GENSEX topics.''' There's just too little respect for ] in this user's approach to the area in question. Editors, particularly newer editors, should generally eschew working in areas where they feel an impulse to advocacy, and here we have an editor who is unabashedly embracing such advocacy as their primary motivation for involvement in such subject matter. I certainly believe TheTranarchist when she says that she intends to advance this advocacy while also scrupulously following all of our policies, but with respect, that's the thing about bias: it is by definition those influences which act upon our reasoning despite our best intentions otherwise. And that is compounded in this case by a low level of editorial experience and effort to contribute in areas which do not intersect with TT's pro-trans rights advocacy editing. And that concern is only heightened by the fairly immense and uniform display of ] above where the user has pretty consistently sought to minimize or dismiss the vast majority of instances above where she has been presented with community concerns about lack of appropriately neutral tone or approach in the precisely the articles for BLP subjects whom she has publicly disclosed an express intention to shame. | |||
| :Note that Hob edited the talk page after re-adding this content; he should have self reverted if he missed this discussion prior. ] (]) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :In fact, about the only advice she has seemed to take to heart is the fact that she shouldn't have announced this intention, which I fear is evidence that she is taking the worst possible lesson from this experience: play your cards close to your vest and don't disclose your biases, or it will be harder for us to look the other way. To be perfectly clear, the issue here is decidedly ''<u>not</u>'' that TT made public disclosures about her intent to create attack pages (and however you slice the semantics, that is the accurate label when one expressly begins work on an article with the decision already in mind to portray the subject in a negative light, nevermind that they think that the sources will be amenable to this effort). If anything, wearing her heart on her sleeve in this respect is a boon to understanding what is going on here--and in any event, it's really outside our scope to police statements outside this project. Rather it's the actual editing of content on this project consistent with that very plain and express agenda that are the problem, and I'm deeply concerned that the only thing this editor seems to be learning here is to be more restrained about broadcasting that agenda while continuing to pursue it whole-heartedly--unable to see because of their lack of experience why this is an innately problematic way to contribute to this project in general, and not internalizing the particular concerns of the community. | |||
| *'''Propose''' serving of trout to both. Hob likely may have acted a hair too strongly to a source of exasperation; but not enough for any warning. Lardlegwarmers provides a large helping of such and I would suggest a boom if not for BITE. Albeit, Lardlegwarmers’ knowledge of WP is beyond the average for an editor with 5x the posts. I would suggest a non-logged warning to Lardlegwarmers on the concept of collaboration for their own good. Otherwise, we are likely to see them back here given their attitude at both this filing and at ]. (Disclaimer, I have been involved.) ] (]) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:For context, ] is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. ] (]) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. ] (]) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Recuse{{smiley}} Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. ] (]) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. ] (]) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:If you click through the diffs, you’ll notice that many other editors have received the rude comments, so this is more than a 1-on-1 scuffle with me and Hob Gadling. I stopped compiling examples after finding 9 examples of visible hostility out of their most recent dozen diffs, but like I mentioned to ] above, I can go back further if you need me to, to illustrate the chronic pattern. And the handful of other editors who have spoken up here who have been aggrieved speak for themselves. ] (]) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *As a note, Hob Gadling without comment and has not responded here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry, but I just don't see how we can preserve this user in this topic area at the present time. Not just because of the public disclosures of their actual a priori intent in engaging in articles in this space (to bring disrepute upon the subjects which she feels they have earned), which cannot possibly do anything but bias her contributions, nor the polemic statements on her user page, but also because of the more particularized concerns raised above, and the failure to appropriately acknowledge these issues. Yes, it would be a problem in and of itself for this community to allow someone to continue to contribute in an area where they publicly declared an intent to develop attack content, even if we otherwise agreed with all of the particulars of their edits. But in this case, the issues don't begin or end with those statements. Bluntly, this editor has simply made it clear they are ] to build the encyclopedia, but rather to leverage it for advocacy. I can see that they earnestly believe that they can have that as their primary objective and still comport with our content guidelines, but both this community's experience with such advocacy-motivated editing and the particular facts raised here strongly belay that self-assurance. | |||
| *:Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. ] (]) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Never said they weren't. Just noting that they clearly received the notice and chose not to respond here, which is a response in and of itself. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|Extended discussion}} | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Wish Hob Gadling would not act like a profane teenager on talk page discussions and that they'd treat people without the smartass-y-ness and contempt. If they are so committed to being pissy towards other users while being shut-off in their own la-la-land, maybe they need a block until they're willing to face the music. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This comment is actually more of a personal attack then any of the diffs provided originally. Smartass, like a teenager, pissy, lalaland? That's some ageism, maybe commenting on mental health, and some silly insults. I don't think you should see any sanctions for this, but hopefully you compare your comments to the diffs. ] (]) 22:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :In short, let this user spend some time editing in other areas, demonstrating that they are not here merely to advance some of their most dearly held social beliefs (however sympathetic and relatable they may be), and understanding how to interpret and apply policy when they are not externally motivated by a non-editorial objective, and then we can see about returning them to this area with the benefit of more experience and objectivity. At the present moment, they clearly and somewhat self-admittedly lack the neutrality required by policy in this area. '']]'' 14:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::IP, how'd you get here? A person who calls things {{tq|bullshit}} and generally isn't in a good mood around others, being condescending: saying that they are pissy and being a smartass is ]. Teenagers are known for angst and pissy-ness and for having lip. Not insinuating they are a teenager, just that their behavior resembles that of. As you will recall, someone, somewhere in this derailed, miles-long trainwreck of an ANI report-turned morality seminar-turned COVID-19 ] + ] debate, said that there is no policy against profanity. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I want to preface this by saying, in this entire thread, '''nobody has even once raised a single issue with my non-BLP GENSEX edits.''' A full GENSEX ban is entirely uncalled for and for the life of me I can't understand why people seem to think that's warranted. | |||
| :::If I tell User:ExampleA that they did an "amazing fuckin' job!" with a ], that is different than calling User:ExampleB a "{{!tq|fuckin' wanker}}" because they botched a ]. Context is everything, and I get how we are all connecting through the two-dimensional medium of simple text and thus misunderstandings tend to occur, but tones like these aren't that hard to discern. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is very explicit there is a difference between ] and recording information according to ]. I have never engaged in OR. | |||
| ::::When ] shouts "fucking A!" after a job well done, that is not the same when he tells ] that he is a "fucking psycho murderer". <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::In terms of ] and {{tq|In fact, about the only advice she has seemed to take to heart is the fact that she shouldn't have announced this intention}} - that's by far the only one I've taken to heart. I have supported a requirement my new articles go through AFC to make sure my bias isn't present despite my best efforts. I have been open that I'm biased and think reviews and collaborative editing will ameliorate that bias to ensure articles are up-to-snuff, because that's the whole point of wikipedia. I have been open about the fact I write about anti-trans groups because I'm trans. I will never stop being trans, nor stop being affected by their rhetoric, so there is no way for me to be fully "neutral" writing about them and there never will be. Misplaced Pages doesn't exist in an apolitical void - there are hateful groups out there, and people whose rhetoric and actions they effect. If writing about such groups is inherently ], ban every other trans editor who's touched those articles too. I've also acknowledged needing to work on my battle-field mentality (which partly stems from the non-stop transphobic nonsense I put up with in GENSEX). I've acknowledged that even though I currently take great pains to be incredibly strict with my sources, I should be even stricter. And even then if anyone had pointed out I'd fucked up on the sources in the rare cases I did, on talk instead of as a gotcha in ANI, I'd have removed them myself. I should also summarize better, as I can sometimes include too much detail that could be trimmed down. | |||
| :::Right, and there are no egregious uncivil diffs either. So, how is Hob acting like a pissy teenager, but you aren't? Catch my drift? This is a nothing burger report, and the reporter should get a boomerang. ] (]) 00:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Regarding - {{Tq|Rather it's the actual editing of content on this project consistent with that very plain and express agenda that are the problem}} and {{tq|because of the more particularized concerns raised above, and the failure to appropriately acknowledge these issues}} very few editors have raised concerns about the {{tq|actual editing}}, and when they have I've been receptive. Most comments have solely been about my off-wiki comments and why those are grounds for a ban. If we look at the actual articles people have raised concerns about: | |||
| ::::Hob's profanity is not amiable. It sours the collaboration with other editors. most importantly, it is undue. Mine is not undue, and is a statement of truth. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::* ] and ]: I was open about the fact I wrote them to make sure people know they're ] and fully stuck to ] to do so. Many have raised issue with my comments about them, but so far nobody has shown any problems with the articles themselves. | |||
| :::::Provide a diff of something you believe is sanctionable. Your pile of personal attacks is making it unclear what you are trying to say. It's ok when you cuss, but it's bad if someone else does it? What? ] (]) 01:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::* ]: the banned sock who started this said I wrote the article impartially, linked to a BLPN notice that objected to language in the article I did not introduce and had already objected to myself. Another editor objected to her being described as an "anti-trans activist", despite ] repeatedly directly calling her that, and even more ] stating she campaigned for "anti-trans legislation". There seems to be a consensus at that talk page that the article is neutral. | |||
| ::::::Profanity has nothing to do with it. The attitude is the thing that's wrong. The word "shit" can be said in many different ways. Some good, some bad. Have you even looked through these diffs of Hob's comments that have popped up through this ANI report? I also invite you to create an account. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::* ]: I'd used an improper source, which I realized and admitted before this whole thing even began when given a clear policy reason why. An editor objected to me saying the page had been advertified and whitewashed, and other editors here took one look and basically said "that's exactly what you call it when the lead is just their mission statement". That's not even mentioning the fact that was the result of a COI editor. The further evidence of my wrong-doing there was creating a malformed RFC on an issue that had reached no consensus, being told the RFC was poor by two editors on either side of the issue, at which point me fixing it to a more specific RFC was also cast as evidence of wrongdoing. | |||
| :::::::So, to recap, ]: It's not ''what'' it is said that causes problems, it's '''''how''''' it is said that matters, and in what context. I call a pissy editor pissy because it's great to ]. I can use profanity to describe someone's behaviour, and if I weigh words, I can even use it when addressing someone's contributions; i.e. "This is a really fuckin' well done article, User:Example". Hob calling someone's opinions {{tq|bullshit}} is not the right thing to do. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::* ]: The editor who has been working with me to improve it has defended me and my conduct there, and when I presented it as an example of my good articles the only truly objectionable material that could be found was 1 citation to Raw Story, which was used in a paragraph sourced to multiple other RS saying the same, which I anyways removed when it was pointed out. | |||
| ::::::::I think you may refer to this as calling a spade a spade. When someone says we should ignore science because it has a COI with Covid-19, their opinion is bullshit. This is what you are defending. ] (]) 03:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::* ]: The biggest and sole clear-cut case where I fucked up. I realized I'd messed up some sourcing when pointed out, and had already been taking a step back after it got too personal when she publicly insulted me and called me a liar (for having written the article). | |||
| :::::::::Eh, you can say "That's ] and ] and does not constitute ] as the subject is discussed in ]". Calling a spade a spade is easy, while addressing content and user contributions in dispute should require more, IDK, poise. I can say "fucking awesome work!" to an editor about their ] and no harm can be meant by that in any feasible situation, but when addressing questionable content, it should be done with nuance, eh? You can call someone's work shit whose work ''isn't'' shit, but you pretty much can't call someone's work "fucking amazing" whose work isn't amazing, as calling work "fucking amazing" provides pretty much no point of contention, unless you were just bullshitting them for no reason or trying to be nice about a novice's contributions that in terms of quality, reflect their inexperience. | |||
| ::I am not her to {{tq|advance some of most dearly held social beliefs}} - I am here to, to the best of my ability, objectively document anti-trans groups, objectively document transgender history, and make sure ] pseudoscience is not spread here and we stick to ] (for example, I started editing because ] made absolutely no reference to trans people, and was based off statements from health organizations made 1 or 2 decades ago, and I updated ] to actually cover the fact that detransition isn't always a choice, but sometimes forced by repressive states, and I updated ], to correct the hugely damaging misinformation that most kids grow out of being trans). Nowhere do I advance my own beliefs against what RS have to say on a matter - I don't write articles saying group XYZ are evil incarnate when I believe they are or perform ] on them to expose shitty things they've done that ] haven't mentioned, I write about what they are known for in reliable sources. People who support such organizations can appreciate what they've done, people who oppose them can curse them for it, I don't care as long as they are accurately represented. I don't push my own beliefs about trans healthcare, because believe me I heavily disagree with what MEDRS have to say on certain things, but I stick to medical consensus even when I disagree. ] (]) 16:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::This entire ANI report has derailed into pretty much every unrelated topic save debate over what ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 03:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::In the GENSEX article histories that include TheTranarchist, I have normal constructive edits from her. It would be a shame to kick out one of the editors who has been positively contributing to these articles and maintaining them. ] (]) 16:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm not worried about contexts when "strong language" is ok, and you can stop giving needless examples. I don't believe anything that violates our guidelines on civility took place at all in the diffs originally provided. Hob was reasonable in tone, and sometimes people are exasperated by nonsense. Being annoyed but mostly polite isn't actually against the rules. You will need better diffs to change my mind. ] (]) 06:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's funny. I ''am'' here to {{tq|advance some of most dearly held social beliefs}}, but because most of the time that manifests as saying "science is important" rather than "trans people are people", nobody has called for ''me'' to be TBANed. ] (]) 17:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The COI pertains only to a few authors in particular with a personal stake in the outcome of the investigation. For example, the article uses several sources co-authored by Dr. Zhengliang Shi who {{tq|herself and the WIV itself have an obvious conflict of interest}}<ref> Nie JB. "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2020 Dec;17 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/</ref> This is a secondary peer-reviewed article, and several editors who call LL fringe stated it is RS.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#c-GPinkerton-2021-01-18T14:40:00.000Z-ScrupulousScribe-2021-01-18T14:27:00.000Z</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Shibbolethink-20250104081900-IntrepidContributor-20250103151400</ref> ] (]) 08:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You say: <small>"in this entire thread, nobody has even once raised a single issue with my non-BLP GENSEX edits."</small> I don't know why you keep on saying things that just aren't true. I brought up problems with your initial drafts at ] and ], a comment you responded to and which we discussed. I know it's been a lot the last few days, but stop making misleading statements in your own defense. You also told me those pages (and ]) had "barely changed" from your initial drafts, which was not even close to true. I really want to believe you are discussing in good faith, but you keep making it harder. ] (]) 18:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| ::::@] poor choice of words, my apologies - I'd been considering organizations to fall under BLP in that remark, but double-checking I realize that ] explicitly separates them. To be more clear, what I meant to convey was {{tq|in this entire thread, nobody has even once raised a single issue with my non-BLP OR non-BLPGROUP GENSEX edits}} - referring to my contributions to LGBT rights in <xyz> edits, ] edits, etc, since those indeed have not had any issues raised with them. | |||
| ::::Wrt ], you stated the was {{tq|written from a clearly non-neutral perspective}}, but never elaborated further. I stated it was poorly formatted, but all the content therein is still in the article and was reliably sourced, and noted I had been the main contributor in improving the article afterwards. That version contained most of how they'd been described in RS at that point. That was one of my first articles, and since then I've strived to make sure that my initial published version of any article I write is well formatted and takes into account all relevant information. | |||
| ::::Wrt ], with the exception of that paragraph in the lead I'd mentioned earlier but forgot in my initial reply to you, the article has had some issues but has mostly been steady. the initial to current version, the examples you raised were small details supported by the source that questioned the relevance of. Additionally, you noted that concerns had been raised on talk, but as I noted in this summary above the discussion on talk has seemed to be a consensus that the article is mostly neutral. Regarding your examples of issues | |||
| ::::: {{tq|reportedly being unable to answer some questions coherently but responding with apparently rehearsed answers to questions posed by Republican lawmakers}} - that was an direct observation in a source providing ] coverage | |||
| ::::: {{tq|none of whom were from Florida}} - that none of the detransitioners protesting the bill were from Florida is a neutral statement and was noted in multiple RS, | |||
| ::::: {{tq|leading a transgender nonbinary person who signed up to testify but wasn't able to do so to state the event was 'obviously staged'}} - another speaker at a hearing she testified about made a comment, reported by multiple RS, on how the panel seemed staged. | |||
| ::::: {{tq|Many have speculated that her travel has been paid for anti-LGBTQ activists. Cole denied that and said her trips are self-funded with crowdfunding via Twitter tips. Others have questioned if she is being coached}} - These were raised in ] coverage. | |||
| ::::: While the weight of these is debatable, none automatically seem to scream "shouldn't be included". | |||
| ::::Wrt the ], the initial and current version, you said without elaboration that the original version wasn't neutral, and took issue with me describing it as "barely changed". If we look, the article lead is currently mostly based on my proposed version on talk. The most notably removed content is 1) Idavox, which I mentioned above, 2) the changes to the lead, which for a time was just their mission statement, 3) the changes to notable members which also reads like a mission statement (which, and I know I'm a broken record here, but was largely due to a COI editor). The body of the article has barely changed, except for minor fixes, and a notably removed paragraph on why students at Emory protested them. ] (]) 19:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|TheTranarchist}}. I actually do wish there were a less onerous option here. I would have supported one if it were on the table by the time I reviewed this thread. Unfortunately, the options at the moment seem to be a TBAN or doing nothing at all, and, without meaning to give offense to you, I think the former is more prudent than the latter in the overall circumstances. And yes, I am aware you were willing to accept a temporary 'new articles must go through AfC' restriction, and I think that might have been a quite reasonable middle path, but I don't see the community likely to adopt that at this juncture, merely as an artifact of how this discussion has proceeded. | |||
| :::Addressing other aspects of your response, I do recognize that you do seem to have a good grasp of policies, and I absolutely AGF that you intend to keep your editing, however passionately you feel about the subject, within the bounds of policy. I can see that you are not just trying to pay lip service to that principle: you genuinely believe that is important as far as I can tell, which bodes well for your longterm ability to make positive contributions on this project. | |||
| It should be noted that Lardlegwarmers, after only truly starting editing two months ago, has been actively pushing ] misinformation, particularly on Covid related pages. They have actively been making claims that the scientific community is trying to cover things up, such as ], and has been using poor quality sources to try and claim that major published scientific papers on the topic are false, such as ]. This entire thread just sounds like an attempt to silence another editor who has been actively dealing with fringe POV-pushers across numerous articles, such as those linked by Lardlegwarmers above. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::But here's the thing: I wouldn't lodge an !vote here without following up on the diffs and doing additional review of your edits, and I just don't think you are succeeding in threading that needle between your activist motivations and fidelity to our editorial rules. Or at least certainly not to the extent you feel you are. I see significant and consistent tonal issues to your contributions in this area, and I'm pretty sure I would have noticed them even if I hadn't encountered them in the context of already having seen your social media vows about what you were setting out to do here. | |||
| :Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. And it seems that's the case here. ] (]) 02:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Unfortunately, nowhere is the phrase "you don't know what you don't know" more accurate or germane than when it comes to understanding the influences our biases (especially biases relating to our more central beliefs and personal experiences) play in influencing our approach to how we contextualize activities we find objectionable. I just don't think you yet have the experience here that you would need to contribute in this area without issues, given your very express desire to hold these individuals and institutions to account for what you (understandably) regard as morally objectionable behaviour. | |||
| :*I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!) {{tq|bullshit}} to describe an argument that did, in fact, turn out to be bullshit shows how weak it is. What's more alarming is that ''that'' was what led Lardlewarmers to try and , a hamhanded effort whose sheer inappropriateness they remain sufficiently tone-deaf to that they made the mistake of bragging about it here as part of their "report". This is a straightforward ] situation. --] (]) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And even if you did have that experience, I'd still recommend against it, as it is often the areas one feels strongly about that they should typically avoid if they are actually on this project for primarily ] purposes, rather than here to pursue a particular external objective which they feel they can harmonize with our rules. That's just easier said than done even for a truly veteran editor. However this discussion plays out, I hope we won't lose you as an contributor, but I really do think the best thing for you (if you first priority is to contribute to this project) would be to gain more experience in an area where you don't have so much skin in the game in terms of outside motivations. '']]'' 04:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :*:There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "]" in situations like this one. Misplaced Pages would be better off if people were more willing to ] and stop treating ]. ] (]) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have neither the time or the energy for a full response to this, as I want to go to bed and be done with this, hoping some admin descends from the wiki-heavens to close - a knell that summons me to heaven or to hell. I'll just say you recommending me against editing articles about anti-trans figures and groups, even in future, because I have {{tq|so much skin in the game in terms of outside motivations}} doesn't feel great... Given I will never stop being trans, and therefore not have {{tq|skin in the game}}, it seems in that case the best editors to write about trans topics and anti-trans groups are the ones who aren't trans... Considering that you !voted for a full GENSEX ban, in a discussion which has only ever raised concerns about my articles intersecting BLP/BLPGROUP and GENSEX, seems dramatically uncalled for. Especially, if the AFC process {{tq|might have been a quite reasonable middle path}}, yet you called for the full GENSEX ban because you {{tq|don't see the community likely to adopt that at this juncture}}, admitting to going with a harsher punishment because others called for it. ] (]) 05:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :*:The reason I cited numerous diffs was to substantiate, as I said in my post, that this is a ''chronic'' and ''ongoing'' habit of rude and uncivil behavior. I posted the diff of Hob Gadling's user page not to "brag" (and I don't understand how you inferred that), but rather to show that I followed ANI procedure to address conduct disputes first on the user page and that my attempt was dismissed without Hob Gadling addressing it except to blank the comment with the explantion that I wasn't welcome on his page.] (]) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, I'm afraid you are misreading my comments here in significant ways. To begin with, I don't expect trans individuals to eschew contributing on trans topics as a matter of course: it is both predictable and understandable (and not inherently problematic by any means) that people within the trans community will feel the urge to contribute on such topics. But you are not the average trans editor in this context: you are someone who made a public declaration of intent to leverage Misplaced Pages to drag certain individuals and groups into the light of day, and speak truth to power with regard to what you regard as their attempts to spin past positions. You publicly took a very activist position on the matter and then proceeded to edit related pages in a way which has caused some concerns. | |||
| :I am not trying to silence anyone. See above, I recommend a stern warning about consistent uncivil comments and that’s it. If Hob Gadling has something substantive to say, they can say it without demeaning the editors as if this is a combat sport instead of a discussion about articles of text. I encourage y'all to check out the discussions linked to by Silverseren. I have been careful to use sources, present my suggestions in good faith, and stay neutral in personal interactions. I am genuinely trying to find consensus. I'll mention that Silverseren is also involved in the content dispute, providing sources that myself and several other editors believe do not verify an extraordinary claim in the article. (]) It's getting to the point where we should do a content moderation over that, since I am sure that the sources do not verify the claim but Silverseren apparently is sure that they do. ] (]) 03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed ''I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type''. As the Alien above said, you '''{{tq|Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning.}}''' now ]. ] ] 18:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to ], the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the ] contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ], as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the ''content'', not attacking the person (]). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.] (]) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For the record I do ''agree with you'' that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been ] you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing ] or ], rather we depend on ] and ] to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to {{tq|steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person}}. However, that is not what I read in that . Out of the gate you're calling Hob uncivil, their arguments are false, and then lobbing further accusations. You get the discussion wrapped up arguing over who said what, and what they meant by it, and why your positions are valid and theirs are not. As for bad faith, I'll invite to other editors to comment below if they agree that I'm the one presuming bad faith towards you. Cheers! ] ] 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (]) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.] (]) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think I understand what you're referring to about RS. Yes, there are times when a source is otherwise considered reliable (or even un-reliable) but consensus can be found with regards to a specific narrow aspect of it that might warrant it's inclusion or exclusions, or some variation on how it is presented or the weight afforded to it in the article. And that comes through talk page consensus as you mentioned and does not necessarily need to be unanimous. ] ] 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Being entirely blunt, if we have two visions of Misplaced Pages: one in which people are occasionally rude or incivil to people who tout pseudoscience concerning major diseases and one in which pseudoscience concerning major diseases makes its way into article space then I'll gladly sign up for the rude / incivil Misplaced Pages over the pseudoscience one. This is to say that being rude is most certainly a {{tq|lesser offense}}. ] (]) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am making the best judgment I can, as a member of this community unconnected with the underlying disputes, on whether or not you should be allowed to contribute in this area without restrictions, and I am basing my !vote and responses to you on the specific of your situation and your conduct, not on your status as someone who happens to be trans. I would be providing you precisely the same feedback based on your declarations and the editing that followed if you were not trans, because it is the behaviour and competencies that matter in this situation. | |||
| :Please check out the article and discussion. The lab leak theory is not pseudoscience, but rather a scientific hypothesis which important scientists have suggested is worthy of serious investigation (]). Although the evidence strongly favors a zoonotic origin, the investigation is inconclusive. In any case, I would favor a Misplaced Pages where civil discussion leads to a balanced representation of what is published in reliable sources. If your position is supported by the sources, there is no need to resort to name calling. ] (]) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Likewise, if you review my comments, you will find that I did not in fact say that I was supporting the proposed TBAN merely because others did, but because I am put in a situation as a latecomer to the discussion where I have to choose the lesser of two problems: taking a completely laisez-faire attitude towards issues with your activism and approach, or endorsing an outcome that is a little more severe than I would have proposed myself in these circumstances. I'm sorry, that's just the nature of the beast here sometimes, and I just couldn't see doing nothing here as the correct result. I know it's hard not to take any !vote against you in this context personally, but I have been doing my best to make it clear that I view this as a tough call and am opting for an imperfect solution in a complicated situation and that I do recognize the good-faith character of your contributions. I'm sorry, but that's the best I can do in light of these facts. '']]'' 06:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of ''this specific'' pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. ] (]) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You say here that <big>"<sub>I did not in fact say that I was supporting the proposed TBAN merely because others did, but because I am put in a situation as a latecomer to the discussion where I have to choose the lesser of two problems: taking a completely laisez-faire attitude towards issues with your activism and approach, or endorsing an outcome that is a little more severe than I would have proposed myself in these circumstances"</sub></big> | |||
| :::What you are describing is a different idea: ]. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus. {{tq|the World Health Organization is recommending in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe is required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. ]}} {{tq|The fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs.}}(]) ] (]) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yet several editors directly surrounding your !vote ARE proposing a milder option to adress whatever concerns they have, which you have ignored. I am confused as to how I should interpret this sentence in that context. What's stopping you? --] (]) 14:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. ] (]) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::In fact, I do support a milder approach, in principle: if one particular proposal gains serious traction here, I'd please appreciate a ping from someone, and if the proposal seems even remotely well-tailored to address the raised concerns, I'll most certainly support it. But my !vote as it stands is based on a pragmatic and realistic interpretation of the present posture of this thread: there are currently some three dozen contributors supporting sanctions here and some twenty opposing, making almost sixty total contributions. Not all of the support !votes support the full TBAN and not all of the opposes are completely opposed to sanctions, but those are the two largest groups. I've seen around half a dozen !votes proposing a specific milder sanction, and not all of those even make or endorse the same proposal. I'm sure I've missed others, but the fact of the matter is that the !votes proposing middle ground solutions presently represent a fairly trivial portion of the overall perspectives. | |||
| :::::Beyond what @] said, ''for all parties'', it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil ]. ] ] 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Indeed. ] (]) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If Hob Gadling wants to "deal with" new editors who threaten Misplaced Pages, it should ''not'' be through aggression and insulting them openly, but through quality sources and discussion. Editors who sympathize with "fringe" ideas might be more cooperative if they didn't have to defend themselves against offensive comments in response to their suggestions. ] (]) 07:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::If this "old grievance" about the FTN exemption to CIVIL really has been thoroughly hashed out, could someone link the discussion from ] or something? Being up front about it would save time here at ANI, plus it's always heartbreaking to watch as earnest new editors learn about this the hard way. - ] (]) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. ] (]) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am in the diffs. | |||
| :::::I would still like a pointer to the discussion of why FTN regulars get an exemption from CIVIL, I honestly think that should be better understood. - ] (]) 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. ] (]) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above: {{tq|Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic.}}] ] (]) 07:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That diff certainly doesn't prove anyone is exempt from policy. I think it's interesting Palpable said he was following diffs instead of saying he was involved in the content dispute underlying this complaint. ] (]) 21:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, they're one of the pro-fringe editors in the linked discussion. ] (]) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Extended discussion}} | |||
| :::::How ironic that you would call out canvass, when you haven't contributed to this discussion previously, nor have you contributed to any prior notice board. See ], also please see ] if you logged out just to make {{tq|problematic edits}} here.... ] ] 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times, what are you talking about? IPs are only assigned for a few hours to weeks at a time usually. ] (]) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@]: Okay let me say it another way... | |||
| :::::::* never in this history of this subject has an IP editor contributed. | |||
| :::::::* since January 1, ALL of the IP's who have contributed to ANI aside from your are blocked or had their contribution reverted. | |||
| :::::::* in the last 50,000 edits to this notice board, not a single anon has commented more than 34 times and that user was in Romania, whereas your IP shows US/Mobile, and they are currently blocked. Followed up an IPv6 with 30 edits, last participated in ANI back in May. Followed by a handful from the UK and other countries. The first one who is US based that was mobile has less than 12 edits, not hundreds. | |||
| :::::::* when you choose to edit anonymously (which is your privilege) you accept the reality that people will question your constructiveness because of a lack of established history. | |||
| :::::::But beyond all of that, aren't you simply deflecting from the question brought up? Perhaps @] has been lurking anonymously. As they have logged at least 31 edits to ANI alone . ] ] 05:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There's a lot of strawmen there to knock down if I cared to derail this conversation, but I'm curious what question you think I'm deflecting? Your assumptions of bad faith are expected, but disappointing. ] (]) 06:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What I claim you are deflecting KETTLE: Somehow you feel like you can call out someone who hasn’t contributed previously as canvassed, which is a ''serious allegation'', yet that is exactly what your user account history appears reflect. When challenged, you claimed to have edited hundreds of time, which was rebutted with facts, you resorted to allegations. Interestingly they very closely mirror only one other person who liberally throws around terms like strawman and bad faith. And really only one person at ANI has ever held this view so strongly they would plainly say bad faith was “expected” from me . If your not that person, then my query is how did you get involved in this conversation, and when exactly do you proffer that you last edited on here as an IP constructively? ''However, '''if''' you are indeed that person, let me warn you, such activity is considered sock puppetry.'' (Of course editing while accidentally logged out is a human mistake. But persisting and pretending otherwise, is not.) ] ] 07:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Don't know what this thread is about, but point 2 and 3 seem wrong - none of my IPs have been blocked, and I am an anon that has, in the to this board I made 38 of them (all edits by IPs starting with 2804:F14), let alone in the last 50 thousand edits. | |||
| ::::::::Maybe I'm misunderstanding your claims. – ] (]) (]) 06:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I think my detail for you was accidentally edited out. You would be an IPv6 from a different country, so unless this IP user is claiming they have rotating IPs hourly because they’re using an international VPN connecting via various countries, I find their claim that they just stumbled upon this conversation dubious at best. ] ] 06:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Also in case you were not aware, while mobile IP addresses can and do change, they still remain with that mobile carrier. So while your ip address will change, who all of those addresses are registered to will not. What I mean is that will your current IP goes back to a US based cell network, you’re not going to get a new IP address that is registered in Japan or even one in the US that is through a completely different network (a few technical exceptions exist, but they’re nevertheless evident). Same with home internet as well. And of course, most work addresses are persistent. All that to say, a claim of “my ip address changes” does not mean that a persona cannot reasonably determine if you’ve contributed to ANI from the a network. ] ] 07:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::When did I say I stumbled upon this thread? Provide the diff. You are putting words in my mouth and casting aspersions. I said my IP changes as a response to you saying I was a new editor. You are creating an elaborate narrative and getting strangely defensive. ] (]) 07:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I will gladly provide the answe after you answer the two questions I have previously asked to you. First was about KETTLE, and the second asked you to substantiate your claim of {{tq|I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times}} by providing your last contrustive ip edit to this notice board. ] ] 07:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Please read ]. I'm not going to link all of my comments across IPs here for you. If you really believe I was canvassed, you need some diffs, or maybe you should strike your aspersions. ] (]) 07:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::All I can do is laugh at your replies. More KETTLE behavior. You claim don’t have to proof anything per SATISFY, yet in the same breath you demand such of others. More ad hominem, deflection. Zero actual replies. ] ] 08:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::What are you talking about? I asked one question, got one answer and it was done. It was you who started a long thread full of bad faith assumptions and no diffs. Provide diffs, or kindly stop bludgeoning. ] (]) 08:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| :::::::Now, considering that the thread has now reached the top of the page and constitutes half the content of the board at the moment, I would guess that a closure is imminent and certainly likely to occur before a third way proposal gains traction. That means one of three outcomes is likely here: a TBAN, a consensus not to sanction, or a determination of no consensus. I personally think we have to do something rather than nothing here, so I put my weight behind the option that actually would count for something given the close is on the horizon, because I just do feel that inaction here would send a bad message not just to this editor but with regard to advocacy editing in this area in general. However, if someone can martial support in the 11th hour for a milder option that doesn't completely throw NPOV and BLP under the bus, then I will be on the spot to support it, and will happily amend my formal !vote. I hope that adequately clarifies my position for you. '']]'' 16:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I myself have endorsed the milder more specific sanctions, and while I dearly thank everyone who opposed any sanctions (or more specifically, the originally promoted full GENSEX TBAN), I take their defense of my general conduct as supportive of the more tailored option others have recommended and I have endorsed as fair and reasonable. By that math, I'd say half are in support of the more limited sanctions and opposed to the extreme ones. Your !vote could always be amended to support them, as it seems the two options that have about even traction are 1) a disproportionate full GENSEX ban and 2) the limited sanctions recommended. ] (]) 16:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I would very much like to, but the problem I have at the moment is that there is no one more middle ground proposal that has a significant amount of support, such that I can abandon my original !vote entirely and still feel that the community is responding. So here's what I'll do: I will '''Support your proposal below''', as I understand it: '''a six month ban from publishing articles with a significant GENSEX component outside of AFC.''' If you can get enough support for that proposal, it strikes me as a solution which reflects community concerns reasonably enough. | |||
| ===Send to AE?=== | |||
| :::::::::But I'm also going to reiterate that if the TBAN is the only proposal the closer can see significant support for, I'd still prefer that over no action being taken. I honestly don't mean to cause you personal offense or distress by that: it's just that the issues here are bigger than any one editor and we just can't have people running around (even off project) saying that they are going to shine the light of day on "those fuckers" and then generating highly critical content about those same parties. Please understand that if the community here bends over too far backwards in an effort to excuse that kind of behaviour on your behalf, just because we also (to take one example) personally think conversion therapy is amoral nonsense akin to psychic driving, then we also mitigate our ability to deal with POV pushing coming from the opposite direction in support of such rubbish. | |||
| Given how long this has gone on for, may I make a suggestion? Send this to ] since ANI seems incapable of resolving this, and it falls solidly into the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories. ] (]) 21:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::If I could point to one post here that I think most accurately serves as a capstone summary to this whole debate, it would be Rhododendrites' comment far below. And there's one point that he raises that I feel I and the other community respondents here have failed to adequately emphasize during this discussion: even if you comport yourself perfectly in regard to policy after vocally declaring your intention to "get" (for lack of a better concise term) your rhetorical opposition and hold them to account, that mere declaration, made in that way, is destructive of the consensus-building process. As Rhodie correctly points out, ideally we would have fewer editors with strong biases editing these articles, but if you absolutely must edit in conformity with a pre-determined objective to hold these parties to account, you need to at least exercise more restraint in how you clearly mark these parties as bad people needing to be thwarted. It's just not a good look for you or for the project when that happens. '']]'' 18:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories". | |||
| ::::::::::Lastly, if you have any indulgence in you for more outside advice, I'd like to suggest that you should spend a while increasing the proportion of your edits that take place in areas you find completely boring and/or outside your wheelhouse. It's healthy for a new editor to make the bulk of their edits in areas where others are more likely to be the ones with a deeper connection to the subject matter. It helps to see protect against losing perspective on neutral tone if you see how it happens to others. Ultimately the editors who last the duration (and thereby make the biggest contributions both inside and outside their areas of passion) are those who come to view our policies as priorities in and of themselves, rather than just requirements that have to be accepted and acceded to. | |||
| :That matches my experience and I'm grateful to the people willing to say it out loud, but surely it would save a lot of drama and forum shopping if someone just wrote it down? - ] (]) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The IP made no such claim? - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I thought that was implicit in the request to move the civility complaint to a forum about fringe theories, but you're the expert. - ] (]) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::FYI ] is arbitration enforcement, not the Fringe Theories noticeboard. ] (]) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's what I had thought, but the not logged in guy seems to be saying that a civility complaint should be moved to AE because it's a better venue for "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories". | |||
| :::::It's really striking to me that the main argument here is not over whether Hob is civil, it's whether he should have to be. - ] (]) 20:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :As others have noted, being brusque with pseudoscience-pushers is an insignificant offense when compared to agenda-driven editors who are only here to advocate for a fringe topic. Esp. when they have only been editing for a handful of months. ] (]) 23:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm not just reaching to end my comments here on a positive note when I say that you seem to have a good grasp of policy generally and could be a real longterm asset to this project. But the piece you're missing at present is that you seem to be here to promote and further trans rights first, and as a Wikipedian second. While that's technically not against the rules, provided you otherwise follow this project's guidelines to a T, such editors who do "merely" that tend to not have the sticking power of someone who makes being ] to build the encyclopedia their first priority when they log on to edit. Just food for thought. Forgive this one last exceedingly long post, and best of luck to you moving forward. '']]'' 18:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::While I do agree that from an objective and absolute POV (e.g., of an external user evaluating Misplaced Pages) it is better to have an uncivil but pseudoscience-free Misplaced Pages than a civil but pseudoscientific Misplaced Pages, from a subjective and relative POV (e.g., of editors making internal decisions together) it is impossible to systematically abandon a relatively less important principle on the basis of a relatively more important principle without completely annihilating the less important principle. That's why ] is policy. | |||
| ::Moreover, as others have also noted, because WP:CIVIL is a principle that at some point does get acted upon, we would all be better off if no one, on any side of any given debate, would minimize it. ]. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Too much presumption of intent here with regard to 'pseudoscience-pushers'. It is easy for us to diminish our opponents in this way. Civility and NPOV are equal pillars. ] (]) 15:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I '''second''' to motion to bring this to ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Topic ban for Lardlegwarmers=== | |||
| ::::::::got it. Then let me remind you that ] and consensus is not determined by number of votes, and I'll be on my merry way. --] (]) 16:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Of course it isn't. But I wasn't tallying votes, but rather explaining why I made the pragmatic choice to !vote as I did, given the late stage of the discussion and the perspectives as they stand. Consensus may not be a vote, but that is not the same thing as saying that the numbers have no influence over the outcome, especially as regards CBAN discussions at ANI. And with that I am checking out here myself: have a good one, L-r. '']]'' 18:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::SnowRise's opening paragraph is problematic as we know ''all'' editors editing in the GENSEX area have biases, and most are so strongly activist for one cause that you can tell their POV within seconds of looking at their contribs. What matters is if they are working with others to build an article that conforms to our policies. Are we to topic ban editors for declaring their bias? The rest of their argument seems to rest upon their reaction to being taken to AN/I and defending themselves. This newish editor clearly doesn't know one has to prostrate oneself and plead for mercy. I think Sideswipe9th below offers good advice, though I would go further and suggest a self-imposed wikibreak to heal and think after such a bruising experience. I recommend TheTransarchist heeds advice of good editors and works on the areas causing problems. If they continue to give problems in 6 months time, we can review this. -- ]°] 21:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm sorry, Colin, but that is an incredibly flawed--and indeed, problematic--line of reasoning. On this project, we do not create grading curves for particular content areas for the purposes of deciding whether or not editors are expected to conform to important content and behavioural policies and community expectations--and certainly not with regard to how we maintain BLP standards. If a given topic area is rife with the evidence and impact of bias, that is an argument for ''increasing'' the enforcement of key policies across the board, not for abrogating those standards in cases where we happen to be sympathetic to the viewpoint of a user in question, relative to the "other side", nor even because we happen to think they make a good editor otherwise. | |||
| {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}} | |||
| :::And sympathetic I do find TT: I'm certainly more amenable to her outlook than those of someone who would whitewash discourse around a form of brainwashing. But my friend, a low tide strands all ships, and I am unwilling to obviate our community standards in the fashion you suggest and thereby weaken them, one exception for a user whose motivation we happen to like at a time. That is just a path to utter disarray in our editorial and consensus processes, a whole lot of issues with conduct, and lower and lower level of trust our readers can put in the neutrality of our content with each such exception. And a quicker devolution it will be in topic areas as contentious as this. | |||
| A cursory look through this account's contributions has me convinced that they ought not to be contributing to COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory pages, widely construed. More generally, it seems they are using Misplaced Pages as a ] to promote a lot of what I would deem "anti-establishment" claims which necessarily run right up against the ] remit of our encyclopedia. In fact, they are close to being a ] in this regard. Topic ban from American Politics might help reorient their problematic proclivities. | |||
| :::As to the implication that we would censure TT (or any editor) merely for disclosing their biases, you must have surely read my post without attention to detail if you believe that is what I am advocating, because I went to some effort to distinguish that it is the actions of the editor we have to judge in a case like this, not the motivation itself. For that matter, I don't see anyone else in this thread suggesting we should act merely on TT's beliefs, but rather how she is approaching this area in editorial terms, as a consequence of those priorities. | |||
| ] (]) 21:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nor do the contributions of anyone here seem to conform with your even more hyperbolic suggestion that people are looking to humble TT (for....reasons?). She probably would have been better advised to make more concession to the concerns raised here than to defend to the hilt on most every implication and give the appearance of not hearing those concerns, but people having IDHT concerns is a far cry from demanding she abase herself, and I don't think you are doing her any favours by making such implications on her behalf. This discussion is already long and complicated enough without scatter-shot speculation that any editor with concerns here is operating from such a silly, unlikely, and manifestly bad faith position. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who agrees with TT's moral opposition to the practices that she covers, and would like to let her off with a warning, but who doesn't feel comfortable doing so in the circumstances and with the way this discussion has gone. '']]'' 03:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not going to argue with the walls of text you keep posting here. Above you responded to someone else "Nope, nope, nope: that is not remotely what I said." Well several editors believe that is what you said. You haven't AFAICS struck what you said and I stand by my complaint about it. Terrible. -- ]°] 10:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::First off, my response to the editor above that you just referenced regards a completely different topic from what you and I were previously discussing here, so (whether it was conscious or not) this feels like an attempt to redirect the present discussion away from a subject where you were receiving some due criticism for a very poorly considered proposition you forwarded (i.e. you realized your "everyone is biased in this area" argument was a non-starter under policy, and so poorly-reasoned that you didn't want to linger on it any longer and instead tried to make our difference of opinion here about something else entirely, particularly if that new subject let you feel like you were forming ranks with someone else). | |||
| == Edit warring to prevent an RFC == | |||
| :::::Second, on that other subject, you can cast all the careless aspersions you want if you are unwilling to re-review what I ''actually'' said and refuse to credit me with candor: I will trust to the bulk of the community to apply a responsible degree of due diligence and care in reading my comments, rather than leaping to an interpretation that can be tactically pivoted around to continue to argue for argument's sake. I ''clearly'' did not say that new trans users should not edit trans topics: I simply never said that or anything like it. What '''''<u>I did say</u>''''' is that '''''<u>this particular user</u>''''' has (by making ] declarations and then following them up with tonally problematic edits) given us reason to be concerned about her ] regarding ] and ], which I think is a reasonable read on the situation. | |||
| @] has removed an RFC tag from ] now within . | |||
| ] provides a list of circumstances under which you can stop an RFC started by someone else, and disagreeing with the question or wishing that it contained additional information is not in the list. | |||
| :::::Regardless, I believe my position (and the fact that I was clearly talking about this particular newer user and concerns raised specifically about their edits, and not new trans users generally) is imminently clear from my posts. But if there was any ambiguity before, I am now correcting your misapprehension once again. If you don't accept my clarifications at this point, I can only assume you are operating in bad faith out of some attempt at gaining rhetorical advantage, and therefore I won't be interested in discussing the matter with you further as I just don't see the point of playing such games. | |||
| We have to be pretty strict about this, because an RFC is one of the few ways to attract the broader community's attention when there's an ] problem or a ] that needs outside attention. The fact that an editor doesn't welcome outside attention sometimes indicates that there is a problem. I'm ''not'' saying that these things are happening in this case, but the rules have to be the rules for all RFCs, not just for the ones we agree with, because these things do happen in ''some'' cases. We can't really have opponents of an RFC question/proposal, no matter how well intentioned or how justified they think it is in this one case, unilaterally deciding that the rest of the community doesn't get to find out about the dispute. | |||
| :::::And frankly, you aren't really doing TT any favours by making me defend my position by repeating it yet again, with increasing emphasis, making it seem more strenous and critical of her than I initially intended it to be. Any more than you did her any favours by advancing the poorly considered "two wrongs make a right" style argument about why her bias is not such a bad thing because all editors in this topic space are blatantly biased: that kind of argument is more likely to put the community further on guard as to issues here, rather than be seen as a viable excuse militating in TT's favour. Honestly, I think the best thing you could do for this editor at the moment is to stop trying to defend her, because you're approaching that task in a very counter-productive fashion, if I may be blunt. '']]'' 13:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tq|making me defend my position by repeating it yet again}} Huh. --] (]) 18:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose sanctions, warning at most.''' This "incident" was opened by a sockpuppet account over an editing conflict. Nothing here is serious enough to warrant any bans. TheTranarchist has made significant positive contributions to GENSEX articles. A warning may be warranted about BLP's. But I think by now those points have been sufficiently made. Let's move on and stop badgering this one editor. ] (]) 16:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose GENSEX and/or BLP TBAN. Support warning, and 6-12 month restriction on creating articles directly in mainspace'''. It's taken me a while to consider this, and I've read all of the opinions put forward so far while trying to determine where I fall on this. This is discussion at ANI is somewhat of an oddity, because there is a very similar one below on a different user in the same content area. However what differentiates these two editors, beyond being different people, is experience level. The discussion below is for an experienced editor, whereas this one is for an inexperienced one, and I think we need to tailor our responses according to that. Has TheTranarchist screwed up? Yes, and she has both admitted to this and is actively working to help clean up the results. Has she over-personalised comments to the point of skirting the edges of our ]? Yes, and although she is far from the only editor to do this in GENSEX I would like to see a commitment from her that she will work on this. Is she ]? {{pb}} GENSEX is a difficult content area to work in for a multitude of reasons, there are editorial behavioural issues, there are ], there are uncivil POV pushers, off-wiki sources (particularly media but some ] academic too) are ripe with both ] and ]. It's very easy to lose one's cool, whether you're dealing with good faith editors who are personalising comments, bad faith editors, or harassment from article subjects. Despite this, and despite the other issues I've said above, I do think she is fundamentally here to build an encyclopaedia. Expressing the intent, whether on or off-wiki, to combat mis and disinformation is not an expression of NOTHERE nor is it a demonstration of ]. It should be the goal of ''all good faith editors'' to write articles that follow reliable sources and as a result counteract mis and disinformation. With the exception of ], where Keen-Minshull's harassment of TheTranarchist has caused sourcing and content issues, I do not see the same major problems that other editors are expressing. I do see the same mistakes that a lot of new editors, and some experienced editors make in articles, but we don't generally sanction for those. Issues like putting too much detail into articles, ], misreading of RS where the source itself is unclear, are sadly common across this topic area (and plenty of others) but ultimately unsanctionable. {{pb}} Does TheTranarchist have issues that she should work on? Yes, and I think she's recognised them and I believe that she will work on them. Do these issues raise to the level of actually disrupting content or our processes? With the exception of the KJK article, I don't think so, not at this time anyway. For that reason, I would oppose any TBAN for either GENSEX and/or BLP. I would support a warning on this however, per ], along with a 6 to 12 month restriction on directly creating new articles in mainspace so that any sort of major or minor content issues can be caught before the article goes live. ] (]) 18:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose any sanction'''. TTA is one of the few editors that is, by and large, fighting against the FRINGE activists on GENSEX articles, an increasingly more difficult job now the likes of the Heritage Foundation have decided to make it their newest culture war. Of course someone would want her taken out of the area. We already made a huge mistake by letting the Blanchard disciples run amok on Misplaced Pages for longer than we should have; don't make a second. ''']''' (]) 18:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support GENSEX topic ban'''. Clear pattern of ]. ] (]) 06:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support GENSEX topic ban''' I rarely edit in this topic area, and have had little interaction with TTA, but having explored many of the discussions above, there is a {{TQ|Clear pattern of tendentious editing}} and editing from an 'advocacy' standpoint. The fact that they cannot see the degree of 'advocacy', worsens rather than mitigates the lack of neutrality IMO. ] (]) 11:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I wouldn't bother with this here, except that it's already past my bedtime, so I need someone else to handle this. The proper way forward is to run the RFC, and for the loyal opposition to take the advice about how to respond that they'll find in the first two questions of the ]. See you tomorrow. ] (]) 08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *As an example of why others have a concern with TTA's editing. At the Chloe Cole article there was a long discussion about the use of "anti-trans activist" as a label in the opening sentence in wikivoice. There is not consensus for this label and BLP concerns have been raised. An edit was made to remove that LABEL from the lead . That edit aligns with the general consensus here . TTA restored the contested label within a few hours . This is exactly the sort of failure editing issues many people are concerned about. ] (]) 15:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:There was not consensus to remove it, there was some discussion of how it should be placed in the lead and where. It was unilaterally removed alonside a host of other edits that included 1) removing the fact she frequently appears on right-wing media, which has been noted in many many ], even those favorable to her 2) removing all details of Marjorie Taylor Greene's bill which Cole said she supported 3) replacing gender-affirming care with loaded phrases like "medication and surgery" or with "surgery" in places where the scope of the bill was larger and 4) removing a paragraph consensus on talk found to be ]. I just listed all the sources that use "anti-trans" to refer to Cole, her rallies, and the legislation she supports there, which is the appropriate place for this discussion. I think @] said it best with {{tq|I'm not sure where you see the WP:SYNTH there, considering the first source contains the phrase "anti-trans activism" to describe the BLP verbatim. I also think it's a bit nauseating that every phrase in this topic space has to be fought over tooth and nail even when it's as blatantly obvious as it is here, but hey, that's probably just me}} ] (]) 16:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::After all this you still aren't hearing people. This is why you need to stay out of these areas until you have a better understanding of the ropes around here. This is a contentious ]. There is not consensus for it to be in the opening sentence. We don't have have enough sources directly supporting it. You have used SYNTH to suggest other sources support it. That is not consensus for inclusion. Note that this is a new article so there is no implicit consensus for any particular edit. Additionally, this is a BLP and NOCON says if a contentious edit doesn't have consensus it needs to be kept out. Sure, you can make your case but edit warring when your behavior is being discussed at ANI is just more evidence that, at this time, you lack the awareness needed to operate in this area hence why a GENSEX TBAN makes sense. ] (]) 17:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I should have provided the at talk first, my apologies. I reverted once, and then took to the talk page, which is hardly "edit-warring". There does seem to be a consensus for including it in the lead in general, either in the second sentence or in the form "has been described as an anti-trans activist". The one who initially took umbrage with the phrase is a banned sockpuppet. We have 3/4 sources directly supporting it, including ] coverage. We have about a dozen more supporting it, since it is not ] by any stretch of the imagination to, on talk, list sources describe her as 1) speaking at "anti-trans" rallies and 2) supporting "anti-trans" legislation, as those sources are stating her activism includes "anti-trans" activities... I refer you to the highly useful essay ] | |||
| *:::{{tq|a GENSEX TBAN makes sense}} - a friendly reminder to the crowd/closer, '''not once has anyone in this entire thread raised issue with my edits outside the intersection of ]/] and GENSEX'''. Outside of that intersection, many have lauded/defended my edits in the GENSEX area, with nobody giving any evidence as to a general GENSEX problem. ] (]) 19:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::You had already provided a source breakdown before this ANI. It showed you didn't have sufficient sourcing for add a contentious claim. What you added today was no help. Please stop with the idea that "not once has anyone in this entire thread raised issue with my edits outside the intersection of WP:BLP/WP:BLPGROUP and GENSEX." Editors have. Ganesha811 has. Jweiss11 has. Levivich has. That's not even carefully reading through this huge time sink that your editing has created. That you chose not to listen is a serious part of the problem. ] (]) 19:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] The original breakdown was poorly formatted, disparately segmented, and you objected to some sources listed. Editors said their position depended on the sources directly calling her "anti-trans activist", which I collected all in one location, along with sources saying she spoke at "anti-trans rallies" or supported "anti-trans legislation". | |||
| *:::::You say {{Tq| please stop with the idea that "not once has anyone in this entire thread raised issue with my edits outside the intersection of WP:BLP/WP:BLPGROUP and GENSEX." Editors have.}} - and you proceed to list editors who have taken issue with my GENSEX BLP/BLPGROUP edits, but not GENSEX edits outside of BLP/BLPGROUP... | |||
| *:::::* Ganesha811 only raised issues with my BLP/BLPGROUP & GENSEX edits. When I stated nobody had criticized my non-BLP edits (meaning to include BLPGROUP), they took issue, and when I clarified that I meant BLP & BLPGROUP, they thanked me for my clarification and didn't comment further. @], could you confirm that sequence of events? | |||
| *:::::* JWeiss11 is an editor with a COI who has only complained about the ] article, which is once again an intersection of GENSEX and BLPGROUP | |||
| *:::::* Levivich has not raised a single objection to my edits outside of the intersection of BLPGROUP/BLP and GENSEX. | |||
| *:::::IE you called for a full GENSEX ban, and when presented with a statement that editors had only raised issue with my edits intersecting BLP/BLPGROUP and GENSEX, you list a few who did exactly that as evidence that my GENSEX edits outside BLP/BLPGROUP have issues... Hard to assume you're operating in good faith when you mischaracterize other people's criticisms of me to support a draconian measure. ] (]) 20:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{tqq|Levivich has not raised a single objection to my edits outside of the intersection of BLPGROUP/BLP and GENSEX}} I have. Do you ''really'' want to make the claim that there are ''no'' problems with your edits outside of the intersection of BLP/BLPGROUP and GENSEX? Because if you really want me to, I can list some again, with more specificity than before...but really, it's like Snow Rise said, you end up making me advocate harder for a TBAN than I really care to. I wish your heels were not dug in quite this deep. Because it's not about having ''no'' problems outside of GENSEX -- that's a silly claim because ''everyone'' makes mistakes, nobody is expected to be perfect. But repeatedly insisting that no one has raised any objections to <specific area> is pointless, plus you kind of set yourself up to have more diffs tossed at you, which at this point is not really productive. ] (]) 21:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Whether the horse is still alive or already dead, I think it's time for everyone here to drop the stick and and back slowly away from it. --] (]) 21:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Agreed, what'll it take to get an admin here to finally end this? This is my first (and hopefully final) ANI case so I'm not sure what the procedure is, and you first called for a close 8 days ago so I've no clue what the timeline should be lol ] (]) 21:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::once there haven't been new comments in a while (meaning discussion has mostly cooled down), and once an uninvolved admin is available to close it. Hence my comment to drop the stick. --] (]) 21:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Gotcha, I started trying to step away from it last night but felt pressured to respond to comments made this morning. Please, nobody leave more comments as this has gone on too long. Admins, please descend from the wiki-heavens and do with me as you see fit. Consider this my final comment here and an official dropping of the stick! ] (]) 21:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::{{tq|Do you really want to make the claim that there are no problems with your edits outside of the intersection of BLP/BLPGROUP and GENSEX?}} - yes, and if some do turn up, I humbly point out this would be the first time anyone's mentioned them, and the vast majority of comments speaking to my general GENSEX edits (discounting BLPs/BLPGROUPs), have been supportive. | |||
| *:::::::If you want to {{tq|list some ''again'', with more specificity than before}}, please provide evidence diffs that you in fact listed them in the first place. AFAICT, you've raised issues with ], ], ], and my posts about ] and the ] (without raising issues about those 2 articles themselves). Nowhere have I seen you comment, to any degree of specificity, on my GENSEX edits that don't intersect BLP/BLPGROUP ] (]) 21:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::@], as I don't think anybody here wants this case to drag out any longer, if you respond please stick to the specifics of problematic edits in GENSEX outside of BLP/BLPGROUP that you yourself have previously raised. I didn't mean my preceding comment as a challenge to go through all my past edits for evidence of general GENSEX wrongdoing as everyone has had ample time to raise them thus far - I was referring specifically to your comment that you've already raised evidence of problematic non-BLP/non-BLPGROUP edits, since while you have raised genuine concerns with the BLP/BLPGROUP edits, I genuinely cannot recall or find you referring to my GENSEX edits outside of those. ] (]) 22:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::{{tqq|Consider this my final comment here and an official dropping of the stick!}} That almost lasted a half hour. ] (]) 22:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::], levivich, and mosltly on my suggestion. Let's leave it here and wait for a close.<sub>PS: I saw and uh don't.</sub> --] (]) 08:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC) --] (]) 08:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC. | |||
| *Tough call. What I find myself wondering about is how this would've gone ''without'' the Mastodon posts. In other words, is their on-wiki editing unusually problematic such that a topic ban is needed? I see some poor sourcing-related judgment, but that's the stuff of warnings not topic bans. It seems like most of the reason for the tban requires consideration of their social media posts to contextualize edits that otherwise wouldn't have stood out in a domain rampant with POVs. In my experience, it sure seems like a lot of people are editing these articles to combat one side or another -- they just have a modicum of wiki-savvy to know not to blurt it out. That's TheTranarchist's failure here -- saying the quiet part out loud (very loudly). It's not just about optics; it's detrimental to deliberation and collaboration on-wiki. So what do we do with someone not experienced or tactful enough to transform their POV into the standard low-key kind of CPOV we unfortunately expect in this area? I'm inclined to say '''warning about reliable sources and NPOV in general, take them up on their mandatory AfC offer,''' and a suggestion not to edit any of the articles they've announced their intention to edit in a POV way lest a topic ban be likely next time. '''Oppose a full gensex tban at this time'''. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 15:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I am perfectly happy to take instruction on that point if I am incorrect but the removals were undertaken in good faith. | |||
| :The idea that I should be reported to ANI for this just because it is past someone's bedtime (and they don't have time for talk page discussion) seems to me rather an over-reaction. ] (]) 08:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed, I am perfectly happy to volunteer to replace the tag if an administrator indicates that that is the appropriate course of action. ] (]) 08:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Axad12}}, please do not tamper with the RFC. I have already commented there again based on my previous assessment five weeks ago, and I have ''absolutely no'' conflict of interest in this matter. In my opinion, you are taking too aggressive a stance on this issue. I happen to be an administrator but I am also involved with the dispute as an ordinary editor. ] (]) 08:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Axad12}}, I'd strongly suggest you return the tag. {{u|WhatamIdoing}}, a {{tl|trout}} for ]ing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you for both of your advice. I will shortly replace the template. | |||
| ::::The COI issue does not relate to Cullen, it relates to another user entirely. I would be grateful for input on the underlying COI issue, which seems to me to have been an exceptionally serious abuse. ] (]) 09:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What? A company quite reasonably does not want to be ''falsely accused'' of adulterating their edible product with antifreeze, based on what a fringe source wrote, and you consider that {{tpq|exceptionally serious abuse}}? ] (]) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I'm referring to the series of events outlined here where a paid COI editor has a COI edit request turned down and then starts cultivating a co-operative project member to implement non-contentious COI edit requests before reintroducing the contentious COI edit request and immediately tipping off their repeatedly canvassed project member to implement that contentious request. | |||
| :I feel that that is an exceptionally serious abuse - clearly it is an attempt to distort the COI editing process by attempting to make sure that a previously co-operative project member deals with a resubmitted request rather than waiting for a random volunteer working out of the relevant queue (one of whom had previously declined the request). | |||
| :As I said above, I am quite happy to take instruction on this point - but personally I feel that what happened there was highly inappropriate. ] (]) 09:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::In other words, you want highly misleading content to remain in the article, just to make a point? ] (]) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Cullen, my post directly above is clearly about a point of process rather than a point of content. | |||
| :::Even if the original COI edit request was incorrectly declined that would not justify the paid COI editor attempting to game the system to get the request through at the second time of asking. ] (]) 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Asking a second time" is not ]. ] (]) 22:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Agreed, but for a COI user to attempt to influence which user will deal with the second request does constitute gaming the system. ] (]) 22:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, it doesn't. Read the guideline instead of guessing about its contents from the ]. See, e.g., {{xt|An editor ''gaming the system'' is seeking to use policy in bad faith, by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support.}} Asking an individual to help has nothing to do with finding wording in a policy to justifying disruptive actions or stances that are not intended in that policy. | |||
| ::::::I also direct your attention to the item that says {{xt|Gaming the system may include...]ing the consensus-building process}}. ] (]) 22:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I was using the phrase 'gaming the system' in it's natural application (not specifically referring to ], which I didn't know existed until you linked to it above). Clearly the COI user was attempting to distort the COI edit request process in some way - whether one refers to what they were doing as 'gaming the system' or some other similar phrase is neither here nor there. ] (]) 23:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also worth noting that ever since the original COI edit request back in August the clear talk page consensus has been that the material should remain within the article and is not {{tq|highly misleading}}. | |||
| :::I've been part of that consensus position since approx October/November. Since that time the user who opened the RfC has repeatedly been opening new threads, continually trying to re-address a subject where they are repeatedly in the minority and presumably hoping that those who previously opposed them do not turn up to oppose them again. ] (]) 10:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe we should hold an RFC on whether the RFC tag should be there? ] (]) 09:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Right, I've had breakfast now so am in a position to make a more serious reply. This is a content issue (on which I hold, as yet, no opinion). On this page we often tell editors that the way to settle a content issue that hasn't been settled by more informal methods is by holding an RFC. Axad12, you should express your opinion as part of the RFC, not oppose holding it. By your behaviour you are turning people against you who might have supported you. ] (]) 10:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've already said that I'd be happy to replace the tag if instructed to do so, and upon being instructed to do so I immediately replaced it. As far as I can see that issue is now resolved. | |||
| ::I've asked for comment on the underlying COI issue, which is not a content issue. ] (]) 11:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::RFCs can handle COI issues. In fact, when ] can't resolve a dispute, they sometimes host an RFC to settle it. The nice thing about an RFC in such situations is that if it closes with an outcome like "The consensus is stick it to these fully policy-compliant, completely disclosed paid editors by making sure that this article implies the company's product was adulterated with a poisonous industrial chemical, just because we found one ] book that used this language, because it's really unreasonable of them to not want sensationalist and derogatory information in our article about their product" then you can generally be sure that the result will stick for at least 6 months and usually longer. | |||
| :::But you've got to get that consensus first, and I'm not sure you will. For one thing, it's been my ] experience that when someone objects to holding an RFC because the question is biased, that's a fairly reliable sign that they expect the RFC result to not match their preference. ] (]) 22:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My concern (rightly or wrongly) was simply that there was a COI element to the request which had not been disclosed. I swiftly requested clarification on that point and upon receiving that clarification I immediately reverted myself. | |||
| ::::It isn't really relevant here but actually I ''didn't'' expect the RfC to develop contrary to my preference. That was because the previous 4 months had indicated a consistent consensus opposing what the instigator of the RfC was proposing. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I don't actually have a particularly strong preference one way or the other on the issue at stake - I've simply consistently observed during November and December that the consensus was against Zefr, which seemed to me to be a simple matter of fact based on the various talk page threads from August to December. ] (]) 23:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *On matters concerning the Breyers article, Axad12 has been an uncollaborative, disruptive, and hostile editor ] with {{u|Graywalls}}, who is the main proponent over months of using the slur, "antifreeze", to describe a minor GRAS ingredient that is the subject of the current RfC. Both users have ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate for a factual, well-sourced article. | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''', while I understand people's contentions with Tranarchist's reasons for editing, her editing is of good quality, and of benefit to the topic the ban is proposed on. --] (]) 16:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Addendum''', though with the arguments presented, I do have '''Soft support''' for temporary restrictions on BLP in the topic area, as many have suggested on creation of such articles may be best. --] (]) 16:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Having never contributed a sentence or source to the Breyers article, Axad12 has blatantly reverted simple, sourced edits claiming a false consensus which has no good source to support the propylene glycol/"antifreeze" claim and no evidence of consensus input by other editors over the last many weeks. An evolving consensus on the RfC is to exclude mention of propylene glycol as undue. | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''' everyone in this topic area has a POV. Someone talking about their POV offwiki should not be a consideration (since when have we have cared so much about offwiki stuff?). And the handwringing about if being against same-sex marriage counts as being anti-LGBT rights is frankly silly. Some of the BLP edits do look a bit concerning and maybe warrants a warning about that, but a lot of the complaints seem to be about labelling ] viewpoints about trans people (relative to the medical consensus) as being such. I think Rhododendrites is very right that her mistake is saying the quite part out loud, and weakly support his proposal. ] (]) 02:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Scientific and legal literature concerning propylene glycol (]) placed on the talk page have been ignored by both users, without attempts to discuss or apply what any objective editor reading the sources would agree are authoritative. | |||
| *'''Problems continue''' TheTranachist's recent actions at ] illustrate why a tban is nessicary. They seem to be taking the inaction related to this ANI as evidence that their editing and related behavior was always fine. Recently they have bludgeoned the article talk page creating walls of text , ''19 talk page edits'' as well as repeatedly proposing changes which clearly do not has consensus. The net effect is to get their way via beating down editors who grow tired of the discussion. As an example of NOT HERE editing, one of the TTA's stated objectives on their off site account was to impact search engine results. This is consistent with their push to include controversial claims about Cole within the first 2 sentences of her BLP. In a proposed lead here they call Cole "anti-transgender" (despite a lack of consensus on the LABEL used by only a minority of sources) and associating Cole with the ] in the opening 2 sentences. TTA has been quick to revert productive edits made by others as well as add guilt by association claims from weak sources (addition of Proud Boys association sourced to MM4A). It's clear the editor's intent is to bludgeon down editors who don't agree then make changes that ignore IMPARTIAL and WEIGHT in order to further their POV. The amount of effort required to address the BLP concerns they have added or are pushing for is simply too much and most reasonable editors will simply give up. ] (]) 03:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:... you're really dragging me here over nothing again? I'll address my own behavior, and then yours, since ]s are fun... | |||
| *:Me first: | |||
| *:* Your first two links (which are out of order) are me having a productive discussion with @] to compromise and work to address NPOV concerns and make a good lead that follows the body. You literally just linked to me and another editor collaborating and working together to improve the article, resulting in a version both of us found satisfactory and another editor stepped in to say seemed good, as somehow evidence of wrongdoing... | |||
| *:* Your third link is me responding to another editor. If you cut out 1) me re-iterating that the ] is ] (which ''3 separate editors'' had ''already'' told them was fringe, even pointing to community consensus to that effect) and 2) a lead I proposed, that reply is shorter than the comment I'm replying too... | |||
| *:* Every change I've proposed has been iterated towards consensus... The attendance of Proud Boys at a Rally Cole spoke at? There was a consensus that was due, and I only added that ''after'' discussion on talk. The proposed changes to the lead? You stated we can't even say she's been ''described'' as an anti-trans activist in the lead, a position you are the only one to support (as even the other editors who objected to calling her an anti-trans activist in wikivoice said that it was due to mention she'd been labelled as such) | |||
| *:* Once again, regarding the second link, Tristario said the lead needed improvement, I gave an outline of my thoughts and proposed a lead, we discussed and iterated, and it reached a local consensus (and I still hadn't updated the article, waiting to get more feedback overnight). Tristario said we should mention groups she's worked with, the only group RS have stated she has been with twice are the Proud Boys. You don't seem to bring up the fact that in ''my very next comment'', I agree that the PB weren't due in the lead, and state I'd just been trying to address Tristario's concerns with being specific about who she'd worked with. | |||
| *:* {{tq|revert productive edits}} - your first example is is restoring a well-sourced fact that multiple RS and SIRS have commented on, ie her appearances in right-wing media to advocate such bans, not just media in general. Your second is restoring content unilatteraly removed: ie the details of a bill Cole supported. The bill proposed banning a lot more than just gender-affirming care for minors, yet the additional details of the bill were removed to just say it would ban gender-affirming care for minors. | |||
| *:* Once again, I first proposed the MM4A detail on , there was a consensus to include it, and only then did I include it. | |||
| *:Your turn, since {{tq| It's clear the editor's intent is to bludgeon down editors who don't agree then make changes that ignore IMPARTIAL and WEIGHT in order to further their POV}} is actually a pretty good description of at least one of us... | |||
| *:* You state {{tq|the mention of the Proud Boys should be entirely removed from the article as a guilt by association mention.}}. There's a whole section about that on the talk page: ]. Two rallies are mentioned in the article. Proud Boys attended both. There was no dispute that their presence at the Tennessee rally was due and should stay in the article. I made a case for including the fact they attended the Nashville rally (which every single source that covered the event mentioned), and consensus found it suitable for inclusion. You saying mentions of the Proud Boys should be {{tq|entirely removed}} is blatant whitewashing and POV pushing | |||
| *:* You state {{tq|The same applies to the "celebrity" comment. The bills supported part is also just back doors to try to include disputed content in the lead. This is even more problematic since you removed details about one of the bills here }}, linking to | |||
| *::: 1) You object to the text {{tq|has been described as an "anti-trans activist" and "celebrity of the anti-trans movement"}} - once again, even editors who didn't think the sources warrant anti-trans activist in wikivoice considered it due to mention she's been described like that. | |||
| *::: 2) you object to {{tq|Cole has also supported legislation that would prohibit the use of public funds for gender-affirming care for adults.}} which is completely true, verifiable, and commented on in multiple RS. It is not disputed apart from your POV pushing that only her activism against trans kids should be mentioned | |||
| *::: 3) most blatantly ridiculous, and I cannot understate how ridiculous this is, you link to a diff where I restored the full details of a bill Cole supported (since an editor had removed the fact the bill targeted adults as well), and accused me of "removing details". I restored details that someone else had removed, even trimmed them to be more concise actually, and you accused me of removing details... | |||
| *:* Here you state of a source {{tq|if they claim something that isn't true to the actual text of the law we need to treat their claims with additional caution.}}. When I ask you {{tq|which source / falsity are you referring to?}} , you state {{tq|This will require more review of the sources, I will try to do it later.}}. I think @] put it best in her reply {{tq|So for (2) you're saying you haven't any reason to believe they are misquoting, but because you insinuate they might be, we should somehow care?}} | |||
| *:* You then oppose the proposed lead me and Tristario worked on (the one you just used as evidence against me...), and propose one that 1) doesn't mention she's been labeled an anti-trans activist, which basically everyone there agreed was due 2) says media, instead of right-wing media, despite being well supported by sources 3) remove all mention of her rallies and 4) doesn't mention her campaigning against medicare coverage for trans healthcare for trans adults. Somehow, you think that's more "impartial"... | |||
| *:* This isn't even mentioning all the times on the article you argue that Cole doesn't oppose ], just the medical parts of it, ignoring the editors telling you that's what gender-affirming care is. | |||
| *:* For funsies, since I was reviewing your edits, I also see you recently edit-warring with @] to revert criticisms of a book by the SPLC. Also accused @] of following you. | |||
| *:So, a recap, you've basically leaving mostly irrelevant comments on the ] article with no hint of compromise, trying to whitewash an article in ways that nobody supports (removing all mentions of the proud boys, not mentioning her opposition to medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care for adults in the lead, saying we can't even say "she's been called an anti-trans activist", and etc.), and following me to ANI with every content dispute you can think about, accusing me of things it's obvious I didn't do (I'm still not over you accusing me of "removing details" by restoring removed details, ''twice''...) | |||
| *:Meanwhile, I have productively worked to improve the article with @] at talk and generally made sure to run every proposed change that may be even slightly controversial by talk to achieve consensus, compromising and working with other editors. Speaking to , I improved the ] article from a stub that was about to be , started refactoring the ] article to address NPOV concerns and generally improve it, and practically wrote the ] article (which was a paragraph and is now a large article - It's still a WIP, I've still got 3 years of activities to cover and then copy-editing to do, which you distracting me here and at Cole's article has not helped...). | |||
| *:You have been the one to propose {{tq|changes that ignore IMPARTIAL and WEIGHT in order to further their POV}}, refusing to compromise and trying to depart from the weight of sources to represent her as only opposing gender-affirming care for minors, focusing nearly all your efforts on Cole's talk page and my ANI case, while I have worked with other editors to ensure NPOV is maintained, comrpomised and discussed to achieve consensus (even when I would prefer another outcome), and generally actually contributed to the encyclopedia and worked with other editors to do so. | |||
| *:@], @], @] - we've been collaborating the past few days on the Cole article, care to comment on my general conduct there vs Springee's? Please keep it short if you do lol, I thought this case was finally settling down and coming to a close but apparently I can't be that lucky ] (]) 05:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Funny how so many new accounts in this topic area who write content about anti-trans activists also bludgeon and have a tendency to ping perceived allies. Gee where have we seen this before. ] (]) 05:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Is that you saying you agree Cole is an anti-trans activist? (/humour, I'm fine just saying she's been described as one unless enough sources eventually concur) Also, I cannot tell a lie, I thought we'd been starting to turn a new leaf with the Tri-Ess article - I've been trying to move away from contentious GENSEX BLPs by collaboratively fixing up my old articles and making sure there's consensus while moving onto new ones like the ] (WIP) ] (]) 05:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yet another wall of text. I will also note the selective notification of editors. ] (]) 05:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I pinged the editors I've been working with collaboratively on the article who were involved in the specific discussions raised. In terms of the {{tq|wall of text}} - ]. ] (]) 05:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I agree with Brandonlini's law. Imagine how much effort it takes for good faith editors to deal with the walls of text you produce. When they don't address the whole thing you feel they weren't able to address your concerns. That is followed by claims like no one had issues with your non-BLP GENSEX edits. ] (]) 06:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::... can you point to a single instance in this entire case where an editor has raised concerns with any non-BLP/non-BLPGROUP GENSEX edits? Not just vaguely saying they ''might'' exist, but actually pointing to even 1 edit or article? A single diff could stop me saying that, and the fact I've repeatedly challenged people to provide one and not gotten a response goes to show my claim is correct! So, either prove me wrong or stop saying my claim is false without evidence. | |||
| *:::::Also, it's poor form to come to my ANI case, level some baseless accusations against me, and get upset at the length of my response (and to be fair, please keep in mind that half of my above response was pointing out your POV-pushing at the Cole article). Also, the {{tq|walls of text}} you raised concerns with in your latest accusations were mostly comprised of discussing changes to the lead with another editor, and we reached a version we were both comfortable with... ] (]) 06:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] It's worth noting you've made over 20 posts in this discussion, and you continue engaging. Which is fine. But if you don't wish to read more walls of text, it's best to disengage. I've been burnt out just reading this discussion, surely you need a break by now. ] (]) 17:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::That's true, it was an attempt to delete well-sourced content. I attempted to restore the previous stable version. Fortunately some other editors were able to help. Deleting references to the Southern Poverty Law Center's reports about hate groups and anti-LGBT activities is usually poor form. The SPLC is a Misplaced Pages perennial source that has been reviewed many times. ] (]) 05:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I generally agree with your post, so I won't restate it in full. It suffices to say I find Springee's accusations here highly disingenuous, and their complaints about this {{tq|wall of text}} even more so. They complain about you making "proposals which don't have consensus" as if that wasn't the whole point of a proposal. On ], they have also upheld useless, ]-esque tangents such as insisting that {{tq|"gender affirming care" includes both medical and non-medical}}, or baselessly insinuating that some sources are misrepresenting some bills but refusing to actually show how. I also count @]'s bizarre refusal to accept preëxisting consensus that the ] is not ], on grounds such as that the Misplaced Pages article on them does not include that word, among these. And most recently, it is in fact Springee who is working against a consensus on the lead emerging among the other participants in that discussion. ■ ∃ ] ⇔ ∃ ] ''';''' 08:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Propose Topic Ban For 3-6 Months''' Judging from the walls of texts that ] is using to reply to nearly every ivote, it would seem to me that a short (3-6 month) topic ban would be appropriate. This would give ] some time to reflect on their behavior and contribute to wikipedia in other ways. Bottom line, I don't think sanctions should be punitive, but I do believe they should be a net benefit to the project. In this case I believe wikipedia and ] would '''both''' benefit from a topic ban. After the 3-6 month period, remove the topic ban. This is not a permanent punishment, it is simply a rest period. ] (]) 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC) ] | |||
| *:*This is literally your only contribution to Misplaced Pages and this IP could very well be a user who has already commented and contributed to this novella. ] (]) 19:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] I believe AGF extends to IP users as well as registered users. This is not my only contribution to wikipedia, and you will also notice I suggested a *temporary* restriction. If IP users are not welcome to contribute here, then please strike my above vote. ] (]) 19:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * question. Should the title of this novel be struck since it was also written by the sockpuppet? ] says not to be nitpicky, which maybe this is. Seems wrong, though. ] (]) 04:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:No, I don't think that's a good idea, if for no other reason than, unlike striking the rest of the user's comments, striking the titke may have some potential to cause confusion or technical issues with format, threading, sectioning, archiving, and searches after the fact. It also has the potential to suggest that the issue has been dismissed wholesale by the community--which, whatever else one can say about the divisive mess above, I do not feel is an accurate interpretation of community perspective. On the other hand, a struck title in the TOC would stand out so much, it might draw yet more attention to this thread (which may be a good or bad thing in general, depending on your perspective, but frankly, at this point we don't need extra feedback here so much as an admin willing to close, which only get harder to acquire the longer this monster thread grows). | |||
| *:<br> | |||
| *:Note that while SOCKSTRIKE has been cited a few times above, that's actually just an essay: the actual guideline that permits striking in cases of sockpuppetry is ]. Another section of that guidelines (]) notes that titles are "owned" (fur purposes of TPG determinations) not by their author, but by all the editors needing to make use of it, and provides for circumstances when they should or should not be altered, but does not discuss this particular situation, nor striking in any context. In any event, on the balance, I would say striking the title is not appropriate here. Striking the OP's comments immediately below is going to make the situation as obvious as striking the title itself would to anyone looking at it, and given the potential for unforseen technical issues, or an inaccurate implication of the current posture of the discussion, or drawing this matter out further (and at this point I think the wait is getting unfair to TT, whatever the outcome), I think we should let it be. '']]'' 16:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Agree, plenty of OP's comment has been struck already. I don't see any need to go further. — ''']''' 17:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| '''Proposal''': Because of Axad12's hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC, tag-team behavior with Graywalls on the Breyers article edits, canvassing each other on its talk page, and ], Axad12 and Graywalls should be ] from the Breyers article and its talk page. | |||
| ===Will somebody close this, please?=== | |||
| It looks like everything that needs to be said has been said, and there's been plenty of opportunity for opining opinions, and for people to read and revise their opinion if they find persuasive arguments argued. All that's left is for some brave admin to close this and choose an appropriate course of action. Any further discussion will only cause this page to load even slower, with no appreciable benefit. — ] ] 23:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Support'''</s>. ] (]) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I checked the word count. We're about the length of Faulkner's ''As I Lay Dying''. We passed ''The Great Gatsby'' and ''Slaughterhouse-Five'' a while ago. (We're at about 55,000 words). — ] ] 23:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Strike as withdrawn for Axad12 ABAN to concur with {{u|Cullen328}} and the ''oppose'' decisions below. | |||
| ::So it goes.--] (]) 00:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Graywalls}} is a separate case remaining undecided here. Over the 2024 article and talk page history at Breyers, this user was the main purveyor of disinformation, and has not acknowledged his talk page hostility and errors of judgment, despite abundant presentation of facts, sources, explanations, and challenges for information below. Graywalls should commit to abstain from editing the Breyers article for a given period, as Axad has done. ] (]) 00:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Btw, not to discount your examples in my comment below, I've read and enjoyed the latter two as, but somehow the HG2G felt longer and more personally mind-boggling to surpass lol. ] (]) 05:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Zefr}}, your domineering and territoriality to that article is a big part of escalation and if anyone, it should be you who should refrain from it. Blatantly disregarding consensus and going so far as saying {{tq|Statements of facts supported by reliable sources do not need talk page consensus.|tq}} as done in which goes to show you feel you're above consensus. You weren't persuaded until you were corrected by two administrors {{u|Aoidh}} and {{u|Philknight}} on the matter on the belief you're entitled to insert certain things against consensus. You also were blocked for the fifth time for edit warring in that article, with previous ones being at different articles with dispute with other editors, which shows your lack of respect for community decision making. ] (]) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support warning; 6-12 month restriction on publishing to main space''' per {{noping|Sideswipe9th}}'s recent detailed !vote, and generally those who have defended and/or constructively criticized my editing (a great thanks to all who did so). Some final notes since this has been causing me a week full of stress: I want to make sure that all articles I write are encyclopedic, and I am more than happy to make sure they're peer-reviewed before going live until I can be proven to write articles of the highest caliber from scratch. I screwed up by not taking advantage of AFC sooner, having relied on peer review after publishing, which I realize could be too late especially with regards to BLPS - which I sincerely apologize for. While they do not compromise all of my written nor edited articles, I make no secret about the fact I consider many of the groups I write about to be morally objectionable due to their campaigning against trans rights or minorities in general. I want to make sure they are encyclopedically documented, and are described neutrally - as I state on my userpage: {{tq|I believe the truth when simply presented will speak for itself}} and I think I should be judged on the quality of the content and not my motivations for writing. If anyone wants to further review or help improve any article I have written to date, I will be more than happy to collaborate on the associated article/talk page - I want this to come to a close and everything to be done in the appropriate location, as opposed to this novel (which blew me out of the water to learn is somehow longer than ]). I believe a BLP OR GENSEX TBAN would be overly restrictive, considering my on BLPs (all GENSEX) such as ], ], ], and ] and in the general GENSEX area with ], ], ], LGBT rights in <XYZ>, and ], among many others. I also want to reiterate, to ensure my articles are of the highest quality, I wish to put them '''all''' through AFC first, even when they don't or barely intersect with GENSEX or BLP. I believe this will help me improve as an editor and in 6-12 months if they have shown to be written to a sufficiently high standard we can revisit it. ] (]) 05:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, your concept of what was a false consensus has been dismissed by the RfC result, so you should move on from this bitterness and distortion of truth. In reply to Aoidh and Philknight at the Breyers talk page, I stated in my next comment, ''"Yes, a key word <u>unintentionally omitted</u> in my response concerning statements and sources was "verifiable".'' As there are few watchers/editors of the Breyers article (62 as of today, probably many from Unilever who do not edit), I provided statements of facts verified by reliable sources, whereas this simple practice appears to not be in your editing toolkit. | |||
| :::The obligation remaining with you in this discussion is to respond to below in the section, '''The actual content that led to this dispute.''' Let's have your response to that, and your pledge to abstain from editing the Breyers article - you did say on the talk page on 29 Nov that you would "delegate the actual editing to someone else." I think your defiance to respond to challenges in this discussion section affirms my recommendation that you are ABANNED from the Breyers article and IBANNED from attacking me because you are unable to face the facts. ] (]) 18:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It was a suggestion that someone, meaning neither YOU or I. Not that Zefr continue editing and not I. Your controlling, ] approach was a significant portion of the problem. Additionally, you proposed administrative sanctions against me, but did not tell me about it as required. I only figured out after someone told me about it on my talk page. Why did you do that? ] (]) 19:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You had already been notified of the problem you caused at the Breyers article Now, you are engaged in to avoid answering the Cullen328 paragraphs and the several requests for you to explain and own up to your disruptive behavior and non-collaboration. Regarding OWN, there are few editors at Breyers. I countered your attempts to slander the article with the "antifreeze" term and bogus diet book references by applying verifiable facts and sources. | |||
| :::::OWN:''"Being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership, provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or amend others' edits. This too does not equal ownership, provided it does not marginalise the valid opinions of others and is adequately justified."'' If you had offered valid content and sources, I would have collaborated. | |||
| :::::I'm sure editors have seen enough of your personal grievances expressed here. Please stop. I'm not returning unless an exception occurs. ] (]) 20:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *You need to notify Graywalls of this discussion. I have done so for you. In the future, remember to do so yourself. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Oppose''': I have reverted Zefr on 3 occasions on the Breyers article over the last few months. That was because the edits they had made were, at that time, contrary to talk page consensus. The fact that I had not contributed to the article is neither here nor there in that regard. | |||
| *:I have not {{tq|ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate}}, I have simply objected to Zefr's repeated attempts over a 3 month period to re-open a discussion where the consensus has always been against them. | |||
| *:Six different users have previously objected to the changes Zefr has been trying to make and that was clearly a majority of those who commented between August and December 2024. | |||
| *:I accept that the current RfC is going Zefr's way, however that fact should not be used to reinterpret events over the last 4 months where Zefr has historically been in a small minority insufficient to claim a consensus in favour of the changes they wished to make. | |||
| *:Also, the idea that I made a {{tq|hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC}} is untrue. As I have pointed out above, my actions were in good faith and it can be seen that I immediately volunteered to revert my removal of the template if I received instruction from an admin to that effect. | |||
| *:I cannot see that I was ever canvassed to appear at the Breyers talk page, I arrived there entirely independently back in November having been aware of the ongoing situation re: the various COI edit requests because the COI edit request queue is the volunteer queue that I spend most of my time here working from. I've probably read pretty much every COI edit request that has been made on Misplaced Pages over the last 6 to 12 months and there are a small number of talk pages that I look at from time to time. | |||
| *:Graywalls and I work on similar cases and sometimes we find ourselves working alongside each other, especially if material has been discussed at ], but occasionally ending up in the same place and on the same side of an argument does not entail tagteaming. ] (]) 22:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I was the one who suggested RfC in the first place. , because I felt it was not a productive disagreement anymore. Leading up to the RfC, there was rough talk page consensus to include a mention pf propylene glycol, but if consensus in RfC determines that it should be left out, I have no intention of fighting it. Someone raised a concern there was only one source, so I added another source. Other than this, I've not really touched contentious parts of this article recently. I'm not sure why Axad12 removed the RfC and I can't speak for their actions, but the accusation of Tagteam is unwarranted. I've taken deferent steps to not continue to engage in back and forth edit warring and I'd like to believe that I'm approaching this the correct way. I do want to bring up concerns about Zefr's civility though. Please see ] for some concerns I raised. I also find leaving snarky comment about being a PhD student who disagreed on contents troubling ]. {{re|Aoidh}} also felt Zefr was "weaponing" claims of edit warring to restore their "preferred version" earlier on in the dispute. Please see ] ] (]) 02:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Do not put new !votes in the closure request section please'''. <sub>let's keep this novel at least somewhat organised--] (]) 16:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)</sub> | |||
| *:Graywalls, I think you were correct to recommend an RFC. Hopefully the RFC will reach a consensus. ] (]) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'd just like to echo that sentiment. I'm all in favour of consensus. | |||
| *::My position on this article hasn't been motivated by a partisan view on Propylene Glycol but has simply been in relation to serving the consensus position as it stood at the time. That is the approach I hope I adopt on all Misplaced Pages articles. If the consensus alters on this article (as seems likely) then I'll adopt the same approach in relation to serving the ''new'' consensus. | |||
| *::My primary area of interest on this website is COI issues. I'm simply not interested in content disputes or in pushing any kind of POV on Misplaced Pages. I'm not the sort of user who flagrantly disregards a newly emerging consensus by editing contrary to the outcome of an RfC. | |||
| *::I'd welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that going forwards (i.e. without an article ban). ] (]) 06:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::* The mention by Graywalls for an RfC on 27 Dec had no influence on the one existing. As an uncomplicated process, an editor truly sincere in having community input would have posed a simple objective question. Graywalls, why didn't you take 5 minutes and create the RfC question you wanted? What would have been your RfC question? | |||
| *::Specifically for propylene glycol (you are still defending its use in the article by - see comments about this book in the RfC): {{tq|what do you believe propylene glycol does in a frozen dessert and what would you prefer the article to say about propylene glycol? I have asked for this clarification on the talk page many times and in the DRN, but you ignored the opportunity to collaborate and clarify.}} | |||
| *:: | |||
| *::Your reverts in article history and combative talk page behavior over months revealed a persistent intent to disparage the Breyers article, focus on the "antifreeze" slur (mainly promoting ), and restore a skeletal version having no sources more recent than 2018 , after That version also has misinformation under the section 'Ice cream', falsely stating that Breyers changed their ice cream ingredients by using other additives, which in fact, were used to evolve a new category of frozen desserts not intended to be ice cream. I believe you know this, but you and Axad12 persisted to favor misinformation for the article. | |||
| *::The RfC I provided came from steps in the lead of ]: 1) generally poor talk page progress, where one editor seeking facts verified by current sources was opposed by Graywalls, Adax12, and {{u|NutmegCoffeeTea}}, all defending a version including "antifreeze"; 2) an RSN post where Graywalls argued that a web link by the Seattle PI made the Motley Fool article an RS; 3) for which Graywalls, Axad12, and NutmegCoffeeTea abstained from collaboration to improve the article; 4) , which appears to be <u>willfully ignored</u> by Axad12 and Graywalls, who responded only with hostility and defiance against the facts; 5) seeking third opinions from admins, first by BD2412 (talk page on 29-30 Nov) and by , resulting in verbose trolling by these two users. Axad12's response on 27 Dec was to . | |||
| *::Axad12 and Graywalls should be ABANNED from the Breyers article for exhibiting 1) hostility on the talk page to good faith proposals for making the article better, and 2) persistence to perpetuate misinformation on propylene glycol. Simply, what history shows that either editor has tried to improve the Breyers article? Both users meet most of the definitions of ] for the article, its talk page, and the RfC. ] (]) 18:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Zefr, I've already indicated on several occasions that I welcome and support the developing new consensus. Graywalls has made a similar comment below. That being the case, I don't really see what purpose an article ban would be intended to serve. | |||
| *:::Admittedly there has been some quite heated disagreement over recent months, but it seems that we all now have the robust talkpage consensus that we were hoping for in one way or another and that all three of us are happy to move forward in support of that consensus. | |||
| *:::You were clearly in the minority for quite a long time and I can appreciate that you found that experience frustrating. However, to continue to make allegations above of bad faith, trolling, tagteaming, etc. about those who constituted the valid majority for several months is just an attempt to perpetuate strife on an issue which is now, as far as I can see, satisfactorily resolved. ] (]) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Filed under: sometimes you hurt articles by treating COI editors as the enemy. The problem here is two users who should really know better edit-warring over the course of ''months'' to reinstate TikTok diet influencer silliness into a Misplaced Pages article, repeatedly reinstating ] content (implicitly, if not explicitly). We currently treat a little "avoid antifreeze" bubble in a diet book (which includes Breyers in a list of brands) and a book published by one of RFK Jr's antivax publishers as ] for including the insinuation that an FDA-approved and much-conspiratorialized additive is harmful. They've been repeatedly removed, but two editors keep putting them back, whether because of a misunderstanding of ]/] or in pursuit of COI purification. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I take your point but I think you're misjudging the situation somewhat. Prior to the opening of the current RfC it was approximately 6 or 7 users in favour of inclusion vs 3 or 4 favouring exclusion. I only reverted the attempts at exclusion because those attempts were contrary to the talk page consensus. | |||
| *:I'm perfectly open to the suggestion that that consensus position was wrong but the simple fact of the matter was that there was ''at that time'' no consensus in favour of exclusion. | |||
| *:It has only been in the last couple of days that the requesting editor has been able to demonstrate a consensus in favour of exclusion. And that's great, I have no problem with that at all. In fact I welcome it. | |||
| *:My understanding is that editors wishing to make changes to article text should not do so if there is a consensus against what they are trying to do, and that under such circumstances an edit can be (indeed ''should be'') reverted. If I'm mistaken on that score then I'm perfectly happy to take instruction. However, I really want to stress that my actions were based primarily upon that reasoning and were made in good faith. ] (]) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@], you should not revert something because other editors want it to be reverted. You should only make content changes that you personally support. This is necessary for BRD to work. See ] for an explanation of why. ] (]) 17:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{re|Rhododendrites}}, the antifreeze matter is ] since I believe everyone's pretty much agreed it doesn't need to be in there. Zefr has taken issues with me, Axad12, NutMegCoffee and possibly some others. They've tried to get the article "set in place" to their preferred version, but that was declined admin {{u|Daniel Case}} who determined it to be content dispute ]. Zefr inferring alleging I was <s>"uncooperative"</s> <u>not collaborating/cooperating in the way that he was hoping</u> in DR, but I don't believe that to be so. <u>There was nothing intentional on my part to not cooperate.</u> I'll see if {{re|Robert McClenon}} would like to share their observation on that since they closed the dispute. | |||
| *:https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Breyers/Archive_2#c-Rusalkii-20240814014600-Inkian_Jason-20240801145900 here's another uninvolved editoring erring on the side of inclusion. A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus. Reading through the current plus the archived discussions, up until the RfC, the general consensus is in support of having PG mention and Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus. As I mentioned, if consensus changes with the RfC, I'm not opposed to going with that. ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (adjusted ] (]) 13:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)) | |||
| *::For the record, I never stated the word "uncooperative" at DRN or the Breyers talk page, but rather "non-collaborative", as discussed in the thread with Robert McClenon below. | |||
| *::"Set in place to their preferred version" and "Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus" should be translated to using "facts verified by reliable sources", which is the simple goal for the Breyers article that Graywalls has obstructed over months. | |||
| *::It's incredible that Graywalls says even today above, knowing the comments on the RfC and months of being presented with facts and sources about why propylene glycol is safely used in thousands of manufactured foods: ''"A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus."'' | |||
| *::Here's your chance to tell everyone: | |||
| *::Why do you feel propylene glycol was used in Breyers frozen desserts (in 2013, not since)? What concern do you have about it, and what government or scientific source says it's unsafe in the amounts regulated by federal laws? Give a sentence here that you think meets consensus and uses a reliable source. ] (]) 01:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::You're right, you did not use that specific word. I've corrected my response due to wording. ] (]) 13:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===A Non-Mediator's Statement=== | |||
| {{hat|The closer will assess the discussion and arguments. Possibly prejudicing a closer is not constructive. ] (]) 17:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| I am not entirely sure why ] has pinged me about this dispute, saying that I "closed this dispute". The accuracy of the statement that I "closed this dispute" depends on what is meant by "this dispute". | |||
| {{fake heading|sub=3|<s>Rough count of !votes</s>}} | |||
| <s>Just to aid the closer, as of this comment, I count 16 editors opposed to a topic ban (although a few are in favor of some kind of warning or other lesser sanction) and 30+ in favor of a topic ban, with a couple additional editors supporting a limited ban on BLP editing in this topic area. Several other editors have commented and discussed without supporting or opposing specific measures. This count was taken by scrolling + tallying, not by making a full summary table, so it should not be regarded as definitive.</s> ] (]) 17:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * My apologies to all, I didn't realize this sort of thing was frowned upon. I made a count for the sake of my own curiosity and decided to share it, unwisely. I did not intend to prejudice the discussion in any way. Striking the section. ] (]) 17:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| I closed the ] thread, ], on 12 December. I obviously didn't resolve a dispute that has been continuing for another three weeks, and the claim that I closed the dispute looks to me like an attempt to confuse the jury. ] had opened the DRN thread on 3 December, complaining about the insertion of the word ] and of the mention of ]. I was not entirely sure beyond the mention of ] what the issues were. There were questions about what the procedure was for handling a ] dispute; I think that Zefr was said to be the one. There was a long question that may have been about whether ] is voluntary; DRN is voluntary. Then Zefr said that the case could be withdrawn because no one else was commenting. The disputants other than Zefr never did say exactly what the article content issues were, perhaps because they didn't want to discuss article content, and were not required to discuss article content. If anyone is implying that I resolved or settled anything, I have no idea what it was. | |||
| I see that the dispute either was continuing in other forums for three weeks, or has reopened. I see that ] edit-warred to prevent an RFC from running, making vague but noisy statements about ]. I don't know who is said to be working for Unilever or for anyone else. It is clear that this dispute is longer on antagonism than on clarity. ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Robert McClenon}}, I pinged you, because I felt you'd be a good commentator to evaluate whether you also felt I was "not cooperative" in the process as Zefr says. I tried to participate, but it got closed shortly after I posted a comment in it. ] (]) 22:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Would the editor voluntarily refrain from GENSEX, article creation, and negative/critical BLP edits for 6 months?''' This thread was opened by a sock, but evidence has been presented that there may be tendentious tendencies and SPA-type advocacy. A voluntary 6 months of editing outside those fields, while keeping up the same level of wiki activity, would demonstrate to the community that the editor is ] and can edit without a POV. It would also provide the ditor with more wiki experience. My concern here is that if nothing at all comes of this thread we may be back here with another filing by somebody else. ] (]) 08:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Was that purposely mis-stated to be provocative and mislead the discussion here? | |||
| *:Why? The contention of many of the people who don't support a topic ban, including me, is that Tranarchist's contributions to GENSEX are good and that this is an attempt by POV-pushers to remove an opponent from the topic area. ] (]) 20:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I said you were <u>non-collaborative</u>, which describes your behavior throughout your editing history on the Breyers article, its talk page, and the DRN. You refused collaboration at DRN, which is the whole point of the process. DRN FAQ: ''"refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building."'' | |||
| *::Yeah, Tranarchist already made a suggestion on how to restrict her editing, a reasonable one in light of this discussion. I think it is clear that the editor is here to build an encyclopedia, just not the one some POV pushers would want. ] (]) 20:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::You were notified about the , and you posted a general notice about it on the , so you were aware of the process, but ignored it. Meanwhile, your editing history over 6-12 Dec shows dozens of edits, | |||
| *:::It's funny how you accuse people of being "pov-pushers", when just a couple minutes ago, you attempted to remove an ivote because it disagreed with your ''point of view''. Tranarchist may indeed be a overall benefit to the project, but the evidence seems fairly clear that she has been engaged in tendentious editing, pov-pushing, and SPA type editing ''in the Gensex topic area''. I've noticed that almost no one is advocating for a block or ban, instead most are simply asking for a temporary editing restriction, which in view of Tranarchist's behavior, seems to be a reasonable sanction. ] (]) 21:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::You made no attempt to collaborate at DRN, posting only one off-topic | |||
| *::::It is very interesting that you, an IP user whose only edits are in regards to this editors ANI discussion, are so familiar with various WP policies and procedures. I never tried to remove your vote, just alert the closer that this conversation has been your only contribution to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I requested closure of the DRN on 12 Dec due to non-participation by you and the others. On 13 Dec, . cc: {{u|Robert McClenon}}. ] (]) 00:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As I stated before (and as demonstrated to you on your own user page, a comment which you replied to by the way), it is not my only contribution to wikipedia, and any editor or administrator can easily check this, as even though my ipv6 address can change, total contributions can be found by simply adding /64 to my address. If you had read my comment above, I had asked that you AGF, but you seem unwilling to do so. ] (]) 21:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Zefr}}, As been said to you by others, participation is not mandatory. Other editors are not required to and you shouldn't reasonably expect them to prioritize their real life schedule or their Misplaced Pages time on dispute that you runs on your own schedule to your DRN you started around your own schedule on your own terms. I have initially waited to give others time to comment as their time allows. I'm also not particularly fond of your berating, incivil, bad faith assuming comments directed at myself, as well as a few other editors and it's exhausting discussing with you, so I'm not feeling particularly compelled to give your matters priority in my Misplaced Pages time. ] (]) 06:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's a silly thing to say when your own one-month-old account has 350 edits. If you had more experience, you'd know about IPv6 ranges, and would have checked ] and seen the rest of the edits on this range. ] (]) 21:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ====A Possibly Requested Detail==== | |||
| :::::::Still not very many edits, and many in the GENSEX topic. Hm. ] (]) 21:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Okay. If the question is specifically whether ] was uncooperative at ], then I can state that they were not uncooperative and did not obstruct or disrupt DRN. Graywalls took very little part in the DRN proceeding before I closed it. They were not required to take part, although they say that they would have made a statement if the case had stayed open a little longer. The antagonism that I saw was between ] and ], and I collapsed an exchange between them. I did not read what I am told were long previous discussions, because I expect the disputants at DRN to begin by telling me concisely what each of them wants to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Graywalls was not uncooperative at DRN. | |||
| ::::::::So now an ivote shouldn't count because a user has "not very many edits"?. Also, I've made exactly ZERO edits in the Gensex topic area. Every contribution I've made has been to the relevant TALK pages, as I was hesitant to edit until there was consensus on any change I made. ] (]) 21:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Not saying the vote shouldn't count, just noting it for the closer. Seems like the one time you did make a change in the topic area you realized you made a mistake and started profusely apologizing, in which other editors were lenient towards you, and maybe you should apply that principle here. ] (]) 21:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay. ] is making a slightly different statement, that ] did not ] at DRN. That is correct. And I noted above that their mention that I had closed the dispute depended on what was meant by the "dispute". and looked like an attempt to confuse the jury. ] (]) 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::What principle? This IP making a single error and apologising is a big difference to the repeat issues this thread has unearthed. | |||
| ::@] Zefr did not use the word uncooperative although did say uncollaborative and I used the two interchangeably in my ping. I did participate in it ]. I haven't participated in DRN until that point, so I wasn't really sure how it worked. ] (]) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm not sure why you're coming down so hard on this IP except for the fact they're an IP. — ''']''' 08:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ===The actual content that led to this dispute=== | |||
| ::::::::Here's another protip for you, @]: at ANI, threads are autoarchived when no one posts in them for 72 hours. Every time you post here, you reset the 72-hour timer. If you don't want TT to get TBANed, you should just not post here for 72 hours and let it autoarchive. The 72 hour timer will reset now. ] (]) 21:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Two month ago, ] included this shockingly bad content: {{tpq|As of 2014, some flavors of Breyer's ice cream contains propylene glycol as an additive. Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze and it is clear fluid made by "treating propylene with chlorinated water to form the chlorohydrin, which is then converted to the glycol, an alcohol, by treating it with a sodium carbonate solution." Propylene glycol is formulated into Breyer's fat-free and Carb Smart ice cream to make it easier to scoop.}} The notion that an article about an ice cream company should include a detailed description of how a ] food additive is manufactured is bizarre enough, as is the cherrypicked and glaringly misleading assertion about "antifreeze", but the reference used to support the Breyers claim was a book called ''Eat It to Beat It!: Banish Belly Fat-and Take Back Your Health-While Eating the Brand-Name Foods You Love!'' written by a quack/crank diet profiteer named David Zinczenko. I invite any editor to take a search engine look at Zinczenko's body of work, and come away with the conclusion that his writings are anything other than fringe and unreliable. Despite the glaringly obviously non-neutral and tendentious problems with this shockingly bad content, editors including most prominently {{u|Graywalls}} and {{u|Axad12}} dug in their heels, fighting a reargard action for nearly two months, determined to make this mundane routine ice cream company look as bad as possible. Their self-justification seems to be that big bad corporations have ''no right whatsover'' to try to remove atrociously bad content about their products from Misplaced Pages, and that any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association. I am not an advocate for corporations ''per se'', but I am an advocate for corporations being treated ] like all other topics, rather with disdain and contempt, which was the case here, as I see it. I do not know what the best outcome is here, but I certainly encourage these two editors to refrain from any other unjustified and poorly referenced anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end. ] (]) 07:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Thanks, here's another protip for you, I wasn't inquiring on that policy. The 72 hour timer will reset now. ] (]) ] (]) 21:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :A striking and shocking aspect of this sordid situation is that two editors, {{u|Graywalls}} and {{u|Axad12}} were able to concoct a false "consensus" supporting various versions of this garbage content. And then when another editor tried to start a RFC about the appallingly bad content, {{u|Axad12}} tried over and over and over again to stop the RFC and defend the atrocious content rather than correcting it, aided and abetted by {{u|Graywalls}}. When the RFC actually went live, it soon became clear that many editors agreed that the content these two editors advocated for was utterly inappropriate. ] (]) 08:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * While BLP adherence is part of the AfC criteria, the main focus of AfC is to confirm the notability of the article subjects. I'm not sure the AfC process is broadly equipped to handle POVpushing and questionable sourcing for negative claims on a relatively niche topic (gender-related advocacy) unless there are some committed reviewers who can tackle such hypothetical submissions. It seems way easier to just have this editor direct their energy towards other topics. -] (]) 23:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Cullen, | |||
| *:My understanding is that the problem that's supposed to solve is not POV-pushing, it's creating articles for non-notable transphobes. It's not been established that Tranarchist is POV-pushing, and many of us (including me) believe she's actually been instrumental in stopping POV-pushers. ] (]) 00:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :As per my comments above, my motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time. I did not {{tq|concoct}} that consensus, at least 5 users other than me were against excluding the material. | |||
| *::To be fair, the only article I wrote that didn't meet ] was (very much not transphobes lol) - the transphobes I've written about have been quite notable. The bigger issue raised is the neutrality of some of the articles, so if anyone can suggest/point to a standardized pre-publication NPOV review process I'd be amenable to that instead of AFC (per @]'s note on AFC not being set up for NPOV reviews). Reviewing ], I'd be happy to first draft articles then list them there to get feedback before publishing or if that's not standard practice (since I don't see drafts listed) strive even harder to make sure the articles are written from a NPOV initially and immediately request review on publication (in either case, adding a note to review for NPOV). ] (]) 02:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I have never had any particularly strong opinion one way or the other on the content issue and I try as best as I can not to get involved in content disputes. I have not {{tq|dug in heels}} or attempted to promote any kind of fringe opinion and nor have I engaged in {{tq|anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end}}. | |||
| ::::It's not a bad idea to utilize PR as well at some point in the development of an article, but it's not the most ideal solution to this situation: unlike AFC, PR has no inclusion threshold/greenlighting function, if you follow my meaning, since it is not meant for pages that are initial stages of development, especially where ] is a consideration. See ]. Rather PR is for already decently well-established articles with few or no major content disputes, but which need an extra layer of polish, often when one is trying to move such an article through a ] or ] process. | |||
| :Similarly I do not hold the view that {{tq|any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association}}, or any opinion even vaguely resembling that view. On the contrary, I have often implemented COI edit requests on behalf of corporations or have pointed out to corporate employees how such requests would need to be amended to conform with sourcing or other requirements. Repeatedly engaging in that activity would presumably make me very {{tq|evil}} indeed, in my own eyes, if I held the view that you attribute to me. | |||
| :I reverted the Breyer edits in good faith because there was no consensus in favour of them. If I was incorrect on a point of policy in that regard then fair enough, however please do not attempt to attribute to me sentiments which I do not harbour. | |||
| :Also, I did not attempt to stop the RfC {{tq|over and over and over again}}. I removed the tag twice, then requested guidance from administrators and immediately replaced the tag when requested to do so. The tag was removed, in all, for a matter of minutes and had no meaningful impact on the progress of the RfC. I have accepted elsewhere that I now appreciate that the basis on which I removed the tag was inappropriate. I have also stated that {{tq|From my standpoint wasn't a process that I was familiar with - but I can see from the many excellent contributions here that this is the best way of resolving content disputes}}. I have also stated that I welcome and support the new consensus. ] (]) 08:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , {{u|Axad12}}, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. ] (]) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I {{tq|obviously dislike}} Breyers or (their parent company) Unilever, or indeed that I consider either to be {{tq|evil}}? | |||
| :::To the best of my recollection, I've only ever made 3 mainspace edits to the Breyers article - each time on the stated basis in the edit summary that the edit I was reverting was contrary to consensus. | |||
| :::I've re-read the extensive talk page discussions in recent days and I can only see that I ever commented on the COI angle and the nature of the consensus. Those comments were based on my understanding of policy at the time. I do not see {{tq|anti-corporate diatribes}} or evidence that I {{tq|obviously dislike}} Breyers or Unilever. | |||
| :::Indeed, I do not hold any particularly strong views on Breyers, Unilever or any other corporations. ] (]) 09:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I said, {{u|Axad12}}, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to ] to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. ] (]) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My activity on that talk page has solely been in relation to pointing out what I felt (rightly or wrongly) was a valid COI concern and observing that from Aug to Dec there has never been a consensus in favour of exclusion. | |||
| :::::Anything beyond that is simply you attributing motives that do not exist. | |||
| :::::I have never stated or implied that {{tq|a corporation does not deserve neutrality}} and nor do I hold such a view. | |||
| :::::I happily admit that I'm quite animated and enthusiastic about COI issues and reverting edits which appear to be contrary to consensus. With the benefit of hindsight probably I should have let go of those issues at an earlier stage and vacated the field for those who actually had an appetite to argue on content grounds. | |||
| :::::I'd also point out that for a significant part of the last 2 months I had actually unsubscribed from the relevant talkpage threads and only ended up getting involved again due to being summoned to the Dispute Resolution thread. If I had been {{tq|determined over the last two months to maintain various versions of biased non-neutral content}} then hopefully it stands to reason that I would not have unsubscribed in that way - thus resulting in a situation where I was actually completely unaware of much of the talkpage and mainspace activity over the period that you refer to. ] (]) 10:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your {{tq|motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time}}. You are also obligated to ''actually'' look at the disputed content and the sources supporting it. Why didn't you do that? Why were you unable to see what multiple editors in the RfC are commenting about? You shouldn't just blindly revert content like that, without taking a look for yourself to see if the complaint about the disputed content has any merit, like it being reliably sourced and due for inclusion.]] 10:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That's a very fair question. | |||
| :::::::The answer is that I was inclined to believe the opinions of editors much more experienced than myself who were against exclusion, particularly the editor who turned down the original COI edit request (whose work on COI edit requests I have the greatest of respect for). | |||
| :::::::User Whatamidoing has already pointed out above that my error lay in accepting those users' opinions. I agree with Whatamidoing's observation there. | |||
| :::::::I can only say that what I did was done in good faith based on my understanding of policy at the time. I now know where I erred (in several different ways) and I am glad to have received instruction in that regard. | |||
| :::::::However, I really cannot accept the repeated suggestion that I vindictively masterminded a long anti-corporate campaign to keep bad material in an article. That suggestion is fundamentally not true. ] (]) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been.]] 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yes, I entirely accept that. | |||
| :::::::::For clarity, when I said {{tq|my understanding of policy at the time}} I meant ''my understanding of policy'' at the time - I wasn't trying to suggest that the policy has changed since I made those edits. | |||
| :::::::::What I am saying is that those edits were not made with malice, they were made because I accepted the opinions of other users more experienced than myself, opinions which I now know that I ought to have questioned. ] (]) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — ] (]) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::As I said earlier in this thread, I am 100% supportive of the new consensus in favour of excluding the previously disputed material. | |||
| :::::::::::Virtually all of my time on Misplaced Pages is spent at COIN and dealing with COI edit requests. I'm not the sort of user who spends their time edit warring over POV fringe material and generally being disruptive. | |||
| :::::::::::So, the last thing I would ever do is attempt to reinstall material where a very robust consensus at RfC has indicated that it should be excluded. | |||
| :::::::::::I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that I can be trusted in that regard. ] (]) 12:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Judgement isn't about following consensus, it’s about making considered decisions. — ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Yes, quite so. I have acknowledged my error in that regard in my first response to Isaidnoway, above, re: the very useful input I received from Whatamidoing. ] (]) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Axad, if I read what you wrote correctly, and please correct me if I misunderstand: ''I will stay away from that article because I support the current consensus''. My concern is what if consensus was to shift on that article? ] ] 17:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Apologies if my earlier response was unclear. My point was that I have absolutely no intention of edit warring over the previously disputed material (or any other material) so I don't see what purpose it would serve to ban me from the article. | |||
| :::::::::::::I have only ever made (to the best of my knowledge) 3 previous edits to the article (1 in November and 2 in December?). These were all on the basis of a misunderstanding on a point of policy which has been pointed out to me above and which I have happily acknowledged and accepted. The issue at stake was not that I harbour any partisan view in relation to the content dispute, it was that I edited to reflect the views of other editors whose opinions I respected on the matter in question. | |||
| :::::::::::::I do not see any reason for the community to anticipate that I would made a similar misunderstanding of policy going forwards. | |||
| :::::::::::::Hopefully this clarifies... ] (]) 17:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been expecting something to happen around ], whom I ran into several months ago during a ]. What I noticed back in October was that Axad12 seemed to be ''clerking the noticeboard'', making prosecutorial noises, and sometimes unsupported accusations (ex: {{tq|...the existence of COI seems quite clear...}} , {{tq|...in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest...}} , {{tq|As I said, the fact that there was a significant undeclared conflict of interest in relation to editing on Paralympic Australia-related articles was demonstrated some years ago.}} ) towards what they thought of as COI editors (this was about whether ] had failed to adequately announce their conflict with Paralympic Australia, where they've been openly helping as a volunteer on our community's behalf for many years, and after they had just made an ]). I often find such clerking of noticeboards by relatively unseasoned users to be troublesome; Axad12 has 490 edits at COIN, about 12% of their total 3801 edits (but about a third of the roughly 1500 edits total on COIN since September). If you use a hammer all day, you might begin to think that all objects are potentially nails. ] (]) 12:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Rereading the discussion this morning 90 days later, it reads worse than I made it sound above. An uninvolved admin and chastised Axad12 in that close. The OP asked the thread closure be reversed, so the close comments were moved down to the end of the thread. ] (]) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think it would be a good idea for {{u|Axad12}} to take a break from ] and associated matters and concentrate on other areas of Misplaced Pages for a few months. I was going to use a cliché here, but I see BusterD's already used it in the last sentence of the post before last, so won't. ] (]) 14:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Only so many ways to screw in a lightbulb. ] (]) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In fairness, the overwhelming majority of my posts at COIN over the last year or so have been simple helpful contributions. The two matters discussed above were atypical and in both cases I've taken on board the advice I was given. | |||
| :::::If (per the figures above) I've been making about a third of all the contributions at COIN over that period then my behaviour would have been reported here long ago if I was either disruptive or incompetent. | |||
| :::::That said, I won't deny that I've been seriously considering retiring from Misplaced Pages over the last two months. The only reason I've not done so is because other users have specifically encouraged me to carry on because they value my work at COIN and on COI issues generally. | |||
| :::::All I can say is that what I have done, I have done in good faith and when I have occasionally erred I have learned lessons. I have acknowledged above that I've made mistakes and I'm grateful to those who have given me advice. ] (]) 15:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You've been reported here now. Over stuff that's current, and applicable. In that matter, you seemed to believe your expertise in COI matters allows you to decide what constitutes a valid RFC. That seems like a problem to me. I'm providing evidence on related behavioral matters. Having made one third of all recent edits on a noticeboard ''is not the high achievement you might think it is''. Stay or retire, but learn to better assume good faith here, even when dealing with COI contributors. Most accounts are fine. You've been working in a narrow area where you deal with many bad faith users. I can understand why that might wear on any editor. The proof will be if you can incorporate these valid complaints into your future action. ] (]) 16:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Buster, I know that we've had crossed words in the past so I'm grateful for your understanding and your measured response above. Yes, I deal with many bad faith users and yes it does wear on me sometimes. | |||
| :::::::I don't claim any great expertise in COI matters but I do have the time to dedicate to the project and I've picked up a decent awareness of the methods that can be used to detect and prevent UPE/PROMO etc activity. | |||
| :::::::I believe that in the past when I've been given advice on points of policy I've taken that advice on board and would hope to continue to do so in the future. ] (]) 17:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This comment is not about you, but you might be interested in it: I've been thinking for years that a rotating duty system might be helpful. Of course we're all ], but we might be less stressed, and get more representative results, if we each spent a week at ANI and a month at RSN and a week at CCI each year than if one editor spends all year at ANI and another spends all year at RSN (and nobody is at CCI – anyone who is looking for an opportunity to deal with really serious problems should please consider spending some time at ]. The few regulars there will be so grateful, and who knows? You might find that you like it). ] (]) 18:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::]? ] (]) 20:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I do think that it's worth zooming out and looking at the article as a whole. Comparing the version from to the makes it obvious that the tone of the article has become vastly more promotional, with much more focus on glowy feel-good aspects that are only mentioned in lower-quality sources (the story about the original creator hand-churning it?) And the ''context'' of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) to the weird {{tq|In 2013, Breyers introduced frozen desserts made with food additives (section above) that were intended to create smooth, low-calorie products. However, the new desserts evoked complaints by some consumers who were accustomed to the traditional "all-natural" Breyers ice cream.}}, which 100% reads like marketing-speak (downplaying the reaction by making it sound like it's just that people loved the old version ''so much''. In fact, the current version doesn't mention Breyer's cost-cutting measures at all, even though it's a massive aspect of coverage.) That doesn't necessarily justify the version above, but it's important to remember that this was originally a one-word mention in a larger list - {{tq|Following similar practices by several of their competitors, Breyers' list of ingredients has expanded to include thickeners, low-cost sweeteners, food coloring and low-cost additives — including natural additives such as tara gum and carob bean gum; artificial additives such as maltodextrin and propylene glycol; and common artificially separated and extracted ingredients such as corn syrup, whey, and others}}, the longstanding wording, is not unreasonable and doesn't really imply that there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol, just that it's an additive. I think the context of that larger shift to a much more promotional tone to the article is significant (and looking over talk, most of the actual dispute has focused on that.) --] (]) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree that the longstanding wording doesn't really imply there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol. But the doesn't even mention "maltodextrin and propylene glycol", that I can find, so those two particular additives were not even verifiable at the time. And then propylene glycol was removed, and when it was as "a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze", was really when this dispute seem to take a turn for the worse to keep this content in the article.]] 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@], about this {{xt|And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources)}} – I don't know what other sources say, but the ''cited'' sources don't say that at all. The cited sources are both from Canadian dairy farmers' marketing associations, saying that their product is good and costs more than imported oils, but doesn't actually ] a claim that Breyers uses imported oils, or that Breyers has done anything to cut their costs. ] (]) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::(As this is strictly a question of content, please consider replying at ] instead of here.) ] (]) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{re|Aquillion|WhatamIdoing|Isaidnoway}} would you all mind if I copy over the thread, starting at Aquillion's "I do think that...." over to Breyer's talk? ] (]) 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I don't mind, but my contribution to this thread is relatively minor. ] (]) 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Thanks, and a Diddly Question==== | |||
| I would like to thank ] for providing the background and content information. I also have a possibly minor question for ]. They edit-warred to try to stop the RFC on the content, and said that there was an {{tq|exceptionally serious abuse}} of the ] process. I may not have done enough background research, but I don't see where they have identified who has been the paid editor or undisclosed paid editor, or what the ] content is. If there has been paid editing, who has done it, and have they been dealt with? ] (]) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Robert, probably the best single overview of the COI issue is given in this post . | |||
| ::::So, without intending to dismiss Indy Beetle's observations (because per much of the discussion above, their concerns may be valid), I would say if the community is not simply going to ask you to work in another area for a while, then AfC is still the best alternate option, as it is the closest system we have in terms of giving an extra layer of approval to submissions. And while I understand and somewhat agree with IB's concerns about using AfC in this role, it is worth noting that the community has used this as an intermediate alternative to a straight TBAN in the past. Usually it's more to make sure the articles are competently written rather than to address neutrality concerns, but I believe it could work here as well, so long as you interact with suggestions that do touch upon NPOV in good faith. '']]'' 07:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :My impression at the time of the events, and subsequently, was that the activity was designed to distort the COI edit request process. I still feel that what happened re: the COI edit requests was irregular but I note that no other user seems to have supported me in that regard so I've not taken the matter any further. Similarly, while I felt that those events had a bearing on the RfC I now accept that the RfC relates solely to the content matter specifically under discussion. ] (]) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussion bottom}} | |||
| ::I find your characterization of events inaccurate. "we have the resubmission of the request to remove the disputed material in a COI edit request thread here " | |||
| ::But this was not a resubmission. was to remove a list of ingredients (including propylene glycol) which was sourced to a blog and which the COI editor says is outdated and doesn't reflect current ingredients. Meanwhile, the link you give as an example of "resubmission" was the COI editor requesting the removal of . Both requests involve propylene glycol, but they are clearly separate requests concerning separate content. | |||
| ::We want COI editors to propose changes to talk pages. The fact that this COI editor, apparently frustrated by a lack of responses to their requests went to the to request someone look at their edits, and then went to an active participant of said Wikiproject and requested they look at their requests, is not suspicious or abnormal. And I think it's highly inappropriate how Axad12 argued at length on the talk page that User:Zefr was "cultivated" by the COI editor "to do their bidding". I support other editors in recommending Axad12 take a break from COI issues. ] (]) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd just like to stress here that I only linked to my post above because Robert McClenon asked for the background to the COI element. I was not trying to re-open that issue or to request that any action be taken on that issue. I have already accepted that there is absolutely no support for the position I adopted there. ] (]) 04:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::This doesn't answer my question. The link is to a conversation between ], ], and administrator ]. The links from that conversation show that there is antagonism between Axad12 and Graywalls on the one hand and ] on the other hand. They show that there is discussion of ], but they show no direct evidence of ] editing by any editor. They don't answer who is said to be a paid editor making edit requests, aside from the fact that paid editors are supposed to make edit requests rather than editing directly, so I am still not sure what the issue is. I haven't seen any evidence of abuse, let alone of {{tq|exceptionally serious abuse}} that warranted edit-warring to prevent an RFC. ] (]) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The paid editor is ] who is open and transparent about their COI. The edit request which began this episode was when Inkian Jason ] where they pinged ] about having uploaded a photo of the company's logo and asking if they would be willing to add it to the article. Secondary to that they also asked about the appropriateness of the recently added propylene glycol content. The COI issues centered around whether Inkian Jason "cultivated" Zefr by pinging him to remove the added propylene glycol text after they had ] about the various ingredients used in the ice cream (which included propylene glycol). ] (]) 05:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal 2: Article Ban of Axad12 from Breyers=== | |||
| == Bludgeoning and edit warring by Newimpartial == | |||
| {{atop|status=Not Implemented|1=Axax12 has voluntarily agreed to avoid editing ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{archivetop|1=I find there is consensus in favour of an indefinite topic ban from the ] area and for an anti-bludgeoning restriction.{{br}} As far as the topic ban goes, there was a very strong majority supporting a topic ban (almost twice as many as those opposing {{ndash}} for this I discounted those who supported a temporary topic ban, and still the numbers were very clearly in favour of supporting a topic ban). Of course, in these discussions we look for a consensus and do not simply count votes, but even taking into account the strength of the arguments put forth, the conclusion doesn't change. The great majority of editors commenting here highlight the problematic nature of Newimpartial's editing style in the ] topic area, including those who favour a time-limited restriction and, to be fair, even many opposers admit that Newimpartial's edits have been problematic, to the point that some support some sort of "stern talking to" or "a logged warning". So, as I said, there is consensus for a topic ban. {{br}} Regarding the anti-bludgeoning restriction, not everyone commented on it, but almost all who mentioned that restriction supported it (with only two editors explicitly opposing it) and even those who did not comment on it, referenced some sort of bludgeoning in their !votes for the topic ban, so Newimpartial is now banned from making more than two comments per discussion per day, they can however reply to questions provided the answer is reasonably short and they may add very brief clarifications of their own comments. {{br}} I'll also point out that I have somewhat tried to determine the involvedness of those commenting, but I do not guarantee that I was entirely successful, as I skimmed over their contributions. To help future closers, it might be a good idea to adopt some sort of template, similar to AE, separating uninvolved editors from involved ones, so that that too can be fully taken into account. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']''' ''']'''</span> 09:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| (Proposal 1 has been lost up in the early postings.) I propose that ] be ] from ] and ] for six months. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Despite four different users, in the last 24 hours, warning ] to stop their excessive ], they seem unwilling to ]. This comes right after their ] and ] violations (and duely warned for that as well) in the LGBTQ area. After edit warring yesterday to insert material from a clearly unreliable source into ] , , , , Newimpartial engaged in extreme bludgeoning at ]. In the , a large number of users all told Newimpartial that the source they were edit warring to keep in was obviously unsuitable. Despite this overwhelming consensus, Newimpartial has made '''43 different comments''' in 24 hours to argue against virtually the entire community. Four different users, myself included, have told Newimpartial to stop bludgeoning. The edit warring and the bludgeoning look like ]. Several users also raise ] concerns in the discussion, as Newimpartial seems incapable of understanding why accusations made at an anarchist blog are unsuitable under ]. The edit warring, BLP violations and bludgeoning have become disruptive. I suggest a six-month topic ban from LGBTQ articles, in the hope Newimpartial can return to the area after that. ] (]) 21:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Support the topic ban.''' The edit warring is unacceptable, and the article itself is in shambles, this only adds to it. | |||
| *:Robert, I believe I have acknowledged and accepted my various errors in some detail above. I would be grateful for the opportunity to take on board and apply the very valuable input I have received from various more experienced users over the course of this thread. I'd therefore suggest a counter-proposal, that I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr and refrain from making any future comment on the matters under discussion in this thread (once this thread is complete). In addition, if I go back on any of those voluntary undertakings I would be happy for it to be upon pain of an indefinite site ban. ] (]) 04:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] (]) 22:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Axad12, I wonder what your intent is with your counterproposal. Robert McClenon has proposed an article ban for 6 months. Your counterproposal is, in effect, an indefinite ], an ] with Zefr, and a ] on the topic of propylene glycol in Byers, all without the usual escalating blocks for violations, instead jumping straight to an indef. While this would solve the issue, it's much more draconian. What's your reasoning for requesting harsher restrictions? ] (]) 04:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Just to be clear, {{u|YouCanDoBetter}}, I did not re-add any content that had not been stable to the article, nor did I re-add any content to which more than one editor had objected at the time of my edit. I did not at the time believe that a single editor objecting to the sourcing of an inclusion, which had already received the support of multiple editors, could turn it into "contentious material". Clearly I read the community wrong on this, and I would not do the same thing again, but this whole matter seems quite tangential to GENSEX issues. ] (]) 04:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The purpose of the counter proposal was simply to indicate that I have only good intentions going forwards and I am happy to demonstrate those intentions upon pain of the strongest possible sanction. Evidently I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking, as I'm aware that eyes will understandably be upon me going forwards. | |||
| ::Also, {{u|YouCanDoBetter}}, do you have a view on the length of ban you would find appropriate to prevent future disruption? I have specified some of the behavioural goals to which I will be accountable moving forward. ] (]) 17:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::As I've said before, I'm a good faith user and I'm amenable to taking instruction when I have erred. I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that without being subject to a formal ban. ] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Note''' - I have been reviewing and revising the ] article since this discussion started, and while I have not yet reviewed the entire article and all of the sources, I think more policy-based language than "shambles" could be used to describe the state of the article when this discussion began . ] (]) 18:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I fail to see a distinction between what you proposed and a formal ban. Your proposal is on {{tq|q=y|pain of an indefinite site ban}}. "A rose by any other name" comes to mind here. Your voluntary adherence to the terms of the proposal would be indistinguishable from being compelled into adherence by threat of an indef. If you still want this course of action, fair enough, I just don't think it'll do what you're envisioning. ] (]) 05:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm quite disappointed to find Newimpartial's name here on a curious look at ANI, but not surprised. Over the few years I've spent on wiki I've seen them be a very combative editor in the queer topic area. While I tend to agree with their perspective and recognize the contentious nature of the topic area, their flagrant shirking of ] in this case is yet another instance of their disruptive approach to consensus-building. Myself and many other editors have warned them in the past not to engage in EW with transphobic and homophobic editors and to interact with them in good faith. In this case however, their ] have blinded them to our responsibilities as editors to living persons. I '''support a topic ban, with no opinion on the length (including non-temporary topic ban)'''. They seem unable to participate in the topic area and would encourage them to edit elsewhere on the wiki and ]. They and I both know they are a great editor at their best and I hope they can find it in them to become more constructive. — ] <sup>( ] / ] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> ]. </small> 22:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
*::I really don't recommend that, Axad. Sure, take a break from that article if you want to. But it's really easy to forget about a dispute years later, or even for a company to change names and suddenly you're on that article without knowing it. ] (]) 04:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| *:::For clarification, I would be happy to undertake voluntarily any measures that the community may suggest and upon pain of any sanction that the community may suggest. I believe that there is value to undertaking such measures voluntarily because it allows one to demonstrate that one can be trusted. | |||
| :::I hope I did not imply you disagreed with Newimpartial's perspective or were in any way transphobic/homophobic, {{u|Jeppiz}}. My comment should be taken into account exclusively as a reflection of my editing history alongside Newimpartial and not a judgement on any editor in the current dispute except for them. — ] <sup>( ] / ] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> ]. </small> 22:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Also just a brief note to say that in about an hour and a quarter's time I will have no internet access for the next 12-14 hours. Any lack of response during that period will simply be for that reason and not due to a wilful refusal to communicate. Hopefully I have indicated above that I have been happy to respond to all questions. | |||
| ::::Considering {{u|El C}} has previously both in relation to another DS topic area and ] NI in this topic area, notifying them of this thread in case they wish to comment on past warnings/sanctions. On a similar note, notifying {{u|Ivanvector}} based on ]. — ] <sup>( ] / ] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> ]. </small> 22:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::No doubt matters will progress in my absence and I will find out my fate upon my return. ] (]) 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Adding my support to {{no ping|Tamzin}}'s '''anti-bludgeon restriction''' proposal below. — ] <sup>( ] / ] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> ]. </small> 23:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I will point out that my 3RR vio came from an incident years ago when I did not know how to count reverts; it has not been repeated. ] (]) 00:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' as less stringent than what Axad has proposed above within this section, but still prevents further disruption. ] (]) 06:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ixtal, you say that I "shirked BLP" in this area, but <s>I did not actually revert any contentious BLP material, and</s> as soon as I heard from even one non-INVOLVED editor that there was a problem with a source, I desisted. ''Although my participation in noticeboard discussions was disruptive, I did not cause disruption in Article space and respected the community norm that consensus is determined through policy-based discussion''. | |||
| *'''Oppose''' because {{u|Axad12}} seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. ] (]) 08:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, I have repeatedly proposed compromise solutions to respect BLP and NPOV concerns, notably on another sensitive BLP. I don't think you will find any instances if you examine my actual edit history, where I do not {{tq|interact ... in good faith}} with editors with whom I disagree. ] (]) 22:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC) ''Misleading comment struck and replacement added by'' ] (]) 01:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * |
*'''Oppose'''. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. I also oppose Axad12's counter proposal. --] (]) 10:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Oppose''' Given Cullen328's comment. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** I haven't seen any evidence (or really any accusations) of {{tq|POV editing}} in this filing, aside from my view of Anarchist publishing collectives (which I will not be repeating in polite company). So why do you feel a GENSEX ban to be warranted? ] (]) 04:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per above. I just don't see a need for such strict measures. ] (]) 16:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I don't know about a topic ban (I don't edit in this area - topic ban could be right for all I know) but they are an incontinent bludgeoner. When I complained to them about their bludgeoning of an ANI thread, they followed me to my talk page to tell me why they weren't bludgeoning. When ScottishFinnishRadish stopped by to point out to them the irony of that . I had to close the thread to get rid of them. Maybe a posts limit per talk page thread might help? ] (]) 22:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' the formal sanction, but I do support Axad12s voluntary sanction = {{tq|I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr ... I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking}}.]] 22:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'm not sure how a "post limit per thread" would work, but I could certainly cut back my replies to a maximum of one per editor I am replying to. ] (]) 22:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *::My query is superseded by the anti-bludgeon proposal below, which I completetely '''support'''. ] (]) 08:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a topic ban up to and including indefinite. Please also note the same tactics and rehashing the same arguments at ] and at ], as well as numerous conversations the user has blanked off their talkpage. The history of IBAN and edit warring seals it for me, they are unable to be a productive editor. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 22:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN=== | |||
| *:The best one to speak to my Iban would be {{u|El_C}}, who placed it, but in the end the ban was removed without prejudice and the editor I was i-banned from was CBANned for their conduct. | |||
| {{atop|status=Not Implemented|1=Axad12 seems to have agreed to step back from COIN, and there isn't consensus for this. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *:Also, I would point out that in the aftermath of the RSN discussion you removed content from two anarchist RS with a misleading edit summary of "BLPREMOVE", so I'm not sure your judgement is to be trusted in this matter. ] (]) 23:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Clerking at COIN seems to have given ] the idea that everyone whom they don't know is probably a paid editor, and something has given them the idea that they can identify "exceptionally serious abuse" without providing direct evidence. I propose that ] be ] from ] for two months. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::My "judgement" has nothing to do with it, and the edits were an attempt to clean up BLP violations. You also assert that Its Going Down and Unicorn Riot are absolutely RS, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. I don't see that it was discussed on RSN ever, either. Once this situation is resolved I plan on taking them there to get a consensus one way or another, but there's not much point in doing so now while we have so many discussion threads open on practically every noticeboard the project has. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 23:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support indefinite topic ban.''' Regrettably, this isn't the first time I've seen issues of blugeoning from NewImpartial. Indeed, it seems that any time an issue relating to LGBT issues arises, they are quick to appear and bludgeon the conversation with (some rather predictable) comments, regardless of context. Elsewhere on ANI today I've mentioned that there are sometimes usual suspects in these topic areas, and so I'm unsurprised to see this complaint now be raised. I think anyone who has edited in these topic areas long enough has encountered ] from Newimpartial, which is why I'd support a TBAN until such time they can separate their personal beliefs from their Misplaced Pages editing. — ''']''' 23:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Robert, just a brief note to say that I do not believe that {{tq|everyone whom don't know is probably a paid editor}}. The overwhelming majority of my contributions at COIN are simple constructive contributions and the matter described above is highly atypical. ] (]) 04:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Where, precisely, so you believe I have allowed {{tq|personal beliefs}} to influence my Misplaced Pages editing? I am generally quite careful to ensure that anything I do is based on what the best sources say, rather than what I might believe to be true. | |||
| *'''Oppose''' because {{u|Axad12}} seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. ] (]) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:''Also, the irony of Czello taking this stance after having made multiple reverts against BLPRESTORE to violate MOS:DEADNAME and insert a pretransition photo in a BLP infobox is , but something about glass houses seems to apply.'' ] (]) 23:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC) ''Additional content added by'' ] (]) 06:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * |
*'''Oppose'''. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. --] (]) 10:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Oppose''' Given Cullen328's comment. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Can you indicate how fidelity to only using reliable sources spurred you to self-published statements from an anarchist blog in order to try to support contentious content in a BLP? Your was that you believe that the {{tq|anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability}} were more than sufficient to use the source, but I'm struggling here as to how that does not tie into personal beliefs affecting sourcing decisions. — ] <sub>]</sub> 23:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *I would prefer it if Axad12's voluntary commitment was to stay away from ] rather than the company article in particular. It is very unhealthy, both for Misplaced Pages and for the particular user, for anything like a third of the edits on any noticeboard to be from any one user. ] (]) 15:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{tq|anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability}} Good grief, this raises larger concerns about understanding ]. — ''']''' 23:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' this is a good idea, and not vindictive. It will do Axad12 some good to get away from the COIN for awhile, and get out there and roam around Misplaced Pages and see where else they can contribute constructively.]] 16:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::To answer your question, you were comparing the post in question to a "" in terms of reliability. I was pointing out that unlike a random tweet, this post issued from a established for over a decade, whose goals . | |||
| *:I think a formal ban is unnecessary. Axad has done a remarkably good job of articulating a positive response to this incident, and it's to his credit that he has reacted so constructively under such pressure. | |||
| *:::{{talk quote|Produce information and analysis against capitalist society and argue the case for anarchist communism. Be the memory of the working class by making the lessons of past gains and defeats widely known.}} | |||
| *:I also think it's good for everyone to try something different on occasion. I think it's easier to walk away for a bit if you're sure that others will step up to fill your place. So with such proposals (not just this one), I'd love to see people saying not only that they support giving someone a break, but also that they'll try to step up to help out in that page/process/noticeboard for the length of a ban. It could be as little as checking in once a week or answering the easy questions. Who is willing to actually be supportive in practice? ] (]) 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::This is not the same as a random tweet, though I will point out that I did not re-insert any content from that source after our exchange of views. ] (]) 00:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::People will fill the space. WP:COIN managed before Axad12 showed up, and will manage if they stop editing there. Nobody is indispensible. ] (]) 20:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Do you not find it at all eyebrow raising that the areas you bludgeon in are the areas related to your personal beliefs? — ''']''' 23:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::It's only for two months, it's a good thing to get away and get a breath of fresh air, and yes, his response has been positive, but even he admits in the Breyer debacle, he was relying on other editor's opinions in evaluating the disputed content, so getting away from the COIN desk for a couple of months, and getting some experience in other areas of the encyclopedia will be beneficial, if and when, he returns to COIN.]] 22:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I am willing to receive a BLUDGEONING restriction in any form; I am also willing to receive a ban from discussing the application of ] policies. But a ban from the GENSEX topic - a topic that isn't especially relevant to any of the evidence in this filing - looks to me like an attempt to swat a mosquito with a blow torch. ] (]) 03:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I don’t want to derail the voting process here, but a couple of points in relation to COIN… | |||
| *:::By the way, my more expensive thoughts about how my editing needs to change are set out . As noted , there is no particular relationship between these problematic patterns and the GENSEX topic area. ] (]) 15:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::(Apologies for the length of this post but I feel the contents are relevant.) | |||
| *{{ec|several}} Like others in this topic area, I've had the experience of being frustrated by Newimpartial's behavior both when on the same side and when opposed. While more than a year old, {{slink|Talk:Hikaru_Utada/Archive_5#Feminine_pronouns_should_be_used}} is the example that comes to mind most, in which Newimpartial argued at length against basically every other user in the topic area (cis, trans; perceived as "pro", perceived as "anti") that we should use they/them pronouns for someone who lists herself as "she/they". I'm going to stop short here of expressing an opinion on a TBAN at this moment, but what I would definitely support is an '''anti-bludgeoning restriction'''. Something like "no more than two comments per discussion per day, except replies (of reasonable length) to questions or very brief clarifications of their own comments". <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 23:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::1) It has been observed elsewhere that “COIN has no teeth” (forgive me for the absence of a diff but I think it's a commonly acknowledged idea). I've discussed that issue at some length with ] and they've acknowledged that there is (in their opinion) insufficient admin oversight at COIN and that too many threads have historically gone unresolved without action being taken against promo-only accounts (etc). | |||
| **I initially withheld comment on the TBAN proposal because I had not personally seen sufficient disruption for one, and no one had yet put up evidence to fill in that gap. Now that some more diffs have been posted, the thing I keep coming back to is {{tqq|anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability}}. I don't think it's a huge secret that my personal politics are anarchist-adjacent, but I would never dream of making such an argument. {{!xt|You are clearly not familiar with Christian doctrines of not bearing false witness}}, {{!xt|You are clearly not familiar with the non-aggression principle}}—you could do this with basically any ideological movement, because basically all ideological movements claim to be honest and ethical. And honestly I think this speaks to something that won't be fully addressed by a GENSEX TBAN. This leads to a strange conclusion, because if I AGF that NI <em>isn't</em> deliberately misreading policy here, and misunderstands ] this fundamentally, ''the correct response would be a sitewide block''. Conversely, to support only a TBAN implies some level of duplicity here, or at the very least ]. If the latter, perhaps a TBAN would solve the problem, and perhaps sends a message that causes NI to reëvaluate how they interact with Misplaced Pages. So, '''support TBAN at a minimum''' (in addition to my proposal above). <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 01:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Star Mississippi has encouraged me to refer such cases to admins directly to ask them to intervene. I’ve been doing so over recent months and this has significantly improved positive resolutions on COIN threads. | |||
| **:Their idiosyncratic interpretation (or willful wikilawyering?) of P&Gs extends to notability, too, e.g. ] {{diff2|1085255678|assertion}} that GNG can be met with one source that is independent (but not secondary or SIGCOV), one source that is SIGCOV (but not secondary or independent), and one source that is secondary (but not independent or SIGCOV). ] (]) 02:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::If I’m not active at COIN then that won’t be happening and very little action will be being taken against the promo only accounts reported there. Thus, while I acknowledge Whatamidoing’s earlier point about cross-training etc, and the points made by other users, there is an underlying unresolved issue re: admin oversight at COIN, which might also be resolved via some kind of rota or by a greater number of admins looking in from time to time. | |||
| *'''Support indefinite topic ban from ]''' and '''support anti-bludgeoning restriction'''. The anti-] restriction proposed by Tamzin addresses only one of the problems here—there are edit warring problems in the topic area addition to bludgeoning and ]—and Ixtal is right to bring up that the editor has demonstrated issues with their ability to edit neutrally in the topic area. Both of these issues require their own sanctions to fix, and for that reason I see both as necessary until the editor can demonstrate that they can edit both civilly and neutrally. — ] <sub>]</sub> 23:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I’ve not consciously been clerking, and I certainly don’t aspire to be “the co-ordinator of COIN”, but there is something of a vacuum there. Consequently I’ve often posted along the lines of “Maybe refer this to RPPI?”, “Is there a notability issue here?”, etc. etc. in response to threads that have been opened. | |||
| *:It seems to me that if editors are to suggest that I have edited in the GENSEX topic against NPOV, that some kind of evidence (in the form of diffs) should be provided-this is certainly what would have been expected had this been filed at ]. Nobody to date (including Ixtal) has offered any such evidence. The examples you have provided elsewhere of ] do not in themselves show any problems with ] or ] on my part - they represent a different kind of problem, as I have discussed just now . ] (]) 14:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I absolutely accept 100% that, in terms of experience, I’m probably not the best person to be doing that – but I have the time to do it and I have the inclination, and in the absence of anybody else serving that role I’ve been happy to do it. But, as I say, really this is an underlying unresolved issue of others ''not'' having the time or inclination rather than an issue of me going out of my way to dominate. What I'd really like is if there were others sharing that task. | |||
| *'''Support an indefinite topic ban.''' Newimpartial has been relentless in attempting to bludgeon a discussion regarding basic Misplaced Pages policy where the consensus is otherwise entirely clear. Some of the arguments presented have been quite frankly bizarre. See e.g. {{tq|You are clearly not familiar with anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability}} being presented at Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull as a justification for citing a source otherwise clearly not RS. This is a simple, overt, partisan attempt to subvert elementary Misplaced Pages policy through repetitive argumentation, and in my opinion, a topic ban is the minimum sanction required. ] (]) 23:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::2) Also I'm not really sure that the extent to which I perform that sort of role has any real link to me making assumptions about whether COI users have good or bad faith motivations. On the latter distinction I think it's fair to say that I'm usually (but admittedly not always) correct. There have also been occasions when others have been asking for action to be taken and I've been the voice who said "no, I think this is a good faith user who just needs some guidance on policy". I hope that I'm normally speaking fair in that regard. | |||
| *'''Question about scope''' - The proposal is for a topic ban on a very broad area, but evidence has only been provided of one instance of problems in one article. What is the justification for anything more than a page block? To be clear, I find their response below, with the assertion of {{tq|non-contentious, non-biographical information}}, concerning, but is that misreading of BLP and NPOV specific to LGBTQ topics? — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 23:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Most of the accounts who are taken to COIN are recent accounts who wrongly believe that Misplaced Pages is an extension of their social media. Most accounts who fall into that category are advised along those lines and they comply with policy or, sometimes, they just go away. Then there are the repeat customers who are often clearly operating in bad faith and where firmer action needs to be taken. I'm conscious of that distinction, which seems to me to be the single most important point when dealing with COIN cases. I've not been adopting some kind of hardline one-size-fits-all approach or characterising all COI activity as bad per se. However, more admin oversight at COIN would certainly be appreciated, if only so that there were a wider range of voices. | |||
| *:You make a good point about scope, {{u|Rhododendrites}}. I admit my !vote is based on my personal impression of the editor through our 2 years of interactions so would find it hard to provide edits to support my views. Sharing 500 uncivil and ] diffs, for example, is a tall task but seeing them as they are made contributes to a perspective on the editor. I hope other editors are able to provide diffs and evidence for the proposals made above as the community (me included) seems to support sanctions beyond what the evidence currently supports. — ] <sup>( ] / ] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> ]. </small> 00:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Thus, in an ideal world I think I would continue to be allowed to operate at COIN, but as one of several regular contributors. | |||
| *:They've intensely bludgeoned before in other GENSEX discussions and GENSEX-adjacent discussions, such as ] (>36 comments, including responses to about 1/3 of oppose !voters), ] (about 20 comments, including responses to every single participant in opposition to them), ] (~50 comments), an ] (95 comments), etc. I can create a whole long list for the skeptics, but this is... a pattern. — ] <sub>]</sub> 00:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Apologies for the length of this post but hopefully this is a useful and relevant contribution. Please feel free to hat this post if it is considered wildly off-topic. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::And I am perfectly willing to have a "BLUDGEON restriction" imposed on me so I am accountable for and unable to repeat that behaviour on penalty of losing editing priveleges. But a topic-ban on top of that is not necessary to prevent any future disruption, and would be a loss of a contributor who understands NPOV and is knowledgeable in the subject area. ] (]) 00:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::This comment just reinforces my support position that a two-month break is a good idea.]] 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thanks. Those do look... bludgeony. What do you think about NI's willingness to accept a "bludgeoning restriction" (I haven't found where that's defined yet)? — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::], all I can say is that if Misplaced Pages is looking for people with the time and motivation to dedicate to the project, and who are amenable to taking instruction, then here I am. | |||
| *:::{{u|Rhododendrites}}, ] was the original proposal by Tamzin. — ] <sup>( ] / ] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> ]. </small> 17:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::If I’ve been felt to be overly keen to contribute in a particular area then fair enough. I’m just not sure that a formal ban is the way to go about resolving that. ] (]) 05:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Aha. Thanks, {{u|Ixtal}}. ''Something'' along those lines might be called for. I'm reluctant to boldtext support that one in particular because it just seems so likely to be lawyered, but I can't think of a better one. I suppose I'll wait to see if it actually gets proposed... — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 03:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Good grief, it's only two months, not a lifetime, I've taken breaks form the project longer than that, and guess what, the place didn't fall apart, and neither will COIN if you take a small break, formally or voluntarily. You claim - {{tq|If I’m not active at COIN then that won’t be happening and very little action will be being taken against the promo only accounts reported there.}} I just don't believe that to be true, because as Phil Bridger points out - ''WP:COIN managed before Axad12 showed up, and will manage if they stop editing there. Nobody is indispensable''.]] 06:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I found their behavior in ] discussion at ] pretty poor as well. This included accusations that newcomers to an RfC were canvassed POV warriors (despite their own project notifications being non-neutral): | |||
| *:::::::I really don't wish to argue, you've expressed your view and that's fine. However, the point of my long post above wasn't that "I am critical to COIN". The post was simply intended to highlight the fact that there are very few regular contributors at COIN and to express a hope that a wider range of contributors might get involved (following on from earlier related comments by Whatamidoing). That would be healthy all round, regardless of my situation. | |||
| *:*{{tq|I'm not sure where the canvassing is coming from, but I now count 7 to 6 in favor of inclusion.}} | |||
| *:::::::Also, when I've seen similar situations arise in the past, good faith (but over-active) users seem to usually be given the opportunity to voluntarily take steps to allay any community concerns, rather than being handed a formal ban. I'd just be grateful for a similar opportunity. ] (]) 06:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*{{tq|To me the ''policy-based'' case for inclusion is obvious, but I was actually tallying your content-free !vote, which is a courtesy. Would you rather I ignored it? Entering a ditto-vote citing two knights of POV isn't exactly a virtue.}} (They did apologize for this one) | |||
| *::::Apologies for the delay. I cannot provide a diff either as I can't recall where we had the conversation but acknowledging that what @] attributed to me is correct. There are simple blocks that are sometimes needed, but there aren't as many eyes on COIN to action them. I believe I've found merit to any Axad reported directly to me and if there were any I didn't take action, it was due to bandwidth as my on wiki time has been somewhat limited over the last six months. As for the merit of this report, I am not able to read through it to assess the issue so it would not be fair of me to weigh in on any element thereof. ] ] 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*{{tq| is one of our most effective POV-warriors on this topic. And he brings his friends!}} | |||
| *'''Comment''' I have read through this long, entire discussion. I'd just like to point out to Axad12 that, to me, it's kind of like you are saying what you think we want to hear so it's hard to know how reflective this incident has caused you to be. I think it would be a mistake for you to think you only made mistakes regarding this one article and instead reconsider your approach to the entire COI area. Sometimes "the consensus" is not correct and can violate higher principles like NPOV and V. | |||
| *:*{{tq|I also posted a notice at ]. , you can post a notice at WikiProject:TERF if you like, if you haven't already.}} | |||
| :I'll just mention that the COI area has caused us to lose some invaluable editors, just superb and masterful editors who were on their way to becoming administrators. They devoted incredible amounts of time to this project. But their interest in rooting out COI and pursuing UPE caused them to completely lose perspective and think that they were a one-man/woman army and they took irresponsible shortcuts that led them to either leave the project voluntarily or be indefinitely blocked. It's like they fell down a rabbit hole where they began to think that the rules didn't apply to them because they had a "higher calling" of getting rid of COI. This lack of perspective caused us to lose some amazing editors, unfortunately, but ultimately they were damaging the project. | |||
| *:Their own project notifications were also not neutral: | |||
| :You seem like an enthusiastic editor and I'd rather not see the same thing happen to you so I recommend you cut back on your time "clerking" COIN and just make this task one of a variety of areas you edit in instead of your primary activity. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::*{{tq|There is currently a rather raucous discussion taking place about .}} | |||
| ::Liz, thank you for your comments. I welcome your perspective and I'm not unaware of the dangers that you highlight. | |||
| *::*{{tq|Based on the sequence of the !voting by new contributors, the POV balance among contributors to a discussion of is somewhat questionable. Unjaded viewpoints would be welcome.}}. | |||
| ::I think this is now day 5 of what has been a rather gruelling examination where I’ve co-operated to the very best of my ability. Most of the material under discussion has related to a series of regrettable misunderstandings where I’ve openly acknowledged my errors and would now like to move on. | |||
| *:This was AFAIR my first foray into anything related to GENSEX, so I don't know what bad blood was pre-existing between NI and various other editors, but their hostility to every opposing voice was unnecessary. ] (]) 07:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Therefore I’d be grateful if, following a period of reflection, I be given the latitude to continue my activities as I think best, taking on board ''all'' the very helpful advice that I’ve received from multiple users. At this moment in time I'm not sure exactly what that will look like going forwards, but it will involve a very significant (perhaps complete) reduction in my concentration on COI issues and much more time spent on improving articles in non-COI areas where I've previously contributed productively (e.g. detailed articles on specific chess openings). | |||
| *'''Support topic ban, indefinite or otherwise.''' The presented situation speaks for itself and based on what I have seen from Newimpartial the word ″combative″ that others have used seems accurate. Maybe some time away could make them reflect on their conduct. ] (]) 00:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::If I subsequently fall short of community expectations then by all means bring me back here with a view to imposing extreme sanctions. I do not think that that will end up being necessary. | |||
| *:My recent reflections on how my conduct needs to change may be found . ] (]) 14:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have only the best of intentions but I must admit that I'm finding this prolonged process psychologically wearing. I therefore wondered if we might bring matters to a swift conclusion. | |||
| *::If a serious commitment to change is made and this is the first time it has gotten this out of hand, then it may not need to end with a ban. The positive thing I see here is that at least Newimpartial has recognized their issues, there are some serious problems on this site when valid criticism is deflected with "opponents are just trying to get rid of their opponent". The rules should be the same for everyone regardless of which "side" they fall on, and such accusations should need some strong evidence. ] (]) 00:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am genuinely very grateful for the thoughts of all who have contributed above. | |||
| *:::Yeah, it was not helpful for me to have launched into that accusation. I have redacted my original statement accordingly. ] (]) 01:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Kind regards, ] (]) 08:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Disruptive editing is how I would characterize their behavior, which includes and goes beyond bludgeoning. I do not see the ability for this editor to change. I tried and tried to assume good faith but I cannot anymore. I find <s>them</s> <u>their behavior</u> psychologically abusive <s>and I feel that this is a personality problem</s>. See the discussions between our talk pages ,, which I initiated after their disruptive editing at ]. I do not know what the solution is here. ] (]) 00:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC) <small>] (]) 00:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::Hey, all: This thread's over 100 comments now. Can we please stop now? ] (]) 08:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Kolya Butternut}}, please consider striking the sentence "I find them psychologically abusive and I feel that this is a personality problem." The focus here is on Newimpartial's editing behaviour, not their personality. Other, ] will be more helpful to this discussion. — ] <sup>( ] / ] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> ]. </small> 00:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seconding. Axad seems to have agreed to step back from COI-related editing for a while, all discussions are trending strongly towards no formal sanctions - could this be closed? ] (]) 06:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::'''Support indefinite topic ban''' based on behavior on this ANI which shows they have not changed. See thread below beginning with my comment at 18:45, 22 February 2023. | |||
| :'''Oppose'''. Sanctions are intended to be preventive, not punitive. At times Axad12 can get too aggressive, and removing the RfC template was one of that. Other issues were also raised but unless these issues continues, formal sanctions are unlikely necessary. ] (]) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::At ] they edited disruptively by accusing me of {{tq|moving goalposts}} and gaslighting by {{tq|misstating the positions I had taken in discussion}}.. In the thread below, I believe they passive aggressively accuse me of {{tq|moving goalposts, shifting sourcing requirements or misstating the positions I had taken in discussion}}. When I asked for clarification they obfuscated, but did point to the Talk:Gender discussion. These attacks and obfuscation represent the same disruptive behavior I dealt with at Talk:Gender. ] (]) 00:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' I haven't gone through the entire saga on the Breyers page, but for a while I was active in COI edit requests at the same time Axad12 was, and noticed their conistently very combatitive/aggressive approach towards any editor with a declared or suspected COI. I mentioned this to them and they said they had already stepped back from answering COI edit requests because of this, which I though at the time (and still do) showed a genuinely impressive amount of self-awareness. I rather burned out on the edit requests and came back a few months later to see the queue vastly decreased thanks in part ot Axad12's efforts, but also what seemed to me like very little improvement, if any, to the way they approach COI editors. I would regret to see Axad12 banned from this topic area, but I would like to see them approach it with somewhat more kindness. I would (regretfully) support sanctions if this kind of behaviour continued, but there's no need to jump to that now. ] (]) 03:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''' But I know this vote is pointless. Many of the usual suspects are above that have long been pushing an anti-trans focus on various articles. I expect we'll have more ARBCOM cases in the future to deal with the issue as they seem to have momentarily gained the upper hand in their desire to slant articles to promote their anti-LGBT beliefs. As I've said before, I largely stay out of this topic area, only getting involved infrequently when there's rather egregious examples of the anti-trans editors pushing pseudoscience and promoting the viewpoints of bigoted groups. It's not worth it to waste my time around there. It's too tiring to deal with such tendentious accounts. They know who they are and they know the sort of nonsense they're pushing. Thank you, Newimpartial, for bothering to deal with such blatant fringe nonsense like all the articles noted above. This is, unfortunately, how things often turn out when dealing with a coalition front of fringe-pushing editors who know what they're doing. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just a note to acknowledge the essential truth of ]'s description above of my activities. There have, however, also been examples where I've shown considerable kindness and patience to COI editors and assisted them in re-formulating requests in a way that conforms with the relevant policies. | |||
| * '''Oppose Topic Ban''': I agree with Silverseren that there's really no grounds whatsoever for a topic ban, and many of the supporters of such appear like they're just trying to remove an opponent. I don't think that Newimpartial coming up on the wrong side of a content dispute should be held against them, even if the result seems obvious to others. Newimpartial's contributions are very important to the ] topic area: it's infested with POV-pushers and one of the few editors with the patience to oppose them consistently across the topic area is Newimpartial. (I'm neutral to an anti-bludgeoning restriction though, because I agree Newimpartial does have a habit of ] when they're losing an argument.) ] (]) 01:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've always seen activities at ] and activities dealing with COI edit requests as two rather different things (with the former involving primarily undeclared COI, and the latter involving declared COI). With the benefit of hindsight I accept that my exposure to the former probably coloured my approach to the latter in an unhelpful way and that being heavily active in both spheres simultaneously was not a good idea. | |||
| *'''Support any ban'''. They continue to insist, against overwhelming opposition, that "{{tq|Keen's supporters}} (EDIT: or their amendment to just "demonstrators", which is barely any change since ''obviously'' they're Keen's supporters) {{tq|had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground}}" (sourced to a group blog that counter-protested Keen) is not a BLPVIO because it's not "contentious material about a BLP", despite both the spirit and language of policy saying otherwise: | |||
| ::I would happily undertake never to deal with a COI edit request ever again and I have no particular desire to continue my activities at COIN either. The extent to which it was unhealthy to be operating in both areas is thus now effectively a moot point but I acknowledge that it was a factor in the matters under discussion here. ] (]) 05:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], a policy extension of BLP, includes in its definition of an attack page {{tq|biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced}}. Nowhere does it require this material to be directly ''describing'' the subject. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::] prohibits inclusion of ''any'' poorly-sourced {{tq|material '''challenged or likely to be challenged'''}} on a BLP. | |||
| ::] says {{tq|beware of ]}} and states {{tq|"See also" links...should not be used to '''imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person'''}}; it should be clear from this that associating a person with highly negative behavior is not acceptable ''elsewhere'' in the article either. | |||
| ::] states {{tq|] or ] should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs}}; if linking to SPS is prohibited when the sources aren't being used to support ''anything'' in the body, clearly SPS should not be used in inline citations either. ] (]) 01:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I pointed out , I removed the mention of {{tq|Keen's supporters}} almost immediately after the revert in question. Also, at the time I reverted, only one editor ({{u|Red-tailed hawk}}) had objected to the content, which was part of the stable article version. I did not re-add it again after that. | |||
| ::If what you are ''really'' saying is that I shouldn't argue with other editors about edge cases in the use of SPS as article sources, I now agree (which might come as a relief to you after our previous engagement over that topic). ] (]) 02:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am concerned that your takeaway from the RSN/BLPN discussions regarding this source seems to be that it was only unacceptable because a) the text it supported originally mentioned Keen by name; b) Misplaced Pages just isn't yet up to speed with the legitimacy of anarchist collective publishing; c) more than one editor contested it, rendering it "contentious" and thus compatible with your reading of BLP; and d) {{tq|editors are used to CRYBLPing to discount sources that they don't want to include, even when these sources are used for policy-compliant inclusions}}, and they are misstating BLP to do so. How can the community be assured you won't repeat these violations if you still can't recognize them? It should not take another editor--or your apparent expectation of a minyan of editors--to revert and point out to you a statement reflects negatively on the subject and therefore per BLP must be attributed to high-quality sources. ] (]) 00:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, Joelle; my takeaways from the RSN/BLPN discussions are not at all confined to those points. Earlier today I made a longish reflection about what I misunderstood as well as what I did wrong on these matters, on Sideswipe9th's Talk: it may be found . I will be appropriately cautious concerning all content in BLP articles (as well as all BLP content outside of BLP articles) moving forward, and I will not at all be counting on other editors to correct any future mistakes. ] (]) 01:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::FWIW, while it's certainly on the edge, I could definitely see the argument that a statement about "Keen's supporters" is not a statement about Keen herself. I don't honestly think that this is where Newimpartial fucked up here; the problem is that the source is not reliable for any information, not specifically for a BLP. | |||
| ::But aside from that, everyone involved including Newimpartial agrees that they were wrong in this particular case. But that doesn't mean they should be topic banned for taking an unpopular side in a content dispute. ] (]) 02:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose a topic ban beyond this one article''' I cannot get behind a broader topic ban for this editor as insufficient evidence has been presented of their allegedly problematic behavior except regarding one article. I know Newimpartial has made a lot of positive contributions to articles about far-right topics although they have a tendency to become overly wordy or overinvested in some disputes, I am not convinced it rises to the level of needing sanctions. All editors must refrain from bludgeoning. (] · ]) ''']''' 02:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **Buidhe, I don't edit in this topic area myself so my report was about actions at ]. If you read through this thread and the diffs posted by several other users to previous incidents, you will see it does appear to be a pattern, not an isolated incident. ] (]) 10:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Support TBAN and anti-bludgeon'''</s> '''Support a 3 to 6 month GENSEX TBAN, and indefinite anti-bludgeon restriction. And strongly oppose any indefinite TBAN'''. This is a tough one for me for a multitude of reasons. It's no secret to anyone in the GENSEX area that I'm friendly with Newimpartial. We've worked well together in the past, and I hope we'll continue to do so in the future. {{pb}} On the issues at hand, can Newimpartial be abrasive? Sure. Do they have a tendency to bludgeon talk page discussions? Sure. Do they skirt the edges of our ] Sure. But they're far from the only GENSEX editor to suffer from these problems. {{pb}} What's swayed me towards supporting, is the RSN discussion and Tamzin's comment on ideological doctrines and movements. Newimpartial's comments as a whole in that discussion, and their related actions on ] are very concerning to me. It's one thing to vocally question and disagree with a consensus, as consensus can on occasion be wrong. And I think that Newimpartial did identify a bit of a blind spot in our BLP policy and guidance when it comes to a specific type of content in biographical articles. But to keep hammering the same point, after many involved and uninvolved editors uniformly said "that's not a RS", is not good. And to keep asserting, as they have done below that they did not restore "any contentious BLP material", despite the consensus that the material was contentious is either ]. {{pb}} I do have a fear that this sanction will have unintended consequences. But on balance, I think that this sanction is needed to prevent future occurrences of what happened over the last day at both RSN and Keen-Minshull's article. ] (]) 03:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC) <small> Amended !vote rationale. See comment below for reasons why. ] (]) 01:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *:Sideswipe9th, I would ask you to reconsider your support for the topic ban. The BLUDGEON in question was on anarchist publishing (not GENSEX, and admitedly a topic where I have taken an unpopular stand before). I am willing to receive the BLUDGEON restriction, which should make my editing better, but I think it matters that (1) I did not re-introduce content into that article to which more than one editor had objected, (2) the RSN and Talk page BLUDGEONING were not about GENSEX and (3) ''I will not repeat edits that resemble in any way those reverts to a BLP article or that BLUDGEONING''. | |||
| *:Why you would want to remove from GENSEX an editor who understands the issues, follows NPOV and the sources, and who proposes compromise article (and policy) text to defuse conflicts, I really have no idea. I am half inclined to believe that Tamzin has hypnotized you :p. ] (]) 03:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::The BLUDGEON that brought us here was on an anarchist publication, for use in a GENSEX BLP. Effectively we're dealing with an issue that straddles two ] areas, BLP and GENSEX, and unfortunately the conduct was a problem no matter which of those lenses you assess it through. | |||
| *::{{diff2|1140558146|This}} was a bad revert. We're both familiar with ], and that revert goes against that part of the policy. The whole point of BLPRESTORE is that it applies to ''any'' good faith objection, and not any good faith objection made by multiple editors. Even if you disagree that the content that was removed should be covered under the BLP policy, it was nonetheless removed on {{diff2|1140490112|good faith BLP grounds}}. Had you stopped there, I would like {{noping|masem}} below been minded to say it was a BRD cycle. But then you {{diff2|1140594588|restored it again}}. That was egregiously bad. If you shouldn't have made the first restore, you really shouldn't have made the second one. Regardless of whether you thought it was or was not covered by the BLP policy, an editor ''in good faith'' thought and expressed, twice in an edit summary {{diff2|1140490112|(1)}} {{diff2|1140593888|(2)}} and {{diff2|1140594275|on the talk page}} that it was. | |||
| *::The question for me is, what is the minimum possible sanction that would prevent future disruptions like this. The anti-bludgeon restriction will certainly prevent a repeat of the RSN discussion, but it does nothing at all to address the article space problem. A TBAN would prevent the article space problem, but which TBAN? BLP or GENSEX? Both choices have positives and negatives, both for the project and for you. A GENSEX TBAN will affect your ability to edit any gender or sexuality related article, but you would have enough ] to otherwise demonstrate that you can edit ''other'' less controversial BLPs without issue. A BLP TBAN conversely would not give you any direct opportunity to demonstrate that you can follow that policy on other BLP articles and content, but would allow you the freedom to demonstrate that you can take on the feedback from this discussion and otherwise edit in successfully in a contentious topic, and perhaps indirectly demonstrate that this or any other issue will not reoccur. | |||
| *::I don't know which of those two is the right choice. The only thing I am certain of right now is that unfortunately it has to be one of these two. So let me flip this back at you. Of the two TBANs, which do you think is the more appropriate? BLP or GENSEX? Which gives you enough freedom to demonstrate that you can learn from this, while also insuring against the short term risk of an issue like this occurring again in the future? ] (]) 04:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I don't accept your premise that a topic ban is required; it seems like casting about for some lead to work with because the tool in hand is a blow torch. | |||
| *:::I agree that I should have respected RTH's objection as a {{tq|good-faith BLP}} objection and that my reverts were in error. Nobody has disputed that in this filing - when I pointed out that I didn't revert after multiple editors objected to the content, it's because I was being accused of that more egregious offense, not because I'm saying what I did was ok. It wasn't, as I have said elsewhere in this section. | |||
| *:::Given that I'm not going to make similar edits again when it comes to BLPRESTORE, it also seems to me that no TBAN is necessary to assure the community that I won't BLUDGEON given that a BLUDGEON restriction is enacted. Yes, of course I can keep my editing away from GENSEX for six months or a year, but that won't help GENSEX articles and it also won't do much for my editing except for something like a Liberal Arts "breadth requirement". | |||
| *:::I'd point out that what I did yesterday was a one-time mental glitch in article space, not an {{tq|article space problem}} - it hasn't happened before, it won't happen again, and given when I stopped it can't even be called "disruptive" (it wasn't even a 3RR vio). The BLUDGEONing is actually something I have to work on with or without sanctions, but I would suggest that you not fall in with a discourse about a "GENSEX problem" that isn't real and doesn't relate to the evidence presented here, even as an allegation. ] (]) 04:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I would hope that from my last reply, that it should be clear that I'm not "falling in with a discourse about a 'GENSEX problem{{'"}}. I see the sad necessity for ''a'' TBAN, at least in the short term, to prevent future disruption. I just can't decide ''which'' TBAN is the more appropriate in the circumstances. | |||
| *::::There is, for me at least, two issues at play here with some degree of interrelation: Bludgeoning, and an egregious BLP violation. While the bludgeoning has happened primarily in GENSEX discussions, the problem itself is largely topic agnostic. Because of that topic agnosticism, the bludgeoning problem can be handled in general with a broadly construed anti-bludgeon sanction, leaving us with the egregious BLP violation. However this was a BLP violation that occurred on a biography that's also covered by GENSEX, and as such involved GENSEX content. | |||
| *::::Maybe this is something I need to sleep on. And something I hope that by the time I wake up, other editors who are currently in favour of a GENSEX TBAN over a BLP TBAN can maybe state something convincing, or provide convincing evidence for why it should be one CTOP area over the other. For now though I'll clarify that my !vote should be read as ''Support a TBAN (BLP or GENSEX) and anti-bludgeon, just don't know which TBAN''. ] (]) 05:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::FWIW, if I thought a TBAN was necessary I'd strongly lean towards a BLP one, as Newimpartial is very much a net positive in the GENSEX topic area. However, I don't think any TBAN is necessary. Maybe a page ban, but so far no evidence has been offered in this thread of bad behavior outside of this one particular dispute. | |||
| *:::And yeah, the things Newimpartial said about anarchist sources were really dumb (and I say that as a far-leftist myself). Interpreting them with perhaps too much good faith, they might have meant to say that traditional means of evaluating sound editorial structures for RSes don't necessarily apply to the sort of journalism collectives you often find among anarchists. But even so, they definitely did not have good arguments for that source being reliable. | |||
| *:::However, that's still all things they said in this one dispute. There's no pattern of bad behavior, this is all out of one dispute. Since topic bans are supposed to be preventative, this really doesn't justify a TBAN at all. ] (]) 04:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've taken some time to think this through. I've been reading what Newimpartial has been saying, both here and on other user talk pages, since I made my !vote yesterday, and I've had a chat with Newimpartial over on my ]. | |||
| *:I want to believe they recognise that they are a problem, not just in GENSEX but how they interact with editors in multiple adjacent topic areas. I want to believe that from this recognition, they will change how they act and interact with other editors. I want to believe that they will become the change we need in the GENSEX content area, so that we can start detoxifying it and making it less hostile. | |||
| *:But. After reading everything, thinking and talking through everything, I think time is needed. It's not easy to break and form new habits, especially those that have become ingrained over a period of years. And as much I know we need editors in this content area with the institutional knowledge of how our relevant policies, guidelines, and information pages have been developed for this content area, I'm not sure if being active in GENSEX is the right environment for Newimpartial to make the changes they recognise they need to make, and that they have promised me that they will make without the risk of falling back into familiar patterns. | |||
| *:To that end, I want to clarify/amend my !vote. I ''Support a 3 to 6 month TBAN, and indefinite anti-bludgeon restriction. And strongly oppose any indefinite TBAN.'' I think, I hope, that time away from this controversial content area, will give Newimpartial the space needed to work on their problems so that when the TBAN expires they can return to being a productive contributor in this content area. ] (]) 01:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose TBAN and oppose anti-bludgeon restriction''' - Newimpartial is expressing substantial and detailed self-awareness in this discussion and recognizing the need to modulate their conduct in the future. Bans and restrictions should be preventative, not punitive, and this discussion can serve as notice of these concerns, particularly in contentious topic areas that are prone to extended discussions. I have worked on some articles that Newimpartial has also worked on, so I have had an opportunity to observe their conduct and have found them to be a net positive in various article Talk page discussions. From my view, the recent discussions (that I have not been involved in) and the responses to Newimpartial's conduct there and here should be an opportunity for serious reflection, and Newimpartial appears to be listening, so a ban and restriction do not appear warranted at this time. ] (]) 04:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''': Has Newimpartial received any sort of warning in the past for their improper conduct? ]<sup>]</sup> 04:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Newimpartial has previously received an that followed from , which was started after an editor objected to by Newimpartial in a GENSEX-related RSN thread. That interaction ban, however, is no longer in place. — ] <sub>]</sub> 04:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Just to provide some additional information about my former iBan: it was converted from one way to two way after my iBan partner's behaviour preceding the iBan was pointed out to {{u|El_C}} (not by me), and it ended when my iBan partner could no longer abide by the iBan and began to , which was followed by additional transphobic attacks and resulting sanctions for the former editor in question. ] (]) 04:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support 3 month GENSEX TBAN''' - As demonstrated with the diffs above to previous discussions provided by Red-tailed Hawk and with the recent discussion that brought us here, Newimpartial has had a persistent issue with BLUDGEONING and BATTLEGROUND behavior, specifically in GENSEX discussions. Though kinda walking around the question, they acknowledged that they were aware of the bludgeoning guideline and had received multiple warnings for it in the past (as showed by Red-tailed Hawk). Therefore, I must reach the conclusion that they either haven't fully grasped what it means, which would be a competency issue, or they recklessly ignored it; I suspect the latter. They've even warned others for bludgeoning! On top of all that, they've already had an interaction ban that, you guessed it, was GENSEX-related. Furthermore, I think this is aggravated by their recent support for a ''clearly unreliable source'' at RSN, in which they bludgeoned the discussion for their viewpoint. Again, all these issues have been GENSEX-adjacent, despite Newimpartial ''not'' fully acknowledging the connection in the reply to my question below. However, Newimpartial has thoroughly apologized and explained that they will stop their problematic behavior and technically this is the ''first time'' they've gotten in big trouble over their behavior. So, I think a certain amount of leniency should be given. A temporary topic ban will allow them to thoroughly reflect on what they've done wrong and adjust. Then the TBAN will just go away quietly and we see if they've learned their lesson... ]<sup>]</sup> 05:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have to say, taking my two-way interaction ban with an editor who had already launched gender-related attacks on me and who was later indeffed (and my ban terminated) for their transphobic comments about me as evidence why ''I have a problem with the GENSEX area and need to be sanctioned'' - well, I find that to be a low blow, frankly, though it's a simple example of a typical way enwiki treats trans and nonbinary editors. That you would prefer to endorse this sanction over the much more easily justified BLUDGEON restriction isn't easy to understand. I hope you'll be prepared to make the calm reverts of ] vios - from "both sides" of the issue - I make every week, as well as the that I freely provide, while you ban me from the topic. ] (]) 05:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support t-ban''' from ]. Pretty clear case of POV-pushing, which is moreso about conduct and not content. They have a pro-transgender POV and have taken to forcing BLP violations into articles in an effort to discredit an anti-transgender activist. The closer should note that the opposes don't have any policy based rationales. Silverseren's oppose says that those in favour of the t-ban {{tq|long been pushing an anti-trans focus on various articles.}} and that's basically what the opposes boil down to. "Don't ban Newimpartial, because I agree with them and they take the correct side in content disputes on transgender-related articles". Even if holding the right opinions was a valid reason to get out of a t-ban, there is no shortage of trans/trans ally editors on this website. ] (]) <small>(please use {{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 06:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose TBAN, or any other sanction at this time''' - The evidence presented here is very far from convincing of any need for a sanction. At the very most, I would support an official admin warning to avoid BLUDGEONing, except the NI's comments seem to indicate a realization that their response was somewhat over the top, so there seems to be little need for that. ] (]) 08:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * A '''stern telling off''' would probably achieve the desired outcome without any need for topic bans or other restrictions. ] 09:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == MAB Teahouse talk == | |||
| :'''Support an indefinite TBAN appealable after 6 months, with additional probationary measures'''. I've personally been at the receiving end of bludgeoning before on years articles, and it's extremely damaging to discussions, especially on reasonably contentious topics like here or cases which attempt to implement a non-existent consensus. We should give the editor the time necessary to reflect, and if NewImpartial is able to work more collaboratively without bludgeoning or gaming the system in other parts of Misplaced Pages, we should lift the TBAN (which is why I explicitly put a 6 month appeal in my vote). However, we should also place Newimpartial on some sort of bludgeoning probation, where if bludgeoning or gaming the system continues outside of GENSEX during the TBAN, they should receive blocks of a growing time period. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Newimpartial uses they/them pronouns... ■ ∃ ] ⇔ ∃ ] ''';''' 20:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, I'm pretty sure I've never participated in discussions of {{tq|years articles}}, by bludgeoning or otherwise. ] (]) 23:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support GENSEX TBAN''' I'm less sure about an "anti-bludgeon" restriction as I think that's more of a symptom of a problem than the problem itself. Also, for editors thinking that Newimpartial responding to criticism in this discussion constitutes "blugeoning", em, I think it is entirely appropriate to "dominate" a discussion about oneself. If you don't want to read Newimpartial's responses, don't read them and don't reply to them. Are you seriously saying that people can post whatever they like about them, and they just have to sit on their hands because they've posted a few times already that day? | |||
| :I warned Newimpartial about edit warring at ] and you can read the conversation . I think edit warring over a section title is pretty typical of Newimpartial not {{tq|"try to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors"}} which is what ] notes wrt spotting problematic activism. And failing to respond with "Yeh, that was pretty stupid of me to edit war over a section title" but instead dig down and say go on take me to AN/I over it, demonstrates their combative attitude. This is a BATTLEGROUND editor who not only attacks "the opponent" but also "their own side" and "the Red Cross" as well. I've often said editors need close wikifriends who can tap them on the shoulder (ideally offwiki) and tell them to back away from the keyboard, or strike or revert something. Newimpartial doesn't seem to have one or doesn't appear to value the ones they have (had). Earlier on their user talk page, Newimpartial invited me to . The word that strikes me in that is "gaslighting", which Newimpartial had used in a kind of pre-crime way towards me. I later discovered they had accused Koyla of "gaslighting". The thing is, the issue I was accused of (potentially) "gaslighting" them about, was the previous paragraph on the page. In both my case and Koyla's it seems that when another editor disagrees about what they did or said, Newimpartial thinks it is not only because of the other editor's bad faith, but also it seems, that other editor is actively trying to cause them "actual harm, actual psychological abuse". | |||
| :My impression from those discussions is that this is an editor who lives constantly in an assumption of bad faith. That so many editors in the GENSEX area are disruptive activists with opposing views to them means that they are not ''always'' wrong about that. But seems that their hostile approach to everyone means that even the good faith editors and editors "on their side" will annoy them to the point where they conflict with them too. Their initially filled me with hope, as the section was titled "Sorry" but I'll quote how it concludes: {{tq|"There might have been a time when we could be wikifriends, but I'm losing all respect for your judgement of conduct issues at this point. I will try to remain civil, but it will be a very cold civility like I sometimes manage with Colin and Koyla, who also decided recently that it would be fine to just ignore my perspective and lay into me because it suited their understanding of the world. Blech."}}. Yeh, it is always someone else being not just wrong but malign. -- | |||
| ]°] 10:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Psst...pronouns...'' ] 10:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Colin}} - why <s>in the coldest hell</s> would you misgender me in a long comment seeking a GENSEX ban at ANI? | |||
| :Also, for one additional <s>tedious</s> time you have misstated our prior conversation - I never suggested that you or any other editors were {{tq|actively trying}} to cause psychological harm. What I was talking about was precisely instances like this long post, where you clearly did so (misengendering ''is'' harmful) but may well have done so unintentionally. <s>Ahhhhhh, irony.</s> ] (]) 12:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC) '', partially redacted by'' ] (]) 01:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::A thousand apologies for that. I've fixed it I hope. Wrt the "actual harm, actual psychological abuse" quote, you were responding to me asking you to stop accusing editors of "gaslighting" you, and not for situations where editors had made a mistake. There is no possible world where "gaslighting" can happen by accident. It is a term that is very much an accusation of seriously bad faith. -- ]°] 13:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Colin, I am not accusing you of "gaslighting" and when I did so, I was not accusing you of inflicting harm on purpose. I explained this at length on my Talk, in the discussion you already linked. What you have done above (apart from the misgendering, which you have now corrected) is to insist again that I accused you of {{tq|actively trying}} to cause me harm, which I never did. | |||
| :::Also, concerning cooperation, collaboration and compromise, you seem to be ignoring instances like or from last month, where I have collaborated constructively across differing perspectives. I get that obstreporousness is in my toolbox, but I am also able to play nicely with others. ] (]) 13:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I am of course willfully "ignoring" three instances of your behaviour from last month where I was not a participant, had never edited those pages nor ever watchlisted nor ever read those talk pages. Of course it is my job to read your entire contribution history for situations I am unfamiliar with to try to find three cases where you behaved yourself. I'm being sarcastic btw. The problem, Newimpartial, is not whether occasionally you can play nicely with the other children. | |||
| ::::I'm not going to get drawn into (again) another argument about what you said I said. I've linked to the discussion and others can make their minds up. -- ]°] 14:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I wasn't making an {{tq|argument about what you said I said.}} I was making a statement about your comment of 10:27 -{{tq|Newimpartial thinks it is not only because of the other editor's bad faith, but also it seems, that other editor is ''actively trying'' to cause them "actual harm, actual psychological abuse}} (emphasis added). That is a false statement, presented without evidence, in a context where I had already clarified weeks ago that I was not accusing you of causing intentional harm. | |||
| :::::On your first paragraph, the instances I linked were a response to your generalisation, {{talk quote|I think edit warring over a section title is pretty typical of Newimpartial not "try to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors" which is what WP:ACTIVIST notes wrt spotting problematic activism.}} | |||
| :::::I do actually try to find some way to cooperate, collaborate and compromise with many other editors, and so I presented clear, recent evidence on that (the first example of which I linked already, above, which is why I said you {{tq|ignored}} - not "wilfully 'ignored'", I didn't imply intentionality). A topic ban is supposed to prevent disruption in an area, but the only thing you point to is an unpleasant bilateral interaction that I encouraged you to move from ] to my user talk page; that, and my expression of hurt in Sideswipe9th's page after receiving these personal attacks and insinuations. If that's your idea of disruption in a topic area, I don't know what to say. ] (]) 14:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::These arguments over precision are a frequent source of disruption from Newimpartial. I tried and tried to speak with the precision they expected, but when I expected the same level of precision from them, they characterized my corrections as {{tq|utterly puerile}}. ] (]) 18:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Rather than accepting a quick, decontextualized assertion about that difficult dialogue, I would encourage anyone with the necessary endurance to read the two voices of that exchange: my comments are visible and Kolya's, . ] (]) 19:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Colin}} I think you may have dropped your bolded !vote in the wrong subsection. — ] <sub>]</sub> 14:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Moved from below per ] and permission given at ]. — ] <sub>]</sub> 14:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Per Sideswipe9th below, I would agree that at first step we should consider a 3 or 6 month TBAN from GENSEX. I think an indef would be more appropriate if ''no'' signs of hope were present. I'm not sure a "stern telling off" is enough for them to get the necessary break/reset, though if that ends up being the result, I would encourage Newimpartial to take a self-imposed wikibreak from that topic. -- ]°] 08:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose TBAN or other sanctions at this time,''' per Beyond My Ken and Beccaynr. One person's "bludgeoning" is another's "fervent discussion", getting emotionally invested in topics one volunteers one's time to edit is going to happen sooner or later, and sanctions are too blunt to be suitable in this case. ] (]) 13:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'm also a bit uncomfortable with some comments that seem to suggest Newimpartial's comments ''here'' are "bludgeoning". Frankly, this is why I don't like ANI. It's a trial without a defense attorney, where the jury is whoever happens to show up, and speaking in one's own defense can be taken as furthering the crime. ] (]) 18:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This is a mob trying to remove an opponent from the game board. ] (]) 14:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Absolutely this. Boomerangs are in order. ] (]) 15:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm trying to excuse myself from this discussion, but I have to ask - who are you proposing receives a boomerang, exactly? As ValarianB mentioned a "mob", are you suggesting it's for anyone who voted for the TBAN? — ''']''' 15:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I think the relevant population for a BOOMERANG woukd be everyone who !voted for a TBAN for me as a result of personal annoyance with my prior Talk participation. Or at least a trout... ] (]) 15:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::How does one identify who voted for those reasons? — ''']''' 15:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::While I'm sorely tempted to give a joke answer, the rral answer is interaction analysis. A good algorithm ought to be able to evaluate the tone of the editor's prior comments at me, the tone of their comments here, and make an easy determination. Use AndyTheGrump as training data (all right, I couldn't not include a joke answer, but I gave the real answer first). ] (]) 15:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::There's so many issues I can see with this I'm going to assume it ''is'' the joke answer, but anywho I assume the boomerang calls won't get off the ground anyway... — ''']''' 15:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Forget I mentioned it. I'm not trying to make this into any more of a trainwreck than it already is. To be honest, I think this thread may be one of the most disgraceful things I have ''ever'' seen on Misplaced Pages if you disregard blatant vandalism. I read this and I wonder what on earth is going wrong. ] (]) 15:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::To quote the old joke, it hurts when I do this. I guess I should stop doing it, then. ] (]) 15:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Interaction analysis (by humans) can determine who is likely to be !voting in annoyance. That is the non-joke answer. Levivich, for example, is not, based on an examination of our recent comments in reference to each other. AndyTheGrump, on the other hand, almost certainly is, based on the same criteria. ] (]) 15:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I understood, I think what I'm trying to say is letting an algorithm determine good faith sounds like the first step to ] {{wink}} — ''']''' 19:16, 22 February 2023 | |||
| *::::Fascinating. So someone who only got involved in this whole mess (on a subject I haven't really worked on much) because a ludicrous WP:RS discussion over a source that even an elementary understanding of sourcing policy would have shown to be unsuitable, somehow becomes 'training data'. I assume this is in reference to the 'Large language model' AI algorithm, which as has been well documented, generates superficially plausible but entirely fabricated bullshit when it lacks the necessary data (i.e. evidence) to come up with anything better. How apt... ] (]) 20:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose''' I have seen people deliberately winding Newimpartial up. Newimpartial should try to recognise bait, and not take it, but the blame lies with the people yanking their chain, not them. --] (]) 15:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I guess I should expand on this a bit, seeing as everybody else is so verbose. ;-) I think we should have the maturity to recognise that Newimpartial has made some mistakes without blowing this matter out of proportion. It needs to be recognised that they are a significant net positive for Misplaced Pages and that driving them away from the topics where they are most desperately needed would be substantially detrimental to Misplaced Pages. Articles concerning gender and sexuality are under an unprecedented level of attack at the moment and dealing with this is stressful and unpleasant even for people who are not in the groups affected. It is a real pity that it falls to quite a small number of people to defend these articles. There is a fine line between a Defender of the Wiki Barnstar and an accusation of bludgeoning. It is not surprising that sometimes the stress shows and people make mistakes. Of course, that does not absolve Newimpartial, or anybody else, of the obligation to try to follow policy and guidelines but I see zero evidence that they ever intended to do otherwise. I have read their comments in which they acknowledge their mistakes and undertake not to repeat them. I am convinced of their sincerity in this and I believe that no further sanction is required. I can see the arguments for a warning but I find the proposal for a topic ban (or any other major sanction) to be entirely unjustified. What we do need going forward is a lot more eyes on articles that cover gender and sexuality, even if only in passing. Things are only going to get more intense as anti-LGBT rhetoric becomes normalised in English speaking countries. Eventually this will peak and subside. In the meantime we all need to play our part in holding the line and keeping Misplaced Pages impartial. ] (]) 19:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::"we all need to play our part in holding the line"… this quote says a lot about the user's mentality. Supporting someone at ANI because they are a POV pusher is risible and should be ]. Many fold (including LGBTQIA+ folx) give good reasons this user is not helpful to building an encyclopedia. '''Support topic ban and bludgeon restriction'''. ] (]) 21:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The quote says more when you finish the sentence. {{tq|In the meantime we all need to play our part '''in holding the line and keeping Misplaced Pages impartial.'''}} ] (]) 21:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Why do I feel like this is the same person who already gave us two deliberately inflammatory posts in this thread? ■ ∃ ] ⇔ ∃ ] ''';''' 21:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - The bludgeoning and tendentious arguments waste too much editor time, and despite people trying, I don't think anything else is going to work, since the bludgeoning of this thread continues. Suggestions that this is a mob trying to win a content dispute, that bludgeoning is just fervent argument, or that anyone was baited, have no basis, and are the reason I've come off the fence on this one. I think Gensex, not BLPs, is the right topic area, and I'd be fine with a 1-month or 3-month time limit instead of indefinite. Warning second choice. ] (]) 15:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:The main concern I have about a 3-month ban is the likelihood that one of the activist editors in GENSEX will use this as an opportunity to launch one of the long-theatened RfCs on key topics, knowing <s>not only that I will be unable to participate but</s> that there will <s>also</s> be a chilling effect on trans editors, as there was after the Athaenara ANI and especually if TheTranarchist is sanctioned at the same time (a different case and perhaps unlikely, but not impossible). Given the way my prior iBan - with an editor who hurled abuse at me from near the beginning to the end of their time on enwiki - has been weaponized against me in this discussion, I am also concerned that even a short ban could be turned into ammunition for similar action in the future, not to deal with actual bludgeoning but simply because my familiarity with the policy history is inconvenient for some aggrieved party. ] (]) 15:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC) ''id redacted by'' ] (]) 02:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::If you really wanted to prevent that, you could avoid a sanction by not bludgeoning this discussion. I believe that you continuing on like this would be more harmful to the topic area than your temporary absence. I'd rather the best option, which is you ''not'' being sanctioned, but I don't see that option as being available here. I'm most concerned that if you walk away from this thinking you were doing nothing wrong, you weren't bludgeoning, you were baited, or the editors complaining are just a mob or the usual suspects, that will lead to no change, which would be bad for the topic area. ] (]) 15:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::To be clear, I do think I have been doing {{tq|something}} wrong. Several things. I misread the community's sense of when BLP content becomes contentious, and I bludgeoned multiple discussion on a topic (because I felt I was right in a SNOWBALL situation). Those were both clearly actions against community norms, and I won't do either again. | |||
| *:::Also, while most of the editors calling for an indef TBAN have evident skin in the game, at the same time I have clearly pissed off editors who are not part of any {{tq|mob}} and whose negative interactions with me are tinged with apparent regret (on their part as well as mine) more than hostility. I get that it is up to me to edit differently so that I do not contribute to future wikidrama, and I think something formal about my BLUDGEON behaviour - whether a restriction or a logged warning, or what have you - could help with that. | |||
| *:::But if you look at the closed section where it was proposed to ban or restrict me for participating in this filing, it is reasonably clear that the community feels it important for me to be able to participate actively in this discussion - I certainly feel that a comment like this one is more helpful to an eventual closer than it would be for me to "not bludgeon this discussion" by being silent. Of course, some admin or admins will make that determination. ] (]) 16:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I hear you. I feel the chilling effect here and I'm not even trans. It must be a hundred times worse for those who are. I think this is the reason why you need to take great effort to keep your powder dry. Avoid taking bait and make extra effort to stay on topic and within policy even when others do not. Ironically, my advice is to (sort of) "assume bad faith" in the sense that you should ask yourself "Is this intended to provoke a counterproductive reaction?" and then let that guide your responses. ] (]) 15:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{tq|Is this intended to provoke a counterproductive reaction?}} As another regular of the GENSEX content area, I actually do wind up asking myself this on a fairly regular basis. And I absolutely hate that I have to do run this self-check to make sure that an editor is not trying to bait me into saying or doing something I'll regret. Aside from making sure that my content and contributions are in keeping with the relevant policies and guidelines, my guiding principle in the GENSEX area is to be the change I want there to be. And on this regard, while I can ensure that my visible actions are in keeping with that change, my internal processes to ensure that I do so are not. | |||
| *:::I hope that every editor, whether involved or uninvolved, can see how utterly dysfunctional GENSEX is. As much as ] is policy, the content area is unfortunately a battleground. Much of this reflects the attitude of societies across the world at this time. On the one hand you have major charities, activist organisations, and medical bodies which I believe represent the mainstream view on this topic and are typically supportive of non-cishet identities and sexualities. On the other, you have religious groups, some heavily right-leaning political groups, smaller charities and activist organisations, and some notable dissenters of medical opinion, who typically reject any sort of non-cishet identity and sexuality and I believe represent a fringe view on this topic. | |||
| *:::Like any encyclopaedia we're caught in the middle of these two groups. But unlike a traditional encyclopaedia like ] who can filter their content creation process through paid experts, we are also a user generated encyclopaedia. And because our content can be written by anyone, it opens us up to a series of challenges that other encyclopaedias do not face. | |||
| *:::There was a sentence I ultimately removed from my !vote above, that I think I want to bring up now. Loki made a point that GENSEX has a large number of POV-pushers, and that Newimpartial acts somewhat as a balance against them. And I think that is true. I have a fear that a sanction here will have unintended consequences, in part because it will upset what little balance we do have in this regard. And maybe that's a sign that we need an inquisitorial style ArbCom, to look into this dysfunctional content area in depth and to figure out where exactly it is we're going wrong and how best we can resolve the situation as a whole. As after-all . ] (]) 19:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{u|Sideswipe9th}}, we must also account for the unintended consequences that letting a disruptive editor continue to engage in the topic area just because we agree with them has on our ability to attract and retain editors within the topic area. I have seen multiple editors raise ] change the balance in the topic area in favor of transphobic/homophobic editors while forgetting that the wiki's own PAGs do not align with that group and so those of us that remain can still prevail. However, I am not aware of any way we can prevent constructive editors from leaving or never joining the topic area due to the presence of highly combative, tendentious and/or ] editors. — ] <sup>( ] / ] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> ]. </small> 20:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::There is a fairly straightforward solution to your concern: the editor in question can take a less combative and sharp-tongued approach. This has been a learning experience, and I will make that shift with or without sanctions. In this context, I don’t know what additional benefit sanctions can be expected to achieve. ] (]) 21:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{u|Newimpartial}}, you've mentioned this being a learning experience. However, I have no reason to trust you when you are still bludgeoning this thread. Promises tend to be kept when you are being forced to keep them, and would much rather have you successfully appeal for a removal of the sanctions in a few months or years rather than have to revisit this whole issue in a month or two. My ban from ANI (see ) was immensely helpful to my growth as an editor and that's why I believe sanctions could work in your case as well. — ] <sup>( ] / ] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> ]. </small> 21:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Your proposal that my participating in my own ANI was somehow problematic and should be limited was rejected by the community and ] closed. I recognize that I have bludgeoned at least a few times per year since joining Misplaced Pages, and I know this needs to change. That behaviour wasn't limited to GENSEX topics and seldom touched on BLP issues at all. Therefore, the idea that a GENSEX TBAN is necessary to prevent future disruption - well, I don't really have a history of causing disruption before now, and it is clear that if I do so, I will face serious sanctions. No need to {{tq|revisit this whole issue in a month or two}}. Each of us learn in our own way, and while I respect your own "hard knocks" experience I don't feel that I need to follow your path. Soneine UNINVOLVED will surely decide. ] (]) 21:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::]: Can't reply to someone without replying to them. The problem with bludgeoning isn't just the large number of replies. It's that these replies are in some way or another "disruptive". According to ]: "{{tq|bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own.}}". Here at ANI, Newimpartial is the actual focus of this discussion, so we can't call it bludgeoning the same way we would if this were an article talk page. Where has Newimpartial "attempted to force their point of view"? Where has Newimpartial "contradicted every viewpoint that is different from their own?" I can see they've been agreeing to some fault in the case but they also need to defend themselves. We can't simply assume the accusations are true and then try to stop the accused from defending themselves by referring to their defenses as "bludgeoning".<span id="Nythar:1677103862958:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]'''-''']) 22:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)</span> | |||
| *::::::::{{U|Nythar}}, I disagree on not being able to call it bludgeoning, although I understand that comes from a subjective difference of opinion. I am known to have much lower requirements to call behavior disruptive compared to other editors and acknowledge my bias in the case of this editor due to my previous interactions with them. — ] <sup>( ] / ] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> ]. </small> 01:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::In past conflict areas on-wiki, I've seen patterns where one editor getting sanctioned (especially a prolific one) attracts ] to that topic area and makes it easier to see other disruptive influences and remove them quickly. Given how "noisy" the past few days have been across a wide swathe of noticeboards, that seems likely to happen here as well. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 15:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I have seen some of that at the BLP article that touched this off, and I can only hope that is the effect. But unlike short-term attention, long-term experience (as with the discussions that went into the 2020-23 revisions to ]) is not easily replaced. ] (]) 16:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{tq|will use this as an opportunity to launch one of the long-theatened RfCs on key topics}} - I have no idea what possible RfC(s) this could be referring to, but: isn't it rather strange to view the possibility of an RfC - getting wider community input - as a ''bad'' thing? <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Depends on the context I think. When mishandled, RfCs can be problematic. For a prime example, the ] RfC for the J. K. Rowling lead caused issues both in the subsequent FAR, and in other discussions since then as we all felt that we were pretty much unable to write a new version due to how many editors contributed to the RfC. | |||
| *:::I'm not sure what RfC's that Newimpartial is alluding too here though. But I would generally say "no surprise RfCs please like we (royal content area we) have a habit of doing. Lets workshop them on the relevant talk pages first." ] (]) 19:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. @] has defamed people by using bad sources in an attempt to "win" Misplaced Pages. Newimpartial does not take advice from editors who disagree with their bad decisions until they "lose" at a noticeboard. And they only agree after spamming the noticeboard with the same arguments a ton of times. They should never be allowed to edit articles about gender or gender activists until they stop trying to "win" by defaming people and using bad sources. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: midnightblue; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 16:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:My reflections about the changes I need to make are found . ] (]) 14:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| <s>*'''Oppose''' If we're going to ban Newimpartial, it is time to just nuke the entire topic area and ban every editor involved. That might say more about the topic area than the editor, but that doesn't mean it's not true. With the timing this also feels more like this discussion and the !votes on it originate more out of newimpartial's defense of another editor above than out of a legitimate concern regarding their editing. ----] </s>(]) 20:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **Really starting to get frustrated by all these users who come here to cast oppose !votes with no indication of even bothering to read what the discussion is about. Again, it's based on the bludgenoning of ] and trying to squeeze in clearly unreliable sources. I get it, you like Newimpartial. For the record "''I like this person''" is not a carte blanche to violate policies. ] (]) 20:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **:To be clear, I stopped trying to {{tq|squeeze in}} the source ''prior to'' the RSN filing. What happened at RSN was that I thought the SPS, from a known organization with a track record of self-publication, could be used to provide material not subject to the heightened requirements of ]. I did bludgeon that discussion, but then recognized that the community does not see the situation the same way. I have recognized that I was wrong and this issue is not an "ongoing disruption" anywhere. | |||
| **:If you look at both the support and oppose !votes on your TBAN proposal, you will see that none of them actually envisage that I will disrupt RSN again (I won't) or defend the reliability of Anarchist blogs (I won't). Many of the "TBAN indef" votes allege a pattern of POV editing on my part (which they do not in any way support), and nobody seems especially interested in disputing whether or not I goofed at RSN and the edits preceding that. I messed up, I won't do it again, and few editors seem interested in litigating that - perhaps because sanctions are about prevention, and that case doesn't require any additional preventative measures. ] (]) 20:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **:You dropped this in the middle of an active discussion about a similar issue with the same editors being involved, ''of course'' some editors are going to feel like the <s>two</s> ''three'' discussions are in some way related. --] (]) 20:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Licks-rocks}} "nuke the entire topic area and ban every editor involved" is an unfair painting of the amount of good editing and good editors in GENSEX topics, and such a broadbrush contributes nothing towards aiding in sorting the problems that do need to be sorted. I have to agree with Jeppiz's frustration. Followup at ]. ] (]) 21:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''' I have never been particularly impressed with Newimpartial's edits to the topic area when they came up at ANI threads or at ArbCom, and they clearly haven't improved. Conduct like theirs just generates more heat and makes it harder to write good articles, not easier; editors can consider it "removing pieces from the board", but that's frankly often how a lot of disputes get turned into something productive. Enforced time outs are realistically one of the few tools we have for improving consensus building efforts. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:If your goal is an {{tq|enforced time out}}, perhaps you could suggest how long of a ban it would take for me to demonstrate that the set of behavioural changes I outline has, in fact, taken hold? ] (]) 17:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * I support an anti-bludgeoning restriction along the lines proposed by Tamzin -- two comments per discussion thread per day (no exceptions) seems very reasonable. I think this sanction would get much closer to the heart of the problem than a TBan. --] (]) 20:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose any sanction''' Trying to remove your ideological opponents is a shitty tactic and those doing so should really think about how transparent they look. Note: I'm not really talking about the OP here. ] 21:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support FINITE topic ban of GENSEX pages and FINITE bludgeoning ban '''. I think two comments per discussion per day as proposed by Tamzin (possibly three per day) is very reasonable. Their conduct in discussions has been uncivil for quite some time as shown by others above. However, Newimpartial has shown some remorse and for that reason I strongly oppose an indefinite ban. My recommendation is 90 days. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 23:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * Support a '''stern telling off''', mainly per Tewdar, who knows this situation better than most. I wouldn't strenuously object to an anti-bludgeoning sanction, and I hope to see NI adhere mostly to the bounds of that restriction even if it isn't enacted. I oppose any TBANS or blocks. We absolutely should hope for experienced editors to be as receptive to feedback as NI has been here, and I wouldn't jump to blocking unless there are signs that they return to bad behavior after saying all the right things. There's no sign of that from NI, and the mud being slung about prior sanctions is too dry to stick. ] (] / ]) 02:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support indefinite gensex topic ban''', due to the years-long pattern of ] as explained and documented above and below. It has continued despite pushback and correction from other editors. I will share more evidence that this is a pattern of behavior tomorrow; however I wanted to at least state this in case someone was inclined to close this too soon. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 05:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here's the evidence I have, although my impression above is not based solely on these diffs, as I did not always keep track of such diffs: | |||
| :: - endorses a blatant personal attack on another editor. - casts aspersions on those they disagreed with in an RfC as having "attacked" trans editors (which if true, would entail a noticeboard report and swift block of the attackers, not impugning RfC comments). | |||
| :: - three times calls RfC participants they disagreed with "zombies". | |||
| :: - absurdly claims ] does not apply if someone off-wiki has made a statement ''even if it was made in a non-RS'', even though SYNTH and ] explicitly are about ''reliable sources'' and the clear ridiculousness of getting around SYNTH if some rando said something in some social media post somewhere (this should be viewed in the context above of other 'creative' interpretations of policies like BLP, RS, and GNG). | |||
| :: - personalizes dispute, attacks editor. | |||
| :: - another personal attack mid-discussion. | |||
| :: - another snide attack. | |||
| :: - says editor 'disagrees with consensus reality'. | |||
| :: - mocks editor's careful explanation of concern, falsely calls it a 'one-against-many' crusade. | |||
| :: - aspersions and baseless attack mid-discussion. | |||
| :: - attacks the same editor three times in 30 minutes while replying to ''someone else''. | |||
| :: - absurdly claims that an article on "anti-trans rhetoric" and trans-exclusionary radical feminism is "in scope" for the ''Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences'' to argue it is one of the highest quality references on the topic of J. K. Rowling. | |||
| :: - dismisses comment by editor due to their comment in a different discussion, an ad hominem. | |||
| ::Other evidence of disruptive behavior and argumentation is elsewhere in this ANI discussion. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Without irony, Crossroads, thank you for being focused on diffs that are well-selected and relevant, selected from almost 18 months of editing. A couple of these diffs represent discussions of sourcing and content within Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines () - but the rest of them ''all show exactly the kind of behaviour I have to stop''. This exemplifies the reality I have already recognized about the - none of the rhetorical barbs I used or "clever" comments made any contribution to building an encyclopaedia. I will not do that from now on. | |||
| :::However, I would like to point out that my inappropriate Talk participation is sadly not limited to GENSEX topics. My interchange with JoelleJay that culminated (and I was ruder before) is a good example, as was my meta-discussion with Colin on my Talk, which was prompted by a GENSEX discussion but wasn't really about that topic at all. My tendency towards incivility has not been tied to any one topic and has certainly not served any ] on my part; it is just bad editing in Talk space. | |||
| :::So, yeah, you have provided a good list of examples of what not to do again. I won't. The goal of editor sanctions, however, is to prevent future disruption, and I don't see anything in your diffs that would make a TBAN - much less an indef TBAN - a necessary or even helpful sanction to achieve that goal. ] (]) 20:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::: For the sake of transparency and those who may not be following closely, some of Crossroads's diffs are the ones I also refer to below in ]; that is, there is some overlap here. ] (]) 20:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' tban and bludgeoning remedy - per the behavior in this discussion. The inability to see that the sources they want to use are not appropriate for using in connection to a BLP and the continued IDHT behavior about that is what makes me support the tban. ] (]) 13:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Ealdgyth}}, my "hearing" of where my behaviour went wrong has been expressed repeatedly in my responses to this filing (and also ). I get that the community does not approve the use of SPS in that way, and I won't do it again. So I don't understand what you mean by ] in this context. ] (]) 14:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::It took what... three days and being dragged to ANI before you recognized what should have been obvious within the first 12 hours? And frankly, your reply that you cite doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that you really get the issue with trying to use that source - I do not get the feeling that you really understand that the guiding principle of BLP is that we err on the side of caution in all aspects - if something is iffy, we leave it out. ] (]) 14:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Ealdgyth, the second time I restored the stable content with the anarchist blog source to Article space, I then made my first comment on the topic in Talk and ''did not restore that source again''. So I get that I shouldn't have restored it at all, but I did recognise (before any meaningful discussion had taken place) that it would be inappropriate to re-add that source, and to {{tq|err on the side of caution}}, even while I argued that the content in question was not {{tq|about a living person}} and that therefore SPS could be used. I shouldn't have compounded my initial error by following that sourcing discussion to other noticeboards, and I have reflected on the needed change in my approach. But ] doesn't seem to be a shoe that fits - unless you're talking about my continuing participation in the noticeboards, but that is part of the problem I set out to address in the comment I just linked. ] (]) 15:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Upon reflection, there certainly are aspects of the situation I have been ], and which I am now in the process of hearing. ] (]) 02:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support indefinite topic ban from WP:GENSEX, boardly construed, and support anti-bludgeoning restriction''' per Jeppiz, Red-tailed hawk, and Sideswipe9th. As an uninvolved editor, the case is pretty clear-cut. ] (]) 16:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Of the three editors cited here, only one supports an indefinite topic ban. ] (]) 02:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::So? My !vote is my own, I cited them because of their rationales and explainations, not because I was exactly following their !votes to the letter. To reiterate, the time period I support is indefinite, based on what I've seen. - ] (]) 19:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support indef GENSEX t-ban.''' This has been a very long time coming, and the awful behavior has been tolerated for so long only because so many of us essentially agree with Newimpartial's pushed and pushed and pushed socio-political viewpoint. This is not an endless battleground for viewpoint-pushing and it has to stop. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have not been "pushing a socio-political viewpoint", nor has any evidence been produced here to that effect. I don't think that's what this ANI filing has been about, really. ] (]) 13:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::JoelleJay's, Crossroads's, and SandyGeorgia's diff lists are sufficient for now, though I would produce a deeper one. I'll save the effort for ArbCom, where I think your behavior will almost inevitably be examined if the current proceeding fails to come to a significant enough sanction to protect the project long-term from that behavior, which is only problematic across the GENSEX topic area. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 12:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support indef GENSEX t-ban.''' I'm not involved in this topic or with this editor, but the examples cited here are clearly show ] behavior. If this editor is able to avoid this type of behavior on other topics then eventually this ban could be lifted. ] (]) 15:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN of any length''' per AndyTheGrump, but favor it being finite for reasons laid out by FireFangledFeathers. ~ ] (]) 19:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''On the fence''', still observing. I've laid out my main thoughts at ], and NI has responded with what seems to be real contrition and recognition of the issues. On the one hand, such acknowledgement is rarely seen here; recognition and contrition could be one route to lowering the toxicity at ANI, and I am loathe to overlook it. On the other hand, I just don't know NI well enough to say if they will be able to stick to their expressed intent. And, reading through this thread, it seems as if some sort of ban is already in the cards. I am hoping '''if a ban is enacted, it is not indefinite'''. Someone who has seen and acknowledged the damage in the content area of disruptive editing can be a good advocate for change; is NI the person who can do that? I don't know. But all this chest pounding about the influx of blah blah blah to this content area overlooks that ''every'' content area is in trouble on Misplaced Pages right now, so we ''still'' have to discourage bad behavior, while rewarding policy-compliant behavior. We have plenty of editors in this area who are policy compliant, yet everytime GENSEX comes up, we hear this chest pounding. Be part of the change you want to see. With a few more days of observation, I will feel in a better position to state whether NI's contrition and recognition of the problems can be a force for change, but I'm not yet ready to support or oppose a ban. ] (]) 00:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose sanction, support logged warning'''. I have to say, some of the comments by Newimpartial are not so good. Newimpartial is tilting in some of these, comments that appear to veer into questioning the basis of policy and what I would call, hectoring. That being said, Newimpartial is a user since 2008 with 20k+ edits and only one block in 2019 for edit warring, and I have seen Newimpartial around before and they seemed to make good comments and good edits, so I think they are worth giving a formal logged warning with a short leash and not jump to topic ban someone who makes mostly productive contributions in a topic. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support indef topic ban on GENSEX''' Per the many diffs displaying Battleground/Uncivl/IDHT behavior. They can appeal in 6 months, there are thousands of eyes on the topic area, it'll be ok. ] (]) 03:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support indefinite topic ban''' per the sustained battleground mentality and bludgeoning in the gensex area. ] (]) 03:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''', insufficient evidence of a sustained topic-wide problem at the level that would require one. Many of the diffs listed (outside of bludgeoning on a single article) amount to editors disagreeing with Newimpartial's conclusions, and are no more personal or battleground-ish than is normal from anyone who heavily edits a controversial topic area. If we topic-banned everyone who eg. described an edit as a whitewash or noted the unfortunate existence of factions among editors in the topic area, we would have virtually no long-term editors in controversial topic areas left; and certainly many of the people advocating a topic ban on those grounds do not have clean hands in that regard. It simply isn't the sort of evidence needed to leap straight to a topic ban for an editor who has an otherwise (basically) clean record. --] (]) 05:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support tban''' per Ixtal, Colin, and Levivich, among others. <s>I am also concerned by the statement {{tq|I get that obstreporousness is in my toolbox, but I am also able to play nicely with others.}} - being difficult to deal with should not be a tool used to win disputes, and the fact that Newimpartial considers it to be such a tool is concerning.</s> | |||
| :I weakly oppose the blugeoning restriction; I have concerns both that it will not control the problematic behaviour and that it could be abused by editors in disputes with NewImpartial. ] (]) 03:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just to clarify, I don't regard obstreporousness as {{tq|a tool used to win disputes}}; it is more like a bad habit I have to consciously act to break, but which is always there (maybe more a liquor store around the corner than a tool in a toolbox) if I cease to be mindful. | |||
| ::On the other hand, playing nicely with others is also there as a good habit I have to remember to maintain; I believe my edit history shows a good deal more of the latter than the former, though I know you've seen me in instances when obstreporousness was on full display. | |||
| ::I'm also curious how long a TBAN you have in mind... ] (]) 03:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you for clarifying regarding obstreperousness; I have struck that comment. | |||
| :::For the length of the TBAN; historically I've preferred indefinite, as editors can wait out time limited bans without improving their behavior, but in this case your comments have already addressed some of the concerns that lead me to that position. | |||
| :::Overall, I think I weakly prefer indefinite, with an explicitly defined very short appeal period (maybe two months?) to allow you to demonstrate improved behaviour and successfully appeal without editors objecting that the appeal is too soon. I suspect this will result in you returning to the topic area faster than time-limited ban. | |||
| :::However, without such a definition of an appeal period I would prefer a time limited one; three or six months seems reasonable. ] (]) 04:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support a 6-month gensex topic ban'''. I do not like banning any editor from topics they have contributed extensively to; however, there are just so many warnings an editor can receive before a line is finally drawn and a bullet is bitten. I would like to remind everyone in this discussion about the '''Universal Code of Conduct''' and > . The only way to finally (hopefully) rectify this behavior is by a temporary topic ban. <br /> {{u|Newimpartial}}: you know very well that in many talk page discussions you mock and ridicule editors you disagree with. You've dismissed it as joking. Many see is as bullying because it is aggressive behavior camouflaged as humor; and you do it over and over again, and you've gotten away with it over and over again. ] states: "{{green|bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own.}}" -- this is a pattern that has become predictable and second-nature. It needs to stop. ] ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black">Ol' homo.</span> 08:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yes, it does have to stop. I agree and will a stop it, as described below. ] (]) 12:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Tentatively support 3-6 month TBAN, oppose permanent TBAN''', mainly due to comments I perceived as combative or unnecessarily personal, unrelated to bludgeoning, that I don't believe have been addressed. For example, NI accused me of being another editor's and with that editor in a content dispute (a form of ]); when I'd never encountered that editor before and didn't know them from Adam or Eve. All I did was and . I've also seen NI make disrespectful or insulting comments towards other editors, in , or in (which may, in some cases, be misguided attempts at , but it's uncomfortably hard to tell). | |||
| :I hope that Newimpartial will take it in stride and meditate on this discussion. This type of conduct, regardless of intent, is part of the reason why I, probably like others, mostly stay away from contentious topic areas. ] (]) 13:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :*I've changed my mind from oppose to support, after reflection, and significantly rewritten my comment above (wasn't yet replied to), since I think leniency would hurt NI more than it would help them. A short cool-off would be beneficial, ''not'' for punitive purposes, but because the core problem across all these diffs seems to be excessive emotional involvement in Misplaced Pages. For example, take NI's comments on Sideswipe9th's page ({{tq|I'm losing all respect for your judgment of conduct issues}} and {{tq|it will be a very cold civility}}). I'm lenient, but not ''that'' lenient; those comments are just hurtful, and borderline manipulative. Taking a step back from the biggest "triggers" will hopefully help NI reflect, change, and stay out of trouble over the long-run. | |||
| ::And re: the recent ]: it's self-evident that all statements in BLPs must follow ]. I don't know whether a temporary BLP TBAN or GENSEX TBAN would be most appropriate, but agree with Sideswipe9th on basically all points, including the fact that a ''permanent'' TBAN would likely be detrimental to the POV balance of the overall encyclopaedia. An ArbCom case investigating the overall topic area is indeed likely called for. ] (]) 20:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' gensex topic ban and bludgeoning remedy - {{TQ|The bludgeoning and tendentious arguments waste too much editor time, and despite people trying, I don't think anything else is going to work, since the bludgeoning of this thread continues. Suggestions that this is a mob trying to win a content dispute, that bludgeoning is just fervent argument, or that anyone was baited, have no basis, and are the reason I've come off the fence on this one. I think Gensex, not BLPs, is the right topic area}} per Levivich. Also endorse that NI {{TQ|has defamed people ''(BLPs)'' by using bad sources in an attempt to "win" Misplaced Pages. Newimpartial does not take advice from editors who disagree with their bad decisions until they "lose" at a noticeboard. And they only agree after spamming the noticeboard with the same arguments a ton of times}} as accurately recorded by Maine Lobster above. NI seems incapable of NOT bludgeoning every discussion, as evidenced on this ANI and in diffs. ] (]) 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any topic ban. Newimpartial's self reflection shows they have taken the community's concerns to heart. --] (]) 18:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose TBAN, support stern talking-to.''' I'm largely agreeing with DanielRigal here. My battery is about to die so I might expand later. ■ ∃ ] ⇔ ∃ ] ''';''' 12:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban upto and including indefinite from ]''' and '''support anti-bludgeoning restriction'''. This isn't an area I edit in so I'm certainly not here to "remove an ideological apponent". Reading through this thread and some of the provided diffs what I see, quite frankly, is clear combatative pov-pushing from someone who doesn't know when to drop the stick. How many potential new editors have been (or will be) put off when they get bludgeoned and wiki-lawyered at every step? It's toxic. The sourcing issue around the BLP vio and the accompanying arguments make me wonder whether they should be editing BLP's either.--] (]) 10:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support Topic Ban (prefer 3–6-month ban)''' & '''support anti-bludgeoning restriction'''. The evidence here is pretty cut and dry regarding the NI's actions. I generally don't like indefinite topic bans but won't object if it is decided that it is needed. I understand this is a sensitive topic and NI does seem to understand that they are wrong and wants to improve (which is why I think it should only be a temp ban), but it is also pretty clear that this is not an isolated incident despite repeated warnings. Having them take time off and edit less heated areas should be good for both them and the topic. ] (]) 04:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :That was my intention. As OP, I never supported an indef tban or a block, just a temporary time-out. ] (]) 23:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban'''; worth an anti-bludgeoning warning at best. The user appears to have taken the feedback on board and is willing to moderate their behaviour. -- ] (]) 23:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Arbitrary break and OP comment === | |||
| When I started this thread, I had no idea it would turn into this. I do not edit in the LGBTQ-area (though vocally pro-LGBTQ in real life) and do not know the editors in that topic area. I though ''and still think'' this was a pretty simple case. At ], I saw a user (]) trying to pass off an obviously unsuitable source and then ] the ensuing discussion at length. I am sorry to see so many users above showing '''no indication of even having read the discussion'''. I count at least four users above who simply argue along the lines of ''Newimpartial is great and any effort to tban them is bigoted'' without a word about the report or the case at ]; one even suggesting a boomerang without the slightest indication of what the reasons would be. The only possible explanation I can see is that these users believe that sanctions at WP should not be based on behavior but on whom our "friends" are. At least they have not offered any other explanation for their oppose votes than their opinion that Newimpartial is great and anyone saying otherwise is bigoted (I recognize, of course, that some other users have opposed my suggestion with perfectly relevant and policy-related arguments). I must say I find it deeply ironic that these same users claim my suggestion for a temporary tban is mob-behavior, while acting this way themselves. It would be immensely helpful if editors would comment on the actual situation at ]. Finally, for what it's worth, I do not consider Newimpartial an 'opponent' in any way and don't remember even one interaction with them apart from this one case related to ]. I proposed a temporary tban in the hope of seeing them return. ] (]) 19:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :The {{tq|situation at RSN}} is that I disengaged, albeit uneasily, from the discussion I was bludgeoning. I will not be bludgeoning again, and would also welcome a 30 day, three month, or six month TBAN ''from RSN'' as a mental health break. Even my blugeoning comments at the article Talk page are better to be understood as anarchist source issues rather than GENSEX or BLP issues, and you won't be hearing my small-minority view on those sources on-wiki again, either. | |||
| :There simply is no continuing RSN disruption arising from me for ANI to manage, nor will there be in future. ] (]) 19:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I didn't want to, but I one-hour protected the talk page of the Teahouse due to MAB going there. The Teahouse itself is already protected. Obviously they're going there precisely to make things as difficult on us as possible, but I don't know what else to do. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Reply by Newimpartial=== | |||
| ''Added statement (to save editors' time)'' | |||
| :Would it be possible to create a link (or button) that creates a new section on one's own talk page with {{tl|Help me}} preloaded? We could then add this to the page's editnotice. ] (]) 09:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''''* for those who wonder how I made such a blunder in the sourcing of the BLP article that I restored the blog source twice into article space, the long version is . I will not be doing that, or anything like it, again. | |||
| ::I protected ] for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. — ] (]) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, I've fixed that. — ] (]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Looks like today they're hitting every help page they can find. ] (]) 09:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<small>In relation to "MAB" issues, is it just me, or is anyone else reminded of when the notoriously difficult Queen Mab speech was pretty much hit out of park in 1997's ]? ] (]) 🦘 12:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::<small>I think it's just you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Kosem Sultan - warring edit == | |||
| '''''* for those concerned about my history of BLUDGEON, and who are concerned that a bludgeon restriction (which I welcome) would be insufficient to prevent disruption because of my tendency to personalize disputes, my reflections on what I need to change are . The changes I am committed to go well beyond simply not making multiple comments. | |||
| Hello, I am terribly sorry if I write this in wrong place, but I really don't know what place would be best to report this. | |||
| I was editing page of ] and I noticed this user: 109.228.104.136 changed phrase in infobox "spouse: Ahmed I" into "consort of: Ahmed I", claiming 'they were never married'. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=K%C3%B6sem_Sultan&oldid=1263148667 | |||
| ''(End of added statement)'' | |||
| Because of this, I added information they were married and sourced this with book. However, this person keep revert to their preffered version of infobox. I asked them on Talk page about providing source. When I pointed that their source not disputes or even misinnterprets mine, they deleted my talk. They did this twice and even claimed I 'vandalized' Kosem's page. | |||
| ''Original statement:'' | |||
| As inexperienced user I was few times into edit warring, as I did not know how exactly rules are there.I try to be careful now to not make disruptions and while there is instruction to undo undsourced informations, I am not sure if I am allowed to undo their - unsourced - edition, as I already did this few times. I would not label changing 'spouse' for 'consort of' as vandalism per say, but I want to protect my edition and I wish this person provided source so we could each consensus. You can see our - now deleted by them - discussion here: | |||
| <s>Jeppiz,</s> I made a total of three reverts to Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, <s>none of which included any contentious BLP material, and</s> all of which were article text that was part of the article's stable version. <s>There were no {{tq|BLP violations}}, as far as I can see. In fact,</s> ''At the time, I did not see any {(tq|BLP violations}}, and'' I removed <s>any</s> ''some'' questionable material when I reverted. Now, it turned out that one source that I reverted-in was an ] piece, which nobody seemed to notice until it was pointed out by Levivich; if I had noticed that I would not have used it. The other source was an {{tq|anarchist blog}} but I did not <s>insert {{tq|accusations}}, or any form of</s> ''insert what am understood at the time to be'' BLP content to the article. Clearly I misread one source and also misread community sentiment on the other<s>, but I did not do the thing you accuse me of</s>. (Also, since my mistaken reverts, other editors have reverted to ''remove'' material from the article that is sources to ] anarchist publications, also not including any {{tq|contentious}} material.) '''''Would I revert again, under similar circumstances? No, I would not - I should have let the dust settle on Talk'''''. | |||
| 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267744138#Kosem_Sultan_was_wife_of_Ahmed_I. | |||
| 2) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267749540#Kosem_was_wife_of_Ahmed | |||
| (I do not know if I linked this correctly, but both shound be find in history of talk page of user with today date) | |||
| I hope it can be seen I was willing to discuss things and I even proposed to merge ours versions, if only this person provide scholar source - which they didn't, as Tik Tok video they linked contardicts statement from my book (see details in discussions). | |||
| And yes, I bludgeoned that RSN discussion. I was frustrated at other editors interpteting ] as though it required that non-contentious, non-biographical information in BLP articles could not be sourced to SPS other than ABOUTSELF sources. '''''I regret becoming invested in that discussion and would not do so again. It was not a positive for the community.''''' | |||
| I also want to add that blocked user called Cecac https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:K%C3%B6sem_Sultan#Marriage | |||
| used exactly the same argument, as historian in Tik Tok provided by 109.228.104.136. I do not know if 109.228.104.136 and Cecac are the same person, but I think it should be checked. | |||
| Finally, I do not know how much video made on Tik Tok should be considered as reliable source, so I am not sure how to act in this situation. | |||
| Again I apologize if I leave this message in wrong board - there were multiple issues so I decided to list them all. Please notify me if I am allowed edit Kosem's page and brought back informations, as I really want avoid going back-and-forth and do not want to be blocked myself. --] (]) 14:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I have no doubt that editors who have been frustrated with my contributions in the past will <s>seize the opportunity to try to {{tq|remove an opponent}} from the GENSEX domain</s> ''express their frustration as the !vote on this filing''. I encourage the admin and the community to look at my contributions as a whole, however: I never edit against consensus, I always explain my actions as clearly as I can, and I do a large number of the shitty reverts agaist drive-by POV accounts who aim to taunt and belittle trans and nonbinary people like me at every opportunity - and I do so calmly and politely almost to a fault. Anyone who suggests that it is especially ''my'' contributions that disrupt GENSEX editing is probably either occupying an uncompromising POV of their own or just hasn't really examined my edit history. Having annoyed some editors who disagree with me on various things is not really the same thing as causing disruption to enwiki. ''My participation in the noticeboard discussions that followed my reverts '''was''' disruptive, but this disruption was confined to ] on noticeboards and was not related to the ] topic in any profound way.'' | |||
| :I want to add that I informed user 109.228.104.136 about this reprt, however they delete this from their Talk page. ] (]) 23:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ''I would also point out, as a nonbinary editor, after all of the misgendering and gender-based innuendos, personal attacks, and accusations of POV that I have received over the years, it might be understandable if I had become a somewhat partisan editor. However, I really don't think that's what my record says - I continue to base my edits on the BALANCE of sources, especially high-quality sources, in strict accordance with WP's P&G.'' ] (]) 22:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC) ''added comment by'' ] (]) 23:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC) ''Additional statement added by'' ] (]) 14:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC) ''Redaction and replacement based on my reflection over thsee three days, by'' ] (]) 01:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I will point out that consort is generally considered synonymous with the word spouse. Elizabeth I's mother, for example was officially the "queen consort" of the united kingdom. ] (]) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **Short reply to ]. To the best of my knowledge, we never interacted before; your insinuation that my report is because of "frustration with your contributions" is inaccurate. My report is based ''only'' on your ] behavior in the past days. I don't know your past contributions and can have no issue with them. The report concerns your recent behavior and nothing else. ] (]) 22:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, indeed, but in this person's inention was to make Kosem be perceived as not wife, but concubine. While I do agree that all wife of monarch is also his consort, this person meant 'concubine' and I was afraid they gonna delete also other parts, when I was reffering to Kosem as sultan's wife, hence I inetrvened. English for some reason reffer to all sulatns partners as 'consorts' regardless if they are married or not, that's why it's important to highlight when consort was actually wife, like in Kosem's case. ] (]) 15:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***That comment was not about you, it was about the other editors I expect will continue to join this discussion. | |||
| ***If your concern is limited to the BLUDGEON and the BLP reverts, I won't be doing either of those things again, so you don't need to be concerned. I see that I have gone past the community norm, and that won't be repeated. ] (]) 22:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think accusing editors of voting for a TBAN as trying to {{tq|remove an opponent}} (something you have asserted twice in two separate discussions on ANI today) is simply an accusation of bad faith, and refusing to get the point. — ''']''' 23:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Upon reflection, Czello, you are right that my comment was not constructive and that I missed some key aspects of the filing. I have redacted that and similar comments above, and you have my apologies. ] (]) 01:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I appreciate you recognising this, thank you. — ''']''' 18:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Czello, I'm not a "whataboutist" by nature, but remember last month when you twice reverted to insert a pretrtransition photo in a Trans BLP infobox and inserted a non-notable birth name into an article against both the relevant guideline and Talk page consensus? Both of those seemed like BLP issues to me, but when I responded with the - no accusations, no threats - you got all . | |||
| ::aww:So you find me accused of a less sensitive kind of BLP issue, you push for an indefinite topic ban, and I am not supposed to think you are treating me as an {{tq|opponent}}? How would you characterize the contrast between your letting yourself off the hook and your desire to see me sanctioned, then? I am no more likely to add content from anarchist blogs than you are to add pretransition photos to infoboxes, but for some reason you feel I require a <s>spanking</s> TBAN... ] (]) 06:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And after the relevant guideline (not policy, keep in mind) was shown to me, I immediately thanked the person who showed linked it, closed my own thread on whether the photo should be there, and let the matter drop without complaint. If you think a mild disagreement on a trans BLP means we're opponents, that's unfortunate - but I think that mentality is ''exactly'' why this TBAN proposal exists. How do you account for the other people supporting a TBAN? Are they also your opponents? — ''']''' 08:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Czello, I am here at ANI facing accusations of 3RRBLP violations based on the same number of reverts, concerning less sensitive material, than you introduced at ]. Yes, I bludgeoned the ensuing discussion and yes, I was wrong to do so. But in this discussion I see a pile-on from a long list of editors I have disagreed with on GENSEX issues - and barring one who accused me of {{tq|psychological abuse}}, without any evidence, none of the others have even cited a ] violation. | |||
| :::::There isn't any evidence of DISRUPTION on my part aside from BLUDGEON, and I recognise I have to stop bludgeoning both for the sake of the community and for my own, quite apart from any sanction or ban. But for the editors like you, calling for an indef TBAN on gender and sexuality - what is that, besides either (1) punishing an editor for causing annoyance in the past or (2) removing someone who might make annoying arguments in future? I can't see any way in which the actual health of the project would be improved through a TBAN, given the frequency with which I reinforce and calmly explain our policy framework within this domain. I'm not saying other editors can't do this work, but I've been doing a lot of it, and to see editors I've disagreed with set that aside to remove my voice from the topic - well, some of them are clearly treating me as opponents, is all. If you can reflect internally and don't feel you are, that's great, but would you have !voted as you did if you hadn't disagreed with me in prior GENSEX discussions? Really? ] (]) 12:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In answer to your final question - you may not believe me, but yes, I'm afraid I would have. To be honest, last week's disagreement is something I consider to be pretty mild (perhaps you don't, as you've mentioned it to my count ''four'' times now) and I even concede that you had the right guidelines where I did not. I don't hold any hard feelings there. Instead my belief that this is the right vote is based on longer trends I've noticed that others have echoed, particularly around a battlefield mentality on a topic area that clearly means a lot to you. Even where I'm not involved in the discussion (I actually can't remember many instances we've interacted other than last week) I still notice the things others have described in this discussion. The biggest issue I've noticed in the past 24 hours, though, is the assumptions of bad faith. You've said we're trying to "remove an opponent", assuming this is part of some ideological battle, or to what was most likely an accident. It doesn't help the idea that there's a battleground mentality, which goes back my original statement of {{tq|until such time they can separate their personal beliefs from their Misplaced Pages editing}}. I don't consider you an opponent, but I fear you consider me one. — ''']''' 13:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If is your idea of me "reacting with hostility" to being misgendered, then you clearly haven't been following my story arc - there as a time when I might have reacted with {{tq|hostility}}, but that was a mild rebuke at best. | |||
| :::::::The thing about the TBAN !votes here is that, in essentially every case, I can follow the interaction tool back to the instance when I pissed off the editor in question. Often that was my RSN BLUDGEON the other day, sometimes it was back to my controversial reading of ] or a dispute over an article lead from years ago. But there is almost always one inciting incident where I pissed the editor off, and some of those relate to GENSEX but many do not, or only tangentially. | |||
| :::::::Do these editors consider me {{tq|an opponent}}? I don't read minds; I have no real way of knowing. Do I consider them "opponents"? Not really. But while I don't see any likelihood of future disruption to be prevented by a TBAN, I do see a longish line of editors who feel that I "deserve" one because of disagreements I've had with them in the past. I know that's how ANI works - I'm not naïve - but it's not how the relevant P&Gs are supposed to work, and it makes me sad. ] (]) 13:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I did consider the first sentence to be hostile for what was an accident, but Colin below makes a fair point - I won't belabour the point and I understand you're probably getting it from all sides here, so I regret linking that. I apologise if this caused you distress. I think it's probably best, to avoid going round in circles, that I leave this thread here for now. I've made the points I intended to make; we may agree to disagree on editors' motivations in participating in this discussion. Have a good one. — ''']''' 13:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::], I see you linked to Newimpartial's reaction to my pronoun mistake. I checked your user page and don't see any comments about pronouns or being trans or non-binary, so I'll assume you are not. Please don't lecture members of another minority group about how upset they should or should not be when someone causes them offense and upset over an aspect of their identity. That incident, though accidental, was careless on my part and should overall be treated as a negative mark against me. Remember also this is AN/I and Newimpartial is being dragged over the coals, so they should be cut a little slack if their response to that sort of thing is of the "Oh FFS" variety. -- ]°] 13:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{green|none of which included any contentious BLP material}}. That you still state this, despite nearly all editors at the three discussion pages (including myself) saying the material contentious, is disconcerting. What is or isn't contentious can be subjective, and definitely something tainted by each of our individual viewpoints, certainly. Hence, it is easy to see one BRD cycle involving possibly contentious BLP material, but this should lead to a consensus agreement if the material is contentious or not and settle that manner. It seems that you have decided to double down against the consensus that the material added wasn't BLP contentious, which definitely does not help a case against inf def from the BLP space or any subset of it. I know we have had to de with editors in the past that initially refuse to accept some material as not being contentious, and thus removing material against consensus, but most if the big cases I recall, there was a consensus to determine that and said editors accepted it, even if they personally still thought it contentious. That lack of accepting that consensus is troubling. ] (]) 23:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|non-contentious, non-biographical information}} - the material in question was about some egregious behavior from the subject's supporters, included in the subject's article ''because'' they are her supporters. Adding material to a BLP about the kind of person who supports the subject is obviously relevant to the BLP policy. Further, as multiple people have challenged the material, it's ''obviously'' contentious. It's a plausible misreading of policy, but one which was pointed out multiple times before the above statement, which is just kind of perplexing. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 23:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did not reinstate the material in question after {{tq|multiple people}} had challenged it. Also, the relevant question for future disruption is ''Would I reinstate similar content in future'' and the answer is '''''No, I would not.''''' I haven't had issues with BLP editing in the past, and I won't in the future. This was a one-time aberration. ] (]) 00:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I had , had objected to the source, and then you simply my request on your talk page asking you to self-revert by . Even after multiple editors had objected to the sourcing, you on the source's reliability with extremely dubious reasoning that flies in the face of ]. — ] <sub>]</sub> 00:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My final revert to include material from this source was at ; AnimalParty's objection was . While I continued to <s>BLUDGEON</s> disagree with the two of you, I did not re-add that content again, once it became clear that multiple editors objected. ] (]) 01:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::They need to take a walk around the block, drink some coffee, do the Sad Keanu, and get their head on straight. ] (]) 03:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be clear, {{u|Rhododendrites}}, I now understand that the community expects essentially all objections to the addition or re-addition of material in BLP articles to be subject to ]. I was in error not to have recognised this, and will abide by it in future in all cases (whether or not covered by other CTOP sanctions). ] (]) 01:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Note to closer''' - this would be a good instance to try to distinguish involved from uninvolved !votes. A simple interaction check will confirm that most of the !votes opposing sanctions come from editors I haven't interacted with (many of whom I don't know), while the !votes in favor of sanctions come from editors who would show recent interactions with me (mostly on GENSEX topics, yet no actual evidence of ADVOCACY on my part has been presented). I believe that the opinion of uninvolved Administrators is the gold standard in assessing the likelihood of future disruption. ] (]) 14:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you seriously saying that AN/I should only look at the opinions of those who had never interacted with you till today? You earlier claimed about the ban votes: "in essentially every case, I can follow the interaction tool back to the instance when I pissed off the editor". You're kinda saying "The more people get to know me, the more they are likely to request that they don't have to work with me again". That you've managed to "piss off" everyone you've worked with on the project and that all the sanction votes are bad faith grudges. I'm sure ''some'' of them may be coming from editors trying to remove a piece from the board. That comes with the territory. But plenty votes are coming from editors who are, frankly, on the same side of the board. Note that the opinion of "Administrators" counts no higher than the opinion of "editors". They get to play with more buttons, that's all. -- ]°] 16:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe I didn't express this well, but my understanding is that closure and/or enforcement is to be carried out by uninvolved admin. Obviously everyone can have a say in the discussion. | |||
| :::But I do still feel that people who !vote because they are annoyed with their interaction with someone are seldom the best judges of the likelihood that that person will contribute to future disruption. Frankly, I get that my tendency to be argumentative - not just the fact of bludgeon, but my style of comment - has led to this drama. I have to edit differently. | |||
| :::But if you read the indef TBAN votes with any kind of critical distance, I don't think you'll see any sober evaluation of editor contribution versus likelihood of disruption - rather, it amounts to "this editor has been bad and should be removed". I don't see a consideration there that is relevant to our behavioural norms - yes, I have been bad, I see how I have been bad, and I want to be better. And I'm also concerned that my being excluded from that area will remove some experience and nuance that I carry from situations where I can help. ] (]) 16:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you can point me to an AN/I that contained a "sober evaluation of editor contribution versus likelihood of disruption" I'd be surprised. NewImpartial, Sandy below highlighted the importance of friends not letting friends get to the stage where they are at AN/I facing sanctions. Here's some examples: "{{tq|I would rather all editors on that page upped their game than got their editing rights curtailed.... A battle about what the LGB Alliance once said in a deleted tweet is not something you want to be earning diffs on for a topic ban.}}" I advised you about how you were falling into the behaviour outlined at ] and said "{{tq|Compromise is very much about knowing when to back down, and let someone else win an inch, even if you are right.}}" When I came to warn you about edit warring I wrote "{{tq|I really am not going to be the editor taking you to AE or AN/I or filing any reports. So this isn't a threat-warning, it is a for crying out loud, Newimpartial, are you trying to get yourself topic banned warning."}} And your response was not any kind of acceptance that editing in a topic area with sanctions dangling over it might require a better standard of behaviour than that, but boasts that your edit warring resulted in improved text. Understanding that edit warring is bad is basic stuff, Newimpartial, and you just dug in and kept digging till I ended with "{{tq|Well its your account, hurtle your self towards a topic ban if that's what you want.}}" | |||
| ::::While I see some comments from you of the "I've been bad and will try harder" variety, I haven't really seen any recognition that perhaps the people commenting negatively about you have a point that you need to go away and have a hard think about. | |||
| ::::You "being excluded from that area" will indeed remove an experienced editor. But that's the problem. Other editors see an "experienced editor" behaving and acting and editing like you are, filling talk pages with arguments about you said I said you said, edit warring, arguing to keep any old crap they find on the Internet if the can insist the source is reliable, and getting away with it. So they do likewise. I'd rather have an inexperienced editor who made mistakes but was who was open to learn, than an experienced editor who was disruptive and hostile to criticism. -- ]°] 22:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Newimpartial}} over at RSN Jeppiz asked you if are aware of ] and you responded with: {{tq|No.}} Is today really the first time you had heard of BLUDGEON or were you just being sly? ]<sup>]</sup> 03:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I have not been able to pay consistent attention to pulling away from engaging discussions, to avoid BLUDGEON, and so in that sense I have not been "aware" of it much of the time. After today, however, I will find ways to remain mindful, with or without a sanction being in place. | |||
| :I actually see the point of a "BLUDGEON restriction" on myself and do not oppose that. But watching editors !vote to ban me from GENSEX for my having bludgeoned about Anarchist blogs and RS publications - a discussion only tangentially related to GENSEX - I find difficult to accept. ] (]) 03:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :For a more direct answer to your question than is given above, Newimpartial has received talk page notices and taken place in numerous discussions in which they demonstrated awareness of ], including (but not limited to) the following that I am placing in a collapsible box so as to not take up too much vertical space on the screen: | |||
| {{cot|List of discussions that show Newimpartial is aware of ]}} | |||
| :#] | |||
| :#] | |||
| :#] | |||
| :#] <small>(see also: , where Newmpartial cautions an editor against {{tq|BLUDGEONING}})</small> | |||
| :#] | |||
| :#] | |||
| :#] | |||
| :#] <small>(see also: , where Newimpartial cautions an editor about {{tq|BLUDGEONing the page}})</small> | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| :— ] <sub>]</sub> 04:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' User is a consistent battleground poster who bludgeons, chooses to ignore consensus, tendentiously edits, etc. At some point, whether their cause is good or not, it has to stop.] (]) 16:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't think there has been a single time when I have chosen to ignore consensus or edited tendentiously. I have bludgeoned Talk discussions, but I won't do so any more, regardless of the outcome here. ] (]) 17:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::You edited tendentiously at ], for one. This discussion and our talk page discussions which I linked to above are where there is evidence of your psychological abuse, intentional or not. This behavior is insidious and unfortunately the entire discussions must be read to be understood; a list of diffs won't do it. ] (]) 18:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::You haven't shown evidence that I edited tendentiously at ], for example by moving goalposts, shifting sourcing requirements or misstating the positions I had taken in discussion. | |||
| *:::I also find it troubling and ironic that you seem unable to discuss this topic without repeating completely unsubstantiated allegations of {{tq|psychological abuse}}. I trust that this will be given due consideration in the closing. ] (]) 19:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Are you suggesting that I was moving goalposts, shifting sourcing requirements or misstating the positions someone had taken in discussion, or that I have accused you of this? ] (]) 19:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::The signs of tendentious editing are documented ]; the discussion at Talk:Gender relevant to sourcing requirements is at ]. ] (]) 19:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I feel psychologically abused. My feelings require no proof other than my statement as a witness. Folks can read the discussions and judge your behavior for themselves. | |||
| *::::::It looks like {{u|Genericusername57}} may have had similar difficulties with you regarding sourcing, based on . ] (]) 22:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::: You didn't say "I felt psychologically abused". You linked to a discussion and said that there was evidence there of psychological abuse. I participated (a little) in that talk page's mega-discussion, and even I don't know where exactly you want us to look. ] (] / ]) 02:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I said both things. I believe psychological abusive occurred. Regardless, my feeling of experiencing psychological abusive requires no evidence. Newimpartial repeatedly accused me of gaslighting, as the links to their talk page show. I myself felt gaslit throughout that discussion. ] (]) 03:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::{{yo|Kolya Butternut}} <s>I'll grant that others have also cast aspersions, made unproven allegations and generally been uncivil but this seems slightly ]y and an unnecessary unproductive thread. We see where the editor in question made unfounded gaslighting accusations through the diffs posted, there's no need to redo the argument here and it will help nobody. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 06:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)</s> <small>Comment withdrawn after further discussion with this editor. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Comment''' This is meant for triggering a conversation rather than me personally wanting an answer. NewImpartial, the issues raised above are broader than just bludgeoning, including interacting with other editors in a battleground manner on contentious topics and advocacy-driven approaches to editing and interaction. Might this be a good time to outline and do a substantial sincere evolution on those things? Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have recorded my recent reflections on what I need to do, to limit my argumentative tendencies and to avoid personalizing disputes, . ] (]) 13:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal on temporary banning Newimpartial from ANI=== | |||
| {{atop|2=Unsuccessful|1=] close. This is an involved close, so if anyone wants to reopen this, they can, but I think it's pretty clear this won't gain traction. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 02:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| I '''propose Newimpartial be banned temporarily from ANI for a week'''. Statements from them can still be shared from their talk page by editors wishing to do so, but their bludgeoning in a thread about their bludgeoning elsewhere will make community discussion on other disruptive behaviour harder. — ] <sup>( ] / ] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> ]. </small> 01:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>'''Support'''. This could be enforced with a ] that would allow discussion to continue unimpeded by bludgeoning.</s> — ] <sub>]</sub> 01:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think this restriction is transparently silly, authoritarian, and that essentially no amount of replies from a subject at an ANI report about themselves counts as ]. ] (]) 01:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Comment above struck. I had misread the proposal; I would support a one-week PBLOCK as an immediate measure at '']''. — ] <sub>]</sub> 01:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Oppose: a user should be able to defend themselves zealously. BLUDGEON should not count in this. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' and suggest this be withdrawn. Editors under discussion typically have a wide latitude in defending their actions here, and it is likely the closing admin will take this information into account. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 02:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. An editor defending themselves against accusations of bludgeoning by bludgeoning the discussion is inadvisable, but we don't have the right to restrict their participation in such a discussion on that basis. ] (]) 02:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' As the OP of the suggestion for a temporary TBAN, I want Newimpartial to be able to take part. Can I also state I bear no ill-will at all to Newimpartial and have seen no uncivil behavior from them. They seem overly invested, and I thought and think a temporary ban may benefit them and the project, but I do want Newimpartial to remain on WP. ] (]) 02:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Sockpuppetry in Philippine articles == | |||
| {{atop|1=Page protected. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Request an immediate and extended range block for {{User|49.145.5.109}}, a certified sock of LTA ] from editing ] and other related pages pending a result of a protection request, the second to have been filed for that page after the first instance of sockpuppetry by the same account was deemed not serious enough. See also ]. ] (]) 07:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems like this should be reported at ], not at ANI. That's where the checkusers are at although they are generally reluctant to connect an IP account with a blocked sockpuppet. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is already confirmed in the SPI. However, as it is an IP account that can't be indeffed, I'd had to check my calendar too often to see when their existing block expires. 15:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 15:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Given that ] has been protected for the rest of the year, this probably isn't necessary. Also, worth noting that as p-blocks are limited to ten pages, we'd need to remove one from the block to add the 2025 page. ] (] | ]) 00:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == User:Wigglebuy579579 == | |||
| === Stern talking to === | |||
| *{{Userlinks|Wigglebuy579579}} keeps engaging in disruptive editing behaviour: | |||
| {{u|Tewdar}} mentions at 09:44 22 February that a "stern telling off would probably achieve the desired outcome without any need for topic bans or other restrictions", so that’s where I am coming in. Beginning with: | |||
| # they created dozens of articles by copy-pasting AI-generated text; | |||
| # Wikifriends of Newimpartial: please read ] | |||
| # they ignored all warnings onto their talk{{nbs}}page; | |||
| # Editors whose views are aligned with Newimpartial: please remember that the overall disdain that much of the community holds for the nastiness that occurs in the GenSex editing area affects perceptions of everyone who edits there. It is a relief to see that even those who may be aligned with Newimpartial's views are finally willing to stand up to these behaviors. | |||
| # they duplicated draftified articles by simply recreating them. | |||
| # {{ping|Buidhe|Beyond My Ken|ValarianB}} I point out to you that both {{u|Rhododendrites}} and {{u| Iamreallygoodatcheckers}} asked clarifying questions rather than entering declarations. Specifically to you, ValarianB: where do you come up with, "This is a mob trying to remove an opponent from the game board", because I’m seeing the opposite (editors whose views align with those of Newimpartial's taking their behaviors to task). See my point 1; is your input really helpful to either Newimpartial or Misplaced Pages? | |||
| {{U|Miminity}} and I have been cleaning the mess for hours, warned him several times, but he just ignores everything and starts again.<span id="Est._2021:1736271756958:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt">{{snd}}] (] <b>·</b> ]) 17:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| So, that’s the stern talking to for editors other than Newimpartial weighing in here. {{pb}} I disagree with framing this as a bludgeoning issue, as the issue with Newimpartial is combativeness to the point of disruption. I have had fairly extensive interaction with Newimpartial both because of being a medical editor and because of ], where retaining the FA status is a '''very''' rare success story on Misplaced Pages. {{pb}} We were able to restore the prototypical GENSEX featured article to status through a months-long Featured article review, and my impression of how and why we were able to do that is that, from the outset, Newimpartial's combativeness was reined in. I found every other editor—of any POV or alignment with trans issues—collaborative and willing to see both sides and work to uphold Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines regardless of their personal views. {{pb}} I am particularly discouraged by and , as they reflect that Newimpartial is not taking on board—and perhaps not even likely to take on board—the long-standing and serious concerns with their combativeness. I have ''quite'' a favorable impression of Sideswipe9th's competence as an editor, having edited extensively around them in both medical content and JKR. {{pb}} The behavioral problem was exactly what I found early on in the J. K. Rowling FAR. I invite those here who are weighing in as if the concerns here are along "mob" lines to review my experiences in these JKR-related threads and make their own decisions. | |||
| : I would support indefinitely blocking this user. Their output is entirely low quality AI-generated slop, and they are contributing nothing of value to the encyclopedia while placing considerable burden on others. ] (]) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * ]: January 2022, at the beginning of the JKR FAR. I did not take Newimpartial to arb enforcement here, as I didn’t understand the process well and still hoped things would work out by persistently pointing out to Newimpartial how often they unnecessarily personalized discussions and became combative. That conversation is summed up when {{u|Dennis Brown}} said to Newimpartial: “When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. It doesn't matter if you agree with the hole or not, it's not your hole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)”. Newimpartial, please reflect on that relative to current concerns about your tendency to not be able to drop the stick. | |||
| :], can you provide some examples so we don't have to search through their contributions? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: In , if you read through the whole thing, you will find a list of the areas of concern I had with Newimpartial. | |||
| :: Some pertinent examples ] (moved to mainspace by Wiggle and then back to draftspace) and ] (exactly the same scenario as previous). These are all obviously AI generated based on their formatting. ] (]) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * ]: March 2022, further along in the JKR FAR. Still having to remind Newimpartial to stop personalizing on the FAR. Read the whole thing; draw your own conclusions. | |||
| :::{{re|Liz}} Examples include: | |||
| * ] | |||
| :::#], ] and ]; | |||
| For the '''stern talking to''', Newimpartial, I experience you as a severely combative editor whose behavior, in my opinion, brings ill-repute to the entire GENSEX area of editing. I have found none of the others intransigent in their views or in their application of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Watching the very long-standing issues between you and {{u|Crossroads}} in medical content, before the JKR FAR, I was unsure which of you was at fault for the contention. The JKR FAR indicated to me that the fault lies more with you than with Crossroads. I do not think that either Misplaced Pages or your fellow editors are best served by allowing you to continue on this path. {{pb}} Please do not show up on my talkpage with a side discussion about my views (the discussion stays here). Please DO take this as a very stern warning that your conduct is problematic and even those whose views align with yours are telling you it needs to change. Regardless of whether a topic ban is initiated here, you should have at least a 1RR restriction; Colin does not edit war, and you are well advised to listen to him. ] (]) 16:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::#] and ]; | |||
| :I just wanted to specify my agreement with your folliwing points (per my Thank, earlier): | |||
| :::#] and ]; | |||
| :*{{Tq|the issue with Newimpartial is combativeness}} | |||
| :::#]; | |||
| :*{{Tq|We were able to restore the prototypical GENSEX featured article to status through a months-long Featured article review, and my impression of how and why we were able to do that is that, from the outset, Newimpartial's combativeness was reined in.}} | |||
| :::among others. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{Tq|That conversation is summed up when Dennis Brown said to Newimpartial: “When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. It doesn't matter if you agree with the hole or not, it's not your hole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)”.}} | |||
| ::{{Ping|Liz}} This editor left a message on my talkpage and again it is clearly written by AI. ] '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 00:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I grok what you are saying. That is all. ] (]) 17:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Are any of the references in ] real or are they all hallucinations? I'm having trouble finding them on web searches. They're also suspiciously old even though there is more recent relevant literature. — ] ] 01:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's welcome progress :) To everyone else lining up to ban or not, again, please read Barkeep's essay. ] (]) 17:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::The ] essay recommends G3 for articles for which text-source integrity is completely lacking. — ] ] 01:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, not quite all. In the spirit of {{tq|the discussion stays here}}, I'd ask you to read two diffs from earlier today, prior to your thoughtful and heartfelt comment, where I reflect on and where I specify that "" You can count me among those who are telling me that my on-wiki attitude and behaviour need to change. Continuing {{tq|along this path}} without taking a less combative approach wouldn't be a positive for anyone, for myself or for the community. ] (]) 17:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|rsjaffe}} Using BookFinder.com, Citation #1, #3 (might be a dupref of 1) does exist but has different author, Citation #2 does exist and is correct. #4 is dupref of #2. A quoted google search and a google scholar search about #5, 8, 9, 11 (The journals does not seem to even exist) yields no result. No result for 6, 7, 9, 10 (Nagaland State Press does not seems to even exist) 12 '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 02:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am happy to see progress. ] (]) 18:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would like to hear from @], but, if the results of the reference searches on the other drafts are like this, then all those drafts should be deleted as unverifiable. LLM output can look very correct while hiding significant falsehoods, and it will be impossible to sort fact from fiction in those articles if they haven't been validated word-for-word with real sources. — ] ] 03:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Additional reflections about the way I personalize disputes - an onwiki issue I believe you to have been the first to point out to me in those terms - may be found . ] (]) 14:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Click all the link on the ], all of them are {{tl|failed verification}}. Either the page does not exist or the website itself does not exist. The JSTOR sources leads to a completely unrelated article. I think by the looks of it, this draft is safe to delete | |||
| * NI, I'm pretty sure we agree more than we disagree. I don't know that we're wiki-friends, but you're one of only a few editors I thought of when I read Barkeep's essay. I'm sorry that I didn't share my thoughts with you earlier. I've supported this "stern telling off" over other sanctions, because I have some confidence that you can listen and change. Even when I agree with you, your prolific responses to main points, side points, tangential points, conduct matters, and straight-up trolling can put me off of talk page discussions. You're not the only one out there turning one-sentence GENSEX content disputes into novellas, but you're a major player. I don't think it'll take an anti-bludgeoning sanction to get this out of you, but it would make me happy to see more "I'd like to address three of the major counterarguments" comments from you, including in this discussion. {{pb}}I have more thoughts on your editing patterns, but I don't want to overly add to the barrage of criticism (some constructive) heading your way right now. If you're up for it in a month or so, I'd be happy to talk with you at your user talk or over email. It saddens me to see you here, and I hope you're keeping your spirits up. ] (] / ]) 02:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Wigglebuy579579}} care to explain? '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 03:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Whenever you feel would be the right time, I invite your comments on my self-reflection . I found your brief comments here quite helpful. ] (]) 14:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{yo|rsjaffe}} more ref-checking at ]: as ] observes, ''The Angami Nagas: With Some Notes on Neighbouring Tribes'' exists (although with the BrE spelling of the title) and I accessed it at archive.org. It does not mention ''pfütsana'' anywhere in its 570 pages. The closest we get is ''pfuchatsuma'', which is a clan mentioned in a list of sub-clans of the Anagmi. The draft says {{tq|The term Pfütsana is derived from the Angami language, where "Pfü" translates to "life" or "spirit,"}} which is contrary to what ''The Angami Nagas'' says – ''pfü'' is a suffix functioning sort of similarly to a pronoun (and I think I know how the LLM hallucinated the meaning "spirit" but this is getting too long already). I looked at a couple of the sources for ] as well, and I haven't been able to find a single instance where the source verifies the claims in the draft. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I'm unaware of any precedent for a bludgeoning restriction in Misplaced Pages history. The closest I can think of were a number of "civility parole" restrictions placed by Arbcom on a number of editors in the 2006-2010 era, most notably {{u|Giano}} and a similar "belittlement" restriction on {{u|The Rambling Man}} around ~2016. None of them worked out well, being more effectively weaponized by their "enemies" to suppress legitimate dialogue from them and intentionally provoking so they could be sanctioned and leading to more ongoing drama. Many of the editors under those restrictions ended up community banned, partially because they were weaponized against the editor. I don't think anybody wants that here. I'm all for getting creative with sanctions, but I don't think crafting a custom bludgeoning restriction would work very well. I think the standard tool of a topic ban, perhaps carefully crafted to only apply to organizations and BLP material related to GENSEX (to allow a bit more freedom) would probably be more likely to end up with a productive editor and less disruption. I can only speak for myself, but if the sanction I just mentioned were implemented and this editor spent maybe 6 months productively in other topic areas demonstrating that they understood policies on BLP, sourcing, disruptive editing (bludgeoning, IDHT, battleground mentality etc) I would be thrilled to support lifting the hypothetical sanction. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 06:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for checking. Those are now deleted. — ] ] 16:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I seem to detect here a possible willingness on your part to exclude Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on GENSEX from a handcrafted GENSEX topic ban. If so, I feel if that could be done it would go some way to relieve one of my concerns expressed above - the loss of experience with the policy history and the possibility that that could be GAMED for POV purposes. However, very many edits I make on GENSEX are reverts of BLP violations through ] and ] violations; some of those are from IPs or fresh accounts but others, like this recent one by are made by experienced editors. (Incidentally, lest these reverts be seen as one-sided, I also revert to retain MOS-compliant former names of trans people, which I know makes some other trans and bombing editors uncomfortable. But policy is policy.) | |||
| :*] and ], thanks for supplying examples that can be reviewed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I guess the other objection I have with this form of creativity is that my tendency to BLUDGEON and to personalize disputes is not at all limited to GENSEX topics, as Sennalen and Tewdar (both of whom have commented in this discussion) can attest. The friction I have had with JoelleJay in the past also had nothing to do with the GENSEX topic. So I think the change in approach I describe may be more to the point. Perhaps "non-argumentative probation", where everyone understands that if I don't change my patterns, I will be sanctioned, would be the most promising strategy from the encyclopaedia's (and the community's) point of view. ] (]) 15:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :*:I have deleted ] and ] as they have falsified references. Checking the others would be appreciated. Also, editor has been warned on their page about inserting unsubstantiated demographic data in articles. ]. I think we’re running out of ] here. — ] ] 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*::{{yo|rsjaffe}} ]: J.H. Hutton's ''The Angami Nagas'' (1921) doesn't mention any such festival, but talks about a ''sekrengi'' ritual which includes the "purification" elements described in the draft. But that's as close as it gets. The rest of the ritual described in the draft is '''very''' different from the festival described in the book (let's just say that it is not something that would attract tourists like the draft claims), and the etymology is sheer nonsense. So again I believe it is an LLM that, like the proverbial blind chicken, has found a seed and then, like the same chicken but without a head, is running in confused circles around it. | |||
| :*::It also amuses me a bit that a book from 1922 is used to support a statement about how the festival is a popular symbol of the culture today. (FTR, publications from the era of the British Raj should never be used to support claims about ethnic/tribal/caste related topics, though that is a bit tangential to the issue here.) --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 18:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a pity that the editor has not engaged with this discussion. The areas they're editing in could use more work, and I get the impression that they are here to improve the encyclopedia. However, the ''way'' in which they're going about it needs reform, and if they don't explicitly commit to reform, I am inclined to block this editor for the overreliance on LLMs and the careless inclusion of incorrect and false references. What do others think? — ] ] 22:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suggest a ] on creating article as the editor seems to have okay-ish mainspace edits. '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I came across their several days ago, when a link they provided (with an archive link) didn't exist, even when I substituted ".in" for the correct website domain of ".com", so I've got no idea where they got those links from in the first place? | |||
| ::They've responded to my talk page warning, but after going back to edit the exact same article they haven't fixed/reinstated the source so I'm now a little concerned that it came from AI & the user didn't find it themselves. They've done a ''lot'' of work on this article so I'm hoping it's just a one-off, but thought I'd best mention it. | |||
| ::Their had the summary "Fixed errors" and removed almost a dozen sources/links. ] (]) 02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is very concerning. And the user is still editing and not responding to this discussion. Blocked from article space and draft space and reinvited to come here to discuss. — ] ] 05:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:BittersweetParadox - Overlinking == | |||
| {{u|Tewdar}} if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. And now you are. Copying my response to Newimpartial from ] to here. Have a look at the under "On being argumentative. Now try to convince me that a) Tewdar has read a single word I wrote; b) Tewdar is not baiting both you and Crossroads; c) Tewdar is not partisan, putting their earlier declaration in perspective; d) Tewdar is acting in your best interest; or e) you took on board a single thing I wrote on my talk page in January and March about unnecessary personalization. Tewdar may have laid the bait, but you wholeheartedly bit. At a time when editors like me are contemplating whether to support or oppose a tban, this is not a good look. Even while under scrutiny, the two of you are unable to avoid bringing up Crossroads, and this is precisely the behavior that makes GENSEX toxic.{{pb}} In the same vein, Transarchist (an editor I know not) just did the same thing, so I'm likely to enter a declaration there once I finish shoveling snow. The baiting, biting, attacking, personalizing, belittling of other editors needs to stop. ] (]) 19:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|Not a problem; request rejected}} | |||
| :I see what you mean; I have put and end to and the discussion concerned. To paraphrase what Tewdar said earlier, change is hard. ] (]) 19:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Excellent. It's very simple: ]. And now Tewdar needs to take the stern talking to on board as well, because unless/until this aspect of GENSEX editor behavior changes, y'all are headed for an arbcase. As I pointed out in January and March of 2022, the points can be made without personalization. ] (]) 19:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|baiting, biting, attacking, personalizing, belittling of other editors}} sounds like a bit of an overreaction to what was essentially a joke about a potentially lengthy response, no? I don't have a problem with Crossroads actually. After some initial, erm, intensive debates, we get on quite well whenever I encounter him these days, which isn't very often. ] 20:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's an irrelevant and unhelpful response. In the part of my post you re-quoted, I was speaking generally-- specifically in reference to the Transarchist thread. And if you think joking about anything between Crossroads and Newimpartial at this delicate stage was a good idea, some introspection is in order. There is a toxicity in GENSEX editing partly because the arbs failed to finish the job when it was before them, and the result is that the entire area is painted with a negative brush, in spite of the proof that collegial editing in the area is possible (]), and in spite of a few of Misplaced Pages's finest editors working in that area without these kinds of behaviors ({{u|Colin}}, {{u|Sideswipe9th}} and {{u|Firefangledfeathers}}). ] (]) 20:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Still sounded like an overreaction. But I shall try and take on board your advice about making jokes. I honestly just saw the section header, thought of the Butler title, and started rambling on without thinking of the consequences. Apologies to all. ] 21:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks, Tewdar; there's a lot that needs to change in this editing area (including unfair perceptions considering the proof of good editing and editors), and everyone can help get things back on the right footing without another arbcase. We know how it can be done :) ] (]) 21:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|SandyGeorgia}}, I personally don't believe it needs another arbcase. While I don't edit in that topic area anymore (working on finance and literature articles is more healthy mentally to me), I remember there being plenty of new-ish editors coming in with good intentions, a willingness to learn, and a collaborative mindset. Additionally, it is clear to me that compared to another contentious topic area I was briefly involved with (see ]) and one I'm currently interacting with (]) this topic area has both the amount of attention and lack of defined 'teams' (to put it someway) so as to prevent it from really going off the rails to where an additional case becomes necessary. Of course, I'm sure more active editors might disagree. — ] <sup>( ] / ] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> ]. </small> 21:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I would ask folks who support only a stern talking to to look at my !vote which begins above with {{tq|Support indefinite topic ban based on behavior on this ANI}} (sorry for the bouncing around). Their comments to me at this ANI make me question the sincerity of everything they've said here. ] (]) 17:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :The more of it I read, the more it looks like a theatrical performance, designed to steer people toward an interpretation that what we've witnessed is just some ''former'' bad behavior patterns unique to talk/noticeboard spaces, and now behold the new NewImpartial; rather than observe that it's an overall bad behavior problem at the intersection of GENSEX topics and that editor. The specific behavior that prompted this filing is just one of many wave crests (and most of that specific behavior has repeated continuously throughout this ANI discussion; there's nothing former about it). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 12:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, to be clear, I think the attribution of bludgeon and argumentative behaviour to {{tq|the intersection of GENSEX topics and that editor}} has not been supported by evidence - I myself have pointed to prior instances from my editing ''outside'' of GENSEX (and indeed, the noticeboard filings that got me here were about the reliability of Anarchist web publications, and only tangentially related to GENSEX). I would also point out that other editors have engaged in {{tq|bad behaviour}} in GENSEX topics, prior to and outside of my own participation. | |||
| ::What I am able to do is simply to take ownership of my own actions - I will not BLUDGEON future discussions, inside or outside of GENSEX, with or without a formal restriction. I will also do my best to avoid lapsing into my patterns of argumentative behaviour and will accept the nudges offered when I lean in that direction (as already happened last month). | |||
| ::Finally, SMcCandlish, if my exercise in striking through my inaccurate or argumentative comments in this ANI doesn't help you to distinguish between what I now expect of myself and my past behaviour, I trust that my track record in future will convince you eventually that the {{tq|interpretation}} - that I am not underming the project through bludgeon or argumentativeness - has come to represent a simple, established fact. ] (]) 23:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|BittersweetParadox}} | |||
| * '''Oppose TBAN and support temporary anti-bludgeon restriction''' - Based on the arguments and evidence provided, do not believe a topic ban is needed, as NewImpartial has shown compromise, and willingness to compromise on contentious sources for citations, but their interaction with other editors has caused issues. --] 23:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| This user is persistently ]ing throughout most of their edits that aren't dealing with categories or redirects, see for example: | |||
| * '''Support temporary TBAN and oppose temporary anti-bludgeon restriction''' This one was more difficult. I find ] to be an extremely intelligent and prolific contributor. While we have been on opposite sides of an argument, for example on the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria article, in the past I have found them to be a reasonable opponent. Lately though, I feel like there has been much more of an edge/activist angle to their edits. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be used as a bludgeoning tool or as a weapon, and I believe that ] has lost sight of this. A short (say 3-month) topic ban gives them some time to reflect, and doesn't have any lasting permanent effect, except to remind ] that there are consequences to one's actions. I would also hope that ] doesn't find such a short and limited sanction to be objectionable. All it asks is that she stay away from gensex topics for 3 months. If ] objects to such a minor "punishment" (especially after writing that they understand how they have erred), I believe this says more about the user than the sanction itself. ] (]) 19:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| {{Ctop|More heat than light to an already heated situation. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| * | |||
| {{fake heading|sub=3|Is it likely...}} | |||
| * | |||
| ... that there are any more threads trying to "get rid" of editors from the GENSEX arena who are pushing against the "gender-critical" advocates, of whom there seem to be more and more every time you look? There are already threads trying to remove Transarchist, Silverseren and Newimpartial. I just wondered in case we could merge them into one big section entitled "People we'd like to silence", or something similar. It would make things a lot easier. ] 21:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| :This is dumb. ] (]) 21:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * (unexplained citation removal as well) | |||
| :Frankly, this is starting to feel like we might need ArbCom to examine the GENSEX area and all the individuals involved here. This is starting to get way too "us vs them." — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 21:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| ::You're not wrong. ] (]) 00:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| ::This topic area might end up there (again...) but I'm still holding out hope the community can use the ] to clean out the area before it comes to that. For future issues of disruption in this general vicinity, AE is probably better equipped to sort through it with more structure and less noise. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 00:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| :::Totally agreed that AE/ARE are more functional (and evidence-based) venues. I rather think that had this filing concerning by actions been made there instead of here, it would be resolved by now with considerably less ''Sturm und Drang''. ] (]) 01:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Black Kite}} I don't think this is a fair reading of how these threads have gone. I actually totally see your point on Tranarchist. That thread reads to me largely like people trying to punish someone for having outspoken pro-trans views off-wiki. I don't mean to say that every person to !vote on Tranarchist has !voted in a party-line<ref name=sides/> way, but I see a scary paucity of evidence of actual disruption, and it reminds me of... well, a certain other past incident in which many community members expressed the view that a trans editor should be punished for criticizing transphobia in a way that didn't affect content. But I object to the notion that there's a pattern across these three threads, other than the topic area. Silver seren's was closed with little appetite for sanctions, and if you look at the topic area regulars who are (perceived to be) on the pro-trans side, you'll find quite a bit of support for sanctions for Newimpartial, including from myself.<ref name=sides>Personally I would not describe any of my own content work as "pro-trans", but rather "pro–human decency" in a way that happens to be relevant in trans contexts just as much as it's relevant in many other contexts; that is to say, I categorically oppose efforts to use Misplaced Pages to hurt the living, dishonor the dead, or tell lies, and the GENSEX area attracts all three of these things. And my personal views on trans issues are idiosyncratic and do not neatly map onto the concept of "trans rights activism". I think similar things are true for many in the GENSEX area, across the ideological spectrum. But I am aware that, for better or for worse, people divide this topic area into "sides", and that is in some cases a decent way to very roughly read the room.</ref> I think what this really boils down to is that whoever closes the two remaining threads should be careful to look for arguments based on policy and guideline—{{tqq|The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where ]}}—and not on " desire to harm a politically unpopular group]]". <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 21:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I think what you're seeing is that people who are here to ] feel entitled or even obligated to disregard normal content and civility guidelines, leading them here. ] (]) 22:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since this is a subsection of my ANI, I would like to deny any implication that I am here to RGW. I only seek to see Misplaced Pages content that is written in ] language and that maximally reflects the information provided in the highest quality RS available for each topic. ] (]) 22:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::We're all just talking about "people" here. ] (]) 23:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sennalen, forgive me if I've misinterpreted your remark and I'll happy amend or strike if I have but, as much as I think that Newimpartial has been disruptive on talk page discussions, see my !vote rationale above for my thoughts, I wholeheartedly and strongly disagree that they are here to right great wrongs. They are absolutely ]. They have a passionate interest in improving our articles, and making sure that our content is wholly policy compliant, even if they have a differing view on how some policies should be interpreted. | |||
| ::Of the oppose !voters that I recognise and have interacted with, I would also say that they are also all here to build an encyclopaedia. Speaking in general terms, like Newimpartial they are all editors who are here to make sure our content complies with the relevant policies, and while I may have had my disagreements with them at times I've never come away from discussions with any of them thinking "Wow, this editor sure is advocating for violating policy". Several of them I've seen active on some articles relating to this discussion and the one on TheTranarchist above over the last few days. ] (]) 23:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::] ] (]) 00:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think I'm following your logic here, at least not in the way that you're probably intending it. Would you care to elaborate before I go off on a wrong tangent? ] (]) 00:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Anyone can turn down a wikifight they don't think they'd win. That's weak ]. People who are serious about building an encyclopedia will ] opposing views. ] (]) 01:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You're getting dangerously close to saying something unacceptable. ] (]) 04:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You're right. "Have you ever been to Belgium in fact?" ] (]) 05:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Still not following your logic. While steelmanning might apply in some content areas, in others it is entirely inappropriate. When you're editing in a content area like GENSEX or medicine, where the opposing viewpoint is inherently ], pseudoscientific, and ''not'' supported by reliable sources, writing for the opponent is inherently a NPOV violation. For example, transphobia and homophobia in GENSEX are two viewpoints that are ideologically opposed to the mainstream view of acceptance and normalisation of different sexualities and gender identities. Or homeopathy and anti-vaxxers are pseudoscientific opponents again to the mainstream medical view that homeopathy is no more effective than a placebo, and that vaccines are both safe and effective. Steelmanning in both of those cases would result in us writing content that runs afoul of ], ], ], and numerous other content policies and guidelines. | |||
| ::::::Could you state plainly what you mean please? ] (]) 06:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|Represent all point of views neutrally and with due weight}} - ''all'' points of view, not excluding homeopathy or transphobia. This does not violate any {{tq|content policies and guidelines}}. Neutrality does not mean false balance, and due weight does not necessitate throwing any old rubbish into our articles. ] 09:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *], since you appear to be referring to me, when did I ''ever'' make even '''one edit''' to the GENSEX area? And when did I make even '''one''' gender-critical comment? I reported an obvious case of bludgeoning, and I objected to Silverseren's characterization. Since you now claim I have entirely other motives, please provide the diffs or strike your accusations. ] (]) 22:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :* You appear to have missed the comment I made above, which said that I didn't believe the issue was with the OP of the thread. ] 09:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Black Kite}}, this is a bad take and you should either substantiate it with names/diffs or refactor/strike it. You're nearly as much of an oldtimer as I am, and I have a poor memory but I'm pretty sure we've been on the same side of some issues. I have a lot of respect for you. You know as well as I do that in contentious topic areas like Climate change, Gamergate, GMOs, ARBPIA etc this same accusation gets thrown around constantly. While there are undoubtedly some SPAs hanging around, it seems like the vast majority of editors weighing here are doing so in good faith. Being this jaded isn't helpful to anyone. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 07:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * {{u|The Wordsmith}} I think this may have been taken in the wrong way, clearly sometimes irony doesn't translate well to Misplaced Pages. But "jaded" is a fair take; the comment was really posted as an "oh, good grief" reaction to scrolling down ANI and seeing half of it being people trying to ban people from areas they edit, in many cases purely because they don't agree with them. I get the impression that there appears to have been quite a large increase in this type of thing recently, and not just in the area included in the multiple threads above. And I don't think that's a good thing; it's just depressing, really. If that's "dumb", then so be it; feel free to hat the whole the section if anyone wishes to. ] 09:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{talk reflist}} | |||
| {{Cbot}} | |||
| {{hat|Pouring gasoline on a fire is a bad idea. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{fake heading|sub=3|Black Kite and GENSEX}} | |||
| The comments above by {{u|Black Kite}} demonstrate a clear level of emotional ] that makes me think that Black Kite should not be taking administrative actions in this topic area. Administrators should not give the appearance of bias, and saying that we should put editors on a list to ban is an extreme show of bias. I believe that this is ] and that discussion is required to hold Black Kite to account for creating more heat than light above. ] (]) 16:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| I have also ] regarding this, but they have seemingly chosen to ignore that warning, as they are still continuing with the same behavior: | |||
| *Newimpartial definitely has a problem with bludgeoning, which is not a new thing, and I'd support some sort of cap to moderate that, but would oppose a TBAN at this time. I'd also like to point in response to: {{tq|Myself and many other editors have warned them}} {{tq|in the past not to engage in EW with transphobic and homophobic editors and to interact with them in good faith}} — transphobic and homophobic editors should be indeffed. Transphobia and homophobia are inherently not "good faith" positions and one should not be expected to engage them as such. ] 13:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| *:{{u|El C}}, I meant editors they ''perceive'' as transphobic and/or homophobic. Due to the contentious nature of the topic area if one has a hammer mentality every disagreeing editor appears a nail. You can even see it in this thread (not from NI necessarily) where a number of editors have alleged that this is an attempt by transphobic editors to shut out trans/ally editors from the topic area. I apologize if my wording (even in this reply) isn't well worded. — ] <sup>( ] / ] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> ]. </small> 14:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| *: "{{tq|transphobic and homophobic editors should be indeffed.}}" An editor accused of being "transphobic and homophobic" may simply be someone who has added neutrality in both text and sources into articles that have been manipulated by editors with one-sided ] that favor or attack the subject of the article. Gensex articles have become a minefield in which too many editors engage in ] behavior, where ] becomes a battering ram used to bait contributors into debates so as to discourage unwanted change, and where a victim mentality and/or feelings of injustice can sometimes be the impetus for an editor focusing on a particular gensex related subject. Accusations of "transphobic" or "homophobic" are made easily by editors who want to influence article content with their agendas. And let's not kid ourselves ... there are editors who become the target of those who want to steer an article in a favored direction. ] ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black">Ol' homo.</span> 09:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| This is also not the first time the issue has been brought up to the user, as they were previously warned in ], where even after claiming to understand the issue/say they won't do it again, . With their ignoring of warnings regarding overlinking, it unfortunately appears that an ANI discussion may be the only way to solve this ongoing issue, apart from a block. ] (]) 17:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User making major changes to rail articles without discussion == | |||
| :: {{user5|Micga}} | |||
| ] has a history of making disruptive moves without discussion, and was for it. They have since accumulated numerous warnings about copying without attribution and further undiscussed moves. Today, they made massive changes and moves to , (almost entirely unsourced), and now they're making changes to ], no edit summaries for any of this. I left them a talk page message asking them to stop doing this and communicate with others, but they're actively editing now without responding. As they apparently have no interest in editing collaboratively, I believe this needs administrator attention and action. If this was the first time they'd done this, I wouldn't go to ANI, but there's clearly a persistent pattern in this user's actions. ] (]) 15:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : Some editors don't always check their talk messages regularly, so I'm willing to , but if they don't come around soon, a block may be necessary to get them to come to the table and to prevent further disruption. Depending on their response, and other issues raised, some sort of topic ban may be warranted. ] (]) 15:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Nothing disruptive about the edits, they were for clarification. I moved from ] its contents related to infrastructure to ], while the remaining contents related to service and rolling stock were renamed under ]. ] is in turn the umbrella article describing differences between the two, as well as outlining regional variations in their organizations (split vs combined).] (]) 16:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm, took a quick look at your edits today, and: | |||
| ::*] to ] changes "located on Swiss territory" to "part of Swiss territory", but I think the rest of the text makes the point that it's ''not'' part of Swiss territory. I'm not sure which is correct because nothing is sourced in that section. | |||
| ::*There are more unsourced changes to that article, like ], ], ]. Can't tell if these are good edits or not, I don't know enough about the subject. | |||
| ::*It's not just trains, though. I saw ] among the contribs from today; that's a topic I know a little about, and I'm finding more serious problems there: | |||
| ::**] of "In contrast to countries such as Germany" (in a huge unsourced passage)... is there a source that points out this contrast between Russia and Germany? | |||
| ::**] the unsourced text: "The first one of these views has ultimately been completely discredited in a humiliating manner after 2014..." Also adds to that text the phrases "]" and "]". Without citing a source, I question whether that's OR/non-NPOV | |||
| ::**] to text about ] in an article about Russia. Why call out Belarus and Poland? Ost was about more countries than just Russia, it was also about many more countries than just Russia, Belarus, and Poland... but it's an article about Russia, so why mention any other countries, and if we do mention other countries, why specifically those two but not the other countries? You also added the text "in these countries", but it wasn't ''just'' those countries. | |||
| ::**In ], changing ]'s translation from "subhuman" to "inferior human" is a mistake; the term is almost always translated as "subhuman" because it means ''not'' human, and that's a key part of Nazi propaganda: they didn't think Jews, etc. were inferior humans, they thought they weren't humans at all. In the same edit, I don't understand the addition of "foreseen", or the removal of "pre-existing anti-Russian sentiment within the German population", which seem to contradict the sources cited therein, unless I'm misreading it | |||
| ::*No edit summaries makes it hard to understand these edits | |||
| ::I suspect in some cases, you are copyediting articles without reading the sources? Please don't do that, you will end up unwittingly misrepresenting sources. In other cases, it seems you're adding unsourced text, which shouldn't be done, either. ] (]) 16:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::On the subject of Belarus and Poland - the original text implied that the Generalplan Ost dealt only with Russia, which is false.] (]) 16:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If (before version) {{tqq|In Nazi '']'', Russia was designated...}} is false because it implies Ost dealt only with Russian, then (after your edit) {{tqq|In Nazi '']'', Russia, ] and ] were designated...}} is also false because it implies Ost dealt only with Russia, Belarus, and Poland. ] (]) 16:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Added the missing refs to the citations from ] mentioned above.] (]) 16:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::The cited edit on the Basel Badischer Bahnhof was an intermediate one among many “in making”, the final text is quite unambiguous. But sticking to the subject, what’s the problem with the rail articles? ] (]) 16:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] for Basel Badischer Bahnhof. "Unambiguous" isn't the problem. Why are there no sources for these changes? Or are there? ] (]) 16:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::On the rail articles specifically, you made major moves which changed the entire meaning of articles without any explanation, moved massive swaths of text around, much of it unsourced, and refused to use edit summaries to explain your changes at all. Had you actually explained what it is you were doing, we might not be at ANI right now. You also persistently violate our rules on copying without attribution. ANI is not limited to whatever concerns are brought up by the first comment in a thread; both your and my behavior is fair game for discussion here. I hadn't fully examined your other edits; I came here because the rail articles you made major changes to were on my watchlist. I was just going to stick to a talk page message until I saw the history of multiple warnings and a block, which raises this to firmly within ANI territory. ] (]) 17:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Popping in to say that I noticed this discussion because I still had Micga's Talk page on my watchlist from when I wrote this: . Looking at their recent contributions, they seem to have taken this one to heart, which is good, but they're still doing something similar, that is, making large numbers of small edits to a single article, burying a much more substantial edit in the middle. Combined with the lack of edit summaries, this makes it quite difficult for editors watching articles to notice that larger edits have occurred. As an example, here's an unsourced edit that was dropped in the middle of 20 different edits done over the space of an hour and a half to ]: . Depending on other editors' watchlist settings, they'll either have their watchlists blown up by all these edits, or just see this presumably unobjectionable one: . I don't mean to allege bad faith or to say that making multiple edits to an article is inherently disruptive. But in the context of this ANI discussion it seemed worth pointing out. -- ] (]) 23:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Like ], specifying Luhansk and parts of Donetsk and Kharkiv as being outside the ]. ] (]) 00:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Micga}} you are ], which is a real problem besides the others raised by Levivich, and aren't recognizing the problems with your edits. Unless something changes, I'll be supporting sanctions. ] (]) 16:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|SandyGeorgia}} Where?] (]) 16:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I have raised the issue of unexplained content removals and addition of claims not supported by the added references in ] in the past. The edit comments weren't communicating the scope of the changes made, similarly to the asilvering's example above, and Micga didn't respond despite being pinged. The comment in the edit that removed a half of a section was , leaving an impression that content was added rather than removed in the edit. | |||
| :The content added by Micga to ] recently is a largely unreferenced essay. (Most of the references are from the lead that has been removed by Micga; none appear to directly support the 'types of Russophobia' discussion.) | |||
| :The identical issues with Micga's edits in a different topic area were ]. --] (]) 16:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Micga did not address the concerns here and has simply continued with the same kind of editing. In ] now they made unsourced changes and moved around text without explanation, which I reverted, then they restored the changes adding a couple refs in an edit which do not fully support the changes and then proceeded to make a bunch of changes, again without using the edit summary, which are unsupported and hard to follow. Where is "Pax Russica" in this mentioned in the sources? I could not find this. If there is a history of this kind of editing, then action should be taken here, because it is clear this kind of editing will just continue. The edits on ] look particularly problematic. I am counting 127 edits on that article since 24 February, with major changes without any discussion and the edit summary used only for one of those edits. How is someone supposed to follow these changes? It is not possible and so probably no one will bother to check. ] (]) 20:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am one of the participants from the previous ANI discussion in November 2022. It seems like this is an on-going issue with Micga. Following the last ANI, admins neglected to take any action and surprise surprise here we are yet again. It seems that Micga's generally non-constructive editing tactics have and will continue indefinitely unless admins impose some sort of sanction. If this happened for the first time, I'd call for ] leniency, however, based on Micga's talk page history, past ANI and block, this user has had several warnings from countless editors. We are way past the point to call this a "GF error". Micga has had ample opportunity to improve their editing methods within this time period. In most cases, Micga continues to make dozens and dozens of rapid edits without providing any edit summaries and often without any ]. Even during this discussion, the user continues to edit, in my opinion, recklessly without any explanation and without sources. Myself and ], among others had expressed concern about this exact situation in the last ANI. Seeing as how this seems to be an on-going issue, I too support sanctions. Otherwise, I fear we will be here again in a few months. Regards, ] (]) 20:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::After I made this comment I see that Micga made almost 40 edits to ], not one of them using the edit summary, which again involve making unsupported changes. In they re-use the same refs as before (as in ) to write different statements unsupported by the sources (which looks like ]). I see that ] pinged Micga here asking for a response but they decided to continue with those edits instead despite the concerns raised. ] (]) 08:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Micga}} Whether or not your edits are helpful is hard for outsiders to quickly assess. What we can see however is that several established editors say that there are problems. What is your response to that situation? Is there a discussion somewhere showing that some agree with your approach? For those reporting here, I recommend that a wikiproject be involved with a discussion focusing on a small set of related articles. Do not make an editor the subject of the discussion—at a wikiproject, the subject should be whether a particular set of edits was helpful. Having a wikiproject involved would give someone like me more confidence regarding what should occur. ] (]) 02:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Overlinking still continuing on despite this ANI (), and even with an administrator , continues on with their edits/ignoring this ANI. The user is not appearing to want to ] whatsoever, and some of their communication over issues in the past does not bode well as well (). | |||
| == User:Nml25 == | |||
| :They are adding many uses of , despite the usage instructions saying that the template should '''''not''''' be used in prose text. I really am not sure what more there is to do here, as any attempts at communicating with the user does virtually nothing. ] (]) 20:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|BittersweetParadox}} It's rather insulting to state you'll comment here and then continue to overlink . Please stop editing like this until you can address the above concerns. Rgrds. --] (]) 07:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Liz}} Apologies for the ping, but could there please be some assistance here?... As BX stated above, despite their only communication thus far since this ANI (being a simple, "ok"), they have still continued overlinking- now overlinking '''''even more''''' since BX's comment above: . I'm really not sure what more there is that can be done here apart from a block, as it appears this is just going to continue on, no matter what anyone says here or on their talk page. ] (]) 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Several of the diffs you give are positive changes, and your inappropriate reverts have caused articles to be underlinked. Leave BittersweetParadox alone. If you insist that he be sanctioned for the negative edits, you'll get some as well. ] (]) 03:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Automatic editing, abusive behaviour, and disruptive(ish) wikihounding from ] == | |||
| * {{userlinks|Nml25}} | |||
| {{atop|result={{nac}} While {{u|KMaster888}}'s editing history (the original discussion) wasn't inherently bad in itself, their conduct after being questioned about it was bad, violating ], ], ], and ] See , , , , , , , , , and their comments on this thread. Indeffed by {{u|Cullen328}}, and TPA revoked after , another personal attack. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] appears to be making lightning speed edits that are well beyond the capacity of any human to review, in addition to article content that's coming across potentially LLM-like in nature. Since December they've made over 11,000 edits, many across multiple articles within a sixty second window. | |||
| I attempted to ask about the policies around this at ] and was met with a tirade of obscenities and abuse (which I want to give them a slight benefit of the doubt on, I'd be upset at being accused of being a bot if I wasn't): | |||
| Also | |||
| * {{reply to|Daranios|Onel5969|Onetwothreeip|Daniel Case}} | |||
| Concerning: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| As far as I can tell this peaked with a total of 89 edits in a four minute window between 08:27 to 08:31 on December 28, 2024. Most are innocuous, but there are content edits thrown in the mix and recent articles were written in a way that indicates it may be an LLM ( not definitive, though if you are familiar with LLM output this may ring some alarm bells, but false alarms abound). | |||
| Nml25 has created four articles with massive amounts of unsourced original research. Multiple editors have made an attempt to remove unsourced material. Nml25 continues to add this unsourced material back into the articles. | |||
| Following the quite hot thread at ]'s page, it's quite clear that whoever is operating that bot threw my entire edit history into the mix, because the bot systematically edited ''every single article'' that I had edited, ''in reverse order'' (over 100 so far since this came up about an couple of hours ago), going back a reasonable amount of time. | |||
| They were blocked by {{reply to|Daniel Case}} for edit warring on 11 February 2023. Since the block has been lifted they have continued the editing behavior they were blocked for, reinserted unsourced material without adding references to independent reliable sources and reverting editors that object to the unsourced content. | |||
| The problem is that it's clear that a bot was instructed to just make an edit, without concern for what those edits are, so you end up with , , or at a rate far faster than any editor could address. | |||
| These four edits restoring the unsourced material were made the day their ban was lifted: | |||
| This one is easily one of the strangest situations I've ever encountered on Misplaced Pages. ] 20:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| , , , | |||
| :I'm flattered that you've looked into my activity on Misplaced Pages so closely. But if you'd be arsed, you'd understand that it is very simple to do an insource search using a regular expression to find a lot of stylistic errors, like no space after a sentence. If you love being on my back so much, good on you, but I'd wish if you got off. ] (]) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| More (see article histories for all) | |||
| ::1) That doesn't explain how consistently abusive you have been | |||
| ::2) While I'm aware that an overwhelming percentage of the errors you're editing out are ones that can simply be addressed by regex, I'm very clearly raising the content edits as opposed to formatting ones. ] 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :How about we take this off of ANI, of all places? ] (]) 21:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, this feels quite appropriate considering your abusiveness and that your retaliation involved damaging some articles. I said there I was asking a policy question and was happy to let it go, you've edited over 100 articles from my edit history in direct sequence in response to that question, which is just strange behaviour for an editor. ] 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Obviously, if there's someone who's making bad decisions on Misplaced Pages (You), I want to check if he has messed up articles. Please tell me what articles you think I have damaged. ] (]) 21:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, I'd appreciate if you would stop casting aspersions about me being an LLM. ] (]) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I said then, and as I'll say again: If there's not an LLM involved in this situation, then I'm sincerely sorry. It was a combination of clearly assisted editing and the verbiage used that looked concerning. ] 21:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There was no assisted editing. Stop spreading that blatant falsehood. This is why I say to take this off of ANI. It is stuff that is made up in your head that has no basis in reality. ] (]) 21:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<s>Unless you're doing regex with your eyes, clearly you're using assistance. And the fact you're (still!) doing something that fixes the same type of typo almost as fast as I can click "Random Article" indicates you're doing more than just regex. You're finding these articles somehow.</s> <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 22:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I am doing an "insource" search using regex. ] (]) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I learned about insource searches recently and was able to find spam by the boatload immediately. It is a great tool. ] (]) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Ah . I wasn't aware one could do that. I retract. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 22:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And, I would appreciate if you would stop calling my edits strange and odd. ] (]) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You had over 100 edits in a row directily in chronological sequence, from newest to oldest, of my exact edit history excluding wikiprojects and talk pages. I'm allowed to find that a little strange. ] 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why shouldn't someone call strange and odd edits strange and odd? ] (]) 21:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I suggest you stop with the personal attacks before you get blocked. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe I'm a little less forgiving than Tarlby, so I would suggest that {{u|KMaster888}} should be blocked/banned already. Knowing how to write regular expressions doesn't give anyone the right to ignore policy about such issues as civility and hounding. ] (]) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have not ignored policy on either civility or hounding. The fact is, there are no automation tools that I have used, and this has been constructed as a theory entirely as a falsehood. It is annoying that one Misplaced Pages user constantly spouts falsehoods about me. ] (]) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll just ask you straight up.{{pb}}Do you feel any remorse for this statement? {{tq|remove asshole}} {{pb}}Could you explain why you felt it was best to choose those two words when blanking your talk page? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And again: {{tq|@The Corvette ZR1 @Tarlby stop clogging up ANI with your comments.}} ]<sup>]</sup> 22:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::, , , , , ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And this: and this: ] (]) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That was because Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. I would say the same to you as I said to the other editor: get off my back. ] (]) 21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You have to abide by the rules like the rest of us. And cool it with the hostile edit summaries. ]] 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are clearly ]. Attacking other editors instead of backing off, inappropriate edit summaries, what next? ]<sup>]</sup> 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There ought to be a gossip noticeboard that doesn't clog up ANI. ] (]) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I will dispute what you said. I AM HERE to build an encyclopedia. Why do you think I would have given 10,000 edits worth of my time if I didn't care? ] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I would say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, ] and ] tell me the contrary. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Regardless of their editing or otherwise, KMaster888's comments in edit summaries ''and here'' indicate they're ] in a way that indicates an inability to participate in a collaborative encyclopedia. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The product of Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which is a body of written and visual work. It is first and foremost about the product, not the community. In this sense, it is indeed a collaborative encyclopedia, but it should not be considered an encyclopedic collaboation. ] (]) 23:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: ] over what "collaboration" is doesn't help when you're in blatant violation of ] of the ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'm not Wikilawyering. I would also encourage you to come to a discussion on my talk page over small potatoes instead of at ANI. ] (]) 23:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: is wikilawyering. And this is at ANI, so the discussion is taking place at ANI. Answering the concerns about your conduct that were raised here on here is how you resolve the issue, not "don't talk about it on ANI", as the latter gives the impression of trying to sweep them under the rug - especially since your edit summaries MrOllie linked above make it clear this is very much not "small potatoes". - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's some more diffs of KMaster888 being uncivil. From my user talk page. . I think these are forgivable if in isolation since KMaster888 may be frustrated by false accusations of being a bot, but if it's a pattern, it may need addressing. | |||
| :The ] and ] of my user talk page and of this ANI is also a behavioral problem that, if a pattern, may also need addressing. It is disrespectful to interlocutor's time and brainpower to dominate discussions by replying to everything. –] <small>(])</small> 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unless there are specific discussion rules, I should not be penalized for responding to comments that involve me. ] (]) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The problem isn't you responding to those comments. It's about HOW you responded to those comments. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are, in fact, {{tqq|specific discussion rules}} - ] and ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Propose indefinite block=== | |||
| , , , , , , | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked and TPA revoked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|KMaster888}} | |||
| They demonstrate a severe inability to interact in the collegiate manner this project requires. The edit summaries are not merely uncivil, but dismissive: ignoring colleagues is worse than just being rude to them. Their behaviour on Novem Linguae's talk pretty much sums it up.{{pb}}Whether they are actually a bot or running a scruipt doesn't really matter: WP:BOTLIKE is pretty cl;ear trhat "it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance". So 10,000 edits or not, the edits smack of being bot/script-generated, and may also be WP:STALKING.{{PB}}I also don't set any store by the excuse for "wiping ass with comments", "improve asinine comment" and "remove asshole" being that {{blue|Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly.}} WMF servers going down (or not) do not cause aggressive edit summaries, and we are not fools. The fact that the same attitude pervades through this discussion—"everyone, get off my back"—suggests that this is default behaviour rather than a one off. ]'']''] 23:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You're saying "they" like it's more than one person. I am one editor. ] (]) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not in that sense. We use they/them pronouns as to not assume an editor's gender. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above reasoning. ]] 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Looks like {{noping|Cullen328}} beat us to that indef. ]] 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per ] behavior. Their blank talkpage, on which they encourage discussion, has a nonexistent archive. ]] 23:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:That is not true. The archive page is at the subpage of the talk page, /archive. ] (]) 23:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support -''' While I wouldn’t have had the same suspicions about their editing as Warren, their extremely uncivil reactions to it and further questions here, along with the further attention they’ve drawn on to prior recent behaviour has effectively demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in meaningful interaction with any other editor who disagrees with them. ] (]) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| See discussion here: ] and ] <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 14:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe revoke TPA too? This is beyond the pale. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wow… ] ] 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}I have indefinitely blocked KMaster888 for personal attacks and harassment, and disruptive behavior. ] (]) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :After their latest personal attack, I have revoked their talk page access. ] (]) 23:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. is beyond the pale. This is clearly a person that lets rage get the best of them, and is not responsive to feedback. Not sure if we should close this, or let it play out and turn into a CBAN. –] <small>(])</small> 00:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Good block''' and I'd have done same if you hadn't been here first. Regardless of whether the edits were improvements, no one has the right to treat other editors as KM888 did. ] ] 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Good block''' It'd take a hand-written miracle from God for them to change their ways anytime soon. | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I had hopes after the initial block that they would learn, but unfortunately that does not appear to be the case. A longer block is warranted, but the length I am not sure of. The last time, as soon as the block was over they returned to the same behavior which led to their initial block.] <sup>]</sup> 15:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 03:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ===Investigating the hounding claim=== | |||
| :I have no idea what TimothyBlue is talking about. I have restored content after communicating with Daniel Case, who put in place the block and provided guidance on content. On February 19th I posted the following communication to him: | |||
| Above, there is a claim that KMaster888 is ] Warrenmck by editing 100 pages that Warrenmck has edited. The suggests that there's only an overlap of 45 pages (42 if you subtract out my user talk, KMaster888's user talk, and ANI). {{u|Warrenmck}}, can you please be very specific about exactly which pages overlap? Maybe give a link to KMaster888's contribs and timestamps of where this range of hounding edits begins and ends? This is a serious claim and probably actionable if enough evidence is provided. –] <small>(])</small> 23:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Pages have been restored and revised with more detailed citations as per Daniel Case's' suggestions. | |||
| :Title info has been included to meet standards of verifiability as put forth by Daniel Case | |||
| :"Sexton Blake tales were all independently published in story papers, (usually 1 paper 1 tale) with the title of the tale used as the title of the issue of the story paper, therefore it is necessary only that their existence be verifiable." | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Example | |||
| :1955 | |||
| :The Sexton Blake Library (3rd Series) 348 || The Case of the Frightened Man || Anthony Parsons || || | |||
| :Year, Magazine Title, Issue # Title of Story, Author | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Here is the link that verifies it, easily finadble with the information provided. | |||
| :https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=60576 | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :ISBNs have been provided for all modern publications. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Comic Books plus has three pages of digital files for the Sexton Blake Library | |||
| :https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=2177 | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :and a page of Union Jack titles as well | |||
| :https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=732 | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :If citations are needed I ask that you use the citations needed function for guidance. Nml25 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :I received no message from Daniel Case that the material was inappropriate. From Feb 19 to Feb 26 I have received no message from anyone that there was aproblem with the information provided in the Sexton Blake bibliography pages. Other edoitors made tweaks on the page. On the morning of Feb 26th I discovered that Onel5969 had hidden three of the pages. No explanation given. So I reverted it back. Then TimothyBlue reverted the pages. So i reverted it back. Again TimothyBlue gave no explanation and he appeared to have no knowledge of the communication with Daniel Case. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :'''To recap:''' | |||
| :I took advice on board from Misplaced Pages for citation of sources on the four pages in question, I corrected citation of content to meet that advice, I notifed Misplaced Pages that new content was posted, I requested I be notifed for any errors in citation through the needs verification function. Other editors looked at the pages, found no issues and tweaked content for more than a week. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :What excatly did I do incorrectly? | |||
| :@] @] | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :And again: '''The material is not unsourced.''' '''There are 9 citations in the Compiling the Sexton Blake Bibliography section of each page which describes where the material comes from.''' | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :TimothyBlue and Onel5969 have made the creation of this page a highly toxic experience. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :It's all viewable here: | |||
| :https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ANml25#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion ] (]) 17:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Just wanted to say that I believe that the disupted content is "unsourced original research" is incorrect. Everything else can be read in the discussions linked by {{u|TimothyBlue}}. ] (]) 17:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Note that there are >100 ''edits'' across the pages, since they tended to edit in a spree. The number of pages you found seems accurate, even accounting for the possibility of a few outside of this exchange. I’m not sure what exactly I can do to show the relationship to my edit history beyond I guess go pull said histories and compare them? But I wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority of the interactions you see were from that narrow window after your talk page. | |||
| :Some of it's sourced, most of it isn't. Restoring contested content without sourcing is disruptive per ]. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I informed Daniel Case, the admin that it had been revised and restored on Feb 19th to comply with his guidelines. There was no objection. TimothyBlue and Onel5969, who had not participated in that conversation, decided unilaterally to take down three pages. No examples as to how the content did not meet the guidelines. ] (]) 21:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::They contain massive amounts of content that is not sourced and is against ], as it would appear your other articles do. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 22:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry for the drama, by the way. ] 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment and additional material''': I believe these are additional examples of unsourced original research in articles created by Nml25 and should be considered: | |||
| ::Ah that makes sense. I didn't think of the multiple edits to a page thing. No worries about the drama. –] <small>(])</small> 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* ] | |||
| ::Please don't apologise for this. Nobody should have to put up with such behaviour. ] (]) 09:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* ], ] | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :* ], ] | |||
| :* ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 18:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating ] == | |||
| :TimothyBlue you're coming across more like an obsessed stalker than an objective editor. | |||
| *{{userlinks|Bgsu98}} | |||
| :All of these pages were approved months ago by other editors. And true to form you make broad general claims without specific examples. ] (]) 21:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.<br /> | |||
| Question to everyone: Is there any actual doubt about the accuracy of the content? ] (]) 04:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I noticed an editor named {{u|Bgsu98}} who had been mass-nominating figure skater articles for deletion. It is too obvious to me that he doesn't do even a minimum search required by ] before nominating. (I must note that most of the skaters he nominates for AfD aren't English, so a foreign language search is required. Sometimes you need to search on a foreign search engine. For example, Google seems to ignore many Russian websites recently.)<br />I have counted 45 articles nominated by him at ]. And it is worrying that people seem to rely on the nominator's competence and vote "delete" without much thought. | |||
| :*{{re|Newyorkbrad}} Thank you for this question hitting heart of ]. Unsurprsingly, I myself have no actual doubts about the accuracy of the content, also seeing as most of it can be double-checked at . ] (]) 10:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I should note that {{u|Bgsu98}} doesn't seem to stop even when an article he nominated has been kept. He nominated ] (a national medalist) two times with the same rationale (]). One can really wonder why he does this. | |||
| :In my opinion, yes, but it's difficult to be certain without sourcing. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Onel5969}} Aside from , some of the old magazines are also available at ], like . In case you want to check out accuracy exemplarily yourself. ] (]) 12:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Verifiable or not, great big lists without any real context are against ]. The four articles starting this thread are just republishing the lists compiled by the Story Paper Collectors' Digest. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 14:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I understand your point, but this criticism that the lists are drawn directly from another publication seems inconsistent with the criticism above that the lists are unverifiable OR. Also, don't we frequently include bibliographies in author biographies as well as articles about prominent fictional characters? Regards, ] (]) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We don't usually include weekly or bi-weekly magazine publications over many years in a biography section. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 21:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We have list articles that are each many times the size of main articles, those lists include extra details that are unsourced (and could well be OR, I've made no comment on the OR issue). So no there is no inconsistency in my comments. What is seemingly inconsistent is the enforcement of ] after the content of these articles has been challenged. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 21:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} With regard to "seemingly inconsistent is the enforcement of ]", the thing is that the ] is about ''if'' the citations are not ''already present'' for publication information and plot-summary. There is only a small percentage of uncited "extra details". ] applies then. ] (]) 14:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We obviously disagree with how much is unreferenced, it's certainly not "a small percentage". -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 14:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} I have explained ''why'' I think the ''vast majority'' is referenced - though not by footnotes - in detail at ]. Maybe you would like to explain ''why'' you think otherwise or ''where'' you think my argumentation is wrong over there. The other participants of the discussion have so far refrained from doing that. ] (]) 19:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::When multiple people's arguments haven't explained the problem, maybe the the issue is ]. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 19:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The other ongoing discussion is whetber these should be ]. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which entry do you think is inaccurate? Pick one. ] (]) 16:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': Check the section for fans. The title is '''"FOR ALL SEXTON BLAKE FANS"''' It"s on all four pages (the section title is formatted manually instead of as a section title, (which would appear in the TOC) so you need to search for it. <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 12:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unless I'm staring at the wrong item, the "section" in question is not so much a section but the heading of an announcement that the editor copied ''verbatim'' into the article (with proper referencing). I have no opinion on the dispute, or on the editors involved, or on Sexton Blake, but I just thought this was worth pointing out. ] (]) 22:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Timothy has a history of not reading things closely.... or at all. Doesn't stop him from having an opinion though. ] (]) 16:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - despite the large wall of texts above, the editor continues to add large blocks of uncited material to articles, which is why {{u|Daniel Case}} blocked them for a week the first time.] <sup>]</sup> 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': NML25 continues to add material to the articles, but still has not added references or sources or addressed objections by other editors. They continue to claim that comic book collections, fan clubs, and personal websites are independent reliable sources, which they are not. After further looking at the few references supplied for the lead material, there is also a problem with SNYTH and PUFFERY which needs cleaned up. <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 08:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. More information is here: ]. What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of ]. It seems that no one acted on this change until {{u|Bgsu98}} came. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{atop|Onchigor has not edited since 27 February 2023. Please report again if needed. ] (]) 02:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| I reverted a few edits from {{user|Onchigor}} because they made unsourced changes to articles like ] and marked them as minor edits, for example: . I gave them a couple user warnings for this and they decided to respond with {{tq|You a spammer and mass editor}} and go on a revenge reverting spree. Apparently I do not know Ukrainian orthography although I am not sure why Ukrainian orthography is relevant here. At this point the edits are now vandalism.. ] (]) 00:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| P.P.S. As I stated on the WikiProject Figure Skating talk page I linked above, I think it was very unfair to change the rules. Especially since web sources tend to die out after some time. | |||
| :He may not be acting in bad faith, but it looks like a deadly mix of ], ] and ]. ] (]) 22:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the aspersion of me being {{tq|hired for this destructive editing and vandalism}} here on ANI after multiple warnings including one for personal attacks there should at least be a block for that. ] (]) 22:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::The user seems to have stopped editing entirely. Maybe cooling off will do him some good. ] (]) 10:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| P.P.P.S. I would also like to note that I am polite, while {{u|Bgsu98}} has already accused me of "bad-faith accusations and outright lies" (). --] (]) 01:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|Staying on the original topic would be good, lads.}} | |||
| :as the closer of several skating AfDs, I have no issue with a DRV if @] or any other editor believes I closed it in error. However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules. That isn't grounds for a DRV nor a report against @] who is nominating based on community consensus. ] ] 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You don't get it, it's not vandalism, they are just trying to ] the pancakes.{{tind|lh}} ]rado🔫🦈 (]✙]) 06:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with Star Mississippi. But just to give some scope, this cleaning house, mostly of ice skating junior champions, is not recent, it's been going on for at least 6-9 months now, it was originally done through the use of PROD'd articles. But while there have been some objections raised over the past year, Bgsu98's efforts have mostly received support from editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Over the past two weeks, through the use of AFD, we have seen dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of annual national skating championship articles either deleted or redirected. But I just want to note that these AFDs wouldn't have closed as "Delete all" or "Redirect all" without the support of other AFD participants. Very few editors are arguing to Keep them all. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wonder what will be next. ] (]) 18:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::"''However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules.''"<br />— They don't meet ], but most (if not all) are famous people and should meet ]. Therefore, caution should be exercised when deleting. I don't think a national silver medalist can be unknown, it is just that reliable sources are hard or even impossible to find now. It appears that some years ago the rules didn't require ], so skater articles were created with simply "He advanced to the free skate at the 2010 World Championships" or "He is a national senior silver medalist", which was enough for an article to not be "picked at". The editors who created skater articles back then probably didn't want to do more than a bare minimum and didn't care to add reliable sources beyond the ISU website profile. One who decides to delete a skater article must keep in mind that reliable sources probably existed at the time the article was created. Cause, as I've said, these skaters arn't unknown. They represented their countries at the highest possible level of competition.<br />(I've recently noticed that Google News don't go as far back as before. Some web sites deleted their older content. Some have even completely disappeared. Like, I mostly edit music articles, and I've noticed that if didn't create some articles 10 years ago, I wouldn't be able to create them now.) --] (]) 17:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Next will be "mlyntsi". Because blin comes from proto-slavic "*mlinъ" ("mill" where flour is produced). See at "Etymology" in https://en.wikipedia.org/Blini. "mill" by Ukrainian is "mlyn" and therefore "mlyntsi". According to Похлебкин "Слово «блин» — искаженное «млин» от глагола «молоть»." and "Позднее над «патриотами», желающими объявить блины чисто русским блюдом, посмеялись и в России." https://litresp.ru/chitat/ru/%D0%9F/pohlyobkin-viljyam-vasiljevich/o-blinah | |||
| :::Even if being a junior national medallist was enough in and of itself, ] has always been a thing. You can't just state some fact that would meet a specific notability guideline like ] without providing verification of the claim without the possibility that the article will be nominated at AFD or redirected. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not only you have the right to tell the truth. ] (]) 20:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Star Mississippi|Liz}} A ], a deletion review? Is it maybe possible to undelete "]" (])? Cause I was searching for sources for ] and found something like a short biography of hers, two paragraphs long.<br />Here: .<br />And again, it was {{u|Bgsu98}} who nominated the article back in May. And he was told, I'm quoting ]: "''There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale''." --] (]) 23:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In English it is always called "blini". See ] and ]. And this does not excuse your disruptive editing. ] (]) 20:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::After looking at ], I think no one will say that I was incorrect about how people vote at AfD. There's even a comment like this: "WP:NSKATE lists some very clear criteria for inclusion, which this article does not meet." And then a more experienced user noted that you should actually search for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG, but no one actually searched and the article was deleted. --] (]) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Maybe. ] (]) 20:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: I have also found an interview with ]: . Yes, it is an interview, but there an editorial paragraph about her (an introductiion). There also a short paragraph here → . Not much, but considering she competed almost 20 years ago... --] (]) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, it's not "maybe". ] (]) 19:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes @] you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @] provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. ] ] 14:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Why are you massively changing many articles in wikipedia the words "Kyivan Rus'" to "Kievan Rus'? This is vandalism. This is just your personal opinion without proper sources. Because language and words matter?. "Kyivan Rus'" in https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kyivan_rus and many sources, such as http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/64039/excerpt/9780521864039_excerpt.pdf or https://gis.huri.harvard.edu/golden-age-kyivan-rus ] (]) 20:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes @] you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @] provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. ] ] 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, I am reverting IPs that change "Kievan Rus'" to "Kyivan Rus'" because the article is ] and this must be consistent unless there is good reason to use a different name (there is also consensus at ]). Your reverts were undone by other editors as a result. If the issue is ] then a block will be necessary because I only see disruption being continued. ] (]) 20:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay. --] (]) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, exist "WP:KYIV", but not exist "WP:Kyivan Rus". And articles with "Kyivan Rus" already exist. Your destructive editing distorts the articles. ] (]) 21:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. ] ] 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Again, the article is ]. The result of the last requested move was a snow close. ] (]) 21:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't think this is a content dispute. I think the user violates ], otherwise it would be impossible to create tons of nominations. And please look at the AfD page, all his nominations simply say: "Non-notable figure skater", "Non-notable figure skater, PROD removed", "Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements" or "Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals". It is obvious that there's no ] research and as little consideration as "humanly possible".<br />Okay, since Bgsu98 pinged someone in his support, I'll ping {{u|BeanieFan11}} and {{u|Doczilla}}. (Sorry for disturbing you, BeanieFan11 and Doczilla.) --] (]) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You changed all the words "Kyivan Rus" in the article "Ukrainian language" https://en.wikipedia.org/Ukrainian_language. | |||
| :::When closing one AfD, I made some observations about that day's many AfDs and noted in that one close regarding Bgsu98: "The nominator's burst of dozens of nominations within half an hour failed to stimulate any discussion about many of them." In my meager opinion, the massive number of rapid deletion nominations rather strongly might suggest, at the very least, a lack of due diligence regarding each and a likely violation of WP:BEFORE. ] <sub>]</sub> 07:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is an article about the Ukrainian language, not russian, and therefore the terms are written in Ukrainian transliteration. The article says "Kyiv" and "Kyivan Rus", but you changed it to "Kievan Rus". Maybe you were hired for this destructive editing and vandalism? ] (]) 21:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :] claims to be polite, yet wrote : ''"random people at AfD don't care about actually checking the notability and just vote "delete per nom"''. Pinging ] who also found that comment objectionable. I have made an effort to thank editors who have participated in my AFD's, regardless of whether they have always agreed with my findings, because AFD's that end in "no consensus" do nothing but waste everyone's time. | |||
| ::::::See ]. But since you are now casting ] I think you will need a block now. ] (]) 21:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :He has been adversarial and confrontational in every communication to me. From ]: ''"By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD... Like, you nomitated ] 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale... Are you planning to nominate it 100 times?"'' | |||
| :::::::Yes, probably according to WP:REVERT, my actions were wrong. ] (]) 21:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I always appreciate constructive feedback when it's delivered in a courteous and professional manner. ] seems incapable of courtesy or professionalism. ] ] 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::After a brief review of their edit history, their comments about other editors, and the clear ] view presented in their comments here, I'd support that. ] (]) 19:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :*C'mon, ], civility goes both ways. We can discuss the value of these articles and the AFD process without attacking each other. Flinging mud doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is just your opinion. World-renowned Ukrainian historians do not think so. ] (]) 21:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :*:I apologize, ]; I am just at my wit's end with this editor. ] ] 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::World renowned Ukrainian historians without any published papers detailing their views? Strange. ] (]) 16:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Here's my take, ]. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:As I have been pinged on this discussion I thought I would 1 confirm I did find @] to be somewhat rude and condescending in their repeated assertions that those who vote on these skating AFDs do not do any research and are basically sheep just voting delete and 2 most of these nominated bios are a few sentences or just a table of stats copy and pasted so @] I doubt anyone spent hours putting them together. Finally I feel @] is now looking to use any procedure they can to try and besmirch @] and derail their valid efforts to remove some of the seemingly thousands of sports bios that do not meet current Misplaced Pages guidelines and are of interest to few, if any, general reader. If anyone is in need of reprimand or sanction over this matter (which has been blown out of all proportion), it is @] ] (]) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*::Why should I be "reprimanded"? My comments about "people at AfD' were non-specific, while {{u|Bgsu98}} directly accused me of lying. (In the Russian Misplaced Pages, he would be blocked for this "automatically".)<br />Also, a note to admins: Can it be that {{u|Bgsu98}} finds fun in annoying other editors? I can't really explain the content of his user page differently. Yes, surely, different people can have different motivation for editing Misplaced Pages, but I don't think it is a "normal situation" when you look at someone's user page and see how the person likes to be "evil".<br />And, btw, please note that Bgsu98 summoned Shrug02 here for the purpose of supporting him. I haven't summoned anybody. (Maybe some people would notice, but Bgsu98 deleted my ANI notice from his talk page immediately.) --] (]) 15:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:::@] I am going to be generous and presume English is not your first language so your choice of wording might be a little off. However, I was not "summoned" or asked to support anyone. @] pinged me and I gave my view. I did not say you SHOULD be reprimanded, I said IF anyone was to be sanctioned over this matter then it would be you. My reasoning for this is your attacking @], making broad statements questioning the intelligence of people at AFD discussions and using this forum incorrectly. As for what happens on Russian Misplaced Pages, that is their busines. I hope you have read @]'s comment as I think it sums this situation up nicely. ] (]) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:::: I haven't questioned anybody's intelligence. It is just my experience that many people trust the nominator and vote "delete" without much thinking. They maybe quickly visit the article in discussion, look at the "References" section, that's enough for them. And they typically don't speak Russian or Hebrew or whatever. So, when they see "Selepen", they hardly go to yandex.ru and search for "Шелепень". --] (]) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:::: Okay, "summon" is not the right word. Sorry. "He asked you to come". But that "I am going to be generous" sentence doesn't look polite. --] (]) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:::: According to , "summon" and "ask to" are the same thing. --] (]) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:::::@] | |||
| :::*:::::Cambridge Dictionary definition of summon (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/summon) is "to order someone to come to or be present at a particular place, or to officially arrange a meeting of people." | |||
| :::*:::::No-one ORDERED me to take part in this discussion. | |||
| :::*:::::If there is so much significant coverage for these skaters then the simple solution is for you to add it to the articles in question with suitable references and then AFDs will end as keep. | |||
| :::*:::::I am now finished with this discussion and I hope the admins step in and end it soon. | |||
| :::*:::::All the best to everyone involved. ] (]) 16:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:::] wrote the following in his original complaint: ''”…decided to mass-delete articles that don't comply with WP:NSKATE… I am sure most articles he deleted had the right to stay per WP:GNG.”'' I don’t have the ability to “mass-delete” anything, and if most of those articles met ], the users at AFD would have voted to keep them. Just two examples of MC’s falsehoods. ] ] 16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*::::OK. But you have also mass-prodded articles, that's the same as "deleting". (Like a "delayed deletion".) --] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Let me help you out here, Moscow Connection. As it happens, Bgsu98 is a veteran editor with both tens of thousands of edits and a long history of editing skating articles. He is not, as you imply, some bomb thrower hellbent in laying waste to skating articles. Moving right along ...<p>(2) Your curious assertion that he was the first person to AfD no-longer-qualifying skating articles is inaccurate; I did so myself, right after the NSPORTS changes, and I recall several editors also doing so.<p>(3) The Bialas AfDs did not close as Keep, as you wrongly assert. They closed as "no consensus", with almost no participation and multiple relistings; that's ''exactly'' the kind of situation where renomination to seek an actual consensus is appropriate.<p>(4) Rules change on Misplaced Pages, by the bucketload. I have a hard time seeing what is "very unfair" about this, unless "very unfair" is a secret code for "I don't like it, so it's unfair." And ... seriously? You've been on Misplaced Pages for fifteen years, have over sixty thousand edits, have participated in nearly a hundred AfDs? I'd expect this level of confusion from a first-week newbie, not from an editor of your experience. ] 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::He only joined in 2021. I've looked at his "Pages Created" count, what he has been doing is creating pages for small figure skating events (for their yearly editions) since late 2023. That's hardly "a long history". --] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::“Small figure skating events” like the National Championships of the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, and Italy; the Grand Prix series, including the Grand Prix Final; and the Challenger Series events? 1) Article Creation isn’t the only metric by which Misplaced Pages contributions can be measured, and 2) Referring to any of those events as “small” is ridiculous and insulting to all parties involved. I should have never even responded yesterday when three different administrators asserted that the original complaint was groundless. I’m done responding to this complainant. ] ] 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Given it is acknowledged that large numbers of articles on figure skaters do not meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria ({{tq|What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE.}}), I’m not really seeing anything unexpected here. — | |||
| :] (]) 12:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :As someone uninvolved in all of this, I’m reading that OP gets into a dispute about AfDs and then goes to ANI to make their grievances more visible to admins. Does OP not realize that admins are primarily responsible for moderating, closing, and relisting AfD discussions? Also, as someone else pointed above, this is a content dispute: it does not meet the standard for being urgent, chronic, or intractable. OP’s choice to insult another user by calling their behavior “crazy” multiple times is inappropriate and makes me believe that they might have just thrown a ]. ] (]) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :the bar for notability for skaters went up, someone came along and started nominating based on the new guidelines, and OP is upset. that seems to be the gist. i was not involved but didn't that happen in the porno biography area a few years ago? some change raised the bar so a lot of stuff was deleted. ] (]) 16:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Nice ], Onchigor. Well done. Anyway, back to the original point everybody. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Helvetica', sans-serif;">''']™'''</span> 19:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * I do heavily advise slowing down on the nominations. There is not enough editors in the figure skating topic area to give the appropriate amount of time to search for sources for these articles. To be honest, I'm sure that a good number of ones that were closed as "delete" were actually notable but no one did any in-depth BEFORE search (many would not have coverage in English and the coverage would be in foreign newspaper archives). I asked the user yesterday about the extent of the BEFORE searches and only got "Yes, but not as much as some people like" – and then I asked what search was done for the most recent example, from a few hours prior, and they said they had no recollection (which is concerning IMO, to have no idea what searches you did for an article you nominated a few hours prior). Note that the AFD rationales are often ''really'' poor; many are simply {{tq|Non-notable figure skater}}, which doesn't say much of anything. ] (]) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I will slow down on nominations and focus on improving other aspects of the the FS articles, such as updating the infoboxes and tables to conform with our MOS. ] ] 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::And @], you can help by, when the nomination involves a person whose native language is written in non-Latin characters (e.g., Cyrillic or Hebrew), replying in the AfD with a link to the native language web search for that person to help establish the presence or absence of notability support. — ] ] 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::But there are 45 (!) articles nominated for deletion. I looked at the AfD page and understood that it was physically impossible to do anything. So I decided to bring this situation to the attention of the Misplaced Pages community. It is easy to create 1000 AfD nominations with the same rationale ("Non-notable figure skater"), but even these mere 45 AfD nominations utterly scared me and discouraged me from even looking at ]. (I really can't do anything. I have some other articles, the ones I created, that need attention. And I have long "to do" lists that wait for years to be taken care of.) --] (]) 17:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The answer being, "So?" If neither the article creators nor anyone else has sought to provide ] for these articles -- the Ievleva article, for example, was created '''seventeen years ago''' -- then that just suggests no one's given enough of a damn to bother, and Misplaced Pages will survive these stubs' loss. It is not, nor ever has been, "physically impossible" to do anything about mass deletions; that's ridiculous. An AfD discussion is open for seven days, and it's easy to find adequate sources for an article ... certainly, in the cases of these Russian skaters, for a native speaker of Russian such as yourself. If you can't, the answer isn't that there's some flaw in the process or that Bgsu98 is pulling a fast one on us all. The answer is that the subjects are non-notable, and don't merit Misplaced Pages articles. ] 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::: The nominator has agreed to slow down, so the point is kind of moot, but I still wanted to make clear: Ravenswing, 45 AFDs rapidly is ridiculous, especially when next-to-no-BEFORE is done and there previously was no indication of stopping – remember that there's only a few editors in the topic area – ''and'' many of these, which are notable, require more than simple Google searches to find the coverage that demonstrates notability (i.e., for many, the coverage would be in places such as difficult-to-find offline newspapers in foreign languages) – making so many nominations rapidly without appropriate searches will inevitably result in some truly notable ones being deleted due to the lack of effort. While ''you'' may not care about the stubs, others do, and simply because the two editors who drive-by to the nom and say "Delete per above" didn't find coverage absolutely does not equate to the subject being confirmed non-notable. ] (]) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Actually, I have attempted to do something yesterday. I voted and commented on two nominations. ("]" and "]".) Cause these two are Russian figure skaters, and I know they are famous enough. Immediately a user came and wholesale dismissed all the sources I found. I don't really want to play that game, it's too tiresome. I have found another source for Alexandra Ievleva just now. Let's see what the outcome will be.<br />But really, I can't do it anymore. Maybe if these were articles I created, I would invest into searching for sources. Now, I just tried a little bit and saw that some people really want to delete these articles for whatever reason. There are a few people actually searching for sources at some nominations, but mostly it's just that old "you go and provide third-party reliable sources independent of the subject, so I can look at them and dismiss them" game.<br />Okay, people will say I am the bad person here, but I have actually tried to save a couple of articles. I don't understand why people so eagerly want to delete articles than can actually be kept. (Okay, there are mostly interviews and short news about the figure skaters placing here and there or missing some events, but those sources are reliable enough. And one can actually take the sources into account and leave the articles be.)<br />By the way, I have tried searching on what was once ], but the news search doesn't work anymore. (.) There's nothing prior to 2024 when Yandex sold its assets including the news engine. And I can remember when the list of news articles there went back to 2003 or so... --] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::What I’m reading is that you don’t like how AfD works, and there hasn’t been any departure from normal processes. ANI is not the appropriate venue to discuss these issues. ] (]) 10:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I'm sorry if this looks like a ramble. These were initially two or three separate replies. --] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitrary break=== | |||
| {{Od}} ...{{Tpq|editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes}}. Just curious if you or anyone else honestly believes that the opinions of these editors takes priority over the view held in the real world that six million articles falls substantially short of "the sum of all human knowledge". contained the following statement: "According to one estimate, the sum of human knowledge would require 104 million articles". I know some of you are in serious denial and will try to suppress this as a result, but I'm gonna keep saying it anyway. We don't have the sum of all human knowledge, nor are we trying to achieve it. At best, we're the sum of what Google and legacy media has spoon-fed you today within the past X number of years.]/]/] (posted 00:37, January 9, 2025 UTC) | |||
| :RadioKAOS, I'm not going to argue about whose "view takes priority" in the area of the sum of human knowledge but in an AFD discussion, decisions are made by determining the consensus of the editors who bothered to show up and present compelling policy-based arguments. That is typically editors who are active on Misplaced Pages and have an opinion about an article, not any scholar coming up with estimates on the necessary number of articles we should have. How many AFDs do you participate in on a regular basis? And there is no one here that who will attempt to "suppress" your argument. As long as you are not personally attacking any editors, I think you are free to have whatever opinions you do have about this project. No penalty. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Liz}} The problem is that these editors who "bother to show up" don't equally represent the community. Maybe I'm wrong, but there are some people who are mainly active on AfD and who act as "gatekeepers".<br />A normal editor can easily not notice when a page is nominated for deletion, but the AfD regulars will come and vote "delete".<br />Also, I wonder how it happened that the NSKATE guidelines were changed so drastically. I think I have found a discussion about that but I am not sure. A user who was tired of people voting "keep per ]", proposed to get rid of the "Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports)" completely. And then there was a discussion with around 70 people attending. But for some reason at least some sports got spared the worst fate (or got out intact), while figure skating was "destroyed". Moreover, the ] revision history shows signs of edit warring. So it is just possible that the "deletionists" were the most active/agressive and they won. Some sports wikiprojects defended their sports, and some like WikiProject Figure skating weren't active at the time and didn't do anything. --] (]) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::], I guess you can choose to call them "gatekeepers" but I consider them dedicated volunteers. The number of editors who participate in AFDs has declined for at least the past two years, so if you can think of a way to get more editors involved, or if you want to help out by spending, let's say, 10 hours a week evaluating articles and sources in AFD deletion discussions, your help would be welcomed. But don't criticize the editors who actually show up and help. Without them, we would only have the opinions of editors who nominate articles for deletion and I'm sure you wouldn't like it if all of those nominated articles were simpy deleted without any feedback at all from other editors. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am not an AfD regular, and what happens there scares me. When I commented, people just bombarded me with "This is not a third-party reliable source independent of the subject", and it didn't look to me like they even knew what "third-party" was. (I could swear my source was third-party and reliable and independent, but they said it was not and bombarded me with some random links to the WP space.) --] (]) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I had a look at the AfDs you participated in and I think I can explain why there. In all the links you provided were to sports.ru - these are not independent because sports.ru is the website for the Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member. They thus don't demonstrate the subject has any independent coverage of their athletic career. I hope this helps. ] (]) 14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You act like some people on AfD who dismiss sources "for the sake of dismissing". Why did even think it was a website for some "Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member"? It is just a sports news website (a sports portal) like any other. --] (]) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::]. Really, that's quite similar to what happens on AfD. I can go deep into Google Search, spend lots of time, but some people will just say "not third-party" or smth like this. Where do they see that and how do they come to their conclusions? It's a mystery to me. --] (]) 21:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :(nods) Heck, "some authority" came up with canards such as that we all ought to take 10,000 steps a day, drink eight glasses of water a day, and that our basal body temps are all 98.6. I likewise decline to bow before the suspect, threadbare wisdom of "one estimate" that we need 104,000,000 articles ... speaking of serious denial. (grins) ] 07:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{re|Ravenswing}}, why are you trying to "repulse" my attemps to save a couple of articles at AfD? First, you came here to defend Bgsu98. And then, you came to the two nominations where I commented, only to wholesale dismiss all the sources I found.<br />And when I found another source, you said that there were "3 sentences" while there were actually 7.<br />I've looked at your contributions, you don't look like someone who can read Russian or has any interest in figure skating. So why are you doing this? (Okay, you can have the articles, you won.) --] (]) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please be careful with the ], Moscow Connection. --] 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay. --] (]) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My 2 cents. In my experience, Bgsu clearly does not conduct BEFORE searches (and seems proud of it), ignores actual coverage of the subjects (even when present in the articles), mass nominates batches of articles (50 in 30 minutes is a hilarious example), consistently fails to adhere to AGF, quickly re-nominates articles when the result is not to their liking, inaccurately summarizes examples of SIGCOV when they are provided in discussions, and tops it off by clearing their XfD logs. ] (]) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: That's a significant number of evidence-free aspersions you're casting, would you like to evidence them? Incidentally, mass-nominating articles isn't necessarily an issue; I have done it in the past but I still examined each article before nominating them in one batch. ] 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I do not wish to dig through hundreds of AfDs, no. Just providing what I've gathered in my experience. And I disagree that 50 AfDs in half an hour is not an issue. | |||
| :::::::Here is one example of the types of responses you can expect to get when you provide SIGCOV in one of his discussions: {{tq|Nobody is going to add anything to this article. The same people pop up on these AFD's, squawk about how someone having their picture taken for their local newspaper qualifies as "significant coverage", and then the article is left in the same crappy condition it was when we started.}} ] (]) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::And ] is an example of the nom wholly ignoring GNG and insisting on using deprecated NSPORTS guidelines ''after'' SIGCOV was added to the article. Dozens and dozens of more examples. ] (]) 21:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::] example of ignoring SIGCOV ''already present'' in the article. ] (]) 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{Ping|GiantSnowman}} {{Ping|Black Kite}} ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] more examples, all within a week of eachother and many with SIGCOV already present in the article. ] (]) 21:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::] is an example from two days ago where they nominated a skater who finished top 4 at the World Championships because they assumed the sources in the article were the only sources available on the subject. ] (]) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::OK this AFD, coupled with the historical ones, is very concerning. I understand that not every editor is going to be able to find every source, but it appears that Bgsu98 does not even bother looking. I would support a topic ban from AFDs. ]] 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::] and ] is an example of four users expressing their concerns about BEFORE searches and their misunderstanding of notability policies. More recently, concerns were raised ] and , although bgsu deleted the latter from their talk page with the message {{tq|Stay off my talk page. You have some nerve using the term “good will” considering your appalling behavior.}} ] (]) 22:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::And here are ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] examples of nom ignoring the concept of GNG and/or entirely disregarding SIGCOV already present in the article. As Liz notes ], close to 100 articles were deleted through PROD before I was able to contest them. Many of these that I contested and were later kept in AfDs with clear GNG passes are present among the examples I've given. ] (]) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Thanks - anything more recent than May 2024? ]] 22:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It would be helpful if you could provide some examples of a) a number of nominations in a short period of time and b) several AFDs where the rationale is deeply flawed. ]] 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: If you go to 10 May 2024 , you get exactly '''50''' nominations in 30 minutes. A good number of those were kept per . ] (]) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Great, thanks - see above, I think we need an AFD topic ban. ]] 22:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, let's start with that I'm a frequent participant at ANI, and I no more "came here to defend" anyone than any other editor who's chimed in here. I dismissed those sources wholesale because I burned some time to look over each and every one of them (as did more than one editor), and found that ] provided the "significant coverage" in detail to the subjects that the GNG requires. As it happens, I have edited skating articles in the past -- you're not claiming to have truly gone through my whole twenty-year contribution history, are you?<p>So why am I doing this? Perhaps it's strange to you that anyone could act out of a dispassionate wish to uphold Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, instead of out of partisan motives, but you'll find that most ANI regulars do just that. ] 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I've participated in a lot of these AfDs, I believe mostly !voting delete, and I've gotta say I am not happy to see it implied that AfD participants were blindly going along with Bgsu. I guarantee that I perform thorough searches on every single AfD I !vote it, ''especially'' these mass-noms with essentially no rationale. Bgsu's noms are, for better or worse, fairly accurate and generally result in the deletion of articles that should be deleted. ''However'', I have seen several examples of incivility and assuming bad faith from this user (although I have experienced neither myself) and I agree that the sheer quantity of nominations does not promote a healthy level of community input. The individual noms are generally okay, but mass noms like ], tried participating in, and gave up on can be a little overwhelming. I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for. ] </span>]] 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I did say a few days ago I wasn't going to engage in this discussion any further but since I keep getting notifications about it I figured I'd weigh in as the conversation seems to have gone in a totally different direction. As @] and others have pointed out I too am not happy that it is being implied that people who voted in these AFDs are blindly following @] without doing any independent research. I refuted this on the figure skating talk page when this all started and on this page. Also, as has been previously pointed out by other editors, this particular discussion began with @] basically not liking the rules on significant coverage and then coming to this forum to seek retribution against @]. Now it seems that their improper use of this forum, ref bombing of articles and general complaining that they don't like something and how unfair it is in their opinion, may actually lead to them getting what they want. This sets a very poor precedent that if you don't like something on Misplaced Pages and you jump up and down and wail about it enough you can get your way. Yes @] probably nominates too many similar articles at one time but they have agreed to slow down now, and yes they have nominated articles for AFD that have then been kept because significant coverage was found, but they have also nominated a lot of articles which have not been found to have significant coverage and have subsequently been deleted following the due, consensus based procedure and closed as such by an admin. @] is already seeking to have articles which have been deleted following AFDs unilaterally reopened. If you now sanction @] we may as well just give Jimmy Wales a call and ask him to hand over Misplaced Pages to the whims and wants of @] ] (]) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*I haven't asked anybody to give Misplaced Pages over to me. What do you mean by "unilaterally reopened"? If you are refering to me asking {{u|Star Mississippi}} to undelete the "]" article, what's wrong with it? It was deleted without a proper Google search, and I have found some sources for her. Just look at ]. At the very end, a user that goes by the name of {{u|Kvng}}, noticed: {{tq|No one in this discussion (including myself) has mentioned anything about searching for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG}}, but that was all, no one did anything. You and another user seem to have claimed here that you do a proper search on every Bgsu98's nomination, but I don't see you on that AfD page.<br />You really sound like you think I'm doing something awful in my attempt to rescue an article. Come on, she's not someone terrible who wants to promote herself on Misplaced Pages or something. She's just a fairly famous figure skater. You don't need to defend Misplaced Pages from her. --] (]) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*I've decided to save "]" (]) and I've already found a couple of dozen articles talking about her. Yes, maybe the others will say those are mostly interviews and the Women's Sport website is not good enough, but I have found lots and lots about her! I don't think you or Bgsu98 would be able to do that cause you don't read Russian and don't know how to search (I tried to add different additional key words, and every time I found something new). --] (]) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:1 you don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what, 2 now you say I "don't know how to search" which is yet another unfounded suggestion that I don't make any effort before giving opinions on AFDs, 3 you don't know what searches were done on Lilia Biktagirova and neither do I, 4 I wasn't involved in that discussion and I try to focus more on adding to articles then deleting them, 5 my point was, and is, you don't like the rules so you have launched a campaign of complaining to try to get your way instead of going through the proper channels and seeking to get consensus to alter said rules. Frankly I'm tired of this and of you belittling everyone else as if you are the only person who knows what is right and are somehow able to read the minds and intentions of everyone else. Go ahead and, as you put it, "save" your Russian skaters. I genuinely hope you do and that the articles are filled with interesting and well-sourced information. That's the aim of Misplaced Pages to inform the population about things worth knowing. ] (]) 00:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:*"{{tq|You don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what}}"<br />— What I do is called ]. What you just did by claiming you can read Martian, I honestly don't know.<br />I've started this discussion because I saw the user's 45 nominations at ] and that scared me a lot. --] (]) 01:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:*:It's called ironic humour and, with everything going on in the world right now, if a Misplaced Pages AFD scared you a lot then you are obviously in the very fortunate position to have so few worries. Anyway I'm moving on to spend my time more productively. I sincerely wish you the best in your endeavours. ] (]) 01:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **I appreciate your input and insight. As I told ] earlier, I promised to slow down on nominations, and in fact, I had decided that I wouldn't even entertain the idea of additional nominations until the ones already in the system work their way through.<br>I can also promise to strive to be more thorough in researching these potential nominations and provide more detailed rationales in the future. I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two! ] ] 23:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:Sorry, Bgsu, I completely missed that you had committed to slowing down. I think that's a great idea that resolves the issue here. Just remember, when you get frustrated by other editors, do your best to stay polite – if you can't, simply step away from the keyboard for a moment. I don't want to see you get in trouble for one too many snarky comments. ] </span>]] 09:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **20 nominations per day is 7300 per year. The limit should be more like 0. (And if it is decided to be 1 or something like that, Bgsu98 will have to demonstrate that he has searched for sources every time. I prefer 0, naturally.) --] (]) 00:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:A limit of 0 is asinine, and I highly suggest you strike this comment. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **::Yeah, agreed - really not helping move away from the comments above the MC is here because they don't like AFD. ]] 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:While I do not know whether @] should be restricted from AfD as I haven't been able to go into the weeds on this, I disagree with {{tq|I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for.}} @]. No editor should be nominating 20 articles per day. That's unsustainable for AfD participants, clerks or closers. We do not have the editor volume to assess that many nominations from one nominator. ] ] 00:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::20 per day is a lot, but given the numbers thrown around above (50 in 30 minutes) I figured it would be a massive improvement. But since Bgsu has committed to nominating ''far'' fewer articles with {{tq|Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two!}} I suppose the whole discussion is moot. ] </span>]] 11:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I don't think it's that easy. The question is who will check all the hundreds or thousands of his previous nominations. Definitely not me. (I've looked through several active ones, found some sources, commented here and there, and got very tired.)<br />As I have commented below, when problems were found with {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}'s articles, he was told to go through all his articles and check them. (Actually, there was a user who volunteered to help, but that user was revealed to be Sander.v.Ginkel himself, cause no one in their right mind would have volunteered to check 40000 articles. I, personally, don't want to be a slave and don't want to check Bgsu98's past nominations, especially knowing how little effort he put into creating them and that I would have to spend years looking for sources.) --] (]) 11:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::It's a volunteer project. Someone may choose to, as you did initially, or no one will. But unless they're salted, there's nothing prohibiting restoration to drafts if ] can be found. We can fix going forward but can't always fix what happened before even when there's a collaborative effort. ] ] 13:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Of note. User JTtheOG is canvassing apparent like-minded editors to this discussion, and . ] (]) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:They are not like-minded actually. In fact, both had previously expressed they disagreed with my initial assertions, which I had not yet provided evidence for. I was notifying them of examples being provided here of previously unsubstantiated aspersions. ] (]) 23:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::"As per previous discussions..." I love hearing that ] is having discussions about me with other users, but has never once attempted to communicate directly to me. (Snide comments in AFD's don't count as broaching conversation.) ] ] 00:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** If even that's true, no none came. (No one of the whole two.) And Bgsu98 did the same by pinging his like-minded AfD colleague. (He pinged him immediately.) --] (]) 00:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * As a fellow ] participant, and without having gone over the particular cases, I am normally a rather deletion-oriented editor but am an inclusionist for skating specifically as sources are not as online on this topic as usual, and often in foreign languages, so I am not usually in favor of deleting a skater's article unless we really do exhaust all possible sources of notability. I do request that {{ping|Bgsu98}} convene a broader discussion over notability as I also do disagree with the current guidelines, but even without that a discussion is warranted. Even if a mass deletion ''is'' warranted, it should be handled in one mass AfD, not a gazillion separate ones.--] ] 01:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I came across this randomly in my watchlist.. can I recommend ''everyone'' take a step back and focus on the issue at hand? Currently, ] states the following: {{tq|Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability: The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.}} So, I'd ask {{ping|Moscow Connection}} to please consider whether their views on BEFORE are in line with what it actually says. I appreciate that MC states many of these nominated articles are for non-English speaking and in some cases non-Western world skaters, and so it may not be possible to find many of the potential sources in an English language Google search.{{pb}}But MC, can you identify any deletion nominations for which there were sources that could be found in any of the following: ''a normal Google search'', or a ''Google Books search'', or a ''Google News search'', or a ''Google News archive search''? If you can identify such, please provide the deletion discussion, and a link or other method of showing us how you came across the sources on one of those searches. If you can't, then it sounds like your argument is more for '''expanding ] to require non-English language searches for non-English subjects'''. I take no strong view on whether it would be a good idea - I think that BEFORE should certainly ''recommend'' more far reaching searches for subjects who may not be satisfied by a Google search.. but ''required''? Not everyone knows how to use other search engines, and they may not even know what terms to use (or be able to type them easily). And that doesn't even begin to touch the big problem with Google - Google results (if you're logged in, at least), are '''significantly''' based on your search history, and if you use Google Chrome browser (on mobile or PC), or the Android OS, they are also based on your usage of those platforms (such as websites visited, apps used, etc). So it's entirely possible that MC searching Google may see a result on the first page or two that someone else searching Google would not have seen on the first couple pages at all.{{pb}}Regardless, that's an argument/discussion to be had on another page (likely ]). Since this all seems to be a misconstruing of BEFORE by MC, and assuming everyone involved tones down the rhetoric, I'd recommend this move towards a reminder to MC that BEFORE, as it stands now, does '''not''' require anything beyond a Google (and Google News and Google Books) to be searched, and until that changes, the mere fact sources exist on other search engines does not constitute a violation of BEFORE unless there is evidence they would've been found through those search means. And I recommend that MC (or anyone, really) starts a discussion ''at the appropriate place'' if they think changes to BEFORE are necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** I read this and tried to search some names from AfD on Google Books. A search for ]'s name definitely returns something non-trivial: ("Nicole Nönnig kehrte allerdings nach kurzer Pause zurück . Mit Matthias Bleyer bildete sie ein Paar , das 2003 sogar internationale Wettbewerbe bestritt . Die Schlittschuhe haben Nicole und Matthias inzwischen jedoch an den Nagel ..."). --] (]) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:I'll leave this to others to discuss, but this is the type of "evidence" you would be expected to produce to show that the user did not comply with BEFORE. That said, one instance of mention in a book does not meet ], so unless you can show that there are ''multiple'' instances of ''significant'' coverage in reliable sources that would've been found on a BEFORE, then it still doesn't mean that the user did not do a valid BEFORE. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 01:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:: Here's a link to the book: . (I've tried and tried, but I don't know how to add "bks" to the Google Books search URL.) --] (]) 01:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:: A search for "李宣潼" on Google News returned this article: and a couple more. The one I linked looks very solid, it is a full-fledged biography. (The AfD discussion is here: ]. As usual, the rationale is: {{tq|Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements.}}) --] (]) 02:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:: And one more article → about Li Xuantong and her partner ] (also nominated for deletion by Bgsu98). It's like a print magazine article + interview, looks "massive". --] (]) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:: Another example: ].<br />A simple Google News search for "김유재 2009" returns a lot. I didn't look too far, but I found two lengthy articles about her and her twin sister on the first page (, ) and voted "keep".<br />(I would also note that there are already some AfD regulars present in that discussion. But no one has googled her name.) --] (]) 03:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:: OMG, Bgsu98 nominated her sister for deletion, too: ]. He nominated her on January 1, and no one has commented since. (Okay, I'll vote now and save her.) --] (]) 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:::You ''do'' realize there’s a difference between an article about a person and the person themselves? You’re not saving anyone here. You are a volunteer Misplaced Pages editor, not a volunteer firefighter. ] (]) 06:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **::::{{re|HyperAccelerated}} Did it sound strange or silly? Sure, I understand the difference. But people do say "article's notability" when it's actually "the notability of an article's subject". I thought that an article and its subject are interchangeable in colloquial wikispeech. --] (]) 06:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I know the entire thing is a bit of a long read, but I would like to note that Bgsu98's tendency to make XFDs without any regard for GNG/BASIC - even for those where GNG/BASIC is met (], ], ]) - dates back to ]. In fact, last year ] (which they then deleted) that this issue was creating more work for editors, but this is still continuing as of late. There seems to be an IDHT issue with ]. ]@] 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Alright, trying to defuse the situation more. {{ping|Bgsu98}} It appears that MC has been able to provide at least two examples for which there are ''multiple'' examples of potentially significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. And another user has identified at least 3 other AfDs in which sources were quickly found by other users. Yes, some of them (such as MC's examples) were found by Google searching the non-Latin alphabet version of the subject's name, but nothing in BEFORE suggests that searching only the subject's Latin name is appropriate. And it appears that these sources are all found with a quick Google search of the subject's name in the non-Latin script. Can you explain why you did not find these sources, or why, if you did find these sources, you did not identify them at the AfD discussion and/or did not consider them sufficient for GNG? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 04:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::What do you think of the limitations on nominating articles that ] already stated they were willing to adopt? It's higher up in this discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I spent a good 30-45 minutes reading this discussion before I made my first comment attempting to defuse this. I do not think that a voluntary restriction is going to be a good thing here, unless it is given the enforceability that a consensus here can give. I initially was concerned that EC was making this report with a poor understanding of BEFORE. But given that EC (and another editor) has/have now provided multiple examples of Google searches that show, at least at first glance, one or more sources that meet GNG for their related articles, I think there is ample evidence that Bgsu98 is violating BEFORE. I don't particularly care ''why'' they're violating BEFORE, but I would support waiting for their explanation regardless.{{pb}}If Bgsu98 is unable to provide any legitimate explanation for the at least 3 cases that have been identified now as having clear sources in the searches required by BEFORE, I would support a restriction on nominating articles for deletion in any way (PROD or AfD, or otherwise) since they cannot be trusted to follow BEFORE before they do so.{{pb}}All of that said, I think this should be moved to a subsection - starting with EC and Miraclepine's reports of specific cases. I stepped in as what you may call an inclusionist, thinking I'd be in support of sanctions immediately, but this is a complicated situation, and to be blunt, everything above my comment seems to have led nowhere. At the same time, I support giving Bgsu98 a chance to respond explaining why their BEFORE search was sufficient, before any sanctions are issued. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've provided some 20 examples as well. ] (]) 05:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would say: "Not before Bgsu98 goes through all his previous nominations and his PRODs and searches for sources for them." He probably deleted (okay, "nominated") hundreds of pages, he did enough damage and now should work on fixing it. --] (]) 05:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's not too helpful right now, man. No one can be forced to do anything. ] (]) 07:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't propose to force anyone. But I have just came across a ] and remembered how he was told to go through all the articles he had created and check/fix them before creating more. We have a similar situation here, I think. --] (]) 07:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Articles that should not have been deleted have been kept by consensus at AfD. This is how AfD works. They are in the exact same state that they were before they were nominated, perhaps even better by ]. No “damage” has occurred. Additionally, if you think an article has been deleted when it shouldn’t, it is ''your'' responsibility to bring your concerns to DRV. This does not change just because you made a thread at ANI. You do not get to pick and choose which policies apply to whom. ] (]) 18:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Bgsu has already agreed to limit their nominations to a couple a day. This is a far stricter constraint than what could have probably been reached by consensus. What more do you want? For reasons I don’t understand, your response to this is “the limit should be more like 0” without any grounding in policy. As I see it, Bgsu is plainly negotiating in good faith, while your behavior is bordering on bullying. ] (]) 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] has hit the nail on the head. This discussion should have been tossed immediately or at least closed down well before now. The early responses were that this was a content dispute not appropriate for ANI then the OP kept going with rapid fire posts and a few editors who appear to have a pre-existing axe to grind with @] revved it up into what it has become. As a side note it will be very interesting to see how the outstanding AFDs are adjudicated and by whom. ] (]) 18:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{OD}} | |||
| *'''Oppose any sanctions''' to Bgsu98. I did a spot-check of some of the more contentious AfDs and, honestly, the keep !votes did not provide a compelling argument to keep in any of those cases. As I mentioned to {{U|Moscow Connection}} above, for example, they provided six links to one of the subjects - and every single link was in the sports.ru domain which is not independent and does not establish notability for a Russian athlete. It's very unfortunate that so many editors here have expressed either distain for or fear of the AfD process, which is integral to the quality of this project and which I would heartily encourage more editors to participate in. And I can assure those people with misconceptions that many AfDs conclude with an article being kept or with no consensus - which is a de-facto keep. The sum of all human knowledge is a lofty goal. But one philosophical point I would ask extreme inclusionists to consider is that there is a difference between knowledge and data. AfD is a process whereby we distinguish between knowledge and data according to criteria - imperfect criteria surely but criteria - which we agreed to as participants in this project. We shouldn't be punishing a person for efficiently doing a hard job just because it's one that has a side-effect of upsetting people. ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:In case it was not already clear I too '''Oppose''' sanctions against @]. They should be given the chance to prove they will stick to their pledge to slow down on AFD nominations. Also sanctioning them will set a precedent for others who are unhappy with AFD proceeses and outcomes to seek similar sanctions against other nominators and could well have the effect of putting many people off participating in the process for fear of retribution when in fact it would be better if more people took part. ] (]) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Whereas I '''support''' some kind of restriction on the number of AFDs they can start per day. ]] 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I offered up self-imposed restrictions above, including the caveat that there would be no further skating nominations until the ones currently in the system work their way through. According to ], my last nomination was January 7th. As more contentious AFD's can sometimes take up to a month to process, that should allow for sufficient time. ] ] 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::To be fair, your log is regularly cleared, including your ]. ] (]) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Once an AFD is settled, I remove it. What's the problem? The log shows active AFD's only. ] ] 21:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * How about ] just agrees to not nominate more than, I don't know, two articles per day (based on their comment {{tq|I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two!}}) and we end the discussion? ] (]) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] I second this proposal. ] (]) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::We should definitely end it. I'm not an admin but that seems more than fair. ] (]) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Two a day is fine by me. ]] 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** I think there should be a requirement for him to show some sources he has found. (In every nomination. If there aren't any, then a link to a Google search query can suffice.)<br />Cause I've seen him lately on some figure skater articles in my watchlist, and I don't see him adding any references ever. It looks like his edits are purely technical. (As well as his nominations.) He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content, just updates scores and changes the table formatting. (And nominates for deletion.)<br />Does he ever search the net? That's the question. Has it happened even once that he wanted to delete an article and then found a source for it, added the source and went away? --] (]) 21:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:Wow. Mister "I would also like to note that I am polite" is again denigrating others' work, as if adding scores and formatting tables to meet Misplaced Pages's MOS is unimportant. "He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content." Yep, very polite. ] ] 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: And, as I've said, one should also search in the skater's native language. And for Russian figure skaters, Google doesn't work, you need Yandex. (And Yandex is not good as a search engine, some effort is needed to find anything. The major sports websites have profiles for everyone, you need to find the needed profile and go from there. It sounds too complicated, but that's how it is.) --] (]) 21:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** Also, he doesn't appear to know how to use the ]. The ] article had a good reference, I found it in the archive. His nomination (]) doesn't mention the reference, like if it doesn't exist. Maybe he didn't even look at the references section. --] (]) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** What I mean is that he should be required to show some sources he has found and to explain why these sources do not suffice. (After all, if he nominates an article, then obviously he doesn't find the coverage sufficient.)<br />There's always something. (Almost always.) But since he nominates mostly skaters who have finished their careers, the number of potential sources (news articles) found on the internet shouldn't be big. There are usually just a few. --] (]) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Smm380 and logged out editing == | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Smm380}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *{{IPlinks|195.238.112.0/20}} | |||
| I have this editor twice about logged out editing because they are evidently editing the article ] both logged in and as an IP. This makes tracking their edits more difficult since they have made hundreds altogether in recent months (and they are only focused on this specific article). The IP edits seem to come from ] (at least most of them) and they are often made shortly before/after Smm380 decides to log back in. See for example edit by Smm380 and edit by the IP a few minutes later regarding the same section. This is now especially a problem because they are deciding to make as an IP. | |||
| In general, they have not listened to prior warnings. I have given them multiple warnings about adding unsourced text, but they are still continuing to unsourced text without including citations first. But they have not responded to any of my warnings or explained why they are still doing this. ] (]) 09:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Primefac and Draft== | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = | |||
| | result = Thankfully @] revoked TPA. Beers or drink of choice all around for those who handled. Apologies and beverages in advance for those who field the inevitable UTRS <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">] ]</span> 17:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :I noticed the concerns raised regarding edits made both from my account and an IP address, and I’d like to clarify that this was neither intentional nor malicious. I simply forgot to log into my account while making those edits. | |||
| :I apologize if this caused any confusion. My sole intention was to improve content related to Ukrainian history, a topic I am deeply passionate about. | |||
| :Regarding the delayed response to your messages, I sincerely apologize. I hadn’t noticed the notifications until recently, as I was unfamiliar with how Misplaced Pages’s messaging system works. Now that I understand it better, I’ll ensure to respond more promptly in the future. | |||
| :I truly appreciate the valuable work you do to maintain the quality and reliability of Misplaced Pages. I will make sure to contribute responsibly and stay logged in during my future edits. ] (]) 16:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Another not here IP == | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{User|2601:18C:8183:D410:1D8C:39C9:DCEE:1166}} is altering another users posts to insert political commentary ] as well as making PA's, with a clear statement they do not intend to stop ], and edit warring over it as well. ] (]) 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Now past 3rr reinsertion of their alteration of another users post. So its now vandalism. ] (]) 14:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, I am being discriminated against by user Primefac who is rejecting my articles because she is MAD. She kicked me out of the chat room the other night after she began cursing at me using the F word and then kicked me from the room and declined my article because she is vindictive. There is nothing wrong with my article and she declined it out of spite. Is being liked a requirement to be published on Misplaced Pages? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| As well as this tit for tat report ]. ] (]) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The decline of ] is in order. The tone is unacceptably promotional. The draft would need a rewrite for tone, as well as to assert notability, before it could be accepted. —''']''' (]) 02:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't speak to the other accusations there, but that denial is proper. ] reads like an advertisement (and is also not properly titled, if its a draft about Black Note Graffiti). <span style="color:green">](he/him)<sup>]</sup></span> 02:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :IP blocked for edit warring. --] 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Additionally, I have notified {{u|Primefac}}, since {{u|Dmorale29}} did not. —''']''' (]) 03:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wonder what the statistics are of ]s on ANI posts whose OPs can't even be bothered to have the courtesy to notify the user they're talking about, even though they were clearly notified to. Surely it'd have to be higher than those who do. Regards, ]. (] | ]). 04:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I suggest you read about ]. Note that {{tq|An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.}} Your on-wiki edits makes it clear that you have a financial interest in your articles. — ] ] 03:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::To make it clearer, he states he is the owner/operator of ] — ] ] 03:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::OP indeffed for UPE. — ] ] 03:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And the draft's deleted per G11. ] ] 03:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not only that, but in addition to ], there's also ] and ], both of which are identical to the Dcypher Studios draft. ] ] 03:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I G11ed the lot of them. --]] 13:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thanks! ] ] 13:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, since when did Primefac "kick you out of the chat room", and curse? I'm doubting it's on ] but if it is, I concur with the others above: the draft reads like an advertisement and Primefac has done nothing wrong declining the draft. ] ] 03:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was IRC, and I've looked at my logs from the time period in question - primefac did not use the dreaded F word, nor were they "cursing" in general. After reminding the OP on IRC about the paid editing disclosure requirements and being pretty clearly lied to, I UPE-blocked and G11'd the draft. ] (]) 03:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank goodness Primefac didn't use the dreaded F-word! :) ] ] 03:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was ''about'' to in the short while we had them on IRC. ], and kept trying to shout me down with irrelevant articles (in this case, ]). I let General take over for me simply because he had logs and had more context than I did (the conversation Dmorale's complaining about happened while I was asleep, and I don't stay connected to IRC while away from the computer). Even before then, however, I got the sense they were lying to me just based off the state of the article; blatantly promotional articles like this one aren't written by accident. —] <small>(No further replies will be forthcoming.)</small> 03:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Um.... actually, I did cuss them out (roundabouts 11:30 UTC on 1 Mar)... we had spent the last half hour playing the game of "this was deleted improperly" / "here's how to fix it" / "this is stupid I don't want to do it" / "then you won't get what you want" / "I did everything right" / "clearly not, here's how to fix it" / repeat ad nauseam. As much as I hate to admit it, I lost my cool, and told them that the time they had spent complaining to me could have been spent emailing the photographer; more specifically {{tq|or you could just ask the f'ing photog to send a f'ing email}}. Not my finest hour, I will admit... {{u|Geordie}} can attest to their petulance if necessary. | |||
| :::::As far as the draft goes, as the chat here indicates it was ''clearly'' promotional and I felt that wasting some other reviewer's time with an <code>adv</code> decline was silly. ] (]) 07:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I suggest that you join Andy for the ] I suggested below. He could use the company. --]] 13:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I can attest that Dmorales' conduct was petulant, demanding, entitled, repetitive, and insulting; I could <s>barely</s> not keep my cool and came very close to swearing myself. I would say that primefac swore, but used the work "fuck" as a meaningless intensifier referring to the photographer and the email, rather than swearing "at" Dmorales. ] (]) 16:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|4}} Maybe an admin can take a look at their unblock request before it gets any longer or any more off topic. Someone might also want to take a look at ] since it seems redundant to ]. -- ] (]) 06:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| :Interesting postscript to this story: . --]] 19:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wonder if they appealed to ArbCom instead of UTRS <s>or if UTRS kicked it to ArbCom</s>. Given their behaviour in their unblock requests those seem the most likely options. —] <small>(No further replies will be forthcoming.)</small> 19:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Never went to UTRS, just checked to be sure. ] (]) 19:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Heritage Foundation planning to doxx editors == | |||
| == Canvassing by BeanieFan11 == | |||
| {{atop|result=Closing to prevent a split discussion. The most central discussion about this is currently held at ]. —] 22:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| See ]. Various sources are beginning to report on this, see , . It seems they plan to “identify and target Misplaced Pages editors abusing their position by analyzing text patterns, usernames, and technical data through data breach analysis, fingerprinting, HUMINT, and technical targeting,” and “engage curated sock puppet accounts to reveal patterns and provoke reactions, information disclosure,” and “push specific topics to expose more identity-related details.” An IP user on the discussion page says "they intend to add malicious links (sources) that will set cookies, grab your IP, and get tracking going for your device. This has likely already started. Be careful, there are lots of ways to hide where a link goes." ] (]) 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think there's a far more productive discussion going on at ]. ] (]) 17:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::A friendly reminder: It's always a good time to review the strength and age of account passwords, plus consider two-factor verification. The world is constantly changing... ] (]) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Isn't doxing a federal/punishable offense in ten states (more or less), including DC? If they grab the information of or out a minor, that can easily be taken on as a form of harassment and won't end well. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::No doubt the Trump adminstration will make pursuing such cases a high priority. ]] 22:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm unsure why this isn't a WMF issue, due to potential legal and safeguarding issues. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The WMF has been made aware. ] (she/her • ]) 19:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Truffle457 == | |||
| {{Userlinks|BeanieFan11}} has notified 24 Sports WikiProjects of an ongoing ]. The issue is that seven of these WikiProjects were not relevant to the articles being discussed: | |||
| {{atop|result=Editor blocked indefinitely. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| #{{diff2|1142465815|Biathlon}} - Not part of the Olympics until 1960 | |||
| {{user|Truffle457 }} | |||
| #{{diff2|1142465776|Basketball}} - Not part of the Olympics until 1936; a demonstration event was held in 1904, but no basketball players are being discussed, and as far as I can tell we have never had articles on the individuals who played in that event. | |||
| #{{diff2|1142465729|Baseball}} - Not part of the Olympics until 1992; a demonstration event was held in 1912, but no baseball players are being discussed, and as far as I can tell we have never had articles on the individuals who played in that event. | |||
| #{{diff2|1142465701|Badminton}} - Not part of the Olympics until 1992 | |||
| #{{diff2|1142465924|Cricket}} - Part of the 1900 Olympics, but no cricketers are being discussed | |||
| #{{diff2|1142466239|Ice hockey}} - Not part of the Olympics until 1920 | |||
| #{{diff2|1142466624|National Football League}} - Never part of the Olympics; a demonstration event was held in 1904, but no American football players are being discussed | |||
| These notifications to irrelevant projects make it clear that this was not an attempt to bring relevant editors into the discussion, but an attempt to ] editors to the discussion to influence the result. | |||
| I also note that after seeing these notifications, but before I noticed that some of the Wikiprojects were not relevant, I {{diff2|1142464510|posted a request on BeanieFan11's page}} as I had some minor concerns about the wording; their response to that was to {{diff2|1142464510|say that they were almost done}}, and continue issuing new notifications ({{diff2|1142466920|WikiProject Sailing}}, {{diff2|1142466849|WikiProject Running}}, {{diff2|1142466764|WikiProject Rowing}}, and {{diff2|1142466624|WikiProject National Football League}}) with their message rather than a neutral template. If the wording was the only issue I wouldn't have opened this discussion, but it is relevant, and the failure to use the template after the request to do so particularly so. | |||
| Canvassing concerns related to BeanieFan11's WikiProject notifications were recently discussed at ]. ] (]) 15:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * You couldn't have discussed this further with me? You really had to bring me to ANI over this? Also, what's non-neutral about saying "You may be interested in a discussion regarding the mass draftification of a thousand Olympians"? ] (]) 15:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *: As for the notifications – having something like this approved would be '''major''' and could affect many other projects if similar proposals were made then citing the Olympian precedent – I felt active sports editors should know about MAJOR things going on in sports. ] (]) 16:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *: I didn't think that such a discussion would be productive; the last discussion at ANI was only two weeks ago, and in that discussion you were uncompromising and dismissive of the concerns raised. | |||
| *: The issue is that it lacks context; by itself it is shocking and sounds unreasonable, and will generate a knee-jerk against the proposal, but when put in context is less so. However, as I said, my concerns there were minor. ] (]) 16:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::How would you prefer it to be phrased? While I personally don't see an issue with the phrasing of their notification, maybe Beanie would be willing to update their notifications. ] (]) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I would prefer ] be used. ] (]) 16:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Would you have opened this ANI had they used the Rfc notice and notified the exact same group of projects? ] (]) 16:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Yes; the only reason I opened this thread was because they notified the irrelevant projects. If the only issue had been the wording I would have limited my response to the {{diff2|1142464510|message}} I posted on BeanieFan11's talk page. ] (]) 17:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Thanks for answering that. I thought as much, but I just wanted to be sure. ] (]) 18:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *An ANI thread over whether a few too many Wikiprojects were notified of a discussion in a way that is factually neutral is overkill. This entire thread is -- at best -- a mountain over a molehill and completely unnecessary at worst. ] (]) 16:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * While you could argue some notifications as unnecessary I don't see a problem with the notifications themselves. They're neutral in tone and they don't appear to be trying to sway a group one way or another. Isn't the point of canvassing that you're trying to sway the vote one way or another? I don't see any attempt to do so in this case. ] (]) 16:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *: The ] isn't the only way to sway the vote; it can ]. ] (]) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{tq|Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent}} - I don't see an issue with the tone of the notifications, but I understand you feel it doesn't paint the entire picture, which it doesn't. But you can't paint the entire picture of this discussion in a few short words. Any more included in the notifications and it could be argued that they may be trying to sway the discussion. | |||
| *::{{tq|Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion...}} - May I ask how you see them as selectively notifying (groups of) editors? Even though some of those projects don't have athletes included in the nominated list they are still Olympic sports and may have an interest the overall discussion. The only project that didn't have a stake in the Olympians discussion in the NFL project imo. ] (]) 16:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::: "may have an interest the overall discussion." seems to explain "how they you see them as selectively notifying (groups of) editors?" ] (]) 17:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Oof, that was a silly grammar mistake on my part. I guess I'm interpreting the text as picking out specific editors, or leaving out specific groups because of knowledge of how they may vote. I don't see this as cherry picking, but that may just be my opinion. ] (]) 18:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I respect your opinion, in the larger sense I think this is a grey area that would benefit from sustained community discussion but on the specific issue here I think after the last ANI discussion BeanieFan11 should have known better than to push it. ] (]) 19:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *We just had ]. As for this proposal, first Beaniefan ], then he ], then he ], and now he's canvassing again by notifying WikiProjects for which these articles are ''not'' in scope... why those WikiProjects? Because they're sports-related. Because they will bring likeminded voters. Not cool. ] (]) 16:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Out of curiosity, do you see all 7 of these projects as being out of scope? I ask because, not having reviewed the articles Lugnuts created, I could see several of those listed by BilledMammal as having an interest in the precedent that this could set. ] (]) 17:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yes, and the explanation is right in the OP: none of the sports notified were Olympic sports for the years at issue. ] (]) 17:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment'''. I don't see the problem with the audience. I was made aware of the proposed mass deletion as a result of BeanieFan's neutrally-worded notification, and I am someone who has consistently voted to delete many, many early Olympian sub-stubs. (Indeed, I have nominated many such Olympians for deletion.) This is an important sports-related discussion, and it seems reasonable to notify sports-related projects to solicit input from knowledgeable and interested editors. It simply is NOT the case that all sports editors are wide-eyed inclusionists. See, e.g., Levivich, Alvaldi, and me. Sports-related projects are a natural group from which to solicit input. I would, on the other hand, be open to suggestions as to how to render the notification more neutral. ] (]) 17:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: You don't see the problem with limiting the audience to sports pages? The Olympics is both a sporting and political event, why was WikiProject Politics or WikiProject International relations not notified? These are primarily biographies, why not notify WikiProject biography? Isn't that actually the most pertinent wikiproject of them all? Think about that for a second, notifying 24 sports pages but *not* WikiProject biography. ] (]) 18:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Come on, now. The Olympics is a sporting event, and a non-neutral notification to those projects is not canvasing IMO. Your characterization of the Olympics as a "political event" is dubious. Your contention that notice should have been provided to WikiProject International relations is also dubious -- I certainly wouldn't have thought that the International relatins project should be notified. That said, if you or others think a non-neutral notice should be provided to that project, they are free to do so. ] (]) 18:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Your opinion about keeping politics out of sports notwistanding what do you think of the failure to notify WikiProject biography? ] (]) 19:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I think notifying the Biography project is fine, would not be canvasing to do so. However, I don't see that the "omission" of that project is a "failure" let alone a violation of any guideline or something that warrants any sanction. ] (]) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: So you feel that when notifying the community of a discussion about sports biographies it is appropriate to notify 24 sports projects but not a single biographical project? If we were having a discussion about Christian statues and I only notified religion groups and not art ones that would be a problem, so why is this ok? ] (]) 19:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *I see no problem with the notifications. It seems like a plainly preposterous proposition that BeanieFan carefully curated these specific groups to sway the discussion, where the ], that BeanieFan mistakenly notified a few projects about sports that weren't at those early Olympics ], either not knowing they weren't there, or more likely, not thinking it was all that important to even check. I'm not sure most people would have known that those specific sports were outside the strict scope. I'd suggest a ] ]ing to the OP for a rather blatant ] violation, but otherwise, there's nothing to do here. --]] 17:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *I find Jayron32's analysis convincing. That the user went down a list of Olympic sports and notified the projects of those Olympic sports seems fine. The objection to the inclusion of WikiProjects focused on demonstration sports is odd (surely, those ''could'' be relevant), but I do find it more likely than not that notifying the badminton, ice hockey, and biathlon WikiProjects was a good-faith mistake rather than some sort of malicious attempt to canvass the discussion. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *: I am skeptical of that explanation because this behavior fits into a pattern of pushing the boundaries of ]; in the last discussion we see them criticized for their choices related to notifying WikiProjects, and here they push the boundary further by notifying irrelevant Wikiprojects. | |||
| *: Regarding demonstration sports, the participants aren't Olympians. This is also why we have never had articles on them - database like olympics.com and olympedia.org limit their coverage to Olympians. ] (]) 18:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Regarding "{{tq|in the last discussion we see them criticized for their choices related to notifying WikiProjects}}", there was no consensus that notifying the NFL WikiProject about NFL players was inappropriate. ] (]) 18:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::There wasn't, but there also wasn't a consensus that it was appropriate. Considering this, their decision to push the boundaries of canvass even further is problematic and a behavioral issue. ] (]) 18:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * We just had a massive ANI thread which included BeanieFan11 promising not to canvas or to undertake activities which could be construed as canvassing. If that conversation hadn't just happened I would be with Jayron32 and Red-tailed hawk on this one and say that it was an honest mistake from an honest editor but it did and we can't just ignore that. AGF is not a suicide pact. This is an ongoing behavioral issue and needs to be addressed as one. ] (]) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:My take as well. If it was anyone else, wouldn't blink an eye. But this is part of an ongoing pattern. The selection of projects (all sports, but not Olympic sports (NFL isn't Olympic sport), and not the projects actually tagged in the articles, not WP:BIO, etc.), and the non-neutral wording (framing this as the deletion of almost 1,000 Olympians, which is not really accurate, as these aren't "Olympians" as we think of them today, because back then anyone could compete in the Olympics, and none of these people won a medal), are the continuation of a general problem of canvassing and trying all kinds of tactics to "win" deletion-related disputes. For Beanie, it seems it's not enough to just !vote in a discussion, he has to try other methods, and it causes disruption, it takes a lot of time up from other editors, and it skews the consensus process. This is what we saw with canvassing and "IAR keeps" a few weeks ago, and it's what we're seeing with this RFC now. We're moving in the wrong direction. ] (]) 18:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Neutral notifications to interested WikiProjects should not skew the process (indeed, you and I both were drawn to the discussion and voted to '''''support''''' it). To the contrary, neutral notifications to interested/knowledgeable wikiprojects are beneficial to the process. Indeed, ] expressly authorizes and encourages such notifications: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Misplaced Pages collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." ] (]) 18:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::: Whether that wording always permits notification of WikiProjects which "may have an interest in the topic under discussion" is debated. However, that wording isn't relevant here because seven of the WikiProjects they notified, particularly WikiProject NFL, have no interest in the topic under discussion. ] (]) 18:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Looking at Beanie's contribs, I don't see a list of "interested WikiProjects", I see a list of "sports WikiProjects", which isn't the same thing. (Some WPs that were notified are not interested, some that are interested were not notified.) I also don't see the notification as neutral. If it was neutral notification of interested WikiProjects, I'd have no problem with it. What I have a problem with is non-neutral notifications of non-interested WikiProjects. But mostly I have a problem that non-neutral notifications of non-interested WikiProjects is just the latest tactic in a series of tactics deployed to try and stop the RFC. ] (]) 18:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| This is even less of a big deal than the previous RfC, which ended in no action. It should come as no surprise, then, that the same people are responding to this one with the same hyperbole as before. This should just be preemptively closed and BeanieFan11 should be left alone. '''] ]''' 18:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Close this, it will only create more heat. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 21:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{peanut}} Per ] I have added notices to ] and ], implementing the suggestions above. (I would have used {{tl|rfc notice}}, except it didn't seem quite suited to notifications of a Village Pump RfC—it would have linked to the talk page instead of directly to the discussion.) ] (]) 21:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *This seems like a possible oversight in not notifying a broad enough diversity of projects, but it's very hard to see any malice or deception here. Sure Beanie could have notified other projects, and maybe should have, but it's petty to quibble about "why not THIS project??" ] (]) 22:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *I would describe this as concerning but not actionable. BeanieFan11 is well aware that they're under scrutiny for ] behavior regarding this very specific area of "inviting editors to discussions relating to the removal of sports biographies". Getting heavily involved in this specific RfC was extremely inadvisable and suggests that they either do not understand the concerns that were previously raised or that they are willfully ignoring them. There's no clear policy violation here, but unless something changes, it will be one more data point to show a pattern of behavior when this ground is inevitably retread at ANI in the near future. ] <small>(])</small> 23:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I don't even know what to call this. This user has few edits but most are like this. ] (]) 22:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| No, it's not canvassing to post a simple notification to WikiProject pages associated with the Olympics. If you find yourself engaging in a research project to cross-reference those neutral notifications with the precise year in which various Olympic sports transitioned from "sports" to "Olympic sports" in order to try to say certain notifications are canvassing, and thus to take someone to ANI where much community time/effort can be expended... you may be in too deep. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 19:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a new user with only a single level I notice on their page. I've issued a level II caution for using talk pages as a forum and added a welcome template. If this persists, stronger measures may be needed. -] (]) 22:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :], I'd advise talking with an editor, through words, not templates, before filing a complaint at ANI. That's a general recommendation unless there is active vandalism going on. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::His comments are disturbing tbh. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The user's response to {{U|Ad Orientem}}'s warning demonstrates that they have no insight into their misconduct and are ].--] (]) 23:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{notdone|Indeffed}} per WP:CIR. -] (]) 23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, by having a conversation, you discerned that CIR applied. Some communication, I think, is better than silence at least when you are trying to make sense of an unclear situation. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == YZ357980, second complaint == | |||
| It is not canvassing to post neutral messages, and it is disturbing that this is even being suggested. --''']]]''' 17:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I have again reverted {{u|YZ357980}}'s insertion of an image of dubious copyright; change of Somali Armed Forces native-name to an incorrect format; and violation of ] at ] - see ] which had another editor fix the incorrect file format. I believe this editor is ] and not willing to communicate and I would request administrator attention to this matter. Kind regards ] ] 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :For the record, that image has been on Commons since 2015 and was made by a different user. That said, YZ357980 continues to make these borderline disruptive edits and has ''never'' posted on an article talk page or a user talk page. I've pblocked them from articlespace until communication improves, as it is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::1. Thankyou!! Much appreciated!! | |||
| ::2. Yes I was aware of the status of those images, but I repeatedly told YZ357980 that it was of borderline copyright and WP had to follow US copyright law. I have managed to get the equivalent Iraqi ones deleted; I will go after the Somali ones to try to get them deleted. | |||
| ::3. ''Someone'' (an anon IP) posted on his talkapage as if replying, see . Please feel free to reconsider your actions should you wish, but I continue to believe YZ357980 is NOTHERE. ] ] 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given which is clearly YZ not logged in, the block has been changed to full indef. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == My reverted edit at List of Famicom Disk System games == | |||
| == Strange behavior from IP == | |||
| {{atop|1=At worst, this deserves a {{tl|minnow}}. This is, at heart, a content dispute, and ] is the place to discuss it. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hi | |||
| I added {{tl|clear}} to the top of table of ] to make the table use the whole horizontal space. I did it according to other list of video games articles and reception section of some video games articles to help the table list look better or not reception table to conflict with references (double column references more specifically). | |||
| I"m not sure if this is even actionable, however I"ve noticed some strange behavior from the IP 195.244.164.66. Recently(ish) they seem to have been posting some sort of rant that varies between posts, something to do with Russia and Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure what it's about or if it's even actionable, however I figured I would post here just in case. ― ]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545</sub> 16:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| However {{ping|NakhlaMan}} reverted my edit and with a rude language called it "UGLIER" and calls it waste of too much space. | |||
| :{{an3|b|6 months}}. ], next time, please link to the IP —like so: ]— rather than just writing it in plain text. ] 20:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry. Thanks for blocking them. ― ]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545</sub> 20:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| With my edit, it adds just a small space to the top of list heading but the table could be read easier and uses the whole available space. ] (]) 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Mattythewhite == | |||
| {{atop|status = Trend unwavering|{{nac}} OP rangeblocked as a block evader. And so the trend of ] with such disrepect for even a basic request to notify the user they're talking about continues (as, naturally, they either failed or decided intentionally to ignore notifying Mattythewhite). Regards, ]. (] | ]). 02:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| This admin reverting without any discussion (and committed 3RR) as well as accusing and blocking several IP addresses for block evasion without mentioning which user evaded. ] (]) 16:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think this is the right place for this. Yes, the user could have been much nicer on their opinion, but this is too much of an escalation, too fast. I would advise commenting on their talk page, or on the page talk page. Cheers, ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) {{nacmt}} | |||
| :links to 3RR violations? ] (]) 17:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, their edit summary was mildly rude, but this is not actionable, please open a discussion on the article's talk page.]] 04:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Seems a rangeblock may be in order. See ]. ― ]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545</sub> 17:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::/64 range blocked. Got to love how block evaders will come to ANI with a giant sign saying "Look at me!" ] (]) 17:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They are VERY smart. ] (]) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Shouldn't every IPV6 block be a /64 range block? — ] ] 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::At least. ] (]) 01:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == Edit War in Korean clans of foreign origin == | |||
| == Edit-summary aspersions == | |||
| {{Atop|Ger2024 blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Coldtrack}} | |||
| User: Ger2024 | |||
| Prolonged reverts and attempt to include something into article without consensus and without sources has led Coldtrack to resort to this kind of edit-summary dismissive tone and name-calling since December (in descending order):<br> | |||
| ''''<br> | |||
| ''''<br> | |||
| ''''<br> | |||
| ''''<br> | |||
| ''''<br> | |||
| ''''<br> | |||
| I would rather to avoid being called troll by editor whose arguments imply that sources used are western propaganda not everyone is willing to swallow, to paraphrase him (, , ). I am trying to enjoy my favorite hobby, and I am certainly not here to troll editors who believe we should put genocide denial and skepticism in the same sentence because, regardless of sources, he has an opinion on Bosnian war and genocide (, , ) - if these long tirades are not sign of right-greet-wrongs attitude, I am not sure what is. | |||
| But to stay on track focused on issue of unacceptable usage of edit-summary, I will stop here. If he can't restrain himself while reverting on such a '''sensitive''' matter like Bosnian Genocide/BG Denial and Srebrenica, in such a sensitive scope like Balkans, which is under ARBEE / ARBMAC, then, under condition that you find described unacceptable, editor should be restricted in a way you find most appropriate.--]] 22:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *I left them an "only warning"--this is ridiculous. If there had been earlier warnings I'd have blocked--and of course they should know that such edit summaries are unacceptable. If another admin thinks I'm being too nice, by all means drop a block. ] (]) 03:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **I would like to thank Drimies on swift response, but this is a months-long abuse of edit-summaey with almost every single revert being used to label me and/or my participation as described, and it is happening on article(s) with extremely sensitive matter, which is part of the scope under WP:ARBEE. There is no reason to think that such a strong editor's POV on the matter, which he expressed in in those long exposes, will allow change in attitude. However, I didn't come here thinking any draconian measures should be applied, but array of limited restrictions at community disposal range is wide, starting from really very mild with scope limited to specific subject matter. ]] 05:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ***There ''had been'' earlier warnings. The Discretionary Sanctions warning was on the page; Coldtrack knew this was a contentious topic. I have instituted a pageblock on the Srebrenica massacre per the Contentious Topics restriction at ] and formally warned them that more stringent sanctions would be forthcoming if they continued to edit tendentiously and attack other editors. --]] 16:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ****], I appreciate you, but the DS warnings cover a wide variety of behavior and this was very a very specific issue. Thanks for the pageblock; I hope it helps. ] (]) 22:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ***Please see where Santasa99 is concerned which he didn't volunteer in his complaint, then please examine his recent behaviour on ]. I believe I had a reason to identify his behaviour as trolling. If it wasn't, then I will refrain from using that word in future. In the meantime, all I can say is that this editor is removing something per ], because there is a list of alternative standpoints, and not all of them are "denial", and what's more, Santasa99 has been pushing this POV for four years even though gong back almost 20 years, there have been many alternative titles for the subsection which have been balanced. --] (]) 19:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ****If you have reason to identify someone's behavior as trolling, then ANI is the place to do so. Edit summaries are not. ] (]) 22:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. Please see new thread below. The conduct of Santasa99 has been far from blameless here. The sanctioning really ought to be distributed even-handedly both ways. --] (]) 19:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **{{U|Juicy Oranges}}, if you think sanctions ought to be spread around, you might ask ] to look into the matter. I am here for the very narrow matter of the harassment. Thank you, ] (]) 22:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' YMMV] (]) 19:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **It is the choice of the admins/community what they wish to do with my account. I'm not going to use the term "troll" any more to any editor. I was accused of vandalism and yet my wrongdoing has been personal attacks which I withdraw outright. --] (]) 20:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ***Not to put too fine a point on it, but we define ] thusly: " editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge". Well, harassment obstructs our purpose. ] (]) 22:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|Ger2024}} | |||
| == Persistent copyright violations by User:TarifaXxx == | |||
| Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began. | |||
| {{User|TarifaXxx}} has been (re)adding copyrighted pictures without permission to ]; user won't stop, even after pictures are deleted from Commons for copyright violation. | |||
| In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs). | |||
| I suspect TarifaXxx is {{user|Nxlo03qda}} and its multiple sock accounts, who had the exact same behaviour at ]. (too many diffs to post here; see ) ] (]) 23:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :You might find someone who'll block from here, but this should be filed at ].--] (]) 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Bbb23}} TarifaXxx is edit warring at ], now with another copyrighted picture. User will not stop until it gets blocked. ] (]) 15:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do not call users "it".--] (]) 15:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Account equals it, i.e., until his/her account gets blocked. I will continue reverting his/her copyright violations, as those reverts are exempt from 3RR: "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)." ] (]) 21:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert. | |||
| == Severe AIV backlog == | |||
| :This report belongs at ]. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) {{nacmt}} | |||
| The "Bbb23 sucks" LTA is active, and is vandalizing ancient IP/user talk pages from many different IP addresses. I'm having a hard time keeping up with the pace of the vandalism, and ] is severely backlogged because of the sheer volume of reports I've had to file. Could I get more eyes on this? I suspect the IPs being used may be open proxies, but I don't know how to check. Apologies if this thread isn't keeping with the spirit of ]. — ] [] '''·''' ]] 04:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Who posted this complaint, they didn't leave a signature which, to me, shows a lack of experience. They also didn't leave any diffs so it's impossible to judge if there were indeed reverts. And as HeartGlow states, this is more suitable for ANEW which focuses on edit-warring. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unclear if genuine question or rhetorical, but in case it's the former, it seems to be ]. (They have over 1000 edits and have been editing since 2022, but it appears they may be used to using the Reply tool, which might explain why they didn't think to <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> since replying in that manner does that automatically? I think? <small>...Not trying to excuse it so much as I'm trying to understand it.</small>) - ] (]) 08:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry about that, I was a bit sleep deprived when I made, I'll go to WP:ANEW. | |||
| :::And yea im way too used to the reply tool, i think i make these posts like once perhaps every few months so i got a bit rusty on this. Thanks! ] (]) 13:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == Subtle vandalism by 8.40.247.4 == | |||
| :They seem to have worn themselves out, at least for now. — ] [] '''·''' ]] 05:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Excellent report results in a two-year block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::{{re|SamX}} I glanced at several by following your contribution history, and most of them make one edit and then are blocked by {{U|Materialscientist}} as webhosts for a very long time. I saw one that had not been blocked but still has made only the one edit. I'm curious how you find them in the first place.--] (]) 14:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * {{Userlinks|8.40.247.4}} | |||
| :::{{ping|Bbb23}} I don't think it would be a good idea to draw attention to this onwiki given that the vandal seems to be aware of our behind-the-scenes processes, so I've sent you an email with that information. I'd be happy to send any other administrators or RC patrollers a similar email if requested. — ] [] '''·''' ]] 15:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Received the e-mail, {{U|SamX}}, thanks.--] (]) 16:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Since early 2020, ] has consistently and ] made edits that: | |||
| == ] and ] by IP Editor ] == | |||
| * minimize achievements and contributions of black people in American society | |||
| {{Vandal|121.133.40.84}} | |||
| * obscure or soften wording about right-wing and far-right leanings of conservative figures | |||
| I have had enough with this IP editor as they would not listen to reason and just keep reiterating their point. The keep arguing on ] and varies users talk pages. I need them to stop. They have a history of this behaviour as can be seen by their contributions. I am going to sleep now so I may not reply in a timely manner. ] (]) 15:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * promote fringe, racist, or pseudo-scientific theories | |||
| The IP generally attempts to disguise the edits by lying about changes made in the edit summary. Here is a list of problem edits in chronological order: | |||
| :I'm telling the truth. But he or she doesn't admit it. Why i am to be ignored? It's so unfair. I brought a number of reliable sources to prove the facts. But this user ignored me and reverted my edits. Including User:Lightoil, they are discouraging the will to contribute to right editing. I'd like to be Arbitratied. ] (]) 15:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :surely, I don't know where you live so i don't know your sleep time. How can I know? ] (]) 15:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::About telling the truth, please see ]. About being arbitrated, try ], Arbcom will not waste time on that. ]rado🦈 (]✙]) 16:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I already verified the fact from various sources. but he or she just ignored it. ] (]) 17:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" | |||
| == ], bludgeoning, COI, and general competence issues == | |||
| ! width="100" | Date | |||
| ! width="225" | Page | |||
| ! Issue | |||
| |- | |||
| | Mar 4, 2020 | |||
| | '''McComb, Mississippi''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Removal of section about black people gaining the right to vote with the Voting Rights Act. | |||
| |- | |||
| | May 31, 2020 | |||
| | '''John Derbyshire''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Removes phrase describing ], a white nationalist organization, as white nationalist. Summary: "{{!xt|Fixed a typo}}". | |||
| |- | |||
| | Jul 21, 2020 | |||
| | '''Richard Hayne''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * "{{!xt|Reorganised wording}}" means removing criticism. | |||
| * "{{!xt|made favourable LGBT commentary more vivid}}" (what?) replaces the subject's stance on homosexuality with a vague and unsourced statement about Urban Outfitters and the Hayne family. | |||
| |- | |||
| | Jul 28, 2020 | |||
| | '''Louie Gohmert''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Softens "opposes LGBT rights" to "generally opposes LGBT rights legislation". Removes the words "defamatory" from section on Gohmert's false allegations. Removes whole section on Gohmert's opposition to making lynching a hate crime. | |||
| * Summary: "{{!xt|Grammatical issues.}}" | |||
| |- | |||
| | Sep 24, 2020 | |||
| | '''Back-to-Africa movement''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Omits the context of Christians accepting slavery when the slaves were Muslim to make it sound like religious Americans had always been morally opposed | |||
| |- | |||
| | Jan 14, 2021 | |||
| | '''Virginia Dare''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Removes description of VDARE as a group associated with white supremacy and white nationalism. | |||
| |- | |||
| | Apr 28, 2021 | |||
| | '''Bret Stephens''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Hides his climate change denial, so the sentence now basically reads "Bret Stephens has an opinion on climate change". Uses summary "{{!xt|Removed redundancy}}" (it wasn't redundant). | |||
| |- | |||
| | June 25, 2021 | |||
| | '''John Gabriel Stedman''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Removes sentence on pro-slavery leanings (admittedly unsourced) and sexual exploitation of one of his slaves (sourced). Summary: "{{!xt|Minor grammatical / spelling errors revised.}}" | |||
| |- | |||
| | Oct 7, 2021 | |||
| | '''Appalachian music''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Replaces the "various European and African influences" in the introduction with a phrase implying the music's origins were European, and that African-American influence only came later, which is untrue. | |||
| * Rewords " call and response format ... was ''adopted'' by colonial America" to say " ... was ''also common'' in colonial America". | |||
| * Removes entire paragraph about African-Americans introducing the banjo to white Southerners. Further down, changes "African banjo" to just "banjo". | |||
| * Summaries: "{{!xt|Added links to traditional folk music wikis}}" and "{{!xt|Verbiage clean-up}}". | |||
| |- | |||
| | Nov 27, 2021 | |||
| | '''Steve Sailer''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Removes all mention of Sailer, backed by sources, as holding racist, white supremacist, and anti-semitic views in the introduction. | |||
| * Removes description of Sailer's human biodiversity theory as pseudoscientific and racist. | |||
| * Summary is "{{!xt|Added a link to human biodiversity}}" – true, but leaves out the 6,000 deleted bytes. Makes the same edit two more times, but is reverted each time. | |||
| |- | |||
| | Jan 26, 2022 | |||
| | '''Mongoloid''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Removes phrase calling it a disproven theory. Replaces sentence on racist origins in Western scholars with mention of Eastern scholars also promoting the theory (unsourced). Adds a phrase saying that actually, it's up for debate. | |||
| |- | |||
| | Jul 6, 2022 | |||
| | '''Indian Mills, New Jersey''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Deletes phrase about white colonists displacing Native American families. Summary: "{{!xt|Removed a dead link}}". | |||
| |- | |||
| | Feb 20, 2023 | |||
| | '''Myth of meritocracy''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Changes sentence on institutional racism to describe it as "theoretical institutional racism". | |||
| |- | |||
| | Mar 26, 2023 | |||
| | '''Millford Plantation''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Hides the plantation's origins in slavery by renaming description from "forced-labor farm" to "farmstead". Summary: "{{!xt|Added link to slavery in the USA}}". | |||
| |- | |||
| | Jun 17, 2023 | |||
| | '''John Birch Society''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Removes mention of the society being right-wing, far-right, and radical right in introduction. | |||
| * Further down, removes description as being ultraconservative and extremist, and Southern Poverty Law Center's classification as antigovernment. | |||
| * Summary: "{{!xt|Removed faulty and vague links.}}" | |||
| |- | |||
| | Jan 9, 2025 | |||
| | '''Robert Gould Shaw''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Removes sentence on the battle inspiring African-Americans to join the Union Army during the Civil War. Summary: "{{!xt|Grammatical clean-up}}". | |||
| |- | |||
| | Jan 9, 2025 | |||
| | '''Virginia Dare''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Edits the page again four years later, this time using VDARE's closing as an excuse to remove all mention of it. Claims it is "{{!xt|no longer relevant}}", which is a crazy argument. | |||
| |} | |||
| The IP doesn't make enough edits at a time for vandalism warnings to rise to level 4, and thus has never been blocked (which is why I'm reporting this here and not at ]). These groups of edits are also spaced out over months, so a different user warns the IP each time (eight times so far!). The user, unfamiliar with the IP's editing history, treats the old warnings as "expired" and simply issues another level 1 or 2 warning. | |||
| {{user|Anne Ammundsen}} is a descendant of ], a British soldier who was briefly condemned to execution during the Revolutionary War in a series of reprisals between loyalists and patriots (]). This is her ]. In recent months, she has been aggressively trying to insert material she published about the situation basically anywhere she can. I and several other editors (primarily ] and ]) have been pointing out that her edits fail to understand ] and what makes a reliable source (among the sources she's trying to add is her own work published in a local history journal, interviews with herself, and an 85-year-old book by ] which is probably ''not'' what you want a modern wikipedia article to be based on). Her edits to the articles have mostly been to create massively unweighted articles that extensively quote letters and fail to understand summary style, focused on trying to play up Asgil's imprisonment with purple prose to "correct" the perceived shortcomings of other biographies. Myself and many others have tried to explain the problems with her edits to her, to no avail. She has continually bludgeoned RfCs and talk pages (she came to my attention after she posted on ] about a discussion on ], in which she refused to accept or understand consensus and what an RfC closure actually resulted in,) and despite a number of uninvolved editors agreeing there were issues at a ] last month, the issue persists. Anyone who edits contrary to her wishes to stuff her journal articles or letters into articles This, coming from someone who clearly cannot edit impartially about one's ancestor, is pretty rich, but it also shows that she's just ] after people have repeatedly explained the problems with her edits. Given she is unable to edit impartially and is on a stated mission to right great wrongs, I'm recommending a topic ban from all the related articles, including ], ], ], ], ]<nowiki>, etc. so that disinterested editors can improve things. And maybe give her a enforced opportunity to read our policies and guidelines quoted above, because explaining it to her is like talking to a brick wall at present. ~~~~</nowiki> ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *At the minimum we need a topic ban from US and British history from 1754 to maybe 1812 to just be wide enough to completely wall off the entire period... and quite frankly I'm more inclined to an indef block for disruptive editing than such a topic ban. ] (]) 19:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * I saw this matter when it was the COI Noticeboard, when I was there for a different matter (that is, I am not involved). The bludgeoning and failure to get the point has just gone on and on with this editor. I'm inclined towards agreeing with Courcelles; the obfuscation seen at the COI noticeboard means it's unlikely anything less will work. ] (]) 19:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * If this is how it ends, so be it. If Misplaced Pages does not welcome 'experts in their field' - which after 20 years is inevitable in my case - then that is your affair. I admit that my IT abilities are not up to scratch, but that is a generational disadvantage (for me) and one I am unlikely to be able to improve. I thought Misplaced Pages was a cooperative, and that with reference formatting (my greatest dread) help would be on hand? However, it frustrates me beyond words to see vital information buried deep down an article, instead of being honest and up-front and admitting that this episode was Washington's greatest error of judgement. Peter Henriques's words, not mine. It caused an international crisis and nearly derailed the peace talks. Other aspects of the story dismissed as irrelevant and unimportant because they do not put Washington in a good light. I am really exhausted from this battle, and it isn't one worth fighting any more, because if nothing else I am massively outnumbered, so how can there possibly be the "consensus" Misplaced Pages is so famous for? If you fight your corner alone, without support, then that is what happens. My book, to be published by one of America's leading academic publishers, Lexington Books, about it all is likely to be out by the end of the year, and I must accept that that will be the pinnacle of my success. I must also accept that Misplaced Pages will continue to be out of kilter with the new story surrounding these events, because it does not fit with other editors agendas. This is down to the fact that I found information never found by anyone else, and people don't like it. Except Lexington Books, who say they are "very excited" by my findings. It is a shame Misplaced Pages dismisses me as being of no value. ] (]) 20:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:There are plenty of instances of a book author finding things out that nobody has found before. That doesn't make their findings suitable for an encyclopedia unless and until they are confirmed by a substantial proportion of others who are equally expert in their field. If Misplaced Pages had existed in 1905 it wouldn't have published anything in ]'s papers of that year until they had been accepted by others. ] (]) 21:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * @] I have not been involved in any of the discussions though I had a chance to familiarize myself with your conduct in several talk pages. I honestly do not believe anyone here has at any point tried to discredit your contributions or intentionally prevent you from making edits that conform to ] and ]. I do think, however, that there is still a big misunderstanding on your part as to how consensus functions here. The work of a single scholar should not be used as the definitive source on any subject, let alone a topic that is as complex and wide-ranging as this one. I realize that Peter Henriques is a very accomplished scholar, but it seems like you are giving undue weight to his publications, along with a review of one his books from the ''National Review'' by Michael Knox Beran, to support a certain historiographical (and methodological?) angle that closely aligns with your own research. Many very experienced editors have expressed concerns about your persistence in relying too heavily on limited literature as opposed to scholarly consensus (the term ''preponderance of scholarship'' has been used quite a bit). Surely, it is reasonable to expect that someone with serious research experience, such as yourself, be receptive to constructive criticism of this kind. Moreover, I am astounded by the tendency to repeatedly describe an academic publisher as "leading" just to bolster one's own academic credibility. Can you imagine someone seriously arguing that their book is superior only because it was published by Chicago rather than a smaller university press? Perhaps taking some time off to reassess and determine the best way to contribute here will be beneficial. For that reason, I'd support a limited (not indefinite) TBAN in areas OP mentioned. ]] 23:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I believe this IP should be banned for a while. Unfortunately, there are probably many more like this one that haven't been caught yet. --] (]) 09:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I support a topic ban from US and British history from 1754 to 1812 based on what I have just read and the clear COI especially ahead of the publication of the book which could easily lead to further COI editing. As an aside, I expect that information from the publication of the book will slowly percolate into various Misplaced Pages pages via the standard editing processes once it enters the marketplace of ideas. ] (]) 23:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I spot checked these and yeah this is bad. Using false and misleading edit summaries to remove in most cases sourced descriptions to slant articles. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">] | ]</small> 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I had hoped that the discussion on the COI noticeboard would encourage this user to turn over a new leaf, but I see that after a short period of quiet the same bludgeoning and have resumed. A block or topic ban does seem needed at this point. - ] (]) 23:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jesus Christ. Blocked for two years, since it looks like the IP is stable. ] ] 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' enough is really enough at this point. ] (]) 00:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you! ] (]) 19:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' from US and British history from 1754 to 1815. This editor is highly intelligent, highly educated and highly motivated. She is a single purpose editor with a family based conflict of interest who is here to right great wrongs about her ancestor, as she alone perceives them. Her edits amount to tendentious axe grinding in the service of her cause, which is pushing her own personal point of view about these events. The time to mention her unpublished book is after it has been published and reviewed by academic historians but she keeps bludgeoning discussions with mentions of her upcoming book, as if her unverified claims to have written a groundbreaking book grant her special powers. Like almost all productive American editors, I am not a blind defender of George Washington, who built his wealth on the backs of enslaved Africans and their descendents after all, and I want his biography to be neutral. And I have zero animus toward Asgill and am glad that he did not get hung. Other innocent men like ] actually did get hung by pro-British loyalists but this editor shows little interest in that particular war crime because it does not advance her narrative. War is hell. As MrOllie's diff shows, {{tpq|Great Big America throwing her weight about}} is a comment that reveals her battleground mentality, and she seems to be discussing American Misplaced Pages editors and American historians. I would never make that kind of comment about the United Kingdom in a debate with British editors, and it is truly unacceptable behavior. ] (]) 04:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think this discussion is a good example of providing all the infomation needed to the admins to make the decision. If only everyone who complained here did the same. ] (]) 19:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't wish to participate in this discussion, but it is necessary to mention that I had no part in writing | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *:. Lancaster thought I should be credited, nonetheless, because I had brought Asgill's 18-page-hidden-for-233-years letter to them. If anyone can see it from my point of view, through my eyes, it seemed insanity to accuse me of self-citing or righting a great wrong. '''The professionals in Lancaster did all that''', so to me, the accusations seemed totally unwarranted. The research was all theirs - they were the ones to discover several "missing" "withheld" or simply "vanished" items of correspondence. I found their work quite fascinating and was thankful it was them I chose to give the letter. I also don't think anyone is giving any thought to what it has been like, for me, to fight Asgill's corner (now we know what his corner looked like) - '''single-handedly''' - up against an army of American editors who do not like the story being changed because there is now "the other side of the story" being made available after 2.5 centuries of being misreported in GW's favour. It has been incredibly difficult for me to be up against a brick wall of antagonism at every turn, for several years. The weeks and months of my life spent on Talk Pages where I am the supplicant have been humiliating at best and soul-destroying at worst. My begging-bowl only having one edit request at a time - often lasting weeks and weeks to be resolved. Now years of those final uploads have been wiped clean from the articles (many many articles). I have felt like a trapped cat and, at times, have no doubt behaved like a trapped alley cat. When people treat me well, I always thank them. I rarely see the word "thank" typed out on WP, except by me - but there is a secret way of clicking a link of thanks where nobody but the recipient will know it has been sent. What does that do for one's morale? Nothing. That is why I type my thanks to those who deserve it. Just as Asgill's point of view has been sidelined, so is mine. The message I convey, via the research done in Lancaster, is not a popular message, I know, but all sorts of accusations hurled my way are mitigated (only by me, it has to be said) by the fact that I am only the messenger, and the messenger is now being shot. As GW once said (unrelated to Asgill) "truth will ultimately prevail where pains is taken to bring it to light". I cannot begin to explain the amount of pain my desire to bring the other side of the (now published in Lancaster) story to Misplaced Pages has inflicted on me. The accusations seem so unfair - to me. For years, this website has caused my mental health to suffer - badly. I hope some of you participating in this tribunal will read this, which is no longer than the OP, or other contributor's posts. ] (]) 09:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is that not the article you describe on your user page as "My second published article (with co-author, Martha Abel)"? ] (]) 09:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's what is printed on the front cover, yes, but you could always check with Lancaster as to what exactly I wrote? My contribution was simply a reprint of an article written in 2007 (printed in 2011), which, by 2019 was out of date. Feel free to check it out, why don't you, since you obviously think I am lying. ] (]) 13:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's not just printed on the front cover, but you claim it as your own on your user page. Misplaced Pages is based on published sources, not phone calls to the Lancaster Historical Society. As a fellow sufferer from mental health problems I would advise you to take them to a qualified professional, not to blame Misplaced Pages editors for them. ] (]) 19:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC) P.S. I am British, and live in Britain, so have no reason to worship George Washington. | |||
| ::::::@] @] brings up a really important point that is besides any editing concerns. I have been alarmed to see several allusions to your deteriorating mental health and other editors might also become genuinely concerned. I sincerely hope you are well and if not, I would urge you to follow @] advice. ]] 20:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, my physical health is bad, which has no bearing on WP, but what has happened here has certainly impacted my mental health, and especially sleep. My husband continues to be concerned about my welfare and, like me, hopes that the flow of unpleasant comments about me will stop, now, and the decision be made. I do not know why this has to continue - is it part of WP rules to bring a person down as far as is possible to do? Is demeaning me part of the punishment? I appear to be a criminal or a vandal or worse. ] (]) 22:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And, to be blunt, the more you heap on such hyperbole, the more ''you'' drag this out. There never would have been an issue if you had simply followed relevant policies and guidelines concerning original research, conflicts of interest, bludgeoning and tendentious editing. This never would have gone to ANI if you had simply resolved -- once this ''became'' an issue -- to follow those policies and guidelines henceforth. There wouldn't be near-unanimous support for a tban if you'd done so ''here.'' ''No'' one compels you to keep arguing here -- just like '''no one''' has called you either a "criminal" or a "vandal" -- and no one has prevented you from accepting an all-too-predictable outcome with as much grace as can be mustered and simply walking away.<p>(And, come to that, ''no one compels you'' to keep "fighting Asgill's corner" against all comers to the point of "humiliation" and "soul-destroying" anguish, while we're talking about hyperbole. No "expert historian" would be ignorant of the need for a relatively thick skin when it comes to changing the historical narrative.) ] 01:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' total ban for reasons stated above. On their user page the section ] shows clearly this is a SPA on a RGW mission. They are NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to create a hagiography for a trivial historical figure. <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 10:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban at the very least. Courcelles' and Cullen's suggestions for a broader topic ban seems wise. I followed the original discussion at COIN quite closely at the time. Many editors attempted to explain to Anne the issues at hand and how to properly address them. I had thought perhaps the situation would resolve itself when Anne in early February, but it is clear that Anne is now continuing the behaviours that led to the COIN thread. I am particularly unimpressed by the aspersions cast on ] ()—these are not conducive to further editing in the topic area. ] ] 12:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:The lie of the land is very clear, since there have been only plaintiffs and no defendants, so hardly a fair trial! This condemned prisoner makes two requests. One, let's get this over and done with a.s.a.p. and Two, instead of being asked what would I like for my "last meal" - I believe that is the norm on Death Row (and my crime is not quite as serious as murder) - I hope you will do me the courtesy of removing my real-life name from the heading on both COI threads. I trust that will not be too big an ask? ] (]) 17:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' per {{u|David Fuchs}} who lays it out well. The articles need repair, which can't be done under current circumstances. I agree with everything in Cullen's post who said it better than I can; and also agree with Ptp91's post, again who said it better than I can. Also, whatever happens here, the terms need to be spelled out very clearly in my view. ] (]) 17:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban:''' Despite Ms. Ammundsen's oft self-proclaimed credentials as an "expert," her CV shows her to be little beyond a dedicated hobbyist ... which describes thousands of editors on Misplaced Pages, some participating in this thread included. Even were she a celebrated and widely-acknowledged authority in the field, though, that would not immunize her against the requirement to follow Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines against bludgeoning, against conflicts of interest, against tendentious editing, against ], and since it seems too onerous for her to do so here (as well as, plainly, too much for her to simply acknowledge her intent to follow such policies and guidelines from here on out), a tban is in order.<p>As far as the request to remove her real-life name from the thread goes, it was Ms. Ammundsen's choice to use her real-life name as her username. I expect such instances can be changed just as soon as she goes to ] and has that username changed to something less identifiable. ] 17:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Thank you for that advice. I have applied, and hope it will be approved and will automatically change the name of the two threads? ] (]) 23:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm not seeking to be absolved of my sins, because I consider that I have been provoked, many times. I am hoping that my punishment will be swift, though, because all this is doing my wellbeing no good whatsoever. I have spent £35,000 on my research, which has included finding a letter which had been hidden for 233 years - discovering the never-before-known location of Asgill's confinement - finding a never-before-known portrait of Asgill's wife and photographing the original Hoppner portrait in a private collection - getting a memorial erected to James Gordon at Trinity Church, NYC, 239 years after his death, and so much more besides. This investment means I find it very distressing to have the results of my work deleted. For instance, Asgill's wife's portrait removed; the image of the location of Asgill's confinement removed (in spite of obtaining copyright approval and the image uploaded by the copyright owner - who has even provided pdf. proof of that ownership to Commons) and the image is already in the Journal anyway. Furthermore, it is not allowed to have Appendix II of Mayo's book linked to its upload on Wikisource. This is the most comprehensive eyewitness account of what happened as the lots were drawn. It has not been published (Appendix II that is) in America, so it stands to reason that it would be a worthwhile link - but no - not allowed. When Lancaster was researching for their 2019 Journal, they had to source Appendix II from the UK. So, anyone taking this story seriously, in America, is unlikely to even know it exists. Professor Peter Henriques does not appear to know about it, and his is one of the more recent publications. Misplaced Pages has in the past hosted a link to that Wikisource, but it has been deleted. Weeks and weeks of work went into getting it all sorted out. Also, not allowed are Asgill's own words regarding why he neither sent GW a thank-you letter, nor felt he wanted to seek revenge either. This seems one of the most important section of his long letter, given his reputation is that of a cad for not having sent thanks to Washington, who randomly selected him to suffer the death penalty. These are simply touching on recent examples of what has caused me so much stress, given the amount of work which has gone into having these things both published and linked. I emphasise, these are just examples. Anyone in my position would, like me, be tearing their hair out over all this, and stress and tiredness has caused me to lose it at times. Because of my COI situation, it took weeks of my life to get the above-mentioned items accepted - all deleted in split-seconds. So, I wonder if anyone here understands all this from my perspective? Probably not, so the very best would be to publicly punish me, and publicly humiliate me, as soon as possible. Then you can congratulate yourselves on the satisfactory outcome of getting rid of me. ] (]) 01:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::(Wrote an extensive response. Determined it was just muttering into a gale. Deleted said response.) ] 03:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Anne, you are far from being the only Misplaced Pages editor who also does research, historical or otherwise, and who has made exciting new discoveries that have not yet made it to Misplaced Pages. I too am such an editor. But what I and most other editors in this situation realize is that 1) the ] between being the discoverer of something important and being the person who writes about this discovery on one of the world's most widely read websites ... is huge and pretty much insurmountable. They also realize 2) that if they aren't going to write the relevant Misplaced Pages content about their own discoveries (as they really just shouldn't), it may take a long time, anywhere between one and twenty years or longer, before someone else is going to write that content. But what they also know is 3) that if their discoveries are actually worthwhile, and if they have been published in a journal or book that scholars are able to access, their discoveries ''will'' be picked up in the literature, and they ''will'' eventually make it to Misplaced Pages.{{pb}} If one is a researcher on a certain subject it will often be very helpful to edit Misplaced Pages in that general subject area, but when it comes to the actual focus of one's own research, and especially when it comes to one's own novel theories and discoveries, one really ought to let others (first other scholars, then other Misplaced Pages editors who pick up your name in the works of other scholars) judge their merit. This shouldn't stress you out. A fair assessment takes up time, and for better or for worse, in the world of historical research it habitually takes up a ''lot'' of time.{{pb}}Not all of your efforts is lost, only what you have done to get your work published on Misplaced Pages first. That was a mistake: it comes to Misplaced Pages ''last'', and normally not by your own effort. I realize that it's been sixteen years, but you have also made progress outside of Misplaced Pages, and in any case ]s should not be held relevant. The sooner you accept your mistake and resolve to move on, the better your chances of succeeding in your goal of getting your research out there and read by the relevant scholars. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 03:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Of course I know I have been shown the door - I'm simply waiting for the door to be slammed behind me. I must have said that at least 3 times. I gave examples of items deleted which had been on Misplaced Pages in some cases for decades - with copyright sorted out - all ALREADY published. Did you look at the examples? ''' Why should my image of Sophia be removed'''? '''Why cannot Appendix II be made available to everyone, not just the UK as now'''? '''Why cannot Asgill's reason for not thanking GW be given - it has been there for several years '''until an editor decided they didn't like it. There are NO GOOD REASONS for the deletion of my work. If you cannot understand how distressing this is for me, then what can I say. My work is not vandalism - and EVERYTHING I WANT RETURNED is entirely reasonable on my part. Of course all this has upset me terribly. How could it be otherwise? As for my exorbitant costs - how could that possibly NOT have an impact on ME - but naturally none on YOU. ] (]) 09:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban:''' ] ] ]. The conscientious and sympathetic editors who have contributed to this thread have gone beyond the call of duty to cajole its subject into editing in a collegial manner. To no avail. The only solution is a ban. ] (]) 02:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC). | |||
| *:Unfortunately. One of my catchphrases is that in a consensus-driven environment such as Misplaced Pages, sooner or later everyone will find themselves on the wrong side of consensus, and their only viable option in that event is to lose gracefully and move on. Those who prove unwilling or incapable of doing so often wind up here at ANI, and it seldom ends to their liking. ] 07:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Egl7, anti-Armenian behaviour == | |||
| ==] at ]== | |||
| {{atop|1=Egl7 indef'd for being here to argue instead of building an encyclopedia. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I held off making this report yesterday after seeing ] made a revert, but abstained. I am sorry but it simply is no longer possible to work with User:Santasa99. Not very long ago, he was for edit-warring - having violated 3RR not once but twice, and still refused to self-revert when given half a day to do so (in which time he was active). After a relatively long period of stability, Santasa99 recently returned to remove "sceptisism" from the article (the very subject for which he was blocked before) . No consensus. No discussion. , and . Per the report I have linked at ANEW, Santasa is the <u>only</u> editor who has been hell bent on this one revision going back to 2019. A couple of points of interest: his "defence" in late 2022 accused {{u|Coldtrack}} and me of ] which the two of us demonstrably denied, and argues also that there is no consensus for the addition of "sceptisism". There within lies a veiled confession that he is alone against two who approve the other revision. Not an all-out consensus, but certainly no excuse for the way Santasa has behaved either. Well his TAG TEAM argument will not work in the current paradigm because I have not touched the article in 2023. This leaves the question of ]. Now bear in mind that going back 15 or so years, many times a variation that I and CT approve has been on display (as adumbrated in linked ANEW report). As it is ''we'' who have the encumbrance of ONUS being the ones to approve ''inclusion'', we believe that ONUS was satisfied based on the list which predated either of us editing the article. Satasa is aware of this, which is the reason he sought to conceal the ''sceptisim'' aspect of the list by to the revision which suits his ambition. The article appears not to be in need of protection at the moment, but I strongly recommend either a topic ban for Santasa, or indeffing him. --] (]) 19:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Egl7}} | |||
| Egl7 clearly has bone to pick with Armenia, including dancing on the fine line of ], not to mention severe ] issues. As a Russian admin admit perfectly put it when they indeffed Egl7; | |||
| *'''Comment''' - This is interesting case, which could end with WP:BOOMERANG. I am experienced editor and I rarely fall into a trap like this or pushed myself to the brink of being warned let alone blocked for disputes like one we had on genocide denial. I do manage fairly successfully to navigate all our guidelines and policies while editing in Balkan scope under WP:ARBEE; so far, beside this entrapping, I managed to edit for 15 years without a log warning let alone blocks. And although I have made a mistake and miscalculated timeframe making one more revert minutes earlier then I should have, there is more to this case than it was reported by Juicy Oranges. The filing editor obviously missed to inform community about not that innocuous way they and Coldtrack participated. We had dispute on the article ]. The moment I left that article and its TP discussion, Juicy Oranges and Coldtrack followed me to article ] with by Coldtrack, and Juicy Oranges chipped in with , and from there on started reverting me there, and followed at ] with , and then at ] and (confirmed ), with reverts. There should be noted that Juicy and Coldtrack never edited in these three articles until they decided to follow me from Gazimestan speech, and for all intents and purposes tag-teamed and used their same POV to take turns and edit-warred across all three articles, while evading a risk of being themself reported for 3RR. Whole this time they were very well aware what they were doing: with a message by Juicy Oranges to Coldtrack; soon enough Juicy Oranges informed Coldtrack leaving him literally shielding him from breaching 3RR. Sometime in September they were already exchanging these kinds of messages , which is interesting because now Juicy informed Coldtrack that they for something they missed back then, to which Coldtrack replied . After Juicy Oranges filed the report Coldtrack noticed that report was idle for few hours, so in the message to Juicy they thanked them and informed them not to , but left two provocative edit-summaries referred to me with '''''', and ''''''; or that I should have my because I refused to accept his accusation that what I am doing is . Later, they were to Juicy. | |||
| :I actually intended to go straight to ANI, while fully acknowledging my miscalculated 3RR and by fully accepting responsibility for that misstep, and file a report on both editors who are showing some clear signs that they are now taking things into their hands to start , skipping consensus and labeling RS as '''' and referring to sources with , only to came across my 36 hours block at the time. At Gazimestan speech TP, just hour(s) earlier, I received blunt from Juicy Oranges. | |||
| :Two editors never acknowledged that they need consensus to include or change something so controversial in such sensitive articles. | |||
| :]] 20:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I refute the above about "following" Santasa99 anywhere. This concerns his defence of December 2022 and BOOMERANG is not in order as I have neither touched the article in 2023 nor have I violated a policy. Reading the above in full, all that matters is one thing, Santasa was blocked for a certain behaviour, and he persists in that very behaviour. I see from the above that a circus has been built around CT calling Santasa99 "blatant troll". Please be advised that this thread is not about what CT has said and and from what I can gather, has been sanctioned for. Calling someone a troll is wrong, but it does not excuse this editing behaviour from Santasa99. This thread is to look into the behaviour of Santasa99 taking into consideration his block in December. --] (]) 20:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| #Egl7 never tries to take responsibility for their actions, instead being upset and obsessing over that I didn't revert a random IP that added "Armenian" under "common languages" in an infobox almost two years ago , mentioning that 7 (!) times | |||
| == SPA keeps recreating ] == | |||
| #According to Egl7, having three things (out of 25) about Armenia on my userpage - being part of the ], being interested in the history of ], and opposing the denial of the Armenian genocide, means I support "Armenia's actions" , whatever that means. They never explained it despite being asked to, which leads me to the next thing. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| #Here is this incredibly bizarre rant by Egl7 for me having stuff about Armenia on my userpage and not Azerbaijan, accusing me of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment and whatnot; | |||
| | status = | |||
| #Egl7 does not understand when someone is not interested in engaging in ] whataboutism, instead resorting to ], first on my talk page , then an article talk page , then their own talk page . This random question about the ] appeared after I asked them if they denied the Armenian Genocide since they considered me having a userpage about it part of "supporting Armenia's actions". According to this well sourced Wiki section , the term "genocide" is a "fabrication" for the Khojaly massacre, which is "used to counter the narrative of the Armenian genocide." | |||
| | result = {{nac}} ] was indefinitely blocked by ScottishFinnishRadish as an advertising only account and their article has been CSD'd. ] (]) | |||
| #Dancing on the fine line of ], if not denying it | |||
| }} | |||
| #Despite being blocked on the Russian Misplaced Pages for it, their first action here was trying the very same thing they were indeffed for ; changing "Nakhichevan" (Armenian spelling) to "Nakhichivan" (Azerbaijani spelling) | |||
| #I truly tried to have ] despite their disruptive conduct and previous block, but this user is simply ]. There also seems to be severe ] at hand, as they struggle understanding a lot of what I say, including even reading ], which I had to ask them to read 5 (!) times before I gave up. As seen in our long discussion , they also to struggle understand basic sentences/words, such as the difference between "official" and "common". | |||
| I'm not going to respond to Egl7 here unless an admin wants me to. --] (]) 13:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === HistoryofIran, anti-Azerbaijani behaviour === | |||
| {{atop|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] | |||
| @] clearly has bone to pick with Azerbaijan, including ] my ] work which includes correction of arrangement of the "Today is part of" infobox following the country, in which, at present, the largest part of the territory of the Nakhchivan Khanate is located. @] is reverting back changes, saying that my https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nakhichevan_Khanate&diff=prev&oldid=1268162595 edit is not an improvement without any real reason and without offering any argument. Also they are stating that there is a restriction according to ], while ignoring edits of other users. I asked them many times to open a discussion so both sides could offer different proposals which in turn would lead to a consensus. In response all my requests were ignored. Also they have been accusing me of having conflicts with other users and countries while I have never noted or mentioned any and they have been impolite to me all the time, while i have never been impolite or rude to them. I want to say that I am blocked on ru.wikipedia, again, because of no real reason(They are vandalizing and projecting their actions onto me) and now i'm even worried that en.wikipedia will do the same to me. | |||
| ] keeps recreating variants of this article under slightly different names, even after it was ]. Given this behavoir, it seems that they are WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia. Thank you, ] (]) 01:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| They are also dancing on the fine line of denying ], if not denying it. | |||
| :Editor indeffed as an advertising only account, article CSD'd, pages watchlisted. ] (]) 02:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Thank You. ] (]) 15:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Boomerang''' this is a clearly retaliatory filing. I think Egl7 is ]. ] (]) 15:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Boomerang''' obvious retaliatory filling. ] (]) 15:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :As a non-EC editor, you should not be discussing Armenia/Azerbaijan issues at all except for making specific, constructive edit requests on the relevant talk pages. Once you received notice about the restriction, none of your related edits were in good faith, and all may be reverted without being considered edit warring. And quite frankly, the diffs that HistoryofIran has presented about your behavior don't look great. Your behavior on Russian Misplaced Pages doesn't affect your rights on English Misplaced Pages, but since you brought it up, I have to agree that you were there and now here more to fight than to edit a collaborative encyclopedia. ] (]) 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] tell me, please, if there is a restriction why are everybody's edits are ignored except mine? You are not doing justice. ] (]) 15:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Because the restriction is specific to people who do not have extended confirmed status. ] (]) 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::i know that i'm being picky and can sound like a snitch, don't get me wrong, but, at least, i'm editing from an account while other users are editing from random IPs. How is it possible for a random IP to have an extended confirmed status? ] (]) 15:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The person you created this obviously retaliatory report against is not an IP and does have EC status. The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward. ] (]) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not taking about @] here. Look up the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nakhichevan_Khanate&action=history. You can see that there are IPs, edits of which were ignored even if those edits have been done after the restriction had been set. This is what makes it unfair. By this logic my edits should've been ignored too. ] (]) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No IP has edited the page in question in nearly a year. You are complaining about a non-issue. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The restriction has been set much earlier than a year. ] (]) 16:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Right, but at ANI we deal with {{tq|urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.}} The IP edits here are old news. Further, having now reviewed the page's last 5 years of history...out of 7 IP edits made, 5 were reverted almost immediately, 1 is arguably not covered by GS/AA (]), leaving exactly 1 edit that probably should have been reverted but wasn't (], which added "Armenian language"). You'll notice upon minimal investigation, however, that HistoryofIran's most embattled edits to this page were to ''remove'' "Armenian language" from the article in July of 2023; it's rather disingenuous to accuse them of all people of turning a blind eye here. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::This does not refute what I said above. ] (]) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::There are actually 2 or more of them. I guess it's his duty to support both sides and remove or add information which is or is not necessary. ] (]) 16:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'm not sure what you're trying to say here at this point, but it also doesn't matter. HoI raised multiple valid concerns regarding the quality of your editing in an area that per our community guidelines, you should be intentionally avoiding. In response, you filed a retaliatory report and are now arguing technicalities that are tangential to the substance of HoI's initial report. The fact that you are arguing such trivial, irrelevant points is evidence against you in these proceedings. Your best course of action is to follow Simonm223's advice above. Failure to take that advice at this point is almost certain to end with you blocked. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident? ] (]) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's not. However, someone making an inappropriate edit without being caught does not make your inappropriate edits into appropriate ones. There have been many successful bank robberies in history, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to rob the bank next to my grocery store. You need to start focusing on how ''you'' conduct yourself, not on how others do, because right now, you appear to be headed towards a block. ] (]) 16:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I understand you. But i want to note that no matter how successful are the robberies, a lengthy criminal investigation will be launched. In addition, i want to say that i wasn't aware of those edits before I did mine. ] (]) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You did receive a warning on your talk page. Your conduct issues are not limited to violating ECP. You would be wise to heed the advice given in this thread from Simonm223 and Rosguill. The community does not have much patience for nationalist editing. ] (]) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident? ] (]) 16:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::], {{tq| The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed}}. That includes complaints about other editors. Which you should know already, as you have been repeatedly warned about GS/AA and should have read that page carefully. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::So Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident, which in my case is "HistoryofIran, anti-Azerbaijani behaviour"? I am asking this because you said that "The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward". And still, what you said in this comment does not refute what I said above. ] (]) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Lists of everyone that has been sanctioned for GS/AA violations, or CT/AA violations more broadly, can be found at ] and further at ] under each year's Armenia-Azerbaijan (CT/A-A) section. Note that this only lists people who repeatedly ignored warnings and got blocked for it, simple reverts are not logged. I would encourage you to avoid getting your own username added to that list. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * All I see is Egl7 doubling down. I have already tried to tell them that there was nothing wrong with the IP edit they are fixiated on, and that it doesn’t excuse their unconstructice edits regardless. The fact that they were caught red handed in genocide denial and anti-Armenian conduct and then fruitlessly attempts to make me appear as the same with Azerbaijanis by copy-pasting part of my report and replace “Armenian” with “Azerbaijani” says a lot about this user. ] (]) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] "There was nothing wrong" | |||
| *:As @] said 1 is arguably not covered by GS/AA (]), leaving exactly 1 edit that probably should have been reverted but wasn't (], which added "Armenian language"). | |||
| *:As I understand you were aware or now are aware of those edits done by those IPs what tells me that you admit that you ignored or are ignoring the edits that have been done after the restriction has been set and now you are still stating that there was or is nothing wrong with those IPs' edits. ] (]) 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::And we're done here. If you can read my comments here close enough to try to use them to make tendentious arguments at HoI, you should be able to understand that I already told you this is not even slightly appropriate. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I '''endorse''' this block. ] (]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == ]'s unreferenced edits == | |||
| == Need Japanese-speaking and maybe admin help == | |||
| *{{userlinks|Immanuelle}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|SiliconProphet}} | |||
| I feel the need to amplify a cry for help I've just noticed dated February 3 at ], titled ]. It is extremely unusual to have several people asking for help with a particular editor. I am emphatically not competent to evaluate Japanese translation and past experience says that Japanese is one of the languages machine translation truly does not handle well. | |||
| I'm reporting {{Ping|Yemen meh}} for unreferenced edits. They've been told many times in the past to post references, and looking at their contributions page, they have done so many unreferenced edits in the last few days. ] (]) 09:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I know nothing about any of these people btw, and would be delighted to find out that they are wrong. However the idea that a "prolific" editor who does not speak Japanese is producing machine translation from Japanese is very alarming, and likely this is causing not just ugly English but serious errors of fact. Cleaning up such work is a huge and tedious time sink for people who actually speak the language in question, and I would know having just listed one from French out of sheer exasperation. ] (]) 03:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| (a bit later) <strike>It looks like the article has gotten some help</strike>, and it's two editors not three but the questions raised are still alarming, so I am quoting the meat of the plea: <blockquote>29 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, just few days ago - this happened. ] (]) 10:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Himetataraisuzu-hime | |||
| Edit | |||
| The initial language of this article was Japanese. Auric talk 19:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == IP hopper repeatedly adding unsourced and incorrect information to UK Rail articles == | |||
| The current "translation" is a travesty of bad machine translation, worked over primarily by a human editor who doesn't understand how to do translation, doesn't understand how to look up terms, doesn't understand Japanese at all, cannot read the phonetic parts of Japanese writing, and is wholly unfamiliar with the subject matter. | |||
| This user is prolific, and nearly all of their content is generated the same way -- machine-translating articles from non-English Wikipedias, and then badly reworking the result. Various editors, myself included, have attempted to advise them to stop utilizing this deeply flawed process. See also User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_2#Dongyue_Dadi and related threads in their Talk page archives. | |||
| About the ] article itself, I am not sure if this is sufficiently notable for English-language readers. | |||
| About the user, I have followed them for some months, and I am convinced that their editing activities here result in a net negative effect for the Misplaced Pages corpus: so much is wrong, and so many of their newly-created articles are for niche topics that few other English-language editors will see, and if they see them they may not be able to recognize them as bad, let alone fix them. | |||
| I am much less active here than on EN Wiktionary, so I am much less familiar with process. My recommendation is that some kind of administrative intervention is needed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)</blockquote>] (]) 03:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Discussion moved from ] to avoid cluttering up that noticeboard with discussion. | |||
| :I'll take a look but my (mediocre) strength is conversion, not text. But I know the grammar and such ] ] 05:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. ] (]) 06:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| There is a user at the 27.55.xxx.xxx range that is repeatedly adding unsourced and invalid information to UK rail articles. The primary problem is the addition of a Maximum Speed to steam locomotives - steam locomotives in the UK did not really have a formal maximum speed, so this parameter is not used in these circumstances. As the user is hopping between IPs, it's proving nearly impossible to leave adequate warnings on talk pages, and as noted at AIV a rangeblock would affect a large number of innocent good faith users. Is there a way forward here, or is it a case of whack-a-mole? | |||
| You can read an earlier version at {{ld|SiliconProphet/Himetataraisuzu-hime}}--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">] ]</span> 15:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Diffs: | |||
| As a Japanese-speaking admin, '''I agree that there is a significant problem here that needs to be handled at this venue'''. I simply have not had time to bring it to ANI myself, and may not be able to produce a complete summary now. When the issue was raised on my talk page, I wrote the following: "I believe the editor is acting in good faith, but since there are a number of policy violations involved (] given the history of overlapping use of accounts, ] as noted in the deletion discussion—the history of that page still needs to be handled, and there may be many other copyright issues on other pages) as well as behavioral concerns (], particularly the part that requires "the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up") and content concerns (], ], etc.), that is likely enough for the community to reach a decision on how to proceed without worrying about the problem of whether there is a meaningful corpus of "reliable sources" in this area of Japanese prehistory. Still, I feel it would be better to establish community consensus here. I was treating this as a slow-moving problem since I have not brought my concerns to the editor directly, but as you note, others have raised the issue, and complaints were also made on the talk page of the previous account." There are several issues involved, only one of which is the machine translation: | |||
| * {{user|27.55.93.62}} - {{diff2|1268535786}} | |||
| *There are copyright problems involved in the direct machine translation of non-free texts; I raised this at ]. As noted above, machine translation involving languages the editor is not able to read are resulting in significant factual errors. Japanese is not the only language for which this is occurring. | |||
| * {{user|27.55.83.83}} - {{diff2|1268296480}} & {{diff2|1268295870}} | |||
| *There is overlapping use of accounts, although only one is currently active, and this is being used to push through a set of articles that were draftified; see ], at which I mentioned the case of ] specifically: "Looking at ] may give a good summary. This is a real, but very obscure, topic in Japanese mythology. The article was created by SiliconProphet on October 12, 2021. It was edited extensively by SiliconProphet, but was on October 14. It was by SiliconProphet on October 22, and SiliconProphet continued to edit the article, followed by extensive edits from Scientifical Poet. It was then by an uninvolved editor on January 13, 2022. Immanuelle then . Immanuelle continued to edit the article and it was approved at AfC by an uninvolved editor on May 3, but a recent edit by an IP editor still notes: I doubt the process would have gone this way if clearly dealing with a single contributor to the translation." | |||
| * {{user|27.55.79.100}} - {{diff2| 1267871857}} | |||
| *The history of having these drafts and articles objected to goes back further than the current account, due to the switching of accounts. | |||
| * {{user|27.55.70.101}} - {{diff2| 1267858727}}, {{diff2| 1267858319}} & {{diff2| 1267859313}} | |||
| *When draftification occurs, the editor is merging inaccurate information into existing articles rather than improving the drafts; see ] and recent examples at ], ], and ]. | |||
| * {{user|27.55.68.32}} - {{diff2| 1267728237}}. | |||
| I would have liked to go through these items individually and clean them up for presentation here, but problematic articles continue to be created, so I will put this out there now in the hope that others can begin to evaluate what's been gathered together so far. The editor does not seem to concede that there is a problem, and I agree with the evaluation at the top of the section that this will end up creating a massive amount of work for other editors trying to clean up past contributions. ]<small>]</small> 05:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::To attempt to convey the scale of the potential problem: I primarily rehab articles from French, *a language that is related to English* and which is my language of education. There is a huge backlog of machine translated French articles created by a single user about military history, one of which, for example, translated something along the lines of "it was not until (1943?) that the unit saw combat in WW2" as "the unit did not see combat in World War 2". Some errors are more subtle than that, and I knew to look for that one, as that particular sentence construction is frequent and not intuitive for English speakers. A superficial copyedit by someone who does not speak French would not have spotted it. I have seen artist Joan Miró become Joan Looked. It gets much worse from there, the more divergent the language is from English. I've had four semesters of Japanese and do not consider myself literate in the language, just (possibly) able to get through counting, verbal greetings and thank yous. Hopefully this explains my alarm. Thank you for any brainpower applied to this. ] (]) 06:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : is an example of what {{u|Dekimasu}} is saying about overlapping accounts. The article was reported at ] a year ago by the same user, and nobody responded. Other examples of how there just isn't enough bandwidth to allow this stuff at and the CTX subpage ] (]) 08:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers, ] (]) 10:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :Seems the only answer is to continue playing w-a-m until our Thai friend gets bored. ] (]) 11:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This is looking like a long-term abuse situation with this particular /64, with a decent amount of vandalism across a number of articles over a number of months at least, including those related to the ''Billboard'' Hot 100 charts. This is the most recent example that had me reverting their edit . ] (]) 03:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've created an edit filter, ], to detect IPs in that range editing articles that contain {{tl|infobox locomotive}}. I've set it just to log for the moment; let's see what it catches. — ] (]) 12:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Civility in edit summaries by 76.255.200.95 == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = | |||
| | result = {{nac}} ] has been blocked for 2 years by ToBeFree. ] (]) 16:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| == Persistent addition of unsourced content by 78.135.166.12 == | |||
| {{userlinks|78.135.166.12}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning & hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|Aardman Animations|prev|1267727350|1}}, {{diff|Aardman Animations|prev|1267781677|2}}, {{diff|Aardman Animations|prev|1268129045|3}}, {{diff|Miramax|prev|1268143287|4}} (addition of content not in pre-existing source, Pixar not mentioned), {{diff|Aardman Animations|prev|1268538057|5}}. ] (]) 16:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Persistent violation of established consensus on McLaren Driver Development Programme == | |||
| *{{userlinks|76.255.200.95}} | |||
| {{atop|1=OP has ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] is one of many motorsport-related articles that includes sections listing which racing championships drivers have won. Historically, these sections have only included season-long racing series championships, not simply the winners of notable races. However, ], ], and ] have persistently tried to list winning the ] as a "title." I have addressed this and explained the consensus multiple times, and repeatedly asked for them to return to the page to the consensus and start a discussion about changing that consensus, but all have refused and have insisted persisted with continually reverting the page. ] specifically has engaged in edit warring and personal attacks as well. All I am asking is that the page be reverted to consensus, without the one single race included as if it is a season-long championship, and then we can discuss why or why not to add it. All have refused. I don't think this ever needed to be escalated to the admins but literally everyone else involved has refused to have a simple discussion about this. I really don't understand their behavior. Personally I believe this change would significantly impact dozens of articles and would require larger discussions at the WikiProject level, but again, it does not seem like others are willing to have this discussion. ] (]) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Comment''': the relevant talk page discussion can be found . No "personal attacks" were exchanged. Instead, ] and I have tried to urge the user above to seek consensus peacefully instead of and ''imposing'' their views. The user cites an "informal consensus" but has been unable to its existence. | |||
| This user has been warned multiple times to cease their personal attacks against other editors, and continues to be make these attacks to the point of being directly disruptive - looking back through their edit history it seems most (if not all) of their interactions have been quite uncivil towards others. ] (]) 10:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:] (]) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :{{ec}}{{u|Lazer-kitty}}, this looks like a content dispute. The steps for resolving such disputes are listed at ]. I think you would find it very difficult to pursue this dispute here, but first you would need ]s showing bad conduct by others, and your conduct would also be looked at. ] (]) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Phil Bridger}} I mean, scroll up. The guy literally just attacked me and accused me of making threats and trying to impose my views, both of which are false. It was absolutely just a content dispute until they started behaving that way. ] (]) 18:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Lazer-kitty}}, your second comment at ] was {{tpq|First off, apologize immediately for your insults above. These are completely uncalled for.}} There were no insults and such a rapid escalation of aggression is inexplicable. Forced apologies are worthless. Then, you described this routine and mundane content dispute as "vandalism" even though you presented no evidence of deliberate intent to {{tpq|obstruct or defeat the project's purpose}}, which is required for a valid accusation of vandalism. It looks to me like you are being far too aggressive here, and so I recommend that you adopt a more collaborative attitude. ] (]) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, that comment was in response to {{tpq|I kindly urge you to cut down your condescending tone and edit warring, or external measures could be taken.}} You don't consider that insulting? I do. I was not being condescending, I sincerely tried my best to be polite, nor was I edit warring. Literally all I want to do is be collaborative and they all refuse. I have asked for collaboration numerous times! ] (]) 18:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, that's not an insult. You're talking down to other editors, which can feel condescending to them. I strongly urge you to dial it back and engage in creating a new, solid consensus around this topic. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Reading through the talk page is pretty bizarre - Lazer-kitty is insisting their opinion is consenus against 3 editors who disagree with them. I know nothing about motorsport but to me this is evidence that consensus is against LK, not with them as they claim. I think this earns a trout for opening this filing, the misunderstanding of the concept of consensus, and for battleground behaviour - but there's nothing here that needs admin attention. ] ] 18:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks to everyone involved for bullying off me this platform. Never in my life did I expect that 20 years of editing would end with being gaslit by multiple admins and editors. Really appreciate your efforts in killing this encyclopedia. My only hope is that one day someone forks Misplaced Pages into a new encyclopedia with competent oversight, i.e. people who can see through obvious trolling and bad faith actions, and who don't rely on aggressive tone policing to make their judgements. ] (]) 19:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{nacc}} The filer appears to have ]. —] ( ] • ] ) 19:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :As multiple people have pointed out, you are seriously overreacting. Your behaviour is completely disproportionate to the content dispute you are involved in. You only have yourself to look at there. If this is how you react to people disagreeing with you, you are the one with a serious problem. ]]]1 20:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == Engage01: ad hominem personal attacks and one against many == | |||
| == 36.82.230.247, 114.5.102.79 and others == | |||
| {{moved from|]|2=] (]) 12:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| <small>Heading added. ] (]) 12:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *{{IPvandal|36.82.230.247}} | |||
| *{{IPvandal|114.5.102.79}} | |||
| *{{IPvandal|114.5.104.150}} | |||
| *{{IPvandal|36.90.109.221}} | |||
| *{{IPvandal|36.82.231.235}} | |||
| *{{IPvandal|61.94.87.223}} | |||
| *{{IPvandal|36.90.109.188}} | |||
| A batch of IP addresses used by SPA (identical articles on Batak Lutherans), there are some more I believe. Does not intend to communicate, constantly makes small edits that are disruptive, if the "talk" is blue that is definitely a warning. Constantly switches addresses (probably a network thing). Is there an option for a device ban, or something similar? ] (]) 10:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{User|Engage01}} has been arguing to include an incredibly lengthy quote in ]. Upon my removal of the quote and suggestion to bring it to the talk page, they've begun a large-scale argument that me and most other editors that disagree with the addition of the quote as lacking competence, not understanding quality, or one-word "wrong" replies. Consensus is clearly against them but instead of coming up with actual policy-based reasons for every other editor !voting in the poll they set up (all in favor of not having the quote) they've chose to accuse us of not understanding policy or not seeing that the individual in question is important in the matter enough to deserve a long quote. They haven't been around for long, and have gotten multiple warnings for personal attack-type language in the conversation. I've been asked by them to "remove myself from the conversation" and they suggested I was "learning while you edit" while not understanding ]. I don't have time to add any diffs (all the comments are still live) except for ], them blanking their talk page, and ] a few minutes later, where they keep their argument at "I can't understand how editors can misapply "undue weight."". This could be a severe case of ] with the blanking. I'm hoping whoever sees this can at least get them to cut out their personal attacks. Cheers. ] (]) 19:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User threatening to report me to Indian authorities because I gave him a warning about including the contentious term "terrorist" on biographical articles == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = | |||
| | result = {{nac}} ] has been blocked indefinitely by Femke for making legal threats. ] (]) 16:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :I thought I removed the quote first, but it was removed again by Departure. Nevertheless this user has made personal attacks on my User talk page as well. I posted two warnings and on their talk page but Engage01 just very quickly. I wish to ] but this user started a new section on my talk page (linked above) to argue about "undue weight" which is something I don't recall mentioning at all in this situation. | |||
| :I remember now. I from the body of the article to inside the citation but I had a feeling that it was only a gradual stage before it would be fully removed by ]. Thank you for bringing this to the ANI. ] (]) 19:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've pblocked them for one week from the article and its talk page for disruptive editing, personal attacks, incivility, and bludgeoning. ] (]) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The method of engagement at that talk page is really poor. I've closed the section now that the editor has been p-blocked, no need to continue to sink time into it. ] (]) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I know they're partially blocked from that page, but I went through their edit history and I found ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] different diffs of them adding the quote in question into the article (at least 7 of which were after it had been removed), and I think that constitutes edit warring. They never got notice for violating 3RR but they ''very clearly'' did. Maybe the block from the Palisades Fire should be extended or expanded? I've seen worse sanctions for less disruption. ] (]) 20:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Problems with Pipera== | |||
| {{atop|1=Pipera blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Pipera}} | |||
| I've tried to avoid bringing this here, but I've reached the point where I cannot keep dealing with {{user|Pipera}}. They continue to add unsourced and unrelated information to articles, refuse to take on formatting advice, continue to assert that they know better than the reliable sources in articles, and continue to post walls of text on talk pages that do not help with collaborative editing.<p> | |||
| I've listed some illustrative diffs below along with explanations where needed. I've tried to be concise but it's difficult at times to explain the issues. There are more problems I've got documented, but I tried to not overwhelm this filing.<p> | |||
| I'm concerned that Pipera does not understand what wikipedia is for and what we do - their continual references to the fact that they are a descendant of the article subjects and that they know through their own research that historians or scholars are wrong, is a big problem and they have not taken explanations of what we do here (as opposed to a genealogical research site) on board. Their continual sourcing problems - removing sources, adding unsourced information, arguing that sites like WikiTree are reliable, arguing that they know better than the reliable sources, and, worst, the changing of sourced information to say something different than what the source actually says - all these are big red-flag issues. Explanations of how they have issues have been met with either no-engagement with the points raised or walls of text. I also have ] concerns as they seem unable to edit without formatting, grammar, and other issues.<p> | |||
| As for a solution, I'm open to suggestions. A topic ban from medieval biographies would probably solve the current problem, but I'm not sure that will not just move the problem elsewhere. If someone would volunteer to mentor Pipera, that might work, but I've exhausted my good faith already in the last month, and it would need to be someone with a lot of patience, and I'm not sure the CIR issues won't just show up somewhere else. | |||
| * ] at ] Pipera changes sourced information to have it say something that the source does not quite say, adds information that is unrelated to the subject of the article, along with grammar issues. I pointed out the problems with these edits on the ] which got a ] that repeated parts of the article and frankly, I'm not sure what they meant to convey with it. | |||
| * ] at ], Pipera removes sources from sourced information, adds unsourced information, and generally mucks up the text and formatting. After being reverted by an editor and re-adding their edits, they post ]. I documented the problems with their edits ], but they were never addressed. | |||
| * ] At ], Pipera adds a citation needed tag to an already cited sentence, one cited to the '']''. | |||
| * ] at ], Pipera changes Enguerrand's offspring from a daughter to a daughter and son, removing the sourced statement that Enguerrand had no male offspring, and changing his brother and successor Guy into a son instead. This is done while keeping the three sources that previously supported Guy as a brother, not a son. One of the attached sources is Musset p. 104, which can be accessed at the Internet Archive See talk page where a discussion about another source that supports Enguerrand as having no male offspring is dismissed as "There are a number of updated versions the work" but without substantiating such a claim. | |||
| * ] at ] Pipera copies an earlier section of the article into a new place without removing it at the older location so that now the article repeats the section starting "Katherine Keats-Rohan argues instead...". This series of edits also adds unsourced information and removes sourced information. I ] with the statement "remove repetition and restore sources to information" but was ] with the edit summary "Undid revision 1267745167 by Ealdgyth (talk) sorry this is my family tree and I know what was placed here is correct". There are further edits to this article ] and then a discussion on the talk page about what they ] actually turns out to be a charter. I ] on the talk page, and that got a flurry of replies on the ] just don't make any sense to me. Maybe they are upset that some historians might think Sibyl was illegitimate? They keep saying things like "They state Sybil of Falaise might have been yet another b######d." which took me a bit to realize that they were censoring "bastard". Note that the article still in places calls this charter a "will" and says that "In the charter of William de Falaise, he bequeaths everything to his wife Geva." However, Pipera at ] claims to translate the charter and their translation says nothing about William bequeathing everything to his wife - it's a standard gift-charter giving some property to a church, with his wife mentioned as also giving the property along with William. This raises serious issues about Pipera's ability to read and understand sources and use them appropriately. | |||
| * ] Pipera adds unsourced information as well as a long series of genealogical descents to an article about a 12th-century nobleman, much of the information is not really related to the subject of the article. | |||
| * ] at ] Pipera changes sourced information without updating the source, removing the "probably" from "probably was the son", and making it a categorical statement that Richard was the son of Robert de Courcy. | |||
| * ] at ] Pipera removes sources from information and adds unsourced information. I ] with an edit summary of "Restore sources to information, no need for this heading, and we do not need a list here" but was ] with the edit summary "with all due respect we have this everywhere in Misplaced Pages, further it adds clarity to the entry. In my opinion. Further, added the name of Williams wife Avice to the entry BTW she is the daughter of the Earl of Skipton her mother is Cecily de Rumily they are my 23rd Great Grandparents". I then attempted to discuss at the talk page ] but this has been ignored. | |||
| * 9/10 Jan 2025 at ] - I reply ] to a comment of theirs. Pipera ] with an edit summary of "Do not delete my tak page responses", but I did not delete any of their responses, I merely replied. Two edits later, they ] they had started, including the replies that I had made to them, pointing out problems, violating ]. | |||
| Pinging {{user|Eric}}, {{user|Celia Homeford}}, {{user|Ian Rose}}, {{user|Dudley Miles}}, {{user|Newm30}}, {{user|Andrew Lancaster}}, {{user|BusterD}}, and {{user|Paramandyr}} who have also dealt with this editor. ] (]) 20:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've tried to avoid bringing this here, but I've reached the point where I cannot keep dealing with ] (] '''·''' ]). They continue to add unsourced and unrelated information to articles, refuse to take on formatting advice, continue to assert that they know better than the reliable sources in articles, and continue to post walls of text on talk pages that do not help with collaborative editing. | |||
| :I've listed some illustrative diffs below along with explanations where needed. I've tried to be concise but it's difficult at times to explain the issues. There are more problems I've got documented, but I tried to not overwhelm this filing. | |||
| :I'm concerned that Pipera does not understand what wikipedia is for and what we do - their continual references to the fact that they are a descendant of the article subjects and that they know through their own research that historians or scholars are wrong, is a big problem and they have not taken explanations of what we do here (as opposed to a genealogical research site) on board. Their continual sourcing problems - removing sources, adding unsourced information, arguing that sites like WikiTree are reliable, arguing that they know better than the reliable sources, and, worst, the changing of sourced information to say something different than what the source actually says - all these are big red-flag issues. Explanations of how they have issues have been met with either no-engagement with the points raised or walls of text. I also have ] concerns as they seem unable to edit without formatting, grammar, and other issues. | |||
| :As for a solution, I'm open to suggestions. A topic ban from medieval biographies would probably solve the current problem, but I'm not sure that will not just move the problem elsewhere. If someone would volunteer to mentor Pipera, that might work, but I've exhausted my good faith already in the last month, and it would need to be someone with a lot of patience, and I'm not sure the CIR issues won't just show up somewhere else. | |||
| :* ] at ] Pipera changes sourced information to have it say something that the source does not quite say, adds information that is unrelated to the subject of the article, along with grammar issues. I pointed out the problems with these edits on the ] which got a ] that repeated parts of the article and frankly, I'm not sure what they meant to convey with it. | |||
| :That ha been reolved, | |||
| :* ] at ], Pipera removes sources from sourced information, adds unsourced information, and generally mucks up the text and formatting. After being reverted by an editor and re-adding their edits, they post ]. I documented the problems with their edits ], but they were never addressed. | |||
| :The page dealing with his children has yet to be resolved. | |||
| :* ] At ], Pipera adds a citation needed tag to an already cited sentence, one cited to the '']''. | |||
| :That has been resolved. | |||
| :* ] at ], Pipera changes Enguerrand's offspring from a daughter to a daughter and son, removing the sourced statement that Enguerrand had no male offspring, and changing his brother and successor Guy into a son instead. This is done while keeping the three sources that previously supported Guy as a brother, not a son. One of the attached sources is Musset p. 104, which can be accessed at the Internet Archive See talk page where a discussion about another source that supports Enguerrand as having no male offspring is dismissed as "There are a number of updated versions the work" but without substantiating such a claim. | |||
| :In regard to this matter see: ] which no one has replied to., | |||
| :* ] at ] Pipera copies an earlier section of the article into a new place without removing it at the older location so that now the article repeats the section starting "Katherine Keats-Rohan argues instead...". This series of edits also adds unsourced information and removes sourced information. I ] with the statement "remove repetition and restore sources to information" but was ] with the edit summary "Undid revision 1267745167 by Ealdgyth (talk) sorry this is my family tree and I know what was placed here is correct". There are further edits to this article ] and then a discussion on the talk page about what they ] actually turns out to be a charter. I ] on the talk page, and that got a flurry of replies on the ] just don't make any sense to me. Maybe they are upset that some historians might think Sibyl was illegitimate? They keep saying things like "They state Sybil of Falaise might have been yet another b######d." which took me a bit to realize that they were censoring "bastard". Note that the article still in places calls this charter a "will" and says that "In the charter of William de Falaise, he bequeaths everything to his wife Geva." However, Pipera at ] claims to translate the charter and their translation says nothing about William bequeathing everything to his wife - it's a standard gift-charter giving some property to a church, with his wife mentioned as also giving the property along with William. This raises serious issues about Pipera's ability to read and understand sources and use them appropriately. | |||
| :See: ]. And ]! | |||
| :* ] Pipera adds unsourced information as well as a long series of genealogical descents to an article about a 12th-century nobleman, much of the information is not really related to the subject of the article. | |||
| :* ] at ] Pipera changes sourced information without updating the source, removing the "probably" from "probably was the son", and making it a categorical statement that Richard was the son of Robert de Courcy. | |||
| :Richard was the son of Robert de Courcy, and his mother was named Herleva de Bernieres. His father was Balderic 'the Teuton' and an unnamed granddaughter of ] . He was one of nine children bound by this relationship. | |||
| :He actually is his son. | |||
| :* ] at ] Pipera removes sources from information and adds unsourced information. I ] with an edit summary of "Restore sources to information, no need for this heading, and we do not need a list here" but was ] with the edit summary "with all due respect we have this everywhere in Misplaced Pages, further it adds clarity to the entry. In my opinion. Further, added the name of Williams wife Avice to the entry BTW she is the daughter of the Earl of Skipton her mother is Cecily de Rumily they are my 23rd Great Grandparents". I then attempted to discuss at the talk page ] but this has been ignored. | |||
| : ] ] ] 5,529 bytes +76 ''Undid revision ] by ] (]) with all due respect we have this everywhere in Misplaced Pages, further it adds clarity to the entry. In my opinion. Further, added the name of Williams wife Avice to the entry BTW she is the daughter of the Earl of Skipton her mother is Cecily de Rumily they are my 23rd Great Grandparents.'' '']: ]'' | |||
| :* 9/10 Jan 2025 at ] - I reply ] to a comment of theirs. Pipera ] with an edit summary of "Do not delete my tak page responses", but I did not delete any of their responses, I merely replied. Two edits later, they ] they had started, including the replies that I had made to them, pointing out problems, violating ]. | |||
| :Proceedings by Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Publication date 1919 | |||
| :https://archive.org/details/proceedings65some/page/8/mode/1up?q=Sibyl<nowiki/>+ | |||
| :<nowiki>*</nowiki> Eyton, in his Domesday Studies, styles this " an old legend (we can call it no more) of the Welsh Marches We cannot imagine how Henry I. could have such a niece as this Sibil ; nor can we say how Sibil de Falaise was related to William de Falaise, or why she or her descendants should have succeeded to any of his estates." ] (]) 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support block''' <s>topic ban</s> possibly per nom. I've been watching the complete palaver that is ]—"]"!—with askance. Their talk page comments are ], and ] and they seem to delight in... misunderstanding. Repeatedly. If as Ealdgyth suggests, the TB proves insufficient, the this can be revisited, but in the meantime, it's worth a shot.{{pb}}I had an edit-confliuct posting this, due to Pipera posting above. And incidentally proving ''the actual point''. The reply is bizarre; they seem to have ] Ealdgyth's original post. They are completely incapable of communicating in a manner that is not disruptive. ]'']''] 21:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Changing my suggestion to a full block; their replies demonstrate they either don't understand what Misplaced Pages is for, and are unwilling to learn, or simply don't care. Either way, NOTHERE applies in spades. ]'']''] 21:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Talk:Henry I of England - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Henry_I_of_England ] | |||
| :In regard to this matter, I was restoring an earlier version of the article. listing the children legitimate, illegitimate and mistress to the children section of the article. it was not my work it was the work of others that came here circa 2006 -7 that placed this here, and it was removed. | |||
| :I added: | |||
| :* ''Baldwin, Stewart (2002). . The American Society of Genealogists.'' | |||
| :I was told that this was an unreliable source when the work is on the American Society of Genealogists website, Baldwin is a writer of historic books. He is a valid source of information, further his work in the reference section shows some of the sources that are in the Misplaced Pages articles. | |||
| :I was told that WikiTree is a user generate source, Misplaced Pages is also a user generated source. | |||
| :Additionally, I was told that Alison Weir was not acceptable in the article. | |||
| :== Using these within a Misplaced Pages Article == | |||
| :] | |||
| :Broken up into: | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :There is no rule here stating that these cannot be used within any part of a Misplaced Pages entry. | |||
| :You also removed Alison Weir as a reference, explain to me why she was removed? ] (]) ] | |||
| :Regards ] (]) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Finally, other genealogical sites like WikiTree have attempted to place the children of Henry I in the right place and manner, in other incidents globally people are now adding Henry I as the father of Sybil de Falaise based on the article here at Misplaced Pages. She is not the niece of Henry I whichever way this is stated, in relation to William Martin https://en.wikipedia.org/William_Martin,_1st_Baron_Martin#References this has been resolved, and yet on my talk page I went into great detail about the usage of the tag in two other Misplaced Pages articles. | |||
| :Also, I am academically qualified to read source materials like: | |||
| :: '''Robert of Torigni''' or '''Torigny''' (]: ''Robert de Torigni''; c. 1110–1186), also known as '''Robert of the Mont''' (]: ''Robertus de Monte''; ]: ''Robert de Monte''; also Robertus de Monte Sancti Michaelis, in reference to the abbey of Mont Saint-Michel), was a ] ], ], and ]. He is most remembered for his chronicles detailing English history of his era. | |||
| :: https://entities.oclc.org/worldcat/entity/E39PBJxhgfHcDqQdqcGCG7gh73.html and '''', and read their works and apply them to any historic context as I have in other genealogical sites as well as read Parish Registers in the 1500's and apply this to research. | |||
| :] (]) 21:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please block this person now, any admin who sees this. I have lost count of the number of Misplaced Pages policies which they are intent on ignoring, and if swift action isn't taken this discission will be longer than the rest of this page put together. ] (]) 21:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree. ] (] - ] - ]) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree. --] 21:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Because I came to Misplaced Pages to extend articles, add new information, rolled back and not one academic response. I have been given personal opinions of which I have taken on board. I have not gone into iny article with the intent to add incorrect information to the articles. I have been adding here since 2001, and decided to come into these articles to expand them. That is my intention to do so. In the case of ] I was adding to the Family and children section and added additional links I have not entered any other part of the article. | |||
| :::In the case of ] there is no way she can be ] nice as the records of his brothers and sisters state so. I have raised these concerns in the talk page, see Talk:Sibyl of Falaise - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sibyl_of_Falaise as I see it. ] (]) 21:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *They have been '''blocked'''. ]] 22:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cheers, {{u|GiantSnowman}}. ]'']''] 22:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, I got here late. Thanks to Ealdgyth for bringing this issue here, and to all who participated. After an initial attempt at dealing with Pipera's disruptions and chaotic editing/communication pattern, I must admit I soon walked away. Thanks those with more patience than I for trying longer. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, I recently left a warning on the talk page of user ] regarding them adding the phrases "terrorist" into a biographical article and another article about a recently deceased individual. For the problematic edits in-question published by them, please see: (a ] article) and (article about a recently deceased individual). You can see they did not attempt to build consensus nor did they include any source to warrant the inclusion of this term in these articles. | |||
| :::Thanks to Ealdgyth for the thread. I participated sufficiently to see this was real problem, but didn't act decisively. ] (]) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == An IP who gave me a fake 4im warning == | |||
| They proceeded to respond hostilely to my attempts at dialogue with them and mentioned that they are a solder in the Indian military (perhaps as a means to intimidate me). They also made baseless accusations against my motivations for reverting their problematic edits and warning them. I tried my best to ignore their attempts at getting into a personal argument and decided to stick to pointing out why they are in-breach of Misplaced Pages policy. They are threatening to report me to Indian authorities (specifically the "Intelligence Bureau"), claim I am in-breach of Indian laws for some reason, and continued to go on an undecipherable nationalistic rant. | |||
| There was a IP address (]) who | |||
| Can anything be done about this user? They do not appear to be here to improve the encyclopedia at all (]) but rather to vandalize articles of individuals they may personally dislike and are bashful and insulting towards those who attempt to educate them on why their malpractices and behaviour is not allowed on the site. Also, this is not a new pattern from this user, you can see their talk page littered with past incidents. Thank you, ] (]) 15:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| # Called me blind in an edit summary after i reverted his edit | |||
| :I have blocked them indefinitely for making legal threats. ] (]) 15:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| # trouted me and gave me a 4im warning | |||
| ::@] Thank you very much. ] (]) 15:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| I think this is the appropriate place to take this report. | |||
| == Egregious personal attacks by Amardions == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = | |||
| | result = Sock indeffed. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']''' ''']'''</span> 18:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Thanks, ] ] ] 22:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Amardions}} | |||
| :Well, a 4im warning was certainly an overreaction and the edit summary could have been nicer, but your revert was obviously wrong. The IP has since self-reverted the warning. No admin action is needed here, but you should read IP edits more carefully before reverting them, and consider changing your distasteful signature. ] (]) 22:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Distasteful? What do you mean? it is simply a videogame refrence to ]. | |||
| ::And i did admit fault for the bad edit (and for my unnecessarily silly first response). | |||
| ::Thanks, ] ] ] 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::However, @] I was gonna change it due to me changing my username soon. So, in the meantime, i will change it. ] ] ] 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It would be great i you could remove all of the extraneous phrases and change it so that it is just your username and a link to your User talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I fail to see the need to jump all over Tenebre over their signature. There are a number of other editors and admins who have similarly goofy signatures and jumping down one editor's throat seems petty. ] (]) 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Community block appeal by ] == | |||
| Pretty sure this user is a sock (see ]), which would explain the random hostility. Anyways, I've told this user multiple times to refrain from making comments towards me , reminding them of ] and ] too, but to no avail. | |||
| {{user links|Drbogdan}} | |||
| * | |||
| This user has asked for a review of their community block enacted as a result of a six months ago. Just FYI for context the original title of the section on their talk pages was ''"Request to restore editing per ] as suggested"'' and several users involved in the previous discussion were pinged, and a block review began there before I shut that down and informed them it needed to be done here, so there's going to be some volume of comments right away, in addition to the lengthy text of the request itself. ] ] 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| - MY (overdue perhaps) REPLIES Somewhat new to all of this (been busy in other wiki-areas over the years - see below), but seems it's been over 6 months since the start of my (start date = July 6, 2024) - perhaps ] may now apply I would think - and hopefully, ] and ] (direct and/or indirect) apply here as well of course. Thanks. ::<q class="inline-quote-talk ">::I closed this quickly a few minutes ago since the latest comments have been fairly plain personal attacks, rather than discussing the substance of the complaint and appropriate action. It took me a while to organize my thoughts and copyedit myself - there's a lot to unpack here.</q> Thank you for your comments and conclusions. As before, I've been very busy recently with mostly real-world activities (but also with some earlier online activities - ++ and others) . Sorry for my delay in not responding earlier of course. Hopefully, my presentation here is appropriate and entirely ok (I'm really new to this wiki-area). ::<q class="inline-quote-talk ">::Here we have a science expert mass-adding content based on low-quality popular science churnalism to our science articles, expecting that other editors will review it and determine whether to improve or remove it, and a complaint from the editors who have been cleaning up after them supposedly for many years. This discussion can be summed up with a quote from the ] essay: "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up." We excuse this behaviour from very new editors who don't yet understand that ] with ] and ]. The community expects an editor with 90,000 edits to understand what content should be in an article and what constitutes a reliable source, especially for an editor who is also a subject matter expert.</q> Mostly untrue claims. Certainly none intentional. As before, claims have been exaggerated (also noted by others and elsewhere) and/or (with no or few supporting diffs) (along with - ie, ) (). Such claims, perhaps to seem more credible than they really may be, seem to have been presented under cover of apparent ] of one sort or another. In addition, the importance of ], in some relevant instances, have been downplayed and/or dismissed outright. For one example of possible related contention, the very long-time (many years) ] article, originally a very enriched (helpful/useful) version (seemingly at least), and justified by ], is , but is currently (without discussion or ]) changed to a less helpful/useful ] instead. Seems like ] rules may overrule ]? Seems so at the moment in this instance. At least until there's a better resolution of the issue through further discussion and ] I would think. In any case, lessons learned here of course. ::<q class="inline-quote-talk ">::Drbogdan's replies to deserved criticism in this thread have been dismissive of the problem at best, if not signalling that they believe their academic credentials excuse them from needing to improve. The community has historically rejected this approach, and rejects it here. Since Drbogdan seems not to understand that they are making a mess and seems uninterested in learning how not to continue making messes, the community's consensus is that Drbogdan is '''blocked indefinitely'''.</q> Not true. Never said or thought this. Ever. Not my way of thinking. I've always tried to be open to improvement. Seems the better road generally. After all, nobody's perfect. Everyone could benefit from improvement of one sort or another I would think. My academic (and related) credentials have been presented only to describe my qualifications to edit Misplaced Pages, which, I currently understand, may be ok. Please let me know if otherwise of course. Nonetheless, my current UserPage is . (My earlier UserPage, if interested, is ). ::-- ::<q class="inline-quote-talk ">::Separately from this close, I also *must say* that their habit - eccentric, maybe? - of hacking together *long run-on strings of comments* - interspersed - as they are - with *forced pause* breaks and sprinkled with self-aggrandizing - and off-topic, yes - links to their *achievements* makes it - as others have said here - quite frustrating to converse with them. All the worse that the vast majority of their comments of this sort do not substantively reply to the comments they are left in response to.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div></q> Not ever true in my edits of mainspace articles. May be somewhat true on some talk-pages only. In any case, lessons learned here as well. Any specific rules broken in my editing have been entirely unintentional. As far as I currently know, all edits that may have been of some issue earlier have been completely corrected some time ago. I currently know of no real rules broken that may not be a matter of unsettled opinion. If otherwise, please specify rules that may have been an issue (and related diffs of course), and suggested ways that I may further improve my related edits going forward. I expect to adjust accordingly (and appropriately) as needed at the first opportunity of course. Thanks. ::::I'm also going to leave links here to ], ], and ]. ] (]/]) 8:18 am, 6 July 2024, Saturday (6 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−8) Thanks again for all your comments and conclusions. I should note that I have , including (+++++and more); as well as to ; ; ; ; ; ; and . ADD: ] (]) 10:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (]) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Misplaced Pages are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "]" and "]", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Misplaced Pages, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Misplaced Pages as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "]" on some online websites. Re any apparent ]: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way. | |||
| Incidentally, I entirely agree that my earlier user page needs a version trimmed down to the very basics, and without any material whatsoover that may possibly be understood as promotional. I have no problem doing that of course. Seems I may have been too ] with that (and related presentations, including those involving references and the like). In any case, thank you for reviewing my request here. I hope my replies (noted above) help in some way to restore my en-Misplaced Pages editing. Stay Safe and Healthy !! - ] (]) 12:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Prior talk page discussion=== | |||
| {{collapse top|prior discussion copied from ]. ] ] 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| '''Strong oppose:''' DrBogdan has never acknowledged their destructive editing tendencies or willingness to be overly promotional in weighting their contributions to wikipedia, a trait was has continued well into their CBAN with promotional-ish replies here () and his largely being to maintain promotional links. He continues above in lionizing the volume of his edit history without regard for quality and linking, inexplicably, his facebook, livejournal, and wordpress pages. | |||
| I and other editors have spent a lot of time since their ban cleaning up the daily updates and image galleries added persistently to articles. | |||
| * | |||
| Since his ban, I did more cleaning at Commons and this not contributing to the project. In this process I learned that Drbogdan has had a history of uploading images with copyright issues, as well. The meat of it, though, has been how he absolutely ruined entire science articles that have required complete rewrites to bring up to standard. | |||
| * | |||
| I have maintained since it’s very time consuming. So far I’ve had to rewrite (with help from others in places) ,, , , , , and , in addition to the cleanup done before his CBAN. All of these were victims of indiscriminate image galleries added to articles and daily updates on mission status. If we look at one I still haven’t gotten to, like ], it’s still an absolute mess of images smeared all over it. The intent of this list isn't to be any kind of gravedancing, but rather Drbogdan's major contributions have been so consistently low-quality that it's necessary to manually review every single article he's been heavily involved in to remove indiscriminate galleries. | |||
| * | |||
| Drbogdan’s defence here and in the past has been a mix of the ] and blaming my “persistence” at the ANI, despite my initial arguments at ANI being opposed to a ban. I think it’s pretty clear at this point that Drbogdan is motivated to edit, but unwilling to acknowledge any of the shortcomings in their editing process and I don’t actually see a planet in which their presence here is a positive given the timbre of this unban request. Especially considering it was so obviously going to be posted bang-on the six month mark. ] 12:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Can we please block this user? --] (]) 15:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', although it sounds like he has some hair-shirt wearing and more 'splaining to do. Nothing wrong in asking for this return after six months (that's what six months means, not six months but maybe wait an extra week or two). Thanks to Warrenmck for their cleanup, not a fun thing to do but needed when mistakes are made. That's what the six month wait is for, punishment for those mistakes. Once six months is served and understanding is admitted the slate should be swept clean and the fatted calf slaughtered for a feast. In seriousness, I've missed Dr.'s edits to science and space articles, he catches and posts new information at a commendable rate and I often learned about recent events from those edits. Taking Warren's concerns into account, maybe Dr. can explain a bit more about understanding why many editors had such concerns to begin with. Thanks, and, hopefully, welcome back. ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|Once six months is served and understanding is admitted}} | |||
| *:''And'', not ''or''. Above Drbogdan is actively complaining about the edits made to ] since his ban, and refusing to acknowledge that there were any issues with systematic low quality edits in the first place. For all people like to address his science credentials, by his own biography those are all in medicine and as an actual ] editor in the areas he's most keen to edit I've relied far less on my credentials in editing these articles than he has. There were other space-centric ]s hitting a wall with his editing pattern in the ANI, as well, if I recall. This is what resulted in several editors discussing a proclivity for ] and ]; he has been operating on the assumption that his ability to accurately weight information within planetary science and astrophysics is good, despite constant removal of added content in those fields. Expertise is non-transferrable. ] 13:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, and Drbogdan, if he comes back, has to adhere to those things or he won't be editing for long. A six-month indef ban seems long enough for someone to realize there may be a few things to do differently (hard to do for those of us who know everything and think that our way ''is'' the highway). He knows that his edits will be closely watched again, so maybe when an edit seems like it may be in question he can bring it to the talk page first (either the article or to one of the "watchers" for comment). Several ways to go about this, and better to have him editing and being careful about penalty calls than watching from the sidelines. ] (]) 13:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't want to bludgeon this, but I'm genuinely curious how you can possibly read an understanding of the underlying problem on his part from a post which basically can be summarized as "It wasn't me/I didn't do it/It wasn't intentional". I think there's some very serious wishful thinking on your part, because the above request to be unblocked actually contains every single element that lead to his CBAN; a refusal to recognize issues in the quality of his edits or in fact any meaningful wrongdoing at all and promotional editing. | |||
| :::::{{tq| I currently know of no real rules broken}} | |||
| ::::This isn't the basis for the removal of a CBAN as "lesson learned" ] 13:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I may be optimistic and hoping that this discussion will bring more comments from Drbogdan about these concerns. As I said, when we think we're right but other editors disagree then the process is to go through a long discussion to try to talk some sense into them (as seen from our point of view, which hopefully includes the ability to change our own mind) - because in Misplaced Pages even a 13-year-old high school student has as much say as a Dr. or professor. That power given to the uninformed is a trademark of Misplaced Pages, but somehow it works and the place runs well while growing and improving by the second. Dr. gives much weight to IAR, as he should (IAR, undiscussed by most editors, is policy and a darn good one), but you have to know it when you see it (from the perspective of that 14-year-old (who just this second had a birthday) editing while in study hall). ] (]) 14:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] in Drbogdan's case included a lot of copyvio, both at Commons (uploading non-free images) and in article spaces (linking copyright violating youtube videos inline in articles). ] 15:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (]) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Misplaced Pages are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "]" and "]", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Misplaced Pages, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Misplaced Pages as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "]" on some online websites. Re any apparent ]: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way. ] (]) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Insults, destruction and widespread attacks by HistoryofIran === | |||
| So, as you can see I have collapsed the above discussion for the moment. This is a community-imposed block based on a consensus determined at ], it must go through the same process if an unblock is to be considered. I can, however copy over the above comments if and when that is done so the users who have already commented don't have to start over. Before we go there, I'd like to ask, in light of what I have just explained and the feedback already given, if you are sure this is the appeal you want to submit for review by the community? ] ] 01:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ], Within the first second of entering Misplaced Pages, it began to insult and destroy my activity as a law-abiding user. Even now he calls me a sock!! Which rule in Misplaced Pages allows a user to target another user's effort?!! I made an edit in Khalifeh Soltan which was not to his liking. Instead of asking for a source, this person addressed me with bad words, but still, I brought more than 20 sources so that he would stop destroying and distorting history, but it was useless. insists in many places that Khalifeh Sultan is Isfahani, while the person himself said in his autobiography and other sources that he was born only in Isfahan and is of Mazandarani origin. I invited them to constructive and friendly interaction, but they repeated their work with ]. This user confuses Misplaced Pages with the battlefield. In another message, this user calls me a coward and not men!! . At the end of each message, I called him respectable, but he insists on making my message look destructive. Here | |||
| I introduced more than twenty references to him, but instead of constructive interaction, this time he considers my message insignificant and says that I did not get my answer!! Isn't this destruction obvious?! ] (]) 16:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your comments. And clarification of the relevant procedure. Yes, you may submit the related appeal. Thank you for your help with this. Stay Safe and Healthy !! - ] (]) 01:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Please do not call other users "it". ] (]) 16:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::That's a bad idea. Bebblebrox was giving you a subtle hint. Rewrite your appeal to address the main concerns. ] (]) 01:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :: |
:::Thanks for your comments - seems like my current appeal above addresses the main concerns presented in the original ANI concluding comments - at least as far as I'm aware of at the moment - am I overlooking something? - ] (]) 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::I |
::::Many things. I've previously addressed them up above and they have recently been addressed in the current, now collapsed thread. This isn't rocket science. You're intelligent, and I think you can figure it out. ] (]) 02:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::: |
:::::Seems like my very last comments (copied below) in the collapsed thread does that in fact. Certainly intended to do that, and thought I did in fact - ] (]) 02:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Copy of my last comments in the thread: | |||
| ::::Yeah, but while we're talking about ASPERSIONS ... HistoryofIran, you're here at ANI a ''lot'' to complain about editors. Have you filed against as few as a dozen different editors in the last few months? Now sure, there've been justified complaints, and sure, you operate in fraught areas where discretionary sanctions are in place, but at some point, we have to ask whether it's really the case that so very many editors unreasonably choose to pick fights with you, or it's that you're jumping on everyone else's backs? ] 17:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tq|Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (]) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Misplaced Pages are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "]" and "]", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Misplaced Pages, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Misplaced Pages as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "]" on some online websites. Re any apparent ]: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way. ] (]) ]}} ] (]) 02:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is a very unfair comparison. {{U|HistoryofIran}} is one of the ''most'' diligent editors in the topic-area. That the topic-area attracts a lot of POV pushers is not HOI's fault by any stretch. ] (]) 17:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: |
:::::Incidentally, I entirely agree that my earlier user page needs a version trimmed down to the very basics, and without any material whatsoover that may possibly be understood as promotional. I have no problem doing that of course. Seems I may have been too ] with that (and related presentations, including those involving references and the like). ] (]) 03:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::A stated interest in using '''bold''' and '''IAR''' to more of a degree than most editors may seem too close to how you've edited in the past that a group of users objected to. Maybe tone that down or even go the opposite way - in some instances where you believe IAR to be the correct solution maybe plan to first take these to talk pages for feedback (you can likely "feel" when an edit will be objected to, and those are the ones to discuss beforehand). In any case, after an indef ban, editing practices should at least be modified to take others points-of-view into account. Make sense? ] (]) 12:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: {{ping|Ravenswing}} I have had HOI's userpage on watch for a number of years and in >99% of cases, those that turn up to attack HOI are either socks or new editors who are insistent on inserting something non-useful into one of our articles. Sometimes, those users escalate to ANI. So, yes, it ''is'' "really the case that so very many editors unreasonably choose to pick fights with" them. ] 18:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thanks for your comments. Yes. I *completely* agree with everything you've noted (and had thought of all of this earlier myself as well). I fully expect to do all of this at the next oppotunity. No problem whatsoever with any of this. - ] (]) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{yo|Black Kite}} Well said. ] (]) 18:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| *I have moved this section up, to tackle the entire situation together. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']''' ''']'''</span> 16:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Shouldn't this be on ], not ]? <small> also, this is weird. This section, and this section only, has a pause between typing the "<nowiki>]]</nowiki>" at the end of links when I hit it fast. Not other sections on the page, and not the edit summary box either...</small> - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Ravenswing}}, that is a really poor comment by you. From all I've seen, HoI works tirelessly in an area with lots of POV and lots of socks who seem to target HoI relentlessly. I find it admirable that HoI puts up with it and continues to edit diligentky and take the time to report the socks. Your comment shows ''none'' of that diligence and deserves a ]. An apology from your side would seem in order. ] (]) 18:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **<small>Tech issue appears to start after the "Separately from this close" quote above. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *I have blocked Amardions as a sock.--] (]) 18:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **:I put the discussion here because this is where the block was decided. Seems like it should go back to the same place? | |||
| *:(eyeroll) ] (]) 18:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **:I've had a really long couple of days but if there are still technical problems here tomorrow I'll look into it. ] ] 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ***:I ''think'' unblock requests usually go on AN, but that's fair. And as a further note, the "delay" between the "]]" typing gets longer the further I go down the page when editing that section. Editing just this subsection, it's just fine, so there's something in that quote or just below it that is making Firefox go pear-shaped. It's ''very'' weird. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Late to the party, but before this archives I just wanted to add that yes, besides a sock {{noping|Amardions}} was also an incompetent POV-pusher (I've reverted/cleaned up a number of their edits too), and yes, the great majority of accounts reported by {{u|HistoryofIran}} are incompetent POV-pushers, and yes, often these accounts are picking a fight with HistoryofIran because it's HistoryofIran who got their previous accounts blocked. | |||
| :''Sometimes'' HistoryofIran does get trouble with a good-faith user, on rare occasions even with one that is also competent, because HistoryofIran is an editor of the 'grumpy' (as seems to be the emerging wiki-speak term) type, patrolling tirelessly but precisely for that reason not always without losing their patience. It comes with the job description, as does the indeed thankless nature of stewarding thousands of Misplaced Pages articles, day in day out. I think that 'grumpiness' is something that should be held in check, but on the other hand 'grumpy' patrollers (and there are many others out there; you know who you are) do have ''my'' thanks and appreciation at least. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 23:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ===Further Discussion of Community block appeal by ]=== | |||
| == SportsGuy789 violations of ] and personal attacks == | |||
| Any replies from Drbogdan to further comments here may be copied over. ] ] 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I'm not sure what that stream of consciousness is trying to say but it goes nowhere near addressing the issues resulting in the ban. ] (]) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I'm not seeing anything in the Wall of text that shows the editor understands why they were banned and how their behaviour needs to change. ] (]) 23:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I see nothing here that suggests Drbogdan understands the problem and is willing to take positive steps to avoid it. Rather the opposite. ] (]) 00:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' unblock request does not address the reason for their ban. And the content of the request just goes to show why the ban should be continued and why they are not of benefit to the community and are just wasting other editor's time. ] ] 01:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' fails to address the reason the ban was given, nor give any adequate assurances that the behavior that resulted in the ban will not be an issue going forward.] (]) 02:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose:''' The standard offer requires that banned users promise to avoid engaging in the behaviors that led to their ban. I do not see any such promise in this unblock request, so this appeal should be struck down. ] (]) 06:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| SportsGuy789 made edits to ], ], and related articles and navboxes despite the fact that the ] doesn't actually end for another month when the NCAA tournament concludes and because the NCAA counts postseason tournament statistics towards overall leaders these additions were not official. When I reversed these additions because these are not official yet and therefore a violation of ] and , he was combative and re-added the unofficial and premature information. When I replied that he would likely have to form a consensus regarding adding unofficial statistical leaders prematurely currently runs afoul of CRYSTAL, his reply was a . I sent him a warning regarding ], he removed it and in the edit summary. SportsGuy789 appears not to care about editing according to policy and apparently has no need to be civil when interacting with other editors. I am requesting that a warning be issued by an administrator (both on adding unverified information and on personal attacks) because he doesn't seem to take concerns from regular editors seriously. ] (]) 16:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. The unblock request provides neither adequate specifics to convince me that the previous ban was improperly applied, nor any apology nor promise to do better regarding the behavior that led to the ban. —] (]) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - The unblock request largely shows the same issues they were blocked for - self promo (links to facebook, wordpress and livejournal), not taking on community advice (all responses are "nuh-uh, not true"), and difficulties communicating (formatting is a mess and responses are only tangentially related to what they are quoting). Their defense is mainly "I never did anything that bad", not the required acknowledgement of the problem and indication of improval. In the unblock request they specificly use of the ] article as an example of a good contribution - which has {{tq|The name ''Jazzy'', for example, was taken from a girl named Jazzy who grew up in Grand Junction, Colorado, USA. Her father worked for NASA and contributed to the findings and naming of the rocks.}} unsourced in the second paragraph. ] ] 09:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Unconstructive editing by Wolverine X-eye == | |||
| == Appeal of Misplaced Pages Image deletion == | |||
| I am posting this here because, among other concerns of continued disruptive editing, I believe that this user's actions are impacting the quality and integrity of the GAN process. I’ve looked at this for long enough and tried to aid where possible, but it seems that @] is unwilling to change their behaviour on this website, hence why I saw fit to bring this here. | |||
| I am facing a chronic and intractable problem caused by the repeated removal of this WikiMedia Commons imagen from the relevant and appropriate entry on Misplaced Pages: | |||
| They have passed several articles through GAN over the past few months that exhibit many edits in a short period (numbering into the hundreds), often paired with unexplained removal of information. These absurdly high edit counts clog up page histories and are not exclusive to their GAN targets either, as can be seen in ] three-month-old discussion on the user’s talk page from back when I first noticed this ‘unusual editing style’. Some examples from around this time follow below, although I should add that this editing pattern has not changed: | |||
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:MLK_Universal_Rights_Scholarship_Launch.jpg | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| Wolverine has been asked multiple times to try and reduce their edit counts so that page histories remain useable, and despite saying they will, have refused to take any actual action in this regard. One can see this pattern repeated over and over on their contributions page. | |||
| Sadly, high edit counts with minimal change are the least of the issues present here. Most recently, Wolverine passed Fennec Fox, but after closing and reopening the GAN himself in the middle of an active (and not strictly positive) review by another user. A new review was started by another user within a few days, and while they did acknowledge the existence of the second review, nothing was done about its improper closing and only a few sentences were added to the article between the two reviews (which can be found and respectively) | |||
| This image captures the launch announcement for the MLK Educational Initiative by the MLK Jr. Advisory Council of Georgia at Stone Mountain, GA on the 50 th Anniversary of the Death of Martin Luther King, Jr. | |||
| (https://www.dca.ga.gov/node/5022). The image has been inappropriately removed over 6 times by users WhinytheYounger and Melcous.{{Userlinks|Melcous}}{{Userlinks|WhinytheYounger}} The media image has been individually removed, as well as much of the content on the Misplaced Pages page itself that featured the image. {{pagelinks|Matthew_Daniels}} | |||
| In many places where editors don’t immediately agree with Wolverine, he turns to insults, personal attacks and otherwise inappropriate comments. A non-exhaustive list of examples follows below: | |||
| Because the image captures an important moment in the history of this educational initiative, our board is now considering legal action to address the abusive removal of this image from the relevant and appropriate entry on Misplaced Pages. However, our legal counsel has advised that we first exhaust any internal appeal process before commending legal action against the editor and/or Wikimedia Foundation for the abusive removal of this image. | |||
| * Under ‘Your talk page’, accusing another editor of inappropriately handling a discussion with a minor (the other user was, in fact, not a minor). | |||
| * Fennec fox GAN , | |||
| * List of pholidotans merge proposal , | |||
| * Narwhal talk page | |||
| * Own talk page | |||
| The user has also shown an unwillingness to put effort into article improvement when requested in the review processes, and an unwillingness to put effort into finishing reviews they start. Again, a non-exhaustive list of examples can be found below. | |||
| Thank your for reviewing this matter. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| * Own talk page, starting and then not finishing two GA reviews (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wolverine_X-eye/Archive_2#Inactivity_during_reviews) and drive-by nomination of the World War I article, a bit of a while back when compared to other examples in this case (6 months). https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wolverine_X-eye/Archive_2#Drive-by_nomination | |||
| * After being advised to do a thorough check on all the citations in the narwhal page (see the closing comments on , Wolverine opened a for the article four days later stating that they ‘need to know where the article's source-to-text integrity is at’, indicating a fundamental lack of knowledge about the state of the article that he had, at this point, attempted to promote to FA four times in five months. In this same review, he also tried to get others to do a source review for him or make a peer review spot-check count in place of a spot-check at the next FAC. | |||
| I hope that a satisfactory conclusion can be reached, and thank you for your time. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice-->] (]) 16:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :@], the image was deleted on for copyright issues. Your concerns need to be brought up at Commons, not on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 17:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't plan on getting involved in this, except to say that my ] that you linked to is a follow up. The original is from June and can be found higher up on that archive page at ]. ] (]) 00:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}} ]. | |||
| ::Hi, {{u|The Morrison Man}}, let me address this promptly. So your first paragraph talks about the high number of edits I make to GAN pages. Well, I don't necessarily see that as a problem because you're the only editor who has made complaints about this, and if I may, I'm by no means the only editor who exhibits such behavior, so it's not at all clear to me why you're targeting me on this. Now regarding the 3 articles you listed, those were the articles that you brought to my attention in that discussion, and since then I've not repeated the behavior. The Fennec Fox incident is not an issue IMO. The editor in the first GAN clearly stated that they think the article was not up to GA-standards and that I should re-nominate it. Seeing that they were new to GAN and that they happened to be inactive at the time, I decided to help them close the nomination as that was their intention, but they didn't seem to know how to follow through with that. In Example 1, I read the whole discussion and it was pretty clear the editor was a minor. Sure, the talk page owner happened to talk to two people, one a minor, the other not, but they clearly spent more time with the minor talking about irrelevant stuff that aren't wiki-related. The editor even admits that they were in fact talking to a minor. The Fennec fox GAN examples are not personal attacks. They're just criticism. There's a difference. About Pholidota: I got a bit heated after Elmidae insulted and made hostile comments towards me. Yeah, that was a pretty contentious discussion overall. The Narwhal talk page link is not a personal attack or a insult, rather it's simply telling the IP to leave me alone as they were annoying me with those pings. I wanted to be as blunt as possible. The last link is just me explaining to a new editor why I reverted their edit. I said I didn't want to have the conversation again because if you look through the archives, you'll see that we had that exact discussion, but with a different article, before. I didn't think it was gonna happen again, and I sure didn't want it to happen for a third time, so I let the user know. Your last part talks about me not putting effort in my nominations and reviews. Well, I'm not the only editor who struggles to finish reviews, and I'll admit that sometimes I bite off a little more than I can chew. I did finish one of those reviews though. I would also state that I've made over 30 reviews, and out of those 30, I failed to complete maybe six of them. World War I was a drive-by nom, I'll admit, didn't realize that at the time, but that's the only case where I've unwittingly made a drive-by nom, so...We reach the end of your comment, and regarding your remarks about the FAC situation, well all I can say is that I needed insurance before I made another nomination, as the last two noms failed for sourcing issues. I was not confident about my scanning of the article's sourcing, so I needed a source review to see if the sourcing issues were still evident. I did scan a large portion of the article's sourcing but I just needed that extra insurance. Yep, that should be it. ] (]) 07:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :the image was ], and would need to be appealed there (see ]). Sounds like a licensing issue. Commons doesn't host everything; just images with a documented free license. If you own the image (if you took it yourself or have had the copyright formally transferred to you) and want to release it with a free license, since it's been uploaded elsewhere, you'll need to go through the ]. Only once the image is undeleted is there even a discussion about whether to include in the article, and that would be made through discussion on the article's talk page. You haven't said what "board" you're speaking for, but no board (not even the Wikimedia Foundation's board) has authority over the content of a Misplaced Pages article. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 17:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::The fennec fox edits are ''absolutey'' ]. {{tqq|Is this all about the message I left on your friend's talk page? You don't do much reviewing and judging by this review you also don't seem to be an experienced reviewer. This review has been unfair and your judgment on multiple aspects are off by a long shot}} is ]. Also {{tqq|I decided to help them close the nomination as that was their intention, but they didn't seem to know how to follow through with that.}} - you ''do not'' close your own GANs. If you start it, you do not close it. Full stop. {{tqq|The Narwhal talk page link is not a personal attack or a insult}} - no, sorry, it is indeed a ]. ] is one of the ], it is ''not'' optional and you seem to spend a lot of time tap-dancing on or over the line of it. I suggest you reconsider your approach in many areas to maintain a civil, collaborative environment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The English Misplaced Pages does not have jurisdiction over images hosted on Wikimedia Commons (which the image you are talking about happens to have been). As such, please file a request on ] and/or send a message to the ] with evidence that you are the copyright holder of the image, so that they can evaluate the licensing of this file. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{Re|The Bushranger}} I made that comment based on a comment they made . I also took into consideration the fact that they reviewed my GAN as their ''very first review'' less than 24 hours (if I'm not mistaken) after nomination. And so I'd say that's my evidence for the comment. I apologize if this is not enough. Regarding the Narwhal bit, I didn't intend to make the comment a personal aattack. I intended to make it clear to the IP that I didn't want them to annoy me with those pings. I could have handled the situation better, I agree. But what I found annoying was that they attacked me on the basis of a YouTube video that discusses how I wrongfully reverted the creator's edit, only to later realize my mistake, rectifying it accordingly. Nevertheless, I will definitely take your words above into consideration. ] (]) 09:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, as the filer has failed to post the required ANI notice on the relevant user talk pages, I have for them. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| One more thing to take into account here, it seems that the OP is purely here to promote ] and the image that's being discussed here is one that includes said Daniels for PR purposes. So even if it is undeleted, I don't think it's appropriate anyway as it's only being used to promote said person. ] ] 17:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * Ummm ... one ''more'' thing to take into account -- and I'm surprised no one's done so yet. The OP has made a legal threat, and that warrants an immediate block. ] 17:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Blocked indefinitely (as a regular admin action). --] (]) 17:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : Does anyone else think that the first two sentences of ] are ... somewhat contradictory ({{tq|Matthew Daniels is an American academic and human rights activist. In the late 1990s through the 2000s, Daniels campaigned against the proposed recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States...}}). Weird. ] 18:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Our board?'' Does this not suggest ]? ] (]) 18:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh I think that's pretty clear just from their edits never mind that comment. ] ] 20:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::😛 ] (]) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::UPE and legal threats, name a better duo. ] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 22:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Copyvio and racism? ] ] 22:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I must've missed an important tidbit in this whole thread. Copyvio, sure, but racism? ] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 23:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You asked us to name a better duo, it wasn't in context to this user just a better combo. ] ] 23:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :And, apart from all of the above, I would advise the OP to get different legal counsel. The idea that legal action could be taken over the removal of an image from an encyclopedia is utterly ridiculous. ] (]) 22:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == KirillMarasin promoting medical treatments and "conversion therapy" == | |||
| == Trj2002 and anti-abortion POV pushing == | |||
| {{user|KirillMarasin}} | |||
| I think we have two related problems with KirillMarasin. First up, he promotes and seeks to legitimise the pseudo-medical practice of "]" (, , Yes, that really is a medical claim being sourced to Reddit!) and secondly he adds medical claims to other articles which are either unreferenced or which are improperly referenced to sites selling supplements (, , and ). Attempts by multiple editors to warn him have been unavailing and I read as both a personal attack and a highly offensive suggestion that I practice "conversion therapy" on myself. Beyond that, this is a clear and sustained case of ] and ]. --] (]) 02:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Even if my edits are not high-quality, the article on conversion therapy has a lot of gaslighting, saying time and time again there are no treatments, when the opposite is true. ] (]) 09:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not according to science baaed RS which is all that matters from Misplaced Pages's PoV ] (]) 10:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::What is RS? ] (]) 12:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Good question! You were supposed to know that in order to edit Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not only are your edits not of high-quality, at least two of your sources are garbage, and you're edit warring at that article as well. You need to step away from that article.]] 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why would you even consider 4Chan to be a legitimate source for anything, let alone a science/medicine-based topic? That, in of itself, is a major issue. ] (]) 11:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Just looking at the three ] edits mentioned by DanielRigal, makes a medical claim without citing any sources at all and cites reddit and 4chan for medical claims. Finally, cites a paper in the Journal of Neurosurgery for the claim that {{tq|some methods of conversion therapy were working}}. The paper in question in fact says that {{tq|while Heath claimed that the patient had a full recovery and engaged exclusively in heterosexual activities, other sources argued that the patient continued to have homosexual relationships}}. Any of these diffs on their own would be totally unacceptable. {{pb}}Additionally, a glance at ] shows that KirillMarasin not only added these claims once, but reinstated them after their removal was adequately explained. e.g. they add the "some methods of conversion therapy were working" claim, the addition is reverted with the edit summary explaining that the source does not support the addition, KirillMarasin reinserts the text with the edit summary {{tq|It doesn't need deleting, I'll try to edit it to better reflect the article.}} When somebody reverts an edit because it contradicts the cited source, you need to fix that error {{em|before}} reinstating it. ] (]) 10:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Would a ] on ] prevent further inappropriate editing? Note this is a ''question'', I'm not familiar with ] and it may very well not have any bearing or may be the wrong approach here. --] (]) 11:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think there's a CIR issue as well. The slipping of sources from 4chan into a contentious topic seems either like overt trolling or a serious lack of understanding of sources.] (]) 11:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'd still like to ], even though I'm beginning to have my doubts. I think this is a CIR issue first and foremost, with a mixture of POV-pushing and lack of understanding of ], ] and ]. Since they are here, and reading this page, and haven't edited since they started following this conversation, I think {{re|KirillMarasin}} should read those policies first, before they attempt to edit again. If they continue with their current editing pattern, though, a ] would be entirely appropriate. — ] (]) 12:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Not all of the problem edits have been ]; the ones listed by the OP aa diffs 5 through 8 are on sexual health matters not under that GENSEX guideline. A more general medical topic ban, widely construed, may be more appropriate. -- ] (]) 14:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{user|KirillMarasin}} has been here for more than a decade. It's hard to believe that suddenly, he doesn't know that 4Chan isn't a usable source - and in a topic like this, too. Signs are pointing to NOTHERE. ] (]) 14:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == History of disruptive COI editing == | |||
| {{vandal|Trj2002}} | |||
| I didn't wanted to go through this, but I'm done being patient. There appears to be a long history of disruptive COI editing by {{u|Armandogoa}} on his father's article ]. He usually edits this page after every few months or so, and seems to add unreferenced content as per his latest edit done on the page here . I had many of his edits reverted myself. | |||
| So, I reverted this user's contributions, which consisted of changing "anti-abortion" to "pro-life", believing the former term is "politically charged". When I sent them a {{tlx|uw-npov2}} template, they replied with {{tq|Um, I will continue to push for the truth. The truth is not my political ideology, it is the truth.}} I would report to AIV, but this isn't exactly vandalism - however, it's obvious that this user is ], regardless of the ]. ] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 23:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I also did place a COI warning on his talk page over a year ago . But he seems to not understand it this way. His father is an active politician, and considering our ] policies, I think this editor should be blocked to prevent any other controversial or peacock material added in the future. ]<sup>2003</sup>(]) 07:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The user appears to have made a total three good-faith, though mislead, edits. This isn't vandalism or clear disruption. At this time, I disagree with the OP that this user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Let's not ]. {{ping|Trj2002}} ''pro-life'' is not considered to be neutral wording, we use "anti-abortion". If you wanna say that's biased, I want to let you know we also don't say ''pro-choice''. I think you should read up on ] and other ]. If you continue to edit this way you will likely be either ] or ]. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I dunno. Saying "I will continue to push for the truth. The truth is not my political ideology" is so much of a textbook example of ] that we actually have it as the third bullet pointed example. Regardless of whether we should block for NOTHERE, or give enough ] to demonstrate that they can edit within policy, I've issued them with a CTOP alert for abortion. ] (]) 23:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, I forgot to mention: it isn't their first time, as they did it as an IP before ( ) and did it as the same IP ''after'' I sent the NPOV warning on the account (). So we got one instance of editing while logged out (assuming it is based on behavioral evidence). ] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 23:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Looks a bit bad, and whenever anyone claims to edit based on ] it rarely ends well. Still, even though I believe Liliana is correct, it's hard to find policy support for Blocking (yet). ] (]) 00:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am not sure if it is intentional but seems like a misleading edit summary to me. ] (]) 00:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Absolutely. I also saw they marked one such change as minor, so I left a warning at their talk page over that. ] (]) 00:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive ] == | |||
| == IP range from Poland, trouble with one article == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = | |||
| | result = Range pblocked for a month. {{nac}} ] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 02:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| *{{rangevandal|5.173.192.0/21}} | |||
| ] has , to stop changing content without a reliable source but continues to do so ignoring and being non-responsive to warnings. Sumeshmeo got 3 same warnings in 2023. I do not think that Sumeshmeo is here to improve Misplaced Pages pages. ] (]) 10:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'm having a content dispute at ] and the other party is breaking 3RR with different IPs from Poland. Can we throttle this dispute back a bit by partially blocking the range ] from ]? My hope is to hash it out on the article's talk page. ] (]) 00:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * In future, it helps if you provide diffs when making a report so people are better able to assess it. Having looked at Sumesheo's contribs, is a recent egregious example where not only do they change the text of the article, they also change the title of the source cited so it appears to support that claim (and break the url in the process). In fact as far as I can tell, every single edit they have made so far this month is to increase the claimed gross takings of a film, without ever providing a source or explanation, in most cases explicitly contradicting the existing cited source. ] (]) 11:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I blocked that range from that article for a month. ] (]) 02:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks muchly. ] (]) 02:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Uncivil behavior == | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| {{ping|Jasper_Deng}} has been continually bludgeoning a conversation about a page rename, casting unsupported aspersions, acting uncivilly, and newcomers (me). | |||
| '''Teahouse''' | |||
| During a lively discussion about a , it occurred to me that I might be able to improve this encyclopedia by starting a conversations that could '''POTENTIALLY''' lead to future guidance or policy regarding how to name natural disaster articles. | |||
| They followed me to the teahouse and: | |||
| *Bludgeoned me | |||
| *casted aspersions {{tq| it is frowned upon to post about an ongoing decision making discussion elsewhere (unless it is to raise serious misconduct concerns) as it could be considered WP:CANVASSING, particularly when the incipient consensus is leaning against your position}} You'll note that my post in the teahouse was asking how to start a conversation about potential future policy improvements, not at all about the ongoing conversation. And even if it were, the practice is quite common on noticeboards, why would it be any different in the teahouse such that it would be WP:CANVASSING? | |||
| In the process they said {{tq|Don't overthink this}} to me. | |||
| To which I replied {{tq|Please do not patronize me by suggesting I am overthinking this, and please don't WP:BLUDGEON me by responding to every comment I've made to someone else regarding this.}} | |||
| *They then me by again saying in part {{tq|I'm afraid you are overthinking it}} | |||
| * and made continued, unsupported, exaggerated claims of misconduct against me {{tq|Don't cast the WP:ASPERSION of "willful disrespect".}} | |||
| '''Talk page''' | |||
| Back on the talk page, they: | |||
| * by replying to my vote | |||
| * | |||
| *Bludgeoned another editor as well | |||
| *Collapsed their bludgeoning with a close note that they agree (with themself?) that their comments were {{tq|more than necessary after taking a second look}} | |||
| Just recently I noticed they | |||
| '''So I warned them to stop bludgeoning on their talk page''' | |||
| In the edit note, they: | |||
| *Again tried to intimidate me because of their status as an experienced editor {{tq|As someone who is still rather inexperienced you should not be attempting to warn experienced editors like me.}} | |||
| *Cast aspersions and threatened me with a block {{tq|Your comment here is grossly uncivil and if you ever comment like this again you will be the one considered for a block.}} | |||
| == Personal attack, POV pushing, and threatening of "sanctions" by Aman.kumar.goel == | |||
| : | |||
| ] and myself were in the midst of a content dispute about 2 hours ago that quickly escalated. He insisted on removing unflattering information from ], which I objected as "POV pushing" and "whitewashing." Throughout the whole process, he has shown no interest whatsoever in compromising and instead resorted to name-calling and personal attack. More recently, he has threatened me that he would "look for additional sanctions on you." . | |||
| *Casting aspersions and threatening me with a block again {{tq| | |||
| Some background: About a month ago, I began the ambitious and painstaking process of writing and improving ] and other Libya-related articles, including single-handedly created the following articles: ], ], ], ], ], ], among others. I thought my ability to read English, French, and Arabic sources and my experience as an academic researcher would be an asset for Misplaced Pages. Throughout the entire process, I took great care not to remove pre-existing content out of respect for other editors' work. I worked quietly and diligently without issue for over 3 weeks until ] apparently took issue with the length of the Gaddafi article (perhaps because I did not remove any pre-existing content) and made 19 edits on February 21st all to remove content. All of this was done without any discussion on the article's talkpage. I objected to the removal and asked him to explain himself in the talkpage. A compromise was reached after ] created ] and ], which I was fine with. I also explained we needed to come to a consensus and a consistent standard on what to keep on the main Gaddafi article and what to move to the new articles (] and ]) that ] had created. There were some additional discussions about sources being overused or too old, but none of us tampered with the article after February 26th as a consensus was seemingly reached. | |||
| Posting that WP:SHOUTING on my talk page is grossly uncivil and unwarranted and will get you blocked the next time you do that.}} | |||
| *And again attempted to intimidate me because of their status as an experienced editor {{tq|But you are in absolutely no position to attempt to enjoin me from further participation in that process. You do not understand the policies and guidelines you're trying to warn me about; don't pretend that you do (especially with respect to WP:OWN).}} | |||
| *And again, cast more unsupported aspersions in an uncivil manner {{tq|Coming to my talk page unprompted and without the other user's involvement is crossing the line to you harassing me. Cut it out.}} | |||
| This has been an upsetting experience for me. Perhaps I am too sensitive to edit on wikipedia.] (]) 12:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] got involved in the Gaddafi article earlier today and immediately began to remove content without any discussion on talkpage. When asked to explain himself, he immediately assumed bad faith, called my edits "disruptive," falsely smeared my previous attempt to reach a consensus with others on the length of the article as ], and misrepresented both my position and the positions of ] and ] (who had their own disagreements). He also almost immediately violated ]. Throughout the entire dispute, he did not show any interest in contributing to the writing of the article and did not compose even a single sentence. I reported him to the 3RR noticeboard, but it delved into a circus as he continued to hurl insults and personal attacks at me there. I ended up getting page-banned from ] while he got away scot-free, perhaps because the blocking admin only took a cursory glance at the editing history of Muammar Gaddafi and somehow concluded my conduct was worse? The blocking summary itself was false as it accused me of ] for a month when I quietly edited without incident until Midnightblueowl's demand to trim down the length of the article on February 21st and quickly came to a compromise/middle ground days later. Aman.kumar.goel is clearly gloating about this as he seems to believe he has the upper hand and admins are on his side; he has since openly threatened to look for addition sanctions on me. in a cynical ploy to boot me off the project. | |||
| :After leaving making this post, I noticed @] also left a comment ''about'' me, casting even more aspersions in a thread I started on @]'s talk page that had absolutely nothing to do with @]: | |||
| Anyway, I'm not here to forum-shop. I am merely here to appeal to admins to examine and scrutinize the cynical conduct of Aman.kumar.goel. As I do not want this discussion board to become yet another mudslinging soapbox for Aman.kumar.goel like the edit-warring noticeboard, this will be my only comment on AN/I on this subject. Regards ] (]) 09:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|This user needs mentorship as they are flying too close to the sun. The comment I just removed from my talk page and the one I left them at User talk:Delectopierre#Stop suggests that I am not the most effective one to convey that to them. My participation in the RM isn't that unusual and I consider their comments highly condescending and, now, aggressive to the point that I will want to see them blocked if they do it again.}} ] (]) 12:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Both users are right: Jasper Deng when they say, "I am not the most effective one to convey that to them", and Delectopierre when saying, "Perhaps I am too sensitive". ] (]) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :My impression, based on this brouhaha: you are easily offended, but at the same time keen to tell off others. Bad combination. While Jasper Deng dislikes being harrangued on his talk page, but at the same time tacks unrelated complaints about you onto conversations not involving him. Bad combination. From the unassailable heights of my own moral perfection, I suggest you both simmer down and get back to editing. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 14:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Review of an article deletion == | |||
| :I advise you to withdraw this complaint before it ] on you further. ] (]) 09:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top|result=The correct venue for this is ]. ] 14:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello, I will like to request a review on the deletion of the article on Prisca Abah ] (]) 14:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{ab}} | |||
Latest revision as of 14:27, 11 January 2025
Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
- Before posting:
- Consider other means of dispute resolution first
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion Centralized discussion- Refining the administrator elections process
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
| 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 |
| 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
| 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 |
| 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 |
| Other links | |||||||||
Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from User:DarwIn
User:DarwIn, a known transphobic editor from pt.wiki, is harassing me here after his actions led me to leave that wiki permanently. He has also harassed me on Wikimedia Commons. I don't know what to do anymore. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace. This is severely impacting my mental health. Skyshiftertalk 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You don't seem to have notified the other editor. This is mandatory and this section may be closed if you fail to do so. Use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ on that user's talk page. Additionally, you don't seem to have provided specific diffs demonstrating harassment. Please do so. --Yamla (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- On pt.wiki, DarwIn proposed the deletion of articles I created about transgender topics (Thamirys Nunes and Minha Criança Trans), using transphobic arguments, including misgendering and questioning the validity of transgender children. After translating these articles to en.wiki, he is targeting the DYK nomination, again focusing on his personal transphobic beliefs - as it shows, he doesn't even know how DYK works. He insisted multiple times trying to include his transphobic comment on that page and has just edited it again. On Commons, for extra context, DarwIn unilaterally deleted images related to these articles, despite being clearly involved in the dispute.
- Again, I just want to collaborate with trans topics in peace. Skyshiftertalk 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. However, context is important. This is harassment that began on pt.wiki, has spread to Commons, and is now here. The history has been provided, but, sure, I can provide the diffs instead. He has unilaterally edited the DYK page and put a "disagree", despite this being not how DYK works. This is because he really doesn't know, as he only sporadically edits here and only came back to harass me. His comment is explicitly transphobic and doesn't focus on the article itself at all. After his comment was reverted by me, he insisted saying that I shouldn't call it transphobia, despite it being transphobia. After being reverted again, he reincluded the comment. I asked him to stop harassing me, but he has edited the page again.
- I just don't want to be targeted by that editor here. I've left pt.wiki in great part for that reason. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace here. Skyshiftertalk 13:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like yet another cross-wiki troll by this user. Already blocked at the Portuguese Wikipédia and Wikimedia Commons, the account is now promoting their POV here, including spreading lies, hideous slurs and baseless accusations against me like "known transphobic", after two of their creations were taken to community evaluation at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for lacking notability. The user is also a known sockpuppeter, with an open case for sockpuppetry at the Portuguese Wikipédia. In any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this case in yet another project apart from the strictly needed, so do as you please. Darwin 13:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been blocked on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which you are well known for abusing whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. Darwin 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- And here's explicit transphobia. It's her daughter, no matter how much you hate the idea of trans children existing. The story you've told is also completely distorted. Skyshiftertalk 13:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which you are well known for abusing whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. Darwin 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been blocked on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I simply don't want this editor targeting me with transphobic stuff here after he target me on pt.wiki (and left it permanently in great part for that reason) and Commons. I am considering taking medication because of these events. Skyshiftertalk 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would suggest Darwin review MOS:GENDERID. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? Darwin 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn, the bottom line is that you don't get to question that. As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is not the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them any good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. Darwin 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We're here because this "questioning" appears to be bleeding into transphobic harassment. I would support an indef based on edits like this Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. Darwin 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn, the bottom line is that you don't get to question that. As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is not the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them any good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The story told above is completely distorted to fit the transphobic's narrative. Simon223, if you want to get the full story, read Thamirys Nunes' page or read its sources (with the help of a translator if needed). Skyshiftertalk 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. Darwin 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including MOS:GENDERID) - otherwise you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. Darwin 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just so everyone knows, the facts are being quite distorted here. It wasn't really an imposition — her daughter, did not want to play with "boy toys", even when being forced by her mom. That's why the mom said she plays with "girl toys" and everything else. The references on said articles weren't thoroughly read, apparently by everybody here.
- Adding to this too: DarwIn, in some edits to the article in the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, added "quotes" on the word trans and some other parts of the articly, as if was his duty to judge if the girl is trans or not. Anyways, I think what happened in ptwiki stays there.
- And I want to make clear that I'm only stating the things that happened so everyone knows. I do not support blocking him. Eduardo G. 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. Darwin 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Four year olds are generally not considered babies. You really need to drop this - and probably to avoid editing in the WP:GENSEX area.Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest a topic ban is imposed. GiantSnowman 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would support a topic ban from WP:GENSEX. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Topic ban from GENSEX and BLP, broadly construed, is fine for me. GiantSnowman 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do understand this Misplaced Pages rules on BLP. Isn't that not enough for you? Darwin 16:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. GiantSnowman 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed the part when I very clearly stated there that I retired myself from that DYN debate. Darwin 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. GiantSnowman 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman nice try, but I don't edit on that topic, anyway. Let's calm down and enjoy the Christmas season. Darwin 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. Darwin 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You fundementally misunderstand the scope of WP:BLP and the concept of topic area as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. Darwin 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it was a collective you. Darwin 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The collective you did not pursue you here either. Only the OP appears to cross over. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it was a collective you. Darwin 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. Darwin 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You fundementally misunderstand the scope of WP:BLP and the concept of topic area as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. Darwin 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would support a topic ban from WP:GENSEX. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed this yesterday but intentionally didn't mention it since I felt there had already been enough nonsense. But since DarwIn is still defending their offensive comments below, I'd note that the child was 4 years old in 2019. It's now 2024 and they've evidentally seen a medical professional. If at any time they express a desire for a different gender identity we will of course respect that whatever her mother says; but at this time BLP full supports respecting a 8-9 year old and not treating her as a baby. Nil Einne (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- None of this is relevant. We follow sources and MOS:GENDERID. There is obviously no Misplaced Pages position on when someone is or is not a "baby" and should have their self-identification reproduced in their biography. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest a topic ban is imposed. GiantSnowman 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including MOS:GENDERID) - otherwise you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. Darwin 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? Darwin 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would suggest Darwin review MOS:GENDERID. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- They cannot be trusted. Above they said "I'm retiring myself from this topic" and yet has continued to post. GiantSnowman 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've continued to post where? Darwin 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've already walked away from it yesterday, why you're insisting on that lie? Darwin 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? GiantSnowman 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have my own disagreements with that guideline, and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. Darwin 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? Darwin 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn This one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. Darwin 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn Easiest way to defuse this is to post a bolded and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" Darwin 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is not an appropriate statement, it has your bias/agenda throughout it. Very concerning. GiantSnowman 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" Darwin 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn Easiest way to defuse this is to post a bolded and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. Darwin 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn This one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? Darwin 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. Darwin 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have my own disagreements with that guideline, and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? GiantSnowman 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Heres the main point I can see RE "Cross-wiki harassment." If DarwIn claims they do not regularly edit this topic space and had not previously participated in DYK discussions how did they come to find themselves there just in time to oppose the contribution of an editor they had extensive negative interactions with on another wiki? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- that's old stuff, I already posted a note there retiring from that space yesterday. I'm really puzzled on what all this fuss is about. Darwin 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't about the transphobia, this is about the harassment (they are seperate by apparently related claims). So how did you find yourself commenting on that DYK? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I expressed my disagreement with that note, justifying with my opinion, and there's not even any misgendering issue there, AFAIK. Not sure if expressing that opinion here is forbidden or not, but in any case I've posted a note retiring from it already yesterday, so I've no idea what more do you want. Darwin 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- precisely because we are currently in the process of evaluating the notability of that bio and association she created at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, so it's just natural that related issues on other wikis get monitored too, that's part of the process. You don't agree with that evaluation, and that's perfectly OK. To each Misplaced Pages their own stuff 🤷 Darwin 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's the wikipedia articles created yesterday that we are evaluating, not any kind of DYK note. Darwin 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? Darwin 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because of edits like this . Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- answering an accusation of being a dictator after flushing away the copyviios she uploaded. What's the problem? Darwin 17:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that diff is the undo. Thats you edit warring apparent harassment onto someone's talk page on another wiki with a kissing face as the edit summary... In that context this does look like cross wiki harassment. Do you have a better explanation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just answered the troll there with another, as I was on the middle of something else. Yes, I know, not the nicest thing to do, but whatever. And why are we discussing Commons here now, anyway? Darwin 17:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We're discussing cross wiki harassment, that makes edits on any wiki relevant to the discussion. You appear to have been harassing them on commons and then followed them here to continue the harassment because a temporary block there (which you appear to have had a hand in) prevented them from being active there. You absolutely can not do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I answered a troll, if there was any harassment was from that account towards me, not the opposite. Please don't invert the situation. Darwin 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits on enwiki had nothing to do with trolling or other behavioral issues from that account, if your edits on enwiki were to address valid concerns informed by your experience on other wikis we would not be having this discussion. It was also you restoring your comment which they removed from their talk page, thats you trolling them and it makes their dictator claim look not like trolling but rather accurate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I confess I've no idea why we are still having this discussion, as they were just that. But for the 50th time, these interactions have stopped long ago, and for a similar amount of time I've devotedly accepted and committed to all your rules. Darwin 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion we're still having this discussion because you are stonewalling, perhaps its a language barrier but you don't come off as trustworthy or engaging in good faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I confess I've no idea why we are still having this discussion, as they were just that. But for the 50th time, these interactions have stopped long ago, and for a similar amount of time I've devotedly accepted and committed to all your rules. Darwin 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits on enwiki had nothing to do with trolling or other behavioral issues from that account, if your edits on enwiki were to address valid concerns informed by your experience on other wikis we would not be having this discussion. It was also you restoring your comment which they removed from their talk page, thats you trolling them and it makes their dictator claim look not like trolling but rather accurate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I answered a troll, if there was any harassment was from that account towards me, not the opposite. Please don't invert the situation. Darwin 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We're discussing cross wiki harassment, that makes edits on any wiki relevant to the discussion. You appear to have been harassing them on commons and then followed them here to continue the harassment because a temporary block there (which you appear to have had a hand in) prevented them from being active there. You absolutely can not do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just answered the troll there with another, as I was on the middle of something else. Yes, I know, not the nicest thing to do, but whatever. And why are we discussing Commons here now, anyway? Darwin 17:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that diff is the undo. Thats you edit warring apparent harassment onto someone's talk page on another wiki with a kissing face as the edit summary... In that context this does look like cross wiki harassment. Do you have a better explanation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- answering an accusation of being a dictator after flushing away the copyviios she uploaded. What's the problem? Darwin 17:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because of edits like this . Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? Darwin 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's the wikipedia articles created yesterday that we are evaluating, not any kind of DYK note. Darwin 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- precisely because we are currently in the process of evaluating the notability of that bio and association she created at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, so it's just natural that related issues on other wikis get monitored too, that's part of the process. You don't agree with that evaluation, and that's perfectly OK. To each Misplaced Pages their own stuff 🤷 Darwin 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I expressed my disagreement with that note, justifying with my opinion, and there's not even any misgendering issue there, AFAIK. Not sure if expressing that opinion here is forbidden or not, but in any case I've posted a note retiring from it already yesterday, so I've no idea what more do you want. Darwin 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't about the transphobia, this is about the harassment (they are seperate by apparently related claims). So how did you find yourself commenting on that DYK? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- that's old stuff, I already posted a note there retiring from that space yesterday. I'm really puzzled on what all this fuss is about. Darwin 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, this is an interesting idea but I think this needs to become an Arbitration Committee issue. The community is so heavily divided on this, it’s actually ridiculous. This whole situation just is bonkers. Like why is this at ANI anymore. Reader of Information (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- By an interesting idea I meant my idea of it becoming an arbitration committee issue is an interesting proposal. Reader of Information (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe it may help too, if Darwin will promise to avoid interacting on main space with Skyshifter. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway. Darwin 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think Darwin should avoid interacting with Skyshifter on all spaces on en.wikipedia.org. It's clear Darwin has made Skyshifter feel uncomfortable, and I don't appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. Darwin 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary one-way interaction ban, broadly construed, as in effect. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway yes, that's correct. Darwin 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary one-way interaction ban, broadly construed, as in effect. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. Darwin 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think a one-way interaction ban between the editors would be for the best here. While I think there is some merit to a Gender and Sexuality tban, as some of Darwin's recent edits appear to be about righting great wrongs in the topic area, I believe the interaction ban would solve most of the issues raised here. Isabelle Belato 17:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? Darwin 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- All your edits related to the subject, both here and on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. Isabelle Belato 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato You're evaluating my edits on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages to punish me in the English Misplaced Pages? Darwin 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger Can you explain how my general edit history in wiki.pt is relevant in any way to an accusation of cross-wiki harassment? Darwin 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato You're evaluating my edits on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages to punish me in the English Misplaced Pages? Darwin 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- All your edits related to the subject, both here and on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. Isabelle Belato 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? Darwin 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Would recommend that Darwin walk away from the general topic. This would avoid any need for topic bans. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Clarification
- Hello @Nil Einne - and others. Please recall that my opinion was specifically over the declaration of the child gender by her mother at or before her 4th birthday, by her mother own account based on classical gender stereotypes. It's specifically about that. I've no way to know what gender the child is or will eventually be in the future, and gladly accept whatever she chooses - as I would if she was my own child. I've eventually been harsher than needed in the DYK comment because that specific situation where a minor is extensively exposed with full name, photographs, etc. by her parents on social networks, newspapers and whatelse is generally condemned in my country, to the point of eventually configuring a crime here. Obviously Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with that when it comes to the spread of information, but in my view - obviously wrong, from the general reaction here - exposing the child in yet another place, let alone wiki.en main page, was a bit too much.
- As for misgendering, I am one of the founders and former board member of ILGA Portugal, which after 30 years still is the main LGBT association in Portugal, though not an active member for many years for moving away from Lisbon, where it's headquartered. For more than 30 years I've been on the fight against homophobia and transphobia, not specially in Misplaced Pages, but on the streets, where it was needed in the 1990s here in Portugal, when the whole LGBT thing was just starting and most people couldn't even tell the difference between a drag queen and a trangender woman. I was beaten up, lost my 2 front teeth on homo/transphobic street fights (the first one at 18 years old, for publicly defending from booers in the audience a trangender girl which was acting at a local bar )- and whatelse. I never had even the least impulse to misgender any of the many trangender people that always have been around me, and the few situations where that may have happened were online with people that I knew for years as being one gender, and took a while to sink they are another, because online there's not the ever helping visual clue. So it's kind of disheartening to be treated like this in a strange place by people I don't know just because I expressed an (harsh, agreed) opinion defending the age of consent for children, and condemning their parents interference on that.
- The TBan is not very relevant for me, as I seldom edit here and despite the activism of my past days LGBT is not my primary interest on Misplaced Pages, but I'm considerably saddened by the misunderstandings, bad faith assumptions, false accusations that have been told here about me, though eventually the flaw is not in the whole group that has their own rules and culture, but in the newcomer which don't understand it well in all its nuances, as was my case here.
- Finally, as the misunderstandings continue, I never came here after Skyshifter, which as is public and she knows, I've always considered a good editor and helped several times with articles and what else (which is also why I felt confident to answer with a 😘 when she called me a dictator in another project, though it was obviously not the most appropriate way to answer it, and for which I apologize to Skyshifter). In this last row I wasn't even directly involved in her indefinite block in wiki.pt, despite being mentioned there. I didn't even touched the articles she created here on Thamirys Nunes and Minha Criança Trans or addressed she here in any way. I came here because of the DYK note, which, as said above, I thought was an exaggerated exposition for that case here on the English Misplaced Pages. As you extensively demonstrated here, it is not, and I defer to your appreciation. Despite that, after this whole situation I've not the least interest on interacting in any possible way with Skyshifter, with or without IBan.
- And that's it. Hopefully you'll excuse my verbosity, specially in such a festive day, but I felt this last clarification was needed. I also present my apologies to all those who may have felt offended by an eventual appearance of cockiness or defiance which I inadvertently sometimes transmit in my speech. I'll return here if specifically asked to, otherwise I'll leave the debate for this community. Again, stay well, and have an happy new year. Darwin 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Proposed Community Sanctions
I offered DarwIn an off ramp above and their response was to reiterate their views on a highly controversial subject and their responses to concerns about their interactions with Skyshifter have been entirely unsatisfactory. This looks a like a pretty clear case of IDHT revolving around their strong disagreement with one of our guidelines. Frankly, I came very close to just blocking them after their response to my suggestion. This discussion has already dragged on long enough. For purposes of clarity, nobody is required to agree with all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. And yes, gender is a highly controversial subject. I have my own disagreements with parts of MOS:GENDERID. But as the old saying goes, themz the rules until they aint. Editors are free to disagree with community P&G, but are not free to ignore or flout them. It's time to settle this.
Proposed DarwIn is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to WP:GENSEX broadly construed and is subject to a one way IBan with user Skyshifter, also broadly construed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I note that Darwin has agreed above to the IBan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - He's already agreed to avoid that general topic area in future & Skyshifter. PS - If a t-ban is imposed? limit it to six-months. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why should the community accept voluntary TBAN and IBAN which can easily be reneged on when we can impose it as a community sanction and ensure that any violation is actionable? TarnishedPath 01:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support topic ban and IBAN, both broadly construed - sorry GoodDay but I do not trust this user's words, and so we need a proper sanction. GiantSnowman 18:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Just read through the above and good grief. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I said above I would support this proposal if it was brought forward, and I do. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why it should be a one-way iban? Skyshifter started this topic with the characterization of their opponent as "a known transphobic editor". A normal editor would be blocked just for writing this. I am not sure a iban is needed, but if it is needed it must be mutual. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's actually a fair point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent WP:RGW impulse. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 You have been misjudging me - It was quite the opposite, actually, if it's worth anything. Darwin 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the WP:GENSEX area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 OK, I didn't knew the child used those pronouns when she was 4 years old, I commit to use them here if I would ever talk about that issue again (which I definitely will not, anyway). Darwin 20:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the WP:GENSEX area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 You have been misjudging me - It was quite the opposite, actually, if it's worth anything. Darwin 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent WP:RGW impulse. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's actually a fair point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- If they weren't before they are now... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, to be clear, I oppose a one-way IB. I do not find this argument convincing. Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support this seems like a reasonable set of restrictions, I hope they can stick to it Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I never edited in that topic here, as far as I can remember, not is it a primary interest I have, so it certainly will not be difficult to hold, even if it comes out to me as incredibly unbased and unfair. Darwin 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits to DYK were within that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back And those were the only ones, and I voluntarily stopped them yesterday immediately after being reverted. How does that configure the kind of systematic behaviour that would justify a topic ban? I really apologize, but in this moment the way I see this is a kind of Salem witch hunt, with people accusing me of all kind of slurs and abominations, even when they are in directly opposition to my stance here. You seem to be punishing me for my opinions and the way I (supposedly) think about a very particular issue (if 4 years old have self determination or not), which comes out to me as really unfair and unworthy of a project like this. Darwin 20:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is that in direct opposition to your stance there? Your edit summary says "forgot that English has the neutral pronoun, which is useful in these cases. fixed." which suggests that it is in line with that stance Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I'm sorry, I seem to have missed your point. What is wrong with correcting the gender to a neutral pronoun in such a situation? Darwin 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This edit might help you get the point. At this point your conduct on this page is becoming a serious behavioral issue... you can't lie, sealion, obfuscate, and misdirect endlessly without consequences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I can fix those too as I did yesterday, if you think it's important 🤷🏽♂️ Darwin 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are not supposed to edit comments after they have been responded to in that way. But by fix do you mean change to "she" or do you mean change to "they"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Change to "she", following this wikipedia rules, certainly. So if I can't fix them, what do you propose instead to mend it? Darwin 20:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given the sheer quantity of lies and obfuscations from you (the truth is apparently a last resort) the only fix I can see is a formal one, a topic ban and an interaction ban. Up above you so easily went from "I never edited in the topic area" to "those were the only ones" that I don't even think you understand that you were caught in a blatant lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back There was not any "lie", please stop assuming bad faith. I thought you were referring to the main space only, which I believe is a fairly assumption to do, if the used word is "editing". Darwin 20:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- At best you're saying that you lack the competence on enwiki to adhere to any voluntary restrictions. This will be my last comment unless pinged by an editor other than you, my apologies that this has been an unpleasant process for you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Darwin has a long history of editing in WP:GENSEX albeit generally less controversially. an example. Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 That's documented with the sources and all, and the proposition there was that the tupinambá was gay, not a woman. It's not even gender related. So you desperatly want something to justify a TB, bring it on. I'm fed up with what seems to be a circular and nonsense discussion on this board, where whatever I say is a lie and with bad intentions. I don't even edit here in the gender topic, but if it makes you happy, bring it on. Darwin 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- DarwIn WP:GENSEX covers gender and sexuality. You have been saying you aren't interested in the topic area. It appears to be one of your main areas of interest on en.wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 Thanks for clarifying that. Fact is that I don't edit much here. I've occasionally added or fixed some LGBT related stuff in the past when it crossed my main interest, History, but it certainly is not a primary interest, despite being LGBT myself. Darwin 20:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- DarwIn WP:GENSEX covers gender and sexuality. You have been saying you aren't interested in the topic area. It appears to be one of your main areas of interest on en.wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 That's documented with the sources and all, and the proposition there was that the tupinambá was gay, not a woman. It's not even gender related. So you desperatly want something to justify a TB, bring it on. I'm fed up with what seems to be a circular and nonsense discussion on this board, where whatever I say is a lie and with bad intentions. I don't even edit here in the gender topic, but if it makes you happy, bring it on. Darwin 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back There was not any "lie", please stop assuming bad faith. I thought you were referring to the main space only, which I believe is a fairly assumption to do, if the used word is "editing". Darwin 20:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given the sheer quantity of lies and obfuscations from you (the truth is apparently a last resort) the only fix I can see is a formal one, a topic ban and an interaction ban. Up above you so easily went from "I never edited in the topic area" to "those were the only ones" that I don't even think you understand that you were caught in a blatant lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Change to "she", following this wikipedia rules, certainly. So if I can't fix them, what do you propose instead to mend it? Darwin 20:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are not supposed to edit comments after they have been responded to in that way. But by fix do you mean change to "she" or do you mean change to "they"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I can fix those too as I did yesterday, if you think it's important 🤷🏽♂️ Darwin 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This edit might help you get the point. At this point your conduct on this page is becoming a serious behavioral issue... you can't lie, sealion, obfuscate, and misdirect endlessly without consequences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I'm sorry, I seem to have missed your point. What is wrong with correcting the gender to a neutral pronoun in such a situation? Darwin 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is that in direct opposition to your stance there? Your edit summary says "forgot that English has the neutral pronoun, which is useful in these cases. fixed." which suggests that it is in line with that stance Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back And those were the only ones, and I voluntarily stopped them yesterday immediately after being reverted. How does that configure the kind of systematic behaviour that would justify a topic ban? I really apologize, but in this moment the way I see this is a kind of Salem witch hunt, with people accusing me of all kind of slurs and abominations, even when they are in directly opposition to my stance here. You seem to be punishing me for my opinions and the way I (supposedly) think about a very particular issue (if 4 years old have self determination or not), which comes out to me as really unfair and unworthy of a project like this. Darwin 20:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits to DYK were within that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I never edited in that topic here, as far as I can remember, not is it a primary interest I have, so it certainly will not be difficult to hold, even if it comes out to me as incredibly unbased and unfair. Darwin 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Bushranger. charlotte 20:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. As GoodDay noted, the problem appears to already be addressed. If the problem persists then go for a sanction. Look we let people argue their point here and it does seem like most of the support is because editors feel Darwin isn't contrite enough, not that they expect the issue to continue. Note that I'm not weighing in on any interaction bans. Springee (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Springee. This entire issue could have been dropped days ago when DarwIn acknowledged he would walk away, and instead seems to have been needlessly escalated again and again and again. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Pppery: days ago? I think you might have misread the time stamps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support the TBAN; personally I'd have indeffed several outdents sooner, but here we are. No opinion on the IBAN. ⇒SWATJester 23:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Given what's happened, I think an enforceable topic ban is better than Darwin stepping away. IMO the BLP issues is far more concerning than gensex one so I'd support a BLP topic ban as well, but it seems likely a gensex one would be enough to stop Darwin feeling the continued need to express their opinions on a living person. Since Darwin is going to step away anyway and barely edits en, it should be a moot point and if it's not that's why it's enforceable. As for the iban, while I don't think Skyshifter should have described Darwin in that way when opening this thread, I think we can accept it as a one time mistake under the stress of apparently being followed and given questionable way Darwin ended up in a dispute here with someone they'd had problems with elsewhere I think a one-way iban is justified. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? Darwin 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times #c-DarwIn-20241229133200-Skyshifter-20241229132800, #c-DarwIn-20241229152900-Simonm223-20241229150600, #c-DarwIn-20241229154200-Blue-Sonnet-20241229154000, #c-DarwIn-20241229154100-Simonm223-20241229153800, #c-DarwIn-20241229160700-GiantSnowman-20241229154400, #c-DarwIn-20241229172200-Ad_Orientem-20241229171800. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like thought police. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here. Darwin 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. Darwin 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:DarwIn, I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. Liz
- @Liz: Thank you for the wise advice, I'll be doing that. Darwin 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: you can think whatever you like about living persons. I have a lot of views on living persons which I would never, ever express on wiki for various reasons including BLP. Also you defence is bullshit. No one ever asked you to make accusations around living persons to defend your actions. And yes it is fairly normal that editors may be sanctioned if they feel they need to do such things about living persons on ANI as part of some silly argument or defence. I recall an editor who was temporarily blocked after they felt the need to say two very very famous extremely public figure living persons (and some non living) were sex predators to prove some point at ANI. And I'm fairly sure a lot of people have said and feel those people are sex predators including some Wikipedians I'd even probably agree in at least one case, they just understand it's not something they should be expressing here. Nil Einne (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- For clarity, what I mean by my last sentence is that I'm sure quite a few people would agree with the statements. I'm sure such statements have been made elsewhere probably even in opinions printed in reliable sources (I think the editor did link to some such opinions). I'm sure even quite a few Wikipedians would agree that one or more of these people are sex predators, I think I'd even agree with it in at least one case. However most of us understand that our personal views of living persons, especially highly negatives views are generally not something to be expressed on wiki except when for some reason it's important enough to the discussion that it's reasonable to say it. When you keep saying something and in the same paragraph acknowledge the English wikipedia doesn't consider your opinion relevant, then it's clear there was no reason for you to say it. You're still free to believe it just as I'm still free to believe all those things about living persons that I would never express on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:DarwIn, I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. Liz
- I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. Darwin 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like thought police. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here. Darwin 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times #c-DarwIn-20241229133200-Skyshifter-20241229132800, #c-DarwIn-20241229152900-Simonm223-20241229150600, #c-DarwIn-20241229154200-Blue-Sonnet-20241229154000, #c-DarwIn-20241229154100-Simonm223-20241229153800, #c-DarwIn-20241229160700-GiantSnowman-20241229154400, #c-DarwIn-20241229172200-Ad_Orientem-20241229171800. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? Darwin 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Darwin's replies and conduct here indicates that he simply doesn't get it.
- MiasmaEternal☎ 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per GoodDay and Springee. Ciridae (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support TBAN per Bushranger. Darwin has already agreed to the 1-way IBAN — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Given the history at pt.wiki, I think this is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. There should be no interaction between the parties, which Darwin has agreed to.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The agreed-upon IBAN takes care of the ongoing issue. While the edits related to the child were problematic, this doesn't appear to be case of significantly wider problems in this topic area, and the full scope of MOS:GENDERID may very well be surprising to editors who don't do much in that area. I don't think there's been near enough here to no longer WP:AGF. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Support TBAN/IBANWeak support TBAN/Strong support IBAN - WP:NQP suggests that queerphobia is inherently disruptive. calling a queer activist a "troglodyte", the previous history of abuse on pt.wikipedia, and the current responses from Darwin indicate WP:NOTHERE behavior. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- "A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago , is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. EEng 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. EEng 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK boomer. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you certainly put me in my place with that one. EEng 21:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK boomer. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. EEng 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- "A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago , is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. EEng 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand. Speaking up for the witch is a sign I too might be a witch. I'll try to be more careful in future.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misgendering BLPs is disruptive. A Johnny Cash related username is not. Suggest the IP WP:DROPTHESTICK - while we may disagree with Boynamedsue regarding their interpretation here they have done nothing wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. It's stopping a disruptive editor from continuing to edit disruptively. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) NQP is an essay. Essentially it's an op-ed piece. It does not carry any force in the realm of WP:PG, and the views expressed there are controversial. (See the essay's talk page.). IMO words with some variation on "phobe/phobic" &c. are being routinely weaponized by people on one side of hot button cultural/political debates as part of an effort to demonize those on the other side of these debates. As such, I am inclined to view the use of such terms as a specie of WP:NPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- fair enough, i'll remove my vote for TBAN.
- sidenote, I have no qualms with labeling a behavior as queerphobia. I don't think calling out discrimination or disruptive attitudes is inherently a vio of NPA. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- ... I am indecisive.. I'll add weak support for TBAN, I still think the topic area should not have folks who are disruptive like this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pervasively misgendering a child based on the belief that a child cannot express a desire to transition is a form of transphobic behavior. If it was a similar comment made about a BLP on the basis of religion or skin colour there would be no mention of WP:NPA. Misplaced Pages is generally good about handling racism. It is a perpetual stain upon the reputation of Misplaced Pages that it's culture continues to worry more about the feelings of people who take transphobic actions than of the victims of the same. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as unnecessary given the commitments already given. WaggersTALK 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
| Let's not. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC). Edited to include edit conflict comment. CNC (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
| This is affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As a ptwiki user that know what's happening but talked to both sides of the discussion throughout it: This whole discussion started as a beef between Skyshifter and DarwIn. Skyshifter didn't accept some changes DarwIn made to an article "of her" (quotes because articles doesn't have owners. I respect her pronouns), and when discussing with DarwIn, called the whole Portuguese Misplaced Pages project a sewage (here)/in her UP, thus being banned and the ban being endorsed on the block discussion (in portuguese). The discussion was based on the references for the article, was solved in the ptwiki with an outburst from Sky, and that was it. This whole problem was brought here for a single reason only: Beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. A single change or a single opinion on a DYK shouldn't be reason for a TB or IBAN anywhere in the world, especially considering that it was a difference interpreting the references. I know that my statement won't change anything, as there is an apparent "consensus" on TBanning and IBANning him, though I wanted to make things clear for everyone. I am totally open for questioning regarding any of my statements above, and I will supply you with any proof I have and you need. Just ping me here and if the inquiry/proofs are extremely important, please leave me a message on my portuguese talk page (direct url). It can be in English, just for me to see you need me here. Cheers. Eduardo G. 03:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) JardelW is a user who was banned from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages due to his detestable behavior. This individual used the same Telegram group that he is now criticizing. The editor was banned from this group due to his behavior, in which he called respected users of the community "worms, scoundrels, trash and deniers". And DarwIn is one of the administrators of the group where he is banned, so you can already imagine why he is here. Now, once again he is trying to destabilize the community by defending an editor who called the entire project a sewer and made unproven accusations against an administrator. At this point, the account is practically banned and the article that caused the discord has its deletion or merge defended by several editors. By coming here, JardelW and Skyshifter are, in a way, stating that the entire community is prejudiced. Yet another offense enters the list as proof of Jardel's destabilizing behavior. Furthermore, this user already tried to carry out the same destabilization by contesting on meta the banning of IPs, a consensual decision among hundreds of editors. And when he was still blocked, went to Meta-Wiki in an attempt to intervene in the Misplaced Pages domain, where he is banned, simply because he did not agree with the deletion of an article. And this without presenting any evidence. It is clear that Jardel's objective here is to take revenge on the community, and he will be punished for it. InvictumAlways (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
|
- InvictumAlways - this is your second edit ever, and your account was just created today - how did you get to this ANI post? jellyfish ✉ 05:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I saw a discussion in the group and created the account to not appear as an IP. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Jardel The objective of the channel is to be a more relaxed place. And it's not official, as you said yourself previously. Angry moment? Are you sorry? After your block, you attacked editors on a social network, as attested by a CheckUser: . And there are no prejudiced comments. That's a lie. Where are the links? And how much time have you devoted to the project when all you do is attack others? Enough of this nonsense. I ask that an administrator evaluate the conduct of this account. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't realize the discussion was closed. Sorry. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Supporting both IBAN and TBAN. Someone who actively believes in misgendering should not be allowed into this area when they have already demonstrably made another editor uncomfortable. The snarky reply to GiantSnowman does not convince me they would respond well if another editor brought up a similar concern in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can't we give this child and her mother some privacy? What is it about gender issues, as opposed to other medical or developmental issues, that seems to give everyone a right to comment? Let's just report what reliable sources say and leave it at that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- talkpages def are covered by BLP as per the policy page.and the policy gives wide latitude about what the subject may have redacted if they object to info, even if they had previously or somehow otherwise placed that info in public domain.
- concerns about privacy have to weigh against dueness but arguing the book gives dueness to try to be internet sleuths and discover and identify a child is probs not gonna pass the smell test.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Misplaced Pages, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Children cannot consent, their parents can. (CC) Tbhotch 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would totally agree, but that is irrelevant here, nothing Darwin did was related to revealing the child's identity. He criticised the mother in strong terms on talkpages and this is what the BLP argument comes down to.--Boynamedsue (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ask yourself whether Misplaced Pages would even entertain this discourse if the identity was anything other than a trans one. The answer is a flat no. Darwin's interpretation of the mother's interpretation of her daughter's identity is inappropriate for the project, is disruptive and is openly antagonistic toward trans editors. I think nothing more can be gained from endlessly debating whether we should pretend there is a carve-out to BLP requirements for children within oppressed minorities. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Misplaced Pages, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support TBAN, no comment on IBAN. This is blatant POV harassment. (CC) Tbhotch 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Editors in this topic area can and often do disagree on the underlying issues, which often helpfully ensures that all such material on Misplaced Pages follows our policies and guidelines. However, the responses to Ad Orientem's request and various replies above shows that the proposed remedies would be appropriate given the BLP issues in play here.-- Patar knight - /contributions 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose any sanctions I’m sorry if I’m interfering in something I’m not involved with, but I’ve been watching this discussion and I think it’s needlessly toxic. What I’m seeing is a misunderstanding of some inappropriate WP:OR on a hot-button issue sparking a dispute that turned into “DarwIn is a transphobic bully” which I don’t think is true. I think the two main parties should simply avoid each other voluntarily and the situation will quickly de-escalate. Dronebogus (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support TBAN, indifferent to IBAN. Having followed this topic for a few days, it's convinced me that a topic ban for both GENSEX and BLP is entirely appropriate in this instance. My initial scepticism passed after reading responses from the editor and realising that the understanding of BLP policy appears to be even more incomplete than I originally thought. The deceleration from the editor to avoid such topics voluntarily is irrelevant, as combined with the lack of understanding over the concept of broadly construed, commitments have already been made and broken within this discussion alone. So respectfully, I believe this WP:NOTHERE type editing, whether it is attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or simply WP:BLUDGEONING discussions, is nonetheless disruptive and uncivil at times. CNC (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dronebogus. I'd say "we're better than this" if I believed it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Skyshifter, if anything, is harassing Darwin in this instance. Darwin has agreed to an IBAN, never mind that he's expressed desires to deëscelate what has become the longest thread on AN or ANI as of writing. JayCubby 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support This is a pretty explicit case of POV harassment. Their replies to the topic likewise do not give me faith they will adhere to a self imposed limitation. Darwin claimed to have agreed to step away before the ANI was created, but the edit history shows that Darwin continued editing the page up until an hour before Skyshifter created the ANI. Thus, there should be an actionable sanction. I fail to understand how it is Skyshifter doing the harassment at all as Cubby suggests. Darwin even called skyshifter a troglydite (here) to boot. Relm (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh my fucking god. This whole thread is nuts. I wish I could pardon my french but this is CRAZY.
- Never in a million years would’ve I expected myself to be responding to a thread like this but I mean here I am.
- Although Skywing’s concerns of harassment are valid especially if he’s being tracked across Misplaced Pages’s website, as far as I know, there are no guidelines that state someone can be punished for actions on another Misplaced Pages.
- I support the notion of Darwin being topic banned from gender related articles (especially trans ones), for the simple fact that his conflict of interest with transphobia has clearly caused a disruption to the Misplaced Pages community.
- I oppose with the IP-ban because if anything this SHOULD’VE ended a week ago when Darwin voluntarily said he would not edit those pages as well as avoid any interaction with Skywing.
Reader of Information (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. Relm (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand, I meant that. Apologies. I misunderstood what it stood for. I would prefer if the IBAN was two way instead of one-way. Seems hardly fair in my honest opinion when both I suppose are equally responsible and to share the blame. This is a messy situation so putting the blame on one when both are equally responsible seems hardly fair. But that's my two cents.
- NOTE: I don't condone homophobia or queerphobia or whatever the term is (I'm not really informed enough in this situation to know what Misplaced Pages calls it so I'm adding both just in case) so please don't take it as me defending either side as that is NOT my intent.
- Cheers,
Reader of Information (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- This reply reminded me of the essay WP:CLUE. CNC (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol. It is accurate. That literally is what it is I suppose lol. Reader of Information (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This reply reminded me of the essay WP:CLUE. CNC (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. Relm (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose any sanctions against Darwin per Dronebogus. I wish we were better than this, but like TBUA, I don't actually believe that we are. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support both TBAN and IBAN. Their behaviour at DYK might have been mitigated if they had taken responsibility here instead of doubling down. A TBAN and IBAN will reduce disruption. TarnishedPath 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at Special:Diff/1267644460 accusing me of coming to their talk page to "
further troll me with this nonsense warning
". TarnishedPath 01:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at Special:Diff/1267644460 accusing me of coming to their talk page to "
- Support both. I'm baffled that some people above are saying "well, they agreed to stop voluntarily" - did they not read the massive post Darwin made above? It amounts to an extended "I'm sorry that you were offended." Trusting that someone will avoid the same mistakes in the future on their own requires that they understand and admit to those mistakes, which is obviously not the case here; how can we trust that an editor will abide by a self-imposed restriction when they won't even meaningfully acknowledge the errors that made that restriction necessary? Therefore, sanctions are necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support both. To make sure I haven't lost my goddamn mind, I read this discussion twice. I personally believe Darwin is in the wrong here. His behavior on enwiki violates both GENSEX and BLP sanctions (), and he doubled down when he had the chance to defend himself (Special:Diff/1267644460 and comments above). Even if we play devil's advocate and assume Darwin's claims about Sky being a troll/vandal and sockmaster (which is a heavy accusation to make) on ptwiki are true, her work on enwiki has shown that she's changed for the better. This is coming from a person who has interacted with Sky a couple of times (Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Virtual Self (EP)/archive1, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Virtual Self (EP)/archive2, Talk:Quannnic/GA1); she is an amazing editor on here. For the sake of everyone involved and to avoid another mess like this, the sanctions above should be enforced. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 08:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - the doubling (and tripling) down that this user engaged in above has convinced me that Misplaced Pages would be better off if he did not engage in the relevant topic areas. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 17:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support both IBAN and TBAN. With all due respect to Dronebogus, there is no way this can be chalked up as just an OR misunderstanding when Darwin has gone out of his way to repeately misgender the individual in question while throwing personal attacks at Sky. Regardless of any issue at another wiki, the behavior here is unacceptable per our rules and guidelines. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support TBAN and IBAN: Really blatant transphobia. In case it gets lost in the weeds, Darwin's original comment sparking this whole thing was not just blatantly offensive but full of bullshit:
According to the sources in the article, after forcing the child she and her husband wanted to have as a boy to "behave like a boy" for 4 years, forcing him to play with cars, football and Marvel heros and even listen to heavy metal at 2-3 years old, and chasticizing him for liking "girl stuff" and throwing away all his "girl like" toys, until the poor child was proposing to die and reborn as a girl so he could play with that stuff, this openly conservative women finally gave up imposing such "boy stuff" on him and at 4 years old decided he was a girl instead, thrusting that identity on the child since then and eventually forming that NGO to "spread the word". I don't know this section very well, so maybe such troglodyte and incredibly prejudiced display of behaviour is something so bizarre it would be worth to have here, but I have to disagree.
- 1)
the poor child was proposing to die and reborn as a girl so could play with that stuff
- no source ever said this kid said that "so she could play with that stuff". The sources just say she persistently wished she'd been born a girl and said as much repeatedly. Darwin's offensive speculation as to why is not supported by any sources. Here's a quote from her mother about this nonsense:A boy who likes to play doll is not a trans girl. But a boy who besides liking to play doll, has desire to be the doll, be a girl, dress and have the look of the doll, then we are talking about a child who may have a gender issue.
- No source in the article says her mom "decided was a girl, thrusting that identity on the child since then" - On her 4th birthday, she told her
My love, from today you wear whatever clothes you want, play with whatever you want and can be whoever you want
- the mom said she'd stop pressuring her daughter to be a boy and that she could be who she wanted, and her daughter decided. - She is now 9 years old, almost 10, and happily trans. So, this is not even a case of insisting a 4-yr old can't tell they're trans, it's insisting that, after 5 years of being happily herself, it must have been forced on her.
- 1)
- The only
troglodyte and incredibly prejudiced display of behaviour
is expending this much energy attacking a fucking 9 year old and claiming her mother made her trans. I'm ashamed that PT wikipedia allowed him to do this there, and sanctioned Skyshifter for calling him on such blatant transphobia. We should have no tolerance for this bullshit whatsoever. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- Given that this involves cross-wiki behaviour, does anyone know if this is something which is actionable in the universal code of conduct? TarnishedPath 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support formal TBAN, indifferent to IBAN Snokalok (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support both TBAN and IBAN. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that any sanctions are necessary to stop disruption; indeed to the extent DarwIn was disruptive (and I am not convinced they were the problematic party), they have stopped, out of what appears to me to be a genuine understanding of how to avoid the locus of disruption. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. I read through this entire epic saga and left with the impression that they didn't really seem to get that the BLP and MOS issues aren't something they can just shrug their shoulders at. --Emm90 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Skyshifter taking matters from another Misplaced Pages to seek revenge.
| 100% affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This entire subsection is about Eduardo Gottert casting aspersions on Skyshifter and providing no diffs or evidence of this "revenge" except for statements about what is going on on another language Misplaced Pages which have no bearing on what occurs here. I'm closing this now before this WP:BOOMERANGs on to Eduardo Gottert and editors start proposing a block for personal attacks. Baseless counter attacks are generally dismissed at the English Misplaced Pages ANI. Please do not reopen this section. Liz 09:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. On the 29th of December, User:Skyshifter started an AN/I based on a claim that User:DarwIn, a sysop at ptwiki, was cross-wiki harrassing her. To make up those claims, she used as a single proof, of him editing on a DYK nomination here. AFAIK, DYK nominations are open for debate. She accused him of transphobia, a very harsh word, over some 5 edits on the same page, and all the other arguments in her accusation were from the ptwiki with absolutely no relation to the English Misplaced Pages, and she tried to "force" that it was a cross-wiki harrassment, when it wasn't. The sole reason for that AN/I is a beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. But all of this happened only, and just because of her banishment for the portuguese wiki. She is the cross-wiki harrasser in this situation, as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log. This is all for revenge of some articles that are being debated and will be either deleted or merged with other articles, and especially over her permanent block on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, after calling the whole platform a sewage (here and in her UP), casting aspersions over other users and using ducks and meatpuppets to revert back the articles (one of her meats is currently being blocked from ptwiki too, see it here, with all the proofs). The block discussion taking place at the moment has 10 administrator votes in favour of the block, and absolutely no contrary opinion whatsoever. Despite some not-so-good arguments from DarwIn in the AN/I above, it is more than clear that the reason for the opening of the said AN/I was personal and for revenge. I'm open to any questions regarding this topic, as there is plenty of evidence to sustain my claims. All of this that she's doing would clearly fall under pt:WP:NDD, here called WP:ASPERSIONS I think, and disruptive editing/WP:POINT, and in the AN/I above she's commiting WP:BLUDGEON, repeating the eye-catching word "transphobia" over and over, without sustaining her argument accordingly, seeking to block a sysop at other 3 projects and rollbacker here, with the sole objective of tarnishing his block log, just for revenge and self-fullfillment. Eduardo G. 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
|
Incivility and ABF in contentious topics
Hob Gadling's uncivil comments and assuming bad faith on multiple contentious talk pages is not necessarily egregious but I suppose it is problematic and chronic, consistent and ongoing. I would appreciate some assistance. Here are some diffs from the past few days:
Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883
WP:NPA
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324
Profanity
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966
Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877
Unicivil
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441
Contact on user page attempted
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795
Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Think this calls for a fierce trout slapping and some direct words. I cannot really endorse a forced wikibreak according to WP:COOLDOWN, as this is just an angry user and frankly, I don't see direct personal attacks, I just see unfriendly behavior and prick-ish attitude, no outward disruption of the project either. Also, I have to ask for further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions, as
some diffs from the past few days
are not indicative of chronic issue. The holiday times, like Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Years' can be some of the most stressful times for people during the year. Not saying I like seeing this, but I can understand the feeling. BarntToust 04:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Would I be the person to provide you with that
further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions
? I did think that it would be more than a WP:FISHSLAP, since that's forone-off instances of seemingly silly behavior
and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern warning. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would I be the person to provide you with that
- @Lardlegwarmers: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. Hob should know better, and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. But I would caution you about WP:BOOMERANG and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your inappropriate recently deleted user page, removing sections from other people's talk page, and it seems like you're having a problem handling a WP:DISPUTE and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith.
- Furthermore it does appear that you might be WP:FORUMSHOPPING because your attempts at WP:POVPUSH for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. passively accusing editor behavior, directly accusing a specific editor bad behavior, claiming WP is political, RSN Report #1, RSN Report #2 to push for an article edit request, bringing the Covid discussion over to the teahouse, and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding Misplaced Pages's policy and guidelines and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards WP:CONSENSUS. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. TiggerJay (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address unique issues as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. (
All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution.
]) Thank you for your time and input. - Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hope the editors who read this will notice the ABF here:
trying to report other editors in bad faith
. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address unique issues as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. (
@Lardlegwarmers: Jay brought something to my attention with a recent version of your user page. It looks like there is large language model (ChatGPT) text about "COVID-19 Natural Immunity" copied and pasted on there. What in the cheeseballs?? What made you think hmm, let's prompt ShatGPT to churn out 700 words about this random out-of-pocket topic, and I'm gonna post this on my Misplaced Pages user page for no reason! I'm confused. This specific revision also assumes bad faith about IP editors, and here's the rich part: just as you copy-pasted text from ChatGPT about COVID to your user page, you go on to write a section that addresses use of AI. Quoting from an AI chat bot without attribution is plaigiarism.
I'm just confused with what you are doing here. So I'd like to ask you, since you are here at ANI now, what in the sam hill is going on here? If there is a reasonable explanation for this goofiness, I suggest you produce one, not from a prompt entered into ChatGPT, in your own words. BarntToust 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is an old version of their user page, and it is not plagiarism to quote from a chat bot even without attribution, so we must assume that you are attempt to detract from the OP's complaint. The issue at hand is an experienced editor who joins talk page discussions without understanding the topic at hand (which they admit in one instance ), and are frequently use derogatory language and tone towards other editors. This behavior does not seem like a new thing for them and they clearly know how to skirt the edge of what would be considered a personal attack by an admin, so this merits a formal warning. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @IntrepidContributor, you should familiarise yourself with WP:BOOMERANG. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. BarntToust 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a WP:TROUT slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. BarntToust 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- BarntToust You're being bitey and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- well, I tend to get concerned when someone with LLM text pasted on their userpage comes up from the water. If that's considered bite-y to reiterate my concerns in intentional lighthearted analogy in order to seem less hard-headed, then I guess we're done here. @Thebiguglyalien, I invite you to weigh in on whether you think a formal warning or a trout slap is what needs to happen to Hob. BarntToust 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- BarntToust You're being bitey and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a WP:TROUT slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. BarntToust 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @IntrepidContributor, you should familiarise yourself with WP:BOOMERANG. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. BarntToust 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- That content from ChatGPT was meant to go in my sandbox as experiment or for assisting with research into a future article. The LLM can generate wikitext with links to articles that already exist. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are writing an article backwards and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @Lardlegwarmers, I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. BarntToust 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @IntrepidContributor, I'm pointing out questionable content on someone else page. please look at this diff on Lardle's user page for context, in which they copied ChatGPT text without attribution, then said that using ChatGPT without attribution is plagiarism. That contradictory stuff is what I was questioning. please click on the diff for context. BarntToust 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I use it more like a (really good) search engine or a thesaurus. It can give a lot of suggestions for a human writer, but ultimately you use your own mind and RS to formulate the facts and how to present them. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! BarntToust 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! *curtsy* Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! BarntToust 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are writing an article backwards and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @Lardlegwarmers, I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. BarntToust 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The lack of civility in this contentious topic is significantly hindering editing efforts, especially since most issues concern neutrality and tone, which requires a careful and nuanced approach. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't see anything in the original report that does anything other than show that Hob Gadling calls a thicko a thicko. What is wrong with that? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- ...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, in British slang, "thick" = "stupid". GiantSnowman 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- ...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
There is not enough context for the examples of impatience from Hob Gadling which the OP offers. For example, Lardlegwarmers, do you really expect a warm welcome for your 'attempted contact on user page' here? Or for your puritanical reproaches about HG's use of "profanity" (which normally turns out to mean using the word bullshit, which is by no means banned from Misplaced Pages, nor is its expressiveness easy to replace with something more flattering). Considering what they're replying to, this supposed "disparag of another editor's intellect and reasoning skills" seems pretty temperate. And so on. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
- I'm not suggesting we should wash anybody's mouth out with soap. The editor's consistent uncivil behavior is more than just the occasional salty diction here and there. I mean, look at this user page discussion where an editor is asking for a discussion on why Hob Gadling reverted his edit. It seems as if the person was trying to do it on the talk page and was ignored. Hob Gadling gruffly tells the other editor to get lost. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My experience is that this kind of aggression is standard operating procedure for the defendant. I'd basically given up on them seeing any consequences for it - it's been going on for a long time, so I assumed this is one of the cases where editors with enough "social capital" get an exemption from CIVIL. I doubt a trout will have lasting effect. - Palpable (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My experience with and attitude toward Hob is 100% the same as described here by Palpable. It goes back a while ... ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Hob Gadling failing to yield to WP:BLPRESTORE, apparently missing both the discussion and RSN link from the talk page. Asserting an unreliable source as reliable in order to describe the subject as having a ‘victim complex’. SmolBrane (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that Hob edited the talk page after re-adding this content; he should have self reverted if he missed this discussion prior. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Propose serving of trout to both. Hob likely may have acted a hair too strongly to a source of exasperation; but not enough for any warning. Lardlegwarmers provides a large helping of such and I would suggest a boom if not for BITE. Albeit, Lardlegwarmers’ knowledge of WP is beyond the average for an editor with 5x the posts. I would suggest a non-logged warning to Lardlegwarmers on the concept of collaboration for their own good. Otherwise, we are likely to see them back here given their attitude at both this filing and at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. (Disclaimer, I have been involved.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- For context, O3000, Ret. is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Recuse
Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. SmolBrane (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Recuse
- Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you click through the diffs, you’ll notice that many other editors have received the rude comments, so this is more than a 1-on-1 scuffle with me and Hob Gadling. I stopped compiling examples after finding 9 examples of visible hostility out of their most recent dozen diffs, but like I mentioned to BarntToust above, I can go back further if you need me to, to illustrate the chronic pattern. And the handful of other editors who have spoken up here who have been aggrieved speak for themselves. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- For context, O3000, Ret. is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a note, Hob Gadling removed the ANI notice without comment and has not responded here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Never said they weren't. Just noting that they clearly received the notice and chose not to respond here, which is a response in and of itself. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
| Extended discussion |
|---|
|
Wish Hob Gadling would not act like a profane teenager on talk page discussions and that they'd treat people without the smartass-y-ness and contempt. If they are so committed to being pissy towards other users while being shut-off in their own la-la-land, maybe they need a block until they're willing to face the music. BarntToust 01:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
|
It should be noted that Lardlegwarmers, after only truly starting editing two months ago, has been actively pushing WP:FRINGE misinformation, particularly on Covid related pages. They have actively been making claims that the scientific community is trying to cover things up, such as here, and has been using poor quality sources to try and claim that major published scientific papers on the topic are false, such as here. This entire thread just sounds like an attempt to silence another editor who has been actively dealing with fringe POV-pushers across numerous articles, such as those linked by Lardlegwarmers above. Silverseren 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. And it seems that's the case here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!)
bullshit
to describe an argument that did, in fact, turn out to be bullshit shows how weak it is. What's more alarming is that that was what led Lardlewarmers to try and their target on their talk page, a hamhanded effort whose sheer inappropriateness they remain sufficiently tone-deaf to that they made the mistake of bragging about it here as part of their "report". This is a straightforward WP:BOOMERANG situation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "turn over a new leaf" in situations like this one. Misplaced Pages would be better off if people were more willing to tell people to stop before it's too late and stop treating aggressive or uncivil behavior as a "lesser" crime. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The reason I cited numerous diffs was to substantiate, as I said in my post, that this is a chronic and ongoing habit of rude and uncivil behavior. I posted the diff of Hob Gadling's user page not to "brag" (and I don't understand how you inferred that), but rather to show that I followed ANI procedure to address conduct disputes first on the user page and that my attempt was dismissed without Hob Gadling addressing it except to blank the comment with the explantion that I wasn't welcome on his page.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!)
- I am not trying to silence anyone. See above, I recommend a stern warning about consistent uncivil comments and that’s it. If Hob Gadling has something substantive to say, they can say it without demeaning the editors as if this is a combat sport instead of a discussion about articles of text. I encourage y'all to check out the discussions linked to by Silverseren. I have been careful to use sources, present my suggestions in good faith, and stay neutral in personal interactions. I am genuinely trying to find consensus. I'll mention that Silverseren is also involved in the content dispute, providing sources that myself and several other editors believe do not verify an extraordinary claim in the article. (Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Silver_seren-20241231185800-Slatersteven-20241230182700) It's getting to the point where we should do a content moderation over that, since I am sure that the sources do not verify the claim but Silverseren apparently is sure that they do. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type. As the Alien above said, you
Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning.
now WP:DROPTHESTICK. TiggerJay (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to Misplaced Pages:Civility, the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the fallacies contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ad hominem, as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person (Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250103194100-Hob Gadling-20250102085800). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record I do agree with you that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been bating you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, rather we depend on WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to
steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person
. However, that is not what I read in that reply. Out of the gate you're calling Hob uncivil, their arguments are false, and then lobbing further accusations. You get the discussion wrapped up arguing over who said what, and what they meant by it, and why your positions are valid and theirs are not. As for bad faith, I'll invite to other editors to comment below if they agree that I'm the one presuming bad faith towards you. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250105151700-Credibility_of_major_scientific_journals_on_Covid) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think I understand what you're referring to about RS. Yes, there are times when a source is otherwise considered reliable (or even un-reliable) but consensus can be found with regards to a specific narrow aspect of it that might warrant it's inclusion or exclusions, or some variation on how it is presented or the weight afforded to it in the article. And that comes through talk page consensus as you mentioned and does not necessarily need to be unanimous. TiggerJay (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250105151700-Credibility_of_major_scientific_journals_on_Covid) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record I do agree with you that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been bating you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, rather we depend on WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to
- No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to Misplaced Pages:Civility, the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the fallacies contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ad hominem, as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person (Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250103194100-Hob Gadling-20250102085800). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type. As the Alien above said, you
Being entirely blunt, if we have two visions of Misplaced Pages: one in which people are occasionally rude or incivil to people who tout pseudoscience concerning major diseases and one in which pseudoscience concerning major diseases makes its way into article space then I'll gladly sign up for the rude / incivil Misplaced Pages over the pseudoscience one. This is to say that being rude is most certainly a lesser offense
. Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please check out the article and discussion. The lab leak theory is not pseudoscience, but rather a scientific hypothesis which important scientists have suggested is worthy of serious investigation (]). Although the evidence strongly favors a zoonotic origin, the investigation is inconclusive. In any case, I would favor a Misplaced Pages where civil discussion leads to a balanced representation of what is published in reliable sources. If your position is supported by the sources, there is no need to resort to name calling. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What you are describing is a different idea: the COVID-19 bioweapon conspiracy theory. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus.
the World Health Organization is recommending in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe is required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. ]
The fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs.
(]) Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Beyond what @Objective3000 said, for all parties, it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil WP:BRINE. TiggerJay (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Hob Gadling wants to "deal with" new editors who threaten Misplaced Pages, it should not be through aggression and insulting them openly, but through quality sources and discussion. Editors who sympathize with "fringe" ideas might be more cooperative if they didn't have to defend themselves against offensive comments in response to their suggestions. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Beyond what @Objective3000 said, for all parties, it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil WP:BRINE. TiggerJay (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If this "old grievance" about the FTN exemption to CIVIL really has been thoroughly hashed out, could someone link the discussion from WP:FTNCIVIL or something? Being up front about it would save time here at ANI, plus it's always heartbreaking to watch as earnest new editors learn about this the hard way. - Palpable (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am in the diffs.
- I would still like a pointer to the discussion of why FTN regulars get an exemption from CIVIL, I honestly think that should be better understood. - Palpable (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above:
Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic.
] Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- That diff certainly doesn't prove anyone is exempt from policy. I think it's interesting Palpable said he was following diffs instead of saying he was involved in the content dispute underlying this complaint. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above:
- They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, they're one of the pro-fringe editors in the linked discussion. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- What you are describing is a different idea: the COVID-19 bioweapon conspiracy theory. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus.
- It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
| Extended discussion |
|---|
|
- Nie JB. "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2020 Dec;17 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#c-GPinkerton-2021-01-18T14:40:00.000Z-ScrupulousScribe-2021-01-18T14:27:00.000Z
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Shibbolethink-20250104081900-IntrepidContributor-20250103151400
Send to AE?
Given how long this has gone on for, may I make a suggestion? Send this to WP:AE since ANI seems incapable of resolving this, and it falls solidly into the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
- That matches my experience and I'm grateful to the people willing to say it out loud, but surely it would save a lot of drama and forum shopping if someone just wrote it down? - Palpable (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The IP made no such claim? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I thought that was implicit in the request to move the civility complaint to a forum about fringe theories, but you're the expert. - Palpable (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- FYI WP:AE is arbitration enforcement, not the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's what I had thought, but the not logged in guy seems to be saying that a civility complaint should be moved to AE because it's a better venue for "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
- It's really striking to me that the main argument here is not over whether Hob is civil, it's whether he should have to be. - Palpable (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- FYI WP:AE is arbitration enforcement, not the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I thought that was implicit in the request to move the civility complaint to a forum about fringe theories, but you're the expert. - Palpable (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The IP made no such claim? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As others have noted, being brusque with pseudoscience-pushers is an insignificant offense when compared to agenda-driven editors who are only here to advocate for a fringe topic. Esp. when they have only been editing for a handful of months. Zaathras (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I do agree that from an objective and absolute POV (e.g., of an external user evaluating Misplaced Pages) it is better to have an uncivil but pseudoscience-free Misplaced Pages than a civil but pseudoscientific Misplaced Pages, from a subjective and relative POV (e.g., of editors making internal decisions together) it is impossible to systematically abandon a relatively less important principle on the basis of a relatively more important principle without completely annihilating the less important principle. That's why wp:Being right is not enough is policy.
- Moreover, as others have also noted, because WP:CIVIL is a principle that at some point does get acted upon, we would all be better off if no one, on any side of any given debate, would minimize it. User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Too much presumption of intent here with regard to 'pseudoscience-pushers'. It is easy for us to diminish our opponents in this way. Civility and NPOV are equal pillars. SmolBrane (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I second to motion to bring this to WP:AE. BarntToust 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Topic ban for Lardlegwarmers
Lardlegwarmers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A cursory look through this account's contributions has me convinced that they ought not to be contributing to COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory pages, widely construed. More generally, it seems they are using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to promote a lot of what I would deem "anti-establishment" claims which necessarily run right up against the WP:MAINSTREAM remit of our encyclopedia. In fact, they are close to being a single-purpose account in this regard. Topic ban from American Politics might help reorient their problematic proclivities.
jps (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring to prevent an RFC
@Axad12 has removed an RFC tag from Talk:Breyers#Request for comment on propylene glycol now twice within an hour.
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RfCs provides a list of circumstances under which you can stop an RFC started by someone else, and disagreeing with the question or wishing that it contained additional information is not in the list.
We have to be pretty strict about this, because an RFC is one of the few ways to attract the broader community's attention when there's an Misplaced Pages:Ownership of content problem or a Misplaced Pages:Walled garden that needs outside attention. The fact that an editor doesn't welcome outside attention sometimes indicates that there is a problem. I'm not saying that these things are happening in this case, but the rules have to be the rules for all RFCs, not just for the ones we agree with, because these things do happen in some cases. We can't really have opponents of an RFC question/proposal, no matter how well intentioned or how justified they think it is in this one case, unilaterally deciding that the rest of the community doesn't get to find out about the dispute.
I wouldn't bother with this here, except that it's already past my bedtime, so I need someone else to handle this. The proper way forward is to run the RFC, and for the loyal opposition to take the advice about how to respond that they'll find in the first two questions of the Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/FAQ. See you tomorrow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC.
- I am perfectly happy to take instruction on that point if I am incorrect but the removals were undertaken in good faith.
- The idea that I should be reported to ANI for this just because it is past someone's bedtime (and they don't have time for talk page discussion) seems to me rather an over-reaction. Axad12 (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, I am perfectly happy to volunteer to replace the tag if an administrator indicates that that is the appropriate course of action. Axad12 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad12, please do not tamper with the RFC. I have already commented there again based on my previous assessment five weeks ago, and I have absolutely no conflict of interest in this matter. In my opinion, you are taking too aggressive a stance on this issue. I happen to be an administrator but I am also involved with the dispute as an ordinary editor. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad12, I'd strongly suggest you return the tag. WhatamIdoing, a {{trout}} for WP:GRENADEing. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for both of your advice. I will shortly replace the template.
- The COI issue does not relate to Cullen, it relates to another user entirely. I would be grateful for input on the underlying COI issue, which seems to me to have been an exceptionally serious abuse. Axad12 (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? A company quite reasonably does not want to be falsely accused of adulterating their edible product with antifreeze, based on what a fringe source wrote, and you consider that
exceptionally serious abuse
? Cullen328 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? A company quite reasonably does not want to be falsely accused of adulterating their edible product with antifreeze, based on what a fringe source wrote, and you consider that
- Indeed, I am perfectly happy to volunteer to replace the tag if an administrator indicates that that is the appropriate course of action. Axad12 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I'm referring to the series of events outlined here where a paid COI editor has a COI edit request turned down and then starts cultivating a co-operative project member to implement non-contentious COI edit requests before reintroducing the contentious COI edit request and immediately tipping off their repeatedly canvassed project member to implement that contentious request.
- I feel that that is an exceptionally serious abuse - clearly it is an attempt to distort the COI editing process by attempting to make sure that a previously co-operative project member deals with a resubmitted request rather than waiting for a random volunteer working out of the relevant queue (one of whom had previously declined the request).
- As I said above, I am quite happy to take instruction on this point - but personally I feel that what happened there was highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- In other words, you want highly misleading content to remain in the article, just to make a point? Cullen328 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cullen, my post directly above is clearly about a point of process rather than a point of content.
- Even if the original COI edit request was incorrectly declined that would not justify the paid COI editor attempting to game the system to get the request through at the second time of asking. Axad12 (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Asking a second time" is not WP:Gaming the system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, but for a COI user to attempt to influence which user will deal with the second request does constitute gaming the system. Axad12 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Read the guideline instead of guessing about its contents from the WP:UPPERCASE. See, e.g., An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policy in bad faith, by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. Asking an individual to help has nothing to do with finding wording in a policy to justifying disruptive actions or stances that are not intended in that policy.
- I also direct your attention to the item that says Gaming the system may include...Filibustering the consensus-building process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was using the phrase 'gaming the system' in it's natural application (not specifically referring to WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM, which I didn't know existed until you linked to it above). Clearly the COI user was attempting to distort the COI edit request process in some way - whether one refers to what they were doing as 'gaming the system' or some other similar phrase is neither here nor there. Axad12 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, but for a COI user to attempt to influence which user will deal with the second request does constitute gaming the system. Axad12 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Asking a second time" is not WP:Gaming the system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that ever since the original COI edit request back in August the clear talk page consensus has been that the material should remain within the article and is not
highly misleading
. - I've been part of that consensus position since approx October/November. Since that time the user who opened the RfC has repeatedly been opening new threads, continually trying to re-address a subject where they are repeatedly in the minority and presumably hoping that those who previously opposed them do not turn up to oppose them again. Axad12 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- In other words, you want highly misleading content to remain in the article, just to make a point? Cullen328 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe we should hold an RFC on whether the RFC tag should be there? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right, I've had breakfast now so am in a position to make a more serious reply. This is a content issue (on which I hold, as yet, no opinion). On this page we often tell editors that the way to settle a content issue that hasn't been settled by more informal methods is by holding an RFC. Axad12, you should express your opinion as part of the RFC, not oppose holding it. By your behaviour you are turning people against you who might have supported you. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've already said that I'd be happy to replace the tag if instructed to do so, and upon being instructed to do so I immediately replaced it. As far as I can see that issue is now resolved.
- I've asked for comment on the underlying COI issue, which is not a content issue. Axad12 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- RFCs can handle COI issues. In fact, when WP:COIN can't resolve a dispute, they sometimes host an RFC to settle it. The nice thing about an RFC in such situations is that if it closes with an outcome like "The consensus is stick it to these fully policy-compliant, completely disclosed paid editors by making sure that this article implies the company's product was adulterated with a poisonous industrial chemical, just because we found one fad diet book that used this language, because it's really unreasonable of them to not want sensationalist and derogatory information in our article about their product" then you can generally be sure that the result will stick for at least 6 months and usually longer.
- But you've got to get that consensus first, and I'm not sure you will. For one thing, it's been my not-inconsiderable experience that when someone objects to holding an RFC because the question is biased, that's a fairly reliable sign that they expect the RFC result to not match their preference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My concern (rightly or wrongly) was simply that there was a COI element to the request which had not been disclosed. I swiftly requested clarification on that point and upon receiving that clarification I immediately reverted myself.
- It isn't really relevant here but actually I didn't expect the RfC to develop contrary to my preference. That was because the previous 4 months had indicated a consistent consensus opposing what the instigator of the RfC was proposing. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I don't actually have a particularly strong preference one way or the other on the issue at stake - I've simply consistently observed during November and December that the consensus was against Zefr, which seemed to me to be a simple matter of fact based on the various talk page threads from August to December. Axad12 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- On matters concerning the Breyers article, Axad12 has been an uncollaborative, disruptive, and hostile editor tag-teamed with Graywalls, who is the main proponent over months of using the slur, "antifreeze", to describe a minor GRAS ingredient that is the subject of the current RfC. Both users have ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate for a factual, well-sourced article. Both users refused collaboration on the Breyers article content at DRN.
Having never contributed a sentence or source to the Breyers article, Axad12 has blatantly reverted simple, sourced edits claiming a false consensus which has no good source to support the propylene glycol/"antifreeze" claim and no evidence of consensus input by other editors over the last many weeks. An evolving consensus on the RfC is to exclude mention of propylene glycol as undue.
Scientific and legal literature concerning propylene glycol (article link) placed on the talk page have been ignored by both users, without attempts to discuss or apply what any objective editor reading the sources would agree are authoritative.
Proposal: Because of Axad12's hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC, tag-team behavior with Graywalls on the Breyers article edits, canvassing each other on its talk page, and here, as another example, Axad12 and Graywalls should be A-banned from the Breyers article and its talk page.
Support. Zefr (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strike as withdrawn for Axad12 ABAN to concur with Cullen328 and the oppose decisions below.
- Graywalls is a separate case remaining undecided here. Over the 2024 article and talk page history at Breyers, this user was the main purveyor of disinformation, and has not acknowledged his talk page hostility and errors of judgment, despite abundant presentation of facts, sources, explanations, and challenges for information below. Graywalls should commit to abstain from editing the Breyers article for a given period, as Axad has done. Zefr (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Zefr:, your domineering and territoriality to that article is a big part of escalation and if anyone, it should be you who should refrain from it. Blatantly disregarding consensus and going so far as saying
Statements of facts supported by reliable sources do not need talk page consensus.
as done in here which goes to show you feel you're above consensus. You weren't persuaded until you were corrected by two administrors Aoidh and Philknight on the matter on the belief you're entitled to insert certain things against consensus. You also were blocked for the fifth time for edit warring in that article, with previous ones being at different articles with dispute with other editors, which shows your lack of respect for community decision making. Graywalls (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Well, your concept of what was a false consensus has been dismissed by the RfC result, so you should move on from this bitterness and distortion of truth. In reply to Aoidh and Philknight at the Breyers talk page, I stated in my next comment, "Yes, a key word unintentionally omitted in my response concerning statements and sources was "verifiable". As there are few watchers/editors of the Breyers article (62 as of today, probably many from Unilever who do not edit), I provided statements of facts verified by reliable sources, whereas this simple practice appears to not be in your editing toolkit.
- The obligation remaining with you in this discussion is to respond to Cullen's 2-paragraph summary of your behavior below in the section, The actual content that led to this dispute. Let's have your response to that, and your pledge to abstain from editing the Breyers article - you did say on the talk page on 29 Nov that you would "delegate the actual editing to someone else." I think your defiance to respond to challenges in this discussion section affirms my recommendation that you are ABANNED from the Breyers article and IBANNED from attacking me because you are unable to face the facts. Zefr (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was a no commitment suggestion that someone, meaning neither YOU or I. Not that Zefr continue editing and not I. Your controlling, WP:OWN approach was a significant portion of the problem. Additionally, you proposed administrative sanctions against me, but did not tell me about it as required. I only figured out after someone told me about it on my talk page. Why did you do that? Graywalls (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You had already been notified of the problem you caused at the Breyers article in this talk edit on 5 Jan. Now, you are engaged in conspicuous deflection to avoid answering the Cullen328 paragraphs and the several requests for you to explain and own up to your disruptive behavior and non-collaboration. Regarding OWN, there are few editors at Breyers. I countered your attempts to slander the article with the "antifreeze" term and bogus diet book references by applying verifiable facts and sources.
- OWN:"Being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership, provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or amend others' edits. This too does not equal ownership, provided it does not marginalise the valid opinions of others and is adequately justified." If you had offered valid content and sources, I would have collaborated.
- I'm sure editors have seen enough of your personal grievances expressed here. Please stop. I'm not returning unless an exception occurs. Zefr (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was a no commitment suggestion that someone, meaning neither YOU or I. Not that Zefr continue editing and not I. Your controlling, WP:OWN approach was a significant portion of the problem. Additionally, you proposed administrative sanctions against me, but did not tell me about it as required. I only figured out after someone told me about it on my talk page. Why did you do that? Graywalls (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You need to notify Graywalls of this discussion. I have done so for you. In the future, remember to do so yourself. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: I have reverted Zefr on 3 occasions on the Breyers article over the last few months. That was because the edits they had made were, at that time, contrary to talk page consensus. The fact that I had not contributed to the article is neither here nor there in that regard.
- I have not
ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate
, I have simply objected to Zefr's repeated attempts over a 3 month period to re-open a discussion where the consensus has always been against them. - Six different users have previously objected to the changes Zefr has been trying to make and that was clearly a majority of those who commented between August and December 2024.
- I accept that the current RfC is going Zefr's way, however that fact should not be used to reinterpret events over the last 4 months where Zefr has historically been in a small minority insufficient to claim a consensus in favour of the changes they wished to make.
- Also, the idea that I made a
hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC
is untrue. As I have pointed out above, my actions were in good faith and it can be seen that I immediately volunteered to revert my removal of the template if I received instruction from an admin to that effect. - I cannot see that I was ever canvassed to appear at the Breyers talk page, I arrived there entirely independently back in November having been aware of the ongoing situation re: the various COI edit requests because the COI edit request queue is the volunteer queue that I spend most of my time here working from. I've probably read pretty much every COI edit request that has been made on Misplaced Pages over the last 6 to 12 months and there are a small number of talk pages that I look at from time to time.
- Graywalls and I work on similar cases and sometimes we find ourselves working alongside each other, especially if material has been discussed at WP:COIN, but occasionally ending up in the same place and on the same side of an argument does not entail tagteaming. Axad12 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I was the one who suggested RfC in the first place. here, because I felt it was not a productive disagreement anymore. Leading up to the RfC, there was rough talk page consensus to include a mention pf propylene glycol, but if consensus in RfC determines that it should be left out, I have no intention of fighting it. Someone raised a concern there was only one source, so I added another source. Other than this, I've not really touched contentious parts of this article recently. I'm not sure why Axad12 removed the RfC and I can't speak for their actions, but the accusation of Tagteam is unwarranted. I've taken deferent steps to not continue to engage in back and forth edit warring and I'd like to believe that I'm approaching this the correct way. I do want to bring up concerns about Zefr's civility though. Please see User_talk:DMacks#Breyers_disruptive_editing for some concerns I raised. I also find leaving snarky comment about being a PhD student who disagreed on contents troubling Special:Diff/1261441062. @Aoidh: also felt Zefr was "weaponing" claims of edit warring to restore their "preferred version" earlier on in the dispute. Please see Special:Diff/1257252695 Graywalls (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I think you were correct to recommend an RFC. Hopefully the RFC will reach a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd just like to echo that sentiment. I'm all in favour of consensus.
- My position on this article hasn't been motivated by a partisan view on Propylene Glycol but has simply been in relation to serving the consensus position as it stood at the time. That is the approach I hope I adopt on all Misplaced Pages articles. If the consensus alters on this article (as seems likely) then I'll adopt the same approach in relation to serving the new consensus.
- My primary area of interest on this website is COI issues. I'm simply not interested in content disputes or in pushing any kind of POV on Misplaced Pages. I'm not the sort of user who flagrantly disregards a newly emerging consensus by editing contrary to the outcome of an RfC.
- I'd welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that going forwards (i.e. without an article ban). Axad12 (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The mention by Graywalls for an RfC on 27 Dec had no influence on the one existing. As an uncomplicated process, an editor truly sincere in having community input would have posed a simple objective question. Graywalls, why didn't you take 5 minutes and create the RfC question you wanted? What would have been your RfC question?
- Specifically for propylene glycol (you are still defending its use in the article by adding another garbage source yesterday - see comments about this book in the RfC):
what do you believe propylene glycol does in a frozen dessert and what would you prefer the article to say about propylene glycol? I have asked for this clarification on the talk page many times and in the DRN, but you ignored the opportunity to collaborate and clarify.
- Have you read the sources in this talk page topic?
- Your reverts in article history and combative talk page behavior over months revealed a persistent intent to disparage the Breyers article, focus on the "antifreeze" slur (mainly promoting this source), and restore a skeletal version having no sources more recent than 2018 here, after tag-teaming with Axad12 to do your bidding on 17 Nov. That version also has misinformation under the section 'Ice cream', falsely stating that Breyers changed their ice cream ingredients by using other additives, which in fact, were used to evolve a new category of frozen desserts not intended to be ice cream. I believe you know this, but you and Axad12 persisted to favor misinformation for the article.
- The RfC I provided came from steps in the lead of WP:RFC: 1) generally poor talk page progress, where one editor seeking facts verified by current sources was opposed by Graywalls, Adax12, and NutmegCoffeeTea, all defending a version including "antifreeze"; 2) an RSN post here where Graywalls argued that a web link by the Seattle PI made the Motley Fool article an RS; 3) initiate DRN for which Graywalls, Axad12, and NutmegCoffeeTea abstained from collaboration to improve the article; 4) providing a science- and law-based talk page topic on 19 Dec, which appears to be willfully ignored by Axad12 and Graywalls, who responded only with hostility and defiance against the facts; 5) seeking third opinions from admins, first by BD2412 (talk page on 29-30 Nov) and by DMacks on 27 Dec, resulting in verbose trolling by these two users. Axad12's response on 27 Dec was to revert constructive edits and tag-team with Graywalls.
- Axad12 and Graywalls should be ABANNED from the Breyers article for exhibiting 1) hostility on the talk page to good faith proposals for making the article better, and 2) persistence to perpetuate misinformation on propylene glycol. Simply, what history shows that either editor has tried to improve the Breyers article? Both users meet most of the definitions of WP:NOTHERE for the article, its talk page, and the RfC. Zefr (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Zefr, I've already indicated on several occasions that I welcome and support the developing new consensus. Graywalls has made a similar comment below. That being the case, I don't really see what purpose an article ban would be intended to serve.
- Admittedly there has been some quite heated disagreement over recent months, but it seems that we all now have the robust talkpage consensus that we were hoping for in one way or another and that all three of us are happy to move forward in support of that consensus.
- You were clearly in the minority for quite a long time and I can appreciate that you found that experience frustrating. However, to continue to make allegations above of bad faith, trolling, tagteaming, etc. about those who constituted the valid majority for several months is just an attempt to perpetuate strife on an issue which is now, as far as I can see, satisfactorily resolved. Axad12 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I think you were correct to recommend an RFC. Hopefully the RFC will reach a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Filed under: sometimes you hurt articles by treating COI editors as the enemy. The problem here is two users who should really know better edit-warring over the course of months to reinstate TikTok diet influencer silliness into a Misplaced Pages article, repeatedly reinstating WP:PROFRINGE content (implicitly, if not explicitly). We currently treat a little "avoid antifreeze" bubble in a diet book (which includes Breyers in a list of brands) and a book published by one of RFK Jr's antivax publishers as WP:DUE for including the insinuation that an FDA-approved and much-conspiratorialized additive is harmful. They've been repeatedly removed, but two editors keep putting them back, whether because of a misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS/WP:FRINGE or in pursuit of COI purification. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take your point but I think you're misjudging the situation somewhat. Prior to the opening of the current RfC it was approximately 6 or 7 users in favour of inclusion vs 3 or 4 favouring exclusion. I only reverted the attempts at exclusion because those attempts were contrary to the talk page consensus.
- I'm perfectly open to the suggestion that that consensus position was wrong but the simple fact of the matter was that there was at that time no consensus in favour of exclusion.
- It has only been in the last couple of days that the requesting editor has been able to demonstrate a consensus in favour of exclusion. And that's great, I have no problem with that at all. In fact I welcome it.
- My understanding is that editors wishing to make changes to article text should not do so if there is a consensus against what they are trying to do, and that under such circumstances an edit can be (indeed should be) reverted. If I'm mistaken on that score then I'm perfectly happy to take instruction. However, I really want to stress that my actions were based primarily upon that reasoning and were made in good faith. Axad12 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Axad12, you should not revert something because other editors want it to be reverted. You should only make content changes that you personally support. This is necessary for BRD to work. See WP:BRDREVERT for an explanation of why. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites:, the antifreeze matter is WP:DEADHORSE since I believe everyone's pretty much agreed it doesn't need to be in there. Zefr has taken issues with me, Axad12, NutMegCoffee and possibly some others. They've tried to get the article "set in place" to their preferred version, but that was declined admin Daniel Case who determined it to be content dispute Special:Diff/1260192461. Zefr inferring alleging I was
"uncooperative"not collaborating/cooperating in the way that he was hoping in DR, but I don't believe that to be so. There was nothing intentional on my part to not cooperate. I'll see if @Robert McClenon: would like to share their observation on that since they closed the dispute. - https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Breyers/Archive_2#c-Rusalkii-20240814014600-Inkian_Jason-20240801145900 here's another uninvolved editoring erring on the side of inclusion. A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus. Reading through the current plus the archived discussions, up until the RfC, the general consensus is in support of having PG mention and Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus. As I mentioned, if consensus changes with the RfC, I'm not opposed to going with that. Graywalls (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (adjusted Graywalls (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC))
- For the record, I never stated the word "uncooperative" at DRN or the Breyers talk page, but rather "non-collaborative", as discussed in the thread with Robert McClenon below.
- "Set in place to their preferred version" and "Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus" should be translated to using "facts verified by reliable sources", which is the simple goal for the Breyers article that Graywalls has obstructed over months.
- It's incredible that Graywalls says even today above, knowing the comments on the RfC and months of being presented with facts and sources about why propylene glycol is safely used in thousands of manufactured foods: "A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus."
- Here's your chance to tell everyone:
- Why do you feel propylene glycol was used in Breyers frozen desserts (in 2013, not since)? What concern do you have about it, and what government or scientific source says it's unsafe in the amounts regulated by federal laws? Give a sentence here that you think meets consensus and uses a reliable source. Zefr (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're right, you did not use that specific word. I've corrected my response due to wording. Graywalls (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
A Non-Mediator's Statement
I am not entirely sure why User:Graywalls has pinged me about this dispute, saying that I "closed this dispute". The accuracy of the statement that I "closed this dispute" depends on what is meant by "this dispute".
I closed the DRN thread, Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_252#Breyers, on 12 December. I obviously didn't resolve a dispute that has been continuing for another three weeks, and the claim that I closed the dispute looks to me like an attempt to confuse the jury. User:Zefr had opened the DRN thread on 3 December, complaining about the insertion of the word antifreeze and of the mention of propylene glycol. I was not entirely sure beyond the mention of antifreeze what the issues were. There were questions about what the procedure was for handling a one-against-many dispute; I think that Zefr was said to be the one. There was a long question that may have been about whether DRN is voluntary; DRN is voluntary. Then Zefr said that the case could be withdrawn because no one else was commenting. The disputants other than Zefr never did say exactly what the article content issues were, perhaps because they didn't want to discuss article content, and were not required to discuss article content. If anyone is implying that I resolved or settled anything, I have no idea what it was.
I see that the dispute either was continuing in other forums for three weeks, or has reopened. I see that User:Axad12 edit-warred to prevent an RFC from running, making vague but noisy statements about conflict of interest. I don't know who is said to be working for Unilever or for anyone else. It is clear that this dispute is longer on antagonism than on clarity. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon:, I pinged you, because I felt you'd be a good commentator to evaluate whether you also felt I was "not cooperative" in the process as Zefr says. I tried to participate, but it got closed shortly after I posted a comment in it. Graywalls (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Was that purposely mis-stated to be provocative and mislead the discussion here?
- I said you were non-collaborative, which describes your behavior throughout your editing history on the Breyers article, its talk page, and the DRN. You refused collaboration at DRN, which is the whole point of the process. DRN FAQ: "refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building."
- You were notified about the DRN on your talk page on 3 Dec, and you posted a general notice about it on the Breyers talk page on 6 Dec, so you were aware of the process, but ignored it. Meanwhile, your editing history over 6-12 Dec shows dozens of edits, including many on the Breyers talk page.
- You made no attempt to collaborate at DRN, posting only one off-topic comment on 12 Dec.
- I requested closure of the DRN on 12 Dec due to non-participation by you and the others. On 13 Dec, I notified the Breyers talk page of the DRN closure. cc: Robert McClenon. Zefr (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Zefr:, As been said to you by others, participation is not mandatory. Other editors are not required to and you shouldn't reasonably expect them to prioritize their real life schedule or their Misplaced Pages time on dispute that you runs on your own schedule to your DRN you started around your own schedule on your own terms. I have initially waited to give others time to comment as their time allows. I'm also not particularly fond of your berating, incivil, bad faith assuming comments directed at myself, as well as a few other editors and it's exhausting discussing with you, so I'm not feeling particularly compelled to give your matters priority in my Misplaced Pages time. Graywalls (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
A Possibly Requested Detail
Okay. If the question is specifically whether User:Graywalls was uncooperative at DRN, then I can state that they were not uncooperative and did not obstruct or disrupt DRN. Graywalls took very little part in the DRN proceeding before I closed it. They were not required to take part, although they say that they would have made a statement if the case had stayed open a little longer. The antagonism that I saw was between User:Zefr and User:Axad12, and I collapsed an exchange between them. I did not read what I am told were long previous discussions, because I expect the disputants at DRN to begin by telling me concisely what each of them wants to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Graywalls was not uncooperative at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. User:Zefr is making a slightly different statement, that User:Graywalls did not collaborate at DRN. That is correct. And I noted above that their mention that I had closed the dispute depended on what was meant by the "dispute". and looked like an attempt to confuse the jury. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon Zefr did not use the word uncooperative although did say uncollaborative and I used the two interchangeably in my ping. I did participate in it Special:Diff/1262763079. I haven't participated in DRN until that point, so I wasn't really sure how it worked. Graywalls (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The actual content that led to this dispute
Two month ago, Breyers included this shockingly bad content: As of 2014, some flavors of Breyer's ice cream contains propylene glycol as an additive. Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze and it is clear fluid made by "treating propylene with chlorinated water to form the chlorohydrin, which is then converted to the glycol, an alcohol, by treating it with a sodium carbonate solution." Propylene glycol is formulated into Breyer's fat-free and Carb Smart ice cream to make it easier to scoop.
The notion that an article about an ice cream company should include a detailed description of how a Generally recognized as safe food additive is manufactured is bizarre enough, as is the cherrypicked and glaringly misleading assertion about "antifreeze", but the reference used to support the Breyers claim was a book called Eat It to Beat It!: Banish Belly Fat-and Take Back Your Health-While Eating the Brand-Name Foods You Love! written by a quack/crank diet profiteer named David Zinczenko. I invite any editor to take a search engine look at Zinczenko's body of work, and come away with the conclusion that his writings are anything other than fringe and unreliable. Despite the glaringly obviously non-neutral and tendentious problems with this shockingly bad content, editors including most prominently Graywalls and Axad12 dug in their heels, fighting a reargard action for nearly two months, determined to make this mundane routine ice cream company look as bad as possible. Their self-justification seems to be that big bad corporations have no right whatsover to try to remove atrociously bad content about their products from Misplaced Pages, and that any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association. I am not an advocate for corporations per se, but I am an advocate for corporations being treated neutrally like all other topics, rather with disdain and contempt, which was the case here, as I see it. I do not know what the best outcome is here, but I certainly encourage these two editors to refrain from any other unjustified and poorly referenced anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- A striking and shocking aspect of this sordid situation is that two editors, Graywalls and Axad12 were able to concoct a false "consensus" supporting various versions of this garbage content. And then when another editor tried to start a RFC about the appallingly bad content, Axad12 tried over and over and over again to stop the RFC and defend the atrocious content rather than correcting it, aided and abetted by Graywalls. When the RFC actually went live, it soon became clear that many editors agreed that the content these two editors advocated for was utterly inappropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cullen,
- As per my comments above, my motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time. I did not
concoct
that consensus, at least 5 users other than me were against excluding the material. - I have never had any particularly strong opinion one way or the other on the content issue and I try as best as I can not to get involved in content disputes. I have not
dug in heels
or attempted to promote any kind of fringe opinion and nor have I engaged inanti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end
. - Similarly I do not hold the view that
any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association
, or any opinion even vaguely resembling that view. On the contrary, I have often implemented COI edit requests on behalf of corporations or have pointed out to corporate employees how such requests would need to be amended to conform with sourcing or other requirements. Repeatedly engaging in that activity would presumably make me veryevil
indeed, in my own eyes, if I held the view that you attribute to me. - I reverted the Breyer edits in good faith because there was no consensus in favour of them. If I was incorrect on a point of policy in that regard then fair enough, however please do not attempt to attribute to me sentiments which I do not harbour.
- Also, I did not attempt to stop the RfC
over and over and over again
. I removed the tag twice, then requested guidance from administrators and immediately replaced the tag when requested to do so. The tag was removed, in all, for a matter of minutes and had no meaningful impact on the progress of the RfC. I have accepted elsewhere that I now appreciate that the basis on which I removed the tag was inappropriate. I have also stated thatFrom my standpoint wasn't a process that I was familiar with - but I can see from the many excellent contributions here that this is the best way of resolving content disputes
. I have also stated that I welcome and support the new consensus. Axad12 (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , Axad12, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I
obviously dislike
Breyers or (their parent company) Unilever, or indeed that I consider either to beevil
? - To the best of my recollection, I've only ever made 3 mainspace edits to the Breyers article - each time on the stated basis in the edit summary that the edit I was reverting was contrary to consensus.
- I've re-read the extensive talk page discussions in recent days and I can only see that I ever commented on the COI angle and the nature of the consensus. Those comments were based on my understanding of policy at the time. I do not see
anti-corporate diatribes
or evidence that Iobviously dislike
Breyers or Unilever. - Indeed, I do not hold any particularly strong views on Breyers, Unilever or any other corporations. Axad12 (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I said, Axad12, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to Talk: Breyers to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- My activity on that talk page has solely been in relation to pointing out what I felt (rightly or wrongly) was a valid COI concern and observing that from Aug to Dec there has never been a consensus in favour of exclusion.
- Anything beyond that is simply you attributing motives that do not exist.
- I have never stated or implied that
a corporation does not deserve neutrality
and nor do I hold such a view. - I happily admit that I'm quite animated and enthusiastic about COI issues and reverting edits which appear to be contrary to consensus. With the benefit of hindsight probably I should have let go of those issues at an earlier stage and vacated the field for those who actually had an appetite to argue on content grounds.
- I'd also point out that for a significant part of the last 2 months I had actually unsubscribed from the relevant talkpage threads and only ended up getting involved again due to being summoned to the Dispute Resolution thread. If I had been
determined over the last two months to maintain various versions of biased non-neutral content
then hopefully it stands to reason that I would not have unsubscribed in that way - thus resulting in a situation where I was actually completely unaware of much of the talkpage and mainspace activity over the period that you refer to. Axad12 (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your
motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time
. You are also obligated to actually look at the disputed content and the sources supporting it. Why didn't you do that? Why were you unable to see what multiple editors in the RfC are commenting about? You shouldn't just blindly revert content like that, without taking a look for yourself to see if the complaint about the disputed content has any merit, like it being reliably sourced and due for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- That's a very fair question.
- The answer is that I was inclined to believe the opinions of editors much more experienced than myself who were against exclusion, particularly the editor who turned down the original COI edit request (whose work on COI edit requests I have the greatest of respect for).
- User Whatamidoing has already pointed out above that my error lay in accepting those users' opinions. I agree with Whatamidoing's observation there.
- I can only say that what I did was done in good faith based on my understanding of policy at the time. I now know where I erred (in several different ways) and I am glad to have received instruction in that regard.
- However, I really cannot accept the repeated suggestion that I vindictively masterminded a long anti-corporate campaign to keep bad material in an article. That suggestion is fundamentally not true. Axad12 (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I entirely accept that.
- For clarity, when I said
my understanding of policy at the time
I meant my understanding of policy at the time - I wasn't trying to suggest that the policy has changed since I made those edits. - What I am saying is that those edits were not made with malice, they were made because I accepted the opinions of other users more experienced than myself, opinions which I now know that I ought to have questioned. Axad12 (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I said earlier in this thread, I am 100% supportive of the new consensus in favour of excluding the previously disputed material.
- Virtually all of my time on Misplaced Pages is spent at COIN and dealing with COI edit requests. I'm not the sort of user who spends their time edit warring over POV fringe material and generally being disruptive.
- So, the last thing I would ever do is attempt to reinstall material where a very robust consensus at RfC has indicated that it should be excluded.
- I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that I can be trusted in that regard. Axad12 (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Judgement isn't about following consensus, it’s about making considered decisions. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, quite so. I have acknowledged my error in that regard in my first response to Isaidnoway, above, re: the very useful input I received from Whatamidoing. Axad12 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad, if I read what you wrote correctly, and please correct me if I misunderstand: I will stay away from that article because I support the current consensus. My concern is what if consensus was to shift on that article? TiggerJay (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies if my earlier response was unclear. My point was that I have absolutely no intention of edit warring over the previously disputed material (or any other material) so I don't see what purpose it would serve to ban me from the article.
- I have only ever made (to the best of my knowledge) 3 previous edits to the article (1 in November and 2 in December?). These were all on the basis of a misunderstanding on a point of policy which has been pointed out to me above and which I have happily acknowledged and accepted. The issue at stake was not that I harbour any partisan view in relation to the content dispute, it was that I edited to reflect the views of other editors whose opinions I respected on the matter in question.
- I do not see any reason for the community to anticipate that I would made a similar misunderstanding of policy going forwards.
- Hopefully this clarifies... Axad12 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Judgement isn't about following consensus, it’s about making considered decisions. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your
- As I said, Axad12, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to Talk: Breyers to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I
- Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , Axad12, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been expecting something to happen around User:Axad12, whom I ran into several months ago during a dispute at COIN. What I noticed back in October was that Axad12 seemed to be clerking the noticeboard, making prosecutorial noises, and sometimes unsupported accusations (ex:
...the existence of COI seems quite clear...
1,...in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest...
2,As I said, the fact that there was a significant undeclared conflict of interest in relation to editing on Paralympic Australia-related articles was demonstrated some years ago.
3) towards what they thought of as COI editors (this was about whether User:Hawkeye7 had failed to adequately announce their conflict with Paralympic Australia, where they've been openly helping as a volunteer on our community's behalf for many years, and after they had just made an almost invisible contribution on the Signpost). I often find such clerking of noticeboards by relatively unseasoned users to be troublesome; Axad12 has 490 edits at COIN, about 12% of their total 3801 edits (but about a third of the roughly 1500 edits total on COIN since September). If you use a hammer all day, you might begin to think that all objects are potentially nails. BusterD (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Rereading the discussion this morning 90 days later, it reads worse than I made it sound above. An uninvolved admin tried to close the thread and chastised Axad12 in that close. The OP asked the thread closure be reversed, so the close comments were moved down to the end of the thread. BusterD (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea for Axad12 to take a break from WP:COIN and associated matters and concentrate on other areas of Misplaced Pages for a few months. I was going to use a cliché here, but I see BusterD's already used it in the last sentence of the post before last, so won't. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only so many ways to screw in a lightbulb. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- In fairness, the overwhelming majority of my posts at COIN over the last year or so have been simple helpful contributions. The two matters discussed above were atypical and in both cases I've taken on board the advice I was given.
- If (per the figures above) I've been making about a third of all the contributions at COIN over that period then my behaviour would have been reported here long ago if I was either disruptive or incompetent.
- That said, I won't deny that I've been seriously considering retiring from Misplaced Pages over the last two months. The only reason I've not done so is because other users have specifically encouraged me to carry on because they value my work at COIN and on COI issues generally.
- All I can say is that what I have done, I have done in good faith and when I have occasionally erred I have learned lessons. I have acknowledged above that I've made mistakes and I'm grateful to those who have given me advice. Axad12 (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've been reported here now. Over stuff that's current, and applicable. In that matter, you seemed to believe your expertise in COI matters allows you to decide what constitutes a valid RFC. That seems like a problem to me. I'm providing evidence on related behavioral matters. Having made one third of all recent edits on a noticeboard is not the high achievement you might think it is. Stay or retire, but learn to better assume good faith here, even when dealing with COI contributors. Most accounts are fine. You've been working in a narrow area where you deal with many bad faith users. I can understand why that might wear on any editor. The proof will be if you can incorporate these valid complaints into your future action. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Buster, I know that we've had crossed words in the past so I'm grateful for your understanding and your measured response above. Yes, I deal with many bad faith users and yes it does wear on me sometimes.
- I don't claim any great expertise in COI matters but I do have the time to dedicate to the project and I've picked up a decent awareness of the methods that can be used to detect and prevent UPE/PROMO etc activity.
- I believe that in the past when I've been given advice on points of policy I've taken that advice on board and would hope to continue to do so in the future. Axad12 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This comment is not about you, but you might be interested in it: I've been thinking for years that a rotating duty system might be helpful. Of course we're all WP:VOLUNTEERS, but we might be less stressed, and get more representative results, if we each spent a week at ANI and a month at RSN and a week at CCI each year than if one editor spends all year at ANI and another spends all year at RSN (and nobody is at CCI – anyone who is looking for an opportunity to deal with really serious problems should please consider spending some time at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations. The few regulars there will be so grateful, and who knows? You might find that you like it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've been reported here now. Over stuff that's current, and applicable. In that matter, you seemed to believe your expertise in COI matters allows you to decide what constitutes a valid RFC. That seems like a problem to me. I'm providing evidence on related behavioral matters. Having made one third of all recent edits on a noticeboard is not the high achievement you might think it is. Stay or retire, but learn to better assume good faith here, even when dealing with COI contributors. Most accounts are fine. You've been working in a narrow area where you deal with many bad faith users. I can understand why that might wear on any editor. The proof will be if you can incorporate these valid complaints into your future action. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only so many ways to screw in a lightbulb. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea for Axad12 to take a break from WP:COIN and associated matters and concentrate on other areas of Misplaced Pages for a few months. I was going to use a cliché here, but I see BusterD's already used it in the last sentence of the post before last, so won't. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rereading the discussion this morning 90 days later, it reads worse than I made it sound above. An uninvolved admin tried to close the thread and chastised Axad12 in that close. The OP asked the thread closure be reversed, so the close comments were moved down to the end of the thread. BusterD (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do think that it's worth zooming out and looking at the article as a whole. Comparing the version from before the current rewrites started to the current version makes it obvious that the tone of the article has become vastly more promotional, with much more focus on glowy feel-good aspects that are only mentioned in lower-quality sources (the story about the original creator hand-churning it?) And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) to the weird
In 2013, Breyers introduced frozen desserts made with food additives (section above) that were intended to create smooth, low-calorie products. However, the new desserts evoked complaints by some consumers who were accustomed to the traditional "all-natural" Breyers ice cream.
, which 100% reads like marketing-speak (downplaying the reaction by making it sound like it's just that people loved the old version so much. In fact, the current version doesn't mention Breyer's cost-cutting measures at all, even though it's a massive aspect of coverage.) That doesn't necessarily justify the version above, but it's important to remember that this was originally a one-word mention in a larger list -Following similar practices by several of their competitors, Breyers' list of ingredients has expanded to include thickeners, low-cost sweeteners, food coloring and low-cost additives — including natural additives such as tara gum and carob bean gum; artificial additives such as maltodextrin and propylene glycol; and common artificially separated and extracted ingredients such as corn syrup, whey, and others
, the longstanding wording, is not unreasonable and doesn't really imply that there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol, just that it's an additive. I think the context of that larger shift to a much more promotional tone to the article is significant (and looking over talk, most of the actual dispute has focused on that.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- I agree that the longstanding wording doesn't really imply there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol. But the source being used doesn't even mention "maltodextrin and propylene glycol", that I can find, so those two particular additives were not even verifiable at the time. And then propylene glycol was removed, and when it was added back here as "a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze", was really when this dispute seem to take a turn for the worse to keep this content in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aquillion, about this And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) – I don't know what other sources say, but the cited sources don't say that at all. The cited sources are both from Canadian dairy farmers' marketing associations, saying that their product is good and costs more than imported oils, but doesn't actually WP:Directly support a claim that Breyers uses imported oils, or that Breyers has done anything to cut their costs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- (As this is strictly a question of content, please consider replying at Talk:Breyers instead of here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aquillion, WhatamIdoing, and Isaidnoway: would you all mind if I copy over the thread, starting at Aquillion's "I do think that...." over to Breyer's talk? Graywalls (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't mind, but my contribution to this thread is relatively minor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aquillion, WhatamIdoing, and Isaidnoway: would you all mind if I copy over the thread, starting at Aquillion's "I do think that...." over to Breyer's talk? Graywalls (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- (As this is strictly a question of content, please consider replying at Talk:Breyers instead of here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aquillion, about this And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) – I don't know what other sources say, but the cited sources don't say that at all. The cited sources are both from Canadian dairy farmers' marketing associations, saying that their product is good and costs more than imported oils, but doesn't actually WP:Directly support a claim that Breyers uses imported oils, or that Breyers has done anything to cut their costs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that the longstanding wording doesn't really imply there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol. But the source being used doesn't even mention "maltodextrin and propylene glycol", that I can find, so those two particular additives were not even verifiable at the time. And then propylene glycol was removed, and when it was added back here as "a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze", was really when this dispute seem to take a turn for the worse to keep this content in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, and a Diddly Question
I would like to thank User:Cullen328 for providing the background and content information. I also have a possibly minor question for User:Axad12. They edit-warred to try to stop the RFC on the content, and said that there was an exceptionally serious abuse
of the conflict of interest process. I may not have done enough background research, but I don't see where they have identified who has been the paid editor or undisclosed paid editor, or what the conflict of interest content is. If there has been paid editing, who has done it, and have they been dealt with? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert, probably the best single overview of the COI issue is given in this post .
- My impression at the time of the events, and subsequently, was that the activity was designed to distort the COI edit request process. I still feel that what happened re: the COI edit requests was irregular but I note that no other user seems to have supported me in that regard so I've not taken the matter any further. Similarly, while I felt that those events had a bearing on the RfC I now accept that the RfC relates solely to the content matter specifically under discussion. Axad12 (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find your characterization of events inaccurate. You stated "we have the resubmission of the request to remove the disputed material in a COI edit request thread here "
- But this was not a resubmission. The original COI request was to remove a list of ingredients (including propylene glycol) which was sourced to a blog and which the COI editor says is outdated and doesn't reflect current ingredients. Meanwhile, the link you give as an example of "resubmission" was the COI editor requesting the removal of "the recent content addition related to propylene glycol". Both requests involve propylene glycol, but they are clearly separate requests concerning separate content.
- We want COI editors to propose changes to talk pages. The fact that this COI editor, apparently frustrated by a lack of responses to their requests went to the Food and Drink Wikiproject to request someone look at their edits, and then went to an active participant of said Wikiproject and requested they look at their requests, is not suspicious or abnormal. And I think it's highly inappropriate how Axad12 argued at length on the talk page that User:Zefr was "cultivated" by the COI editor "to do their bidding". I support other editors in recommending Axad12 take a break from COI issues. Photos of Japan (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd just like to stress here that I only linked to my post above because Robert McClenon asked for the background to the COI element. I was not trying to re-open that issue or to request that any action be taken on that issue. I have already accepted that there is absolutely no support for the position I adopted there. Axad12 (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't answer my question. The link is to a conversation between User:Axad12, User:Graywalls, and administrator User:DMacks. The links from that conversation show that there is antagonism between Axad12 and Graywalls on the one hand and User:Zefr on the other hand. They show that there is discussion of conflict of interest, but they show no direct evidence of conflict of interest editing by any editor. They don't answer who is said to be a paid editor making edit requests, aside from the fact that paid editors are supposed to make edit requests rather than editing directly, so I am still not sure what the issue is. I haven't seen any evidence of abuse, let alone of
exceptionally serious abuse
that warranted edit-warring to prevent an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- The paid editor is User:Inkian Jason who is open and transparent about their COI. The edit request which began this episode was when Inkian Jason began this discussion where they pinged User:Zefr about having uploaded a photo of the company's logo and asking if they would be willing to add it to the article. Secondary to that they also asked about the appropriateness of the recently added propylene glycol content. The COI issues centered around whether Inkian Jason "cultivated" Zefr by pinging him to remove the added propylene glycol text after they had previously requested the deletion of a sentence about the various ingredients used in the ice cream (which included propylene glycol). Photos of Japan (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal 2: Article Ban of Axad12 from Breyers
NOT IMPLEMENTED Axax12 has voluntarily agreed to avoid editing Breyers. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Proposal 1 has been lost up in the early postings.) I propose that User:Axad12 be article-banned from Breyers and Talk:Breyers for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert, I believe I have acknowledged and accepted my various errors in some detail above. I would be grateful for the opportunity to take on board and apply the very valuable input I have received from various more experienced users over the course of this thread. I'd therefore suggest a counter-proposal, that I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr and refrain from making any future comment on the matters under discussion in this thread (once this thread is complete). In addition, if I go back on any of those voluntary undertakings I would be happy for it to be upon pain of an indefinite site ban. Axad12 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad12, I wonder what your intent is with your counterproposal. Robert McClenon has proposed an article ban for 6 months. Your counterproposal is, in effect, an indefinite article ban, an I-ban with Zefr, and a topic ban on the topic of propylene glycol in Byers, all without the usual escalating blocks for violations, instead jumping straight to an indef. While this would solve the issue, it's much more draconian. What's your reasoning for requesting harsher restrictions? EducatedRedneck (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The purpose of the counter proposal was simply to indicate that I have only good intentions going forwards and I am happy to demonstrate those intentions upon pain of the strongest possible sanction. Evidently I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking, as I'm aware that eyes will understandably be upon me going forwards.
- As I've said before, I'm a good faith user and I'm amenable to taking instruction when I have erred. I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that without being subject to a formal ban. Axad12 (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fail to see a distinction between what you proposed and a formal ban. Your proposal is on
pain of an indefinite site ban
. "A rose by any other name" comes to mind here. Your voluntary adherence to the terms of the proposal would be indistinguishable from being compelled into adherence by threat of an indef. If you still want this course of action, fair enough, I just don't think it'll do what you're envisioning. EducatedRedneck (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fail to see a distinction between what you proposed and a formal ban. Your proposal is on
- I really don't recommend that, Axad. Sure, take a break from that article if you want to. But it's really easy to forget about a dispute years later, or even for a company to change names and suddenly you're on that article without knowing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- For clarification, I would be happy to undertake voluntarily any measures that the community may suggest and upon pain of any sanction that the community may suggest. I believe that there is value to undertaking such measures voluntarily because it allows one to demonstrate that one can be trusted.
- Also just a brief note to say that in about an hour and a quarter's time I will have no internet access for the next 12-14 hours. Any lack of response during that period will simply be for that reason and not due to a wilful refusal to communicate. Hopefully I have indicated above that I have been happy to respond to all questions.
- No doubt matters will progress in my absence and I will find out my fate upon my return. Axad12 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad12, I wonder what your intent is with your counterproposal. Robert McClenon has proposed an article ban for 6 months. Your counterproposal is, in effect, an indefinite article ban, an I-ban with Zefr, and a topic ban on the topic of propylene glycol in Byers, all without the usual escalating blocks for violations, instead jumping straight to an indef. While this would solve the issue, it's much more draconian. What's your reasoning for requesting harsher restrictions? EducatedRedneck (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert, I believe I have acknowledged and accepted my various errors in some detail above. I would be grateful for the opportunity to take on board and apply the very valuable input I have received from various more experienced users over the course of this thread. I'd therefore suggest a counter-proposal, that I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr and refrain from making any future comment on the matters under discussion in this thread (once this thread is complete). In addition, if I go back on any of those voluntary undertakings I would be happy for it to be upon pain of an indefinite site ban. Axad12 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as less stringent than what Axad has proposed above within this section, but still prevents further disruption. EducatedRedneck (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose because Axad12 seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. Cullen328 (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. I also oppose Axad12's counter proposal. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Given Cullen328's comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. I just don't see a need for such strict measures. Photos of Japan (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose the formal sanction, but I do support Axad12s voluntary sanction =
I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr ... I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking
. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN
NOT IMPLEMENTED Axad12 seems to have agreed to step back from COIN, and there isn't consensus for this. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clerking at COIN seems to have given User:Axad12 the idea that everyone whom they don't know is probably a paid editor, and something has given them the idea that they can identify "exceptionally serious abuse" without providing direct evidence. I propose that User:Axad12 be article-banned from WP:COIN for two months. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert, just a brief note to say that I do not believe that
everyone whom don't know is probably a paid editor
. The overwhelming majority of my contributions at COIN are simple constructive contributions and the matter described above is highly atypical. Axad12 (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert, just a brief note to say that I do not believe that
- Oppose because Axad12 seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. Cullen328 (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Given Cullen328's comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would prefer it if Axad12's voluntary commitment was to stay away from WP:COIN rather than the company article in particular. It is very unhealthy, both for Misplaced Pages and for the particular user, for anything like a third of the edits on any noticeboard to be from any one user. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support this is a good idea, and not vindictive. It will do Axad12 some good to get away from the COIN for awhile, and get out there and roam around Misplaced Pages and see where else they can contribute constructively. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think a formal ban is unnecessary. Axad has done a remarkably good job of articulating a positive response to this incident, and it's to his credit that he has reacted so constructively under such pressure.
- I also think it's good for everyone to try something different on occasion. I think it's easier to walk away for a bit if you're sure that others will step up to fill your place. So with such proposals (not just this one), I'd love to see people saying not only that they support giving someone a break, but also that they'll try to step up to help out in that page/process/noticeboard for the length of a ban. It could be as little as checking in once a week or answering the easy questions. Who is willing to actually be supportive in practice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- People will fill the space. WP:COIN managed before Axad12 showed up, and will manage if they stop editing there. Nobody is indispensible. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's only for two months, it's a good thing to get away and get a breath of fresh air, and yes, his response has been positive, but even he admits in the Breyer debacle, he was relying on other editor's opinions in evaluating the disputed content, so getting away from the COIN desk for a couple of months, and getting some experience in other areas of the encyclopedia will be beneficial, if and when, he returns to COIN. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t want to derail the voting process here, but a couple of points in relation to COIN…
- (Apologies for the length of this post but I feel the contents are relevant.)
- 1) It has been observed elsewhere that “COIN has no teeth” (forgive me for the absence of a diff but I think it's a commonly acknowledged idea). I've discussed that issue at some length with Star Mississippi and they've acknowledged that there is (in their opinion) insufficient admin oversight at COIN and that too many threads have historically gone unresolved without action being taken against promo-only accounts (etc).
- Star Mississippi has encouraged me to refer such cases to admins directly to ask them to intervene. I’ve been doing so over recent months and this has significantly improved positive resolutions on COIN threads.
- If I’m not active at COIN then that won’t be happening and very little action will be being taken against the promo only accounts reported there. Thus, while I acknowledge Whatamidoing’s earlier point about cross-training etc, and the points made by other users, there is an underlying unresolved issue re: admin oversight at COIN, which might also be resolved via some kind of rota or by a greater number of admins looking in from time to time.
- I’ve not consciously been clerking, and I certainly don’t aspire to be “the co-ordinator of COIN”, but there is something of a vacuum there. Consequently I’ve often posted along the lines of “Maybe refer this to RPPI?”, “Is there a notability issue here?”, etc. etc. in response to threads that have been opened.
- I absolutely accept 100% that, in terms of experience, I’m probably not the best person to be doing that – but I have the time to do it and I have the inclination, and in the absence of anybody else serving that role I’ve been happy to do it. But, as I say, really this is an underlying unresolved issue of others not having the time or inclination rather than an issue of me going out of my way to dominate. What I'd really like is if there were others sharing that task.
- 2) Also I'm not really sure that the extent to which I perform that sort of role has any real link to me making assumptions about whether COI users have good or bad faith motivations. On the latter distinction I think it's fair to say that I'm usually (but admittedly not always) correct. There have also been occasions when others have been asking for action to be taken and I've been the voice who said "no, I think this is a good faith user who just needs some guidance on policy". I hope that I'm normally speaking fair in that regard.
- Most of the accounts who are taken to COIN are recent accounts who wrongly believe that Misplaced Pages is an extension of their social media. Most accounts who fall into that category are advised along those lines and they comply with policy or, sometimes, they just go away. Then there are the repeat customers who are often clearly operating in bad faith and where firmer action needs to be taken. I'm conscious of that distinction, which seems to me to be the single most important point when dealing with COIN cases. I've not been adopting some kind of hardline one-size-fits-all approach or characterising all COI activity as bad per se. However, more admin oversight at COIN would certainly be appreciated, if only so that there were a wider range of voices.
- Thus, in an ideal world I think I would continue to be allowed to operate at COIN, but as one of several regular contributors.
- Apologies for the length of this post but hopefully this is a useful and relevant contribution. Please feel free to hat this post if it is considered wildly off-topic. Axad12 (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This comment just reinforces my support position that a two-month break is a good idea. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Isaidnoway, all I can say is that if Misplaced Pages is looking for people with the time and motivation to dedicate to the project, and who are amenable to taking instruction, then here I am.
- If I’ve been felt to be overly keen to contribute in a particular area then fair enough. I’m just not sure that a formal ban is the way to go about resolving that. Axad12 (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good grief, it's only two months, not a lifetime, I've taken breaks form the project longer than that, and guess what, the place didn't fall apart, and neither will COIN if you take a small break, formally or voluntarily. You claim -
If I’m not active at COIN then that won’t be happening and very little action will be being taken against the promo only accounts reported there.
I just don't believe that to be true, because as Phil Bridger points out - WP:COIN managed before Axad12 showed up, and will manage if they stop editing there. Nobody is indispensable. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- I really don't wish to argue, you've expressed your view and that's fine. However, the point of my long post above wasn't that "I am critical to COIN". The post was simply intended to highlight the fact that there are very few regular contributors at COIN and to express a hope that a wider range of contributors might get involved (following on from earlier related comments by Whatamidoing). That would be healthy all round, regardless of my situation.
- Also, when I've seen similar situations arise in the past, good faith (but over-active) users seem to usually be given the opportunity to voluntarily take steps to allay any community concerns, rather than being handed a formal ban. I'd just be grateful for a similar opportunity. Axad12 (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good grief, it's only two months, not a lifetime, I've taken breaks form the project longer than that, and guess what, the place didn't fall apart, and neither will COIN if you take a small break, formally or voluntarily. You claim -
- Apologies for the delay. I cannot provide a diff either as I can't recall where we had the conversation but acknowledging that what @Axad12 attributed to me is correct. There are simple blocks that are sometimes needed, but there aren't as many eyes on COIN to action them. I believe I've found merit to any Axad reported directly to me and if there were any I didn't take action, it was due to bandwidth as my on wiki time has been somewhat limited over the last six months. As for the merit of this report, I am not able to read through it to assess the issue so it would not be fair of me to weigh in on any element thereof. Star Mississippi 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This comment just reinforces my support position that a two-month break is a good idea. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I have read through this long, entire discussion. I'd just like to point out to Axad12 that, to me, it's kind of like you are saying what you think we want to hear so it's hard to know how reflective this incident has caused you to be. I think it would be a mistake for you to think you only made mistakes regarding this one article and instead reconsider your approach to the entire COI area. Sometimes "the consensus" is not correct and can violate higher principles like NPOV and V.
- I'll just mention that the COI area has caused us to lose some invaluable editors, just superb and masterful editors who were on their way to becoming administrators. They devoted incredible amounts of time to this project. But their interest in rooting out COI and pursuing UPE caused them to completely lose perspective and think that they were a one-man/woman army and they took irresponsible shortcuts that led them to either leave the project voluntarily or be indefinitely blocked. It's like they fell down a rabbit hole where they began to think that the rules didn't apply to them because they had a "higher calling" of getting rid of COI. This lack of perspective caused us to lose some amazing editors, unfortunately, but ultimately they were damaging the project.
- You seem like an enthusiastic editor and I'd rather not see the same thing happen to you so I recommend you cut back on your time "clerking" COIN and just make this task one of a variety of areas you edit in instead of your primary activity. Liz 08:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Liz, thank you for your comments. I welcome your perspective and I'm not unaware of the dangers that you highlight.
- I think this is now day 5 of what has been a rather gruelling examination where I’ve co-operated to the very best of my ability. Most of the material under discussion has related to a series of regrettable misunderstandings where I’ve openly acknowledged my errors and would now like to move on.
- Therefore I’d be grateful if, following a period of reflection, I be given the latitude to continue my activities as I think best, taking on board all the very helpful advice that I’ve received from multiple users. At this moment in time I'm not sure exactly what that will look like going forwards, but it will involve a very significant (perhaps complete) reduction in my concentration on COI issues and much more time spent on improving articles in non-COI areas where I've previously contributed productively (e.g. detailed articles on specific chess openings).
- If I subsequently fall short of community expectations then by all means bring me back here with a view to imposing extreme sanctions. I do not think that that will end up being necessary.
- I have only the best of intentions but I must admit that I'm finding this prolonged process psychologically wearing. I therefore wondered if we might bring matters to a swift conclusion.
- I am genuinely very grateful for the thoughts of all who have contributed above.
- Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, all: This thread's over 100 comments now. Can we please stop now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seconding. Axad seems to have agreed to step back from COI-related editing for a while, all discussions are trending strongly towards no formal sanctions - could this be closed? Rusalkii (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, all: This thread's over 100 comments now. Can we please stop now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sanctions are intended to be preventive, not punitive. At times Axad12 can get too aggressive, and removing the RfC template was one of that. Other issues were also raised but unless these issues continues, formal sanctions are unlikely necessary. Graywalls (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I haven't gone through the entire saga on the Breyers page, but for a while I was active in COI edit requests at the same time Axad12 was, and noticed their conistently very combatitive/aggressive approach towards any editor with a declared or suspected COI. I mentioned this to them and they said they had already stepped back from answering COI edit requests because of this, which I though at the time (and still do) showed a genuinely impressive amount of self-awareness. I rather burned out on the edit requests and came back a few months later to see the queue vastly decreased thanks in part ot Axad12's efforts, but also what seemed to me like very little improvement, if any, to the way they approach COI editors. I would regret to see Axad12 banned from this topic area, but I would like to see them approach it with somewhat more kindness. I would (regretfully) support sanctions if this kind of behaviour continued, but there's no need to jump to that now. Rusalkii (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just a note to acknowledge the essential truth of Rusalkii's description above of my activities. There have, however, also been examples where I've shown considerable kindness and patience to COI editors and assisted them in re-formulating requests in a way that conforms with the relevant policies.
- I've always seen activities at WP:COIN and activities dealing with COI edit requests as two rather different things (with the former involving primarily undeclared COI, and the latter involving declared COI). With the benefit of hindsight I accept that my exposure to the former probably coloured my approach to the latter in an unhelpful way and that being heavily active in both spheres simultaneously was not a good idea.
- I would happily undertake never to deal with a COI edit request ever again and I have no particular desire to continue my activities at COIN either. The extent to which it was unhealthy to be operating in both areas is thus now effectively a moot point but I acknowledge that it was a factor in the matters under discussion here. Axad12 (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
MAB Teahouse talk
I didn't want to, but I one-hour protected the talk page of the Teahouse due to MAB going there. The Teahouse itself is already protected. Obviously they're going there precisely to make things as difficult on us as possible, but I don't know what else to do. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to create a link (or button) that creates a new section on one's own talk page with {{Help me}} preloaded? We could then add this to the page's editnotice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I protected Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I've fixed that. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I protected Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks like today they're hitting every help page they can find. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- In relation to "MAB" issues, is it just me, or is anyone else reminded of when the notoriously difficult Queen Mab speech was pretty much hit out of park in 1997's Romeo + Juliet? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 12:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's just you. Liz 06:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- In relation to "MAB" issues, is it just me, or is anyone else reminded of when the notoriously difficult Queen Mab speech was pretty much hit out of park in 1997's Romeo + Juliet? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 12:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Kosem Sultan - warring edit
Hello, I am terribly sorry if I write this in wrong place, but I really don't know what place would be best to report this.
I was editing page of Kösem Sultan and I noticed this user: 109.228.104.136 changed phrase in infobox "spouse: Ahmed I" into "consort of: Ahmed I", claiming 'they were never married'. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=K%C3%B6sem_Sultan&oldid=1263148667
Because of this, I added information they were married and sourced this with book. However, this person keep revert to their preffered version of infobox. I asked them on Talk page about providing source. When I pointed that their source not disputes or even misinnterprets mine, they deleted my talk. They did this twice and even claimed I 'vandalized' Kosem's page.
As inexperienced user I was few times into edit warring, as I did not know how exactly rules are there.I try to be careful now to not make disruptions and while there is instruction to undo undsourced informations, I am not sure if I am allowed to undo their - unsourced - edition, as I already did this few times. I would not label changing 'spouse' for 'consort of' as vandalism per say, but I want to protect my edition and I wish this person provided source so we could each consensus. You can see our - now deleted by them - discussion here: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267744138#Kosem_Sultan_was_wife_of_Ahmed_I. 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267749540#Kosem_was_wife_of_Ahmed (I do not know if I linked this correctly, but both shound be find in history of talk page of user with today date)
I hope it can be seen I was willing to discuss things and I even proposed to merge ours versions, if only this person provide scholar source - which they didn't, as Tik Tok video they linked contardicts statement from my book (see details in discussions). I also want to add that blocked user called Cecac https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:K%C3%B6sem_Sultan#Marriage used exactly the same argument, as historian in Tik Tok provided by 109.228.104.136. I do not know if 109.228.104.136 and Cecac are the same person, but I think it should be checked. Finally, I do not know how much video made on Tik Tok should be considered as reliable source, so I am not sure how to act in this situation.
Again I apologize if I leave this message in wrong board - there were multiple issues so I decided to list them all. Please notify me if I am allowed edit Kosem's page and brought back informations, as I really want avoid going back-and-forth and do not want to be blocked myself. --Sobek2000 (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I want to add that I informed user 109.228.104.136 about this reprt, however they delete this from their Talk page. Sobek2000 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will point out that consort is generally considered synonymous with the word spouse. Elizabeth I's mother, for example was officially the "queen consort" of the united kingdom. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed, but in this person's inention was to make Kosem be perceived as not wife, but concubine. While I do agree that all wife of monarch is also his consort, this person meant 'concubine' and I was afraid they gonna delete also other parts, when I was reffering to Kosem as sultan's wife, hence I inetrvened. English for some reason reffer to all sulatns partners as 'consorts' regardless if they are married or not, that's why it's important to highlight when consort was actually wife, like in Kosem's case. Sobek2000 (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will point out that consort is generally considered synonymous with the word spouse. Elizabeth I's mother, for example was officially the "queen consort" of the united kingdom. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry in Philippine articles
Page protected. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request an immediate and extended range block for 49.145.5.109 (talk · contribs), a certified sock of LTA Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaysmay15 from editing 2025 in the Philippines and other related pages pending a result of a protection request, the second to have been filed for that page after the first instance of sockpuppetry by the same account was deemed not serious enough. See also Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Yaysmay15. Borgenland (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems like this should be reported at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaysmay15, not at ANI. That's where the checkusers are at although they are generally reluctant to connect an IP account with a blocked sockpuppet. Liz 04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is already confirmed in the SPI. However, as it is an IP account that can't be indeffed, I'd had to check my calendar too often to see when their existing block expires. 15:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Borgenland (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that 2025 in the Philippines has been protected for the rest of the year, this probably isn't necessary. Also, worth noting that as p-blocks are limited to ten pages, we'd need to remove one from the block to add the 2025 page. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Wigglebuy579579
- Wigglebuy579579 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps engaging in disruptive editing behaviour:
- they created dozens of articles by copy-pasting AI-generated text;
- they ignored all warnings onto their talk page;
- they duplicated draftified articles by simply recreating them.
Miminity and I have been cleaning the mess for hours, warned him several times, but he just ignores everything and starts again. – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would support indefinitely blocking this user. Their output is entirely low quality AI-generated slop, and they are contributing nothing of value to the encyclopedia while placing considerable burden on others. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Est. 2021, can you provide some examples so we don't have to search through their contributions? Thank you. Liz 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some pertinent examples Draft:Toda_Religion/2 (moved to mainspace by Wiggle and then back to draftspace) and Draft:Indigenous religions of India (exactly the same scenario as previous). These are all obviously AI generated based on their formatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: Examples include:
- among others. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: This editor left a message on my talkpage and again it is clearly written by AI. Here's the link Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some pertinent examples Draft:Toda_Religion/2 (moved to mainspace by Wiggle and then back to draftspace) and Draft:Indigenous religions of India (exactly the same scenario as previous). These are all obviously AI generated based on their formatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are any of the references in Draft:Pfütsana Religion/2 real or are they all hallucinations? I'm having trouble finding them on web searches. They're also suspiciously old even though there is more recent relevant literature. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Misplaced Pages:Large language models essay recommends G3 for articles for which text-source integrity is completely lacking. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rsjaffe: Using BookFinder.com, Citation #1, #3 (might be a dupref of 1) does exist but has different author, Citation #2 does exist and is correct. #4 is dupref of #2. A quoted google search and a google scholar search about #5, 8, 9, 11 (The journals does not seem to even exist) yields no result. No result for 6, 7, 9, 10 (Nagaland State Press does not seems to even exist) 12 Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to hear from @Wigglebuy579579, but, if the results of the reference searches on the other drafts are like this, then all those drafts should be deleted as unverifiable. LLM output can look very correct while hiding significant falsehoods, and it will be impossible to sort fact from fiction in those articles if they haven't been validated word-for-word with real sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Click all the link on the Draft:Toda Religion/2, all of them are {{failed verification}}. Either the page does not exist or the website itself does not exist. The JSTOR sources leads to a completely unrelated article. I think by the looks of it, this draft is safe to delete
- @Wigglebuy579579: care to explain? Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to hear from @Wigglebuy579579, but, if the results of the reference searches on the other drafts are like this, then all those drafts should be deleted as unverifiable. LLM output can look very correct while hiding significant falsehoods, and it will be impossible to sort fact from fiction in those articles if they haven't been validated word-for-word with real sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rsjaffe: more ref-checking at Draft:Pfütsana: as Miminity observes, The Angami Nagas: With Some Notes on Neighbouring Tribes exists (although with the BrE spelling of the title) and I accessed it at archive.org. It does not mention pfütsana anywhere in its 570 pages. The closest we get is pfuchatsuma, which is a clan mentioned in a list of sub-clans of the Anagmi. The draft says
The term Pfütsana is derived from the Angami language, where "Pfü" translates to "life" or "spirit,"
which is contrary to what The Angami Nagas says – pfü is a suffix functioning sort of similarly to a pronoun (and I think I know how the LLM hallucinated the meaning "spirit" but this is getting too long already). I looked at a couple of the sources for Draft:Indigenous religions of India as well, and I haven't been able to find a single instance where the source verifies the claims in the draft. --bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Thanks for checking. Those are now deleted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Est. 2021 and Miminity, thanks for supplying examples that can be reviewed. Liz 04:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have deleted Draft:Pfütsana Religion/2 and Draft:Toda Religion/2 as they have falsified references. Checking the others would be appreciated. Also, editor has been warned on their page about inserting unsubstantiated demographic data in articles. User talk:Wigglebuy579579#January 2025. I think we’re running out of WP:ROPE here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rsjaffe: Draft:Sekrenyi Festival: J.H. Hutton's The Angami Nagas (1921) doesn't mention any such festival, but talks about a sekrengi ritual which includes the "purification" elements described in the draft. But that's as close as it gets. The rest of the ritual described in the draft is very different from the festival described in the book (let's just say that it is not something that would attract tourists like the draft claims), and the etymology is sheer nonsense. So again I believe it is an LLM that, like the proverbial blind chicken, has found a seed and then, like the same chicken but without a head, is running in confused circles around it.
- It also amuses me a bit that a book from 1922 is used to support a statement about how the festival is a popular symbol of the culture today. (FTR, publications from the era of the British Raj should never be used to support claims about ethnic/tribal/caste related topics, though that is a bit tangential to the issue here.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have deleted Draft:Pfütsana Religion/2 and Draft:Toda Religion/2 as they have falsified references. Checking the others would be appreciated. Also, editor has been warned on their page about inserting unsubstantiated demographic data in articles. User talk:Wigglebuy579579#January 2025. I think we’re running out of WP:ROPE here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a pity that the editor has not engaged with this discussion. The areas they're editing in could use more work, and I get the impression that they are here to improve the encyclopedia. However, the way in which they're going about it needs reform, and if they don't explicitly commit to reform, I am inclined to block this editor for the overreliance on LLMs and the careless inclusion of incorrect and false references. What do others think? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest a topic ban on creating article as the editor seems to have okay-ish mainspace edits. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I came across their edits several days ago, when a link they provided (with an archive link) didn't exist, even when I substituted ".in" for the correct website domain of ".com", so I've got no idea where they got those links from in the first place?
- They've responded to my talk page warning, but after going back to edit the exact same article they haven't fixed/reinstated the source so I'm now a little concerned that it came from AI & the user didn't find it themselves. They've done a lot of work on this article so I'm hoping it's just a one-off, but thought I'd best mention it.
- Their previous edit had the summary "Fixed errors" and removed almost a dozen sources/links. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is very concerning. And the user is still editing and not responding to this discussion. Blocked from article space and draft space and reinvited to come here to discuss. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
User:BittersweetParadox - Overlinking
Not a problem; request rejectedThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- BittersweetParadox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user is persistently MOS:OVERLINKing throughout most of their edits that aren't dealing with categories or redirects, see for example:
I have also recently warned the user on their talk page regarding this, but they have seemingly chosen to ignore that warning, as they are still continuing with the same behavior:
This is also not the first time the issue has been brought up to the user, as they were previously warned in July 2024, where even after claiming to understand the issue/say they won't do it again, continued the same behavior. With their ignoring of warnings regarding overlinking, it unfortunately appears that an ANI discussion may be the only way to solve this ongoing issue, apart from a block. Magitroopa (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Overlinking still continuing on despite this ANI (for example), and even with an administrator suggesting they not ignore this ANI, continues on with their edits/ignoring this ANI. The user is not appearing to want to WP:COMMUNICATE whatsoever, and some of their communication over issues in the past does not bode well as well ().
- They are adding many uses of Template:Baseball year, despite the usage instructions saying that the template should not be used in prose text. I really am not sure what more there is to do here, as any attempts at communicating with the user does virtually nothing. Magitroopa (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BittersweetParadox: It's rather insulting to state you'll comment here and then continue to overlink . Please stop editing like this until you can address the above concerns. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: Apologies for the ping, but could there please be some assistance here?... As BX stated above, despite their only communication thus far since this ANI (being a simple, "ok"), they have still continued overlinking- now overlinking even more since BX's comment above: . I'm really not sure what more there is that can be done here apart from a block, as it appears this is just going to continue on, no matter what anyone says here or on their talk page. Magitroopa (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Several of the diffs you give are positive changes, and your inappropriate reverts have caused articles to be underlinked. Leave BittersweetParadox alone. If you insist that he be sanctioned for the negative edits, you'll get some as well. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Automatic editing, abusive behaviour, and disruptive(ish) wikihounding from User:KMaster888
(non-admin closure) While KMaster888's editing history (the original discussion) wasn't inherently bad in itself, their conduct after being questioned about it was bad, violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:SUMMARYNO, and WP:NPA See , , , , , , , , , and their comments on this thread. Indeffed by Cullen328, and TPA revoked after , another personal attack. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:KMaster888 appears to be making lightning speed edits that are well beyond the capacity of any human to review, in addition to article content that's coming across potentially LLM-like in nature. Since December they've made over 11,000 edits, many across multiple articles within a sixty second window.
I attempted to ask about the policies around this at User_talk:Novem_Linguae and was met with a tirade of obscenities and abuse (which I want to give them a slight benefit of the doubt on, I'd be upset at being accused of being a bot if I wasn't):
As far as I can tell this peaked with a total of 89 edits in a four minute window between 08:27 to 08:31 on December 28, 2024. Most are innocuous, but there are content edits thrown in the mix and recent articles were written in a way that indicates it may be an LLM (diff not definitive, though if you are familiar with LLM output this may ring some alarm bells, but false alarms abound).
Following the quite hot thread at User:Novem Linguae's page, it's quite clear that whoever is operating that bot threw my entire edit history into the mix, because the bot systematically edited every single article that I had edited, in reverse order (over 100 so far since this came up about an couple of hours ago), going back a reasonable amount of time.
The problem is that it's clear that a bot was instructed to just make an edit, without concern for what those edits are, so you end up with questionable, misrepresented, or edits for the sake of editing at a rate far faster than any editor could address.
This one is easily one of the strangest situations I've ever encountered on Misplaced Pages. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm flattered that you've looked into my activity on Misplaced Pages so closely. But if you'd be arsed, you'd understand that it is very simple to do an insource search using a regular expression to find a lot of stylistic errors, like no space after a sentence. If you love being on my back so much, good on you, but I'd wish if you got off. KMaster888 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1) That doesn't explain how consistently abusive you have been
- 2) While I'm aware that an overwhelming percentage of the errors you're editing out are ones that can simply be addressed by regex, I'm very clearly raising the content edits as opposed to formatting ones. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- How about we take this off of ANI, of all places? KMaster888 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, this feels quite appropriate considering your abusiveness and that your retaliation involved damaging some articles. I said there I was asking a policy question and was happy to let it go, you've edited over 100 articles from my edit history in direct sequence in response to that question, which is just strange behaviour for an editor. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Obviously, if there's someone who's making bad decisions on Misplaced Pages (You), I want to check if he has messed up articles. Please tell me what articles you think I have damaged. KMaster888 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, I'd appreciate if you would stop casting aspersions about me being an LLM. KMaster888 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I said then, and as I'll say again: If there's not an LLM involved in this situation, then I'm sincerely sorry. It was a combination of clearly assisted editing and the verbiage used that looked concerning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was no assisted editing. Stop spreading that blatant falsehood. This is why I say to take this off of ANI. It is stuff that is made up in your head that has no basis in reality. KMaster888 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Unless you're doing regex with your eyes, clearly you're using assistance. And the fact you're (still!) doing something that fixes the same type of typo almost as fast as I can click "Random Article" indicates you're doing more than just regex. You're finding these articles somehow.closhund/talk/ 22:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- I am doing an "insource" search using regex. KMaster888 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I learned about insource searches recently and was able to find spam by the boatload immediately. It is a great tool. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah . I wasn't aware one could do that. I retract. closhund/talk/ 22:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I learned about insource searches recently and was able to find spam by the boatload immediately. It is a great tool. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am doing an "insource" search using regex. KMaster888 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was no assisted editing. Stop spreading that blatant falsehood. This is why I say to take this off of ANI. It is stuff that is made up in your head that has no basis in reality. KMaster888 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I said then, and as I'll say again: If there's not an LLM involved in this situation, then I'm sincerely sorry. It was a combination of clearly assisted editing and the verbiage used that looked concerning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And, I would appreciate if you would stop calling my edits strange and odd. KMaster888 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You had over 100 edits in a row directily in chronological sequence, from newest to oldest, of my exact edit history excluding wikiprojects and talk pages. I'm allowed to find that a little strange. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't someone call strange and odd edits strange and odd? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, this feels quite appropriate considering your abusiveness and that your retaliation involved damaging some articles. I said there I was asking a policy question and was happy to let it go, you've edited over 100 articles from my edit history in direct sequence in response to that question, which is just strange behaviour for an editor. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @KMaster888 I suggest you stop with the personal attacks before you get blocked. Tarlby 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm a little less forgiving than Tarlby, so I would suggest that KMaster888 should be blocked/banned already. Knowing how to write regular expressions doesn't give anyone the right to ignore policy about such issues as civility and hounding. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have not ignored policy on either civility or hounding. The fact is, there are no automation tools that I have used, and this has been constructed as a theory entirely as a falsehood. It is annoying that one Misplaced Pages user constantly spouts falsehoods about me. KMaster888 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll just ask you straight up.Do you feel any remorse for this statement?
remove asshole
Could you explain why you felt it was best to choose those two words when blanking your talk page? Tarlby 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- And again:
@The Corvette ZR1 @Tarlby stop clogging up ANI with your comments.
The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 22:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And again:
- I'll just ask you straight up.Do you feel any remorse for this statement?
- I have not ignored policy on either civility or hounding. The fact is, there are no automation tools that I have used, and this has been constructed as a theory entirely as a falsehood. It is annoying that one Misplaced Pages user constantly spouts falsehoods about me. KMaster888 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- , , , , , Tarlby 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And this: improve asinine comment and this: I wipe my ass with comments like yours. Cheers! MrOllie (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That was because Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. I would say the same to you as I said to the other editor: get off my back. KMaster888 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have to abide by the rules like the rest of us. And cool it with the hostile edit summaries. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Great answer. Tarlby 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Attacking other editors instead of backing off, inappropriate edit summaries, what next? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There ought to be a gossip noticeboard that doesn't clog up ANI. KMaster888 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will dispute what you said. I AM HERE to build an encyclopedia. Why do you think I would have given 10,000 edits worth of my time if I didn't care? KMaster888 (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, WP:CIVIL and WP:SUMMARYNO tell me the contrary. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of their editing or otherwise, KMaster888's comments in edit summaries and here indicate they're WP:OBNOXIOUS in a way that indicates an inability to participate in a collaborative encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The product of Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which is a body of written and visual work. It is first and foremost about the product, not the community. In this sense, it is indeed a collaborative encyclopedia, but it should not be considered an encyclopedic collaboation. KMaster888 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wikilawyering over what "collaboration" is doesn't help when you're in blatant violation of the fourth of the five pillars. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not Wikilawyering. I would also encourage you to come to a discussion on my talk page over small potatoes instead of at ANI. KMaster888 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is wikilawyering. And this is at ANI, so the discussion is taking place at ANI. Answering the concerns about your conduct that were raised here on here is how you resolve the issue, not "don't talk about it on ANI", as the latter gives the impression of trying to sweep them under the rug - especially since your edit summaries MrOllie linked above make it clear this is very much not "small potatoes". - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not Wikilawyering. I would also encourage you to come to a discussion on my talk page over small potatoes instead of at ANI. KMaster888 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wikilawyering over what "collaboration" is doesn't help when you're in blatant violation of the fourth of the five pillars. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The product of Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which is a body of written and visual work. It is first and foremost about the product, not the community. In this sense, it is indeed a collaborative encyclopedia, but it should not be considered an encyclopedic collaboation. KMaster888 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of their editing or otherwise, KMaster888's comments in edit summaries and here indicate they're WP:OBNOXIOUS in a way that indicates an inability to participate in a collaborative encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, WP:CIVIL and WP:SUMMARYNO tell me the contrary. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That was because Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. I would say the same to you as I said to the other editor: get off my back. KMaster888 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And this: improve asinine comment and this: I wipe my ass with comments like yours. Cheers! MrOllie (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm a little less forgiving than Tarlby, so I would suggest that KMaster888 should be blocked/banned already. Knowing how to write regular expressions doesn't give anyone the right to ignore policy about such issues as civility and hounding. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's some more diffs of KMaster888 being uncivil. From my user talk page. . I think these are forgivable if in isolation since KMaster888 may be frustrated by false accusations of being a bot, but if it's a pattern, it may need addressing.
- The WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:BADGERING of my user talk page and of this ANI is also a behavioral problem that, if a pattern, may also need addressing. It is disrespectful to interlocutor's time and brainpower to dominate discussions by replying to everything. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless there are specific discussion rules, I should not be penalized for responding to comments that involve me. KMaster888 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem isn't you responding to those comments. It's about HOW you responded to those comments. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are, in fact,
specific discussion rules
- WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless there are specific discussion rules, I should not be penalized for responding to comments that involve me. KMaster888 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Propose indefinite block
Blocked and TPA revoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- KMaster888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- You're saying "they" like it's more than one person. I am one editor. KMaster888 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not in that sense. We use they/them pronouns as to not assume an editor's gender. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above reasoning. MiasmaEternal☎ 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like Cullen328 beat us to that indef. MiasmaEternal☎ 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Their blank talkpage, on which they encourage discussion, has a nonexistent archive. Miniapolis 23:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is not true. The archive page is at the subpage of the talk page, /archive. KMaster888 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - While I wouldn’t have had the same suspicions about their editing as Warren, their extremely uncivil reactions to it and further questions here, along with the further attention they’ve drawn on to prior recent behaviour has effectively demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in meaningful interaction with any other editor who disagrees with them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe revoke TPA too? This is beyond the pale. closhund/talk/ 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- After their latest personal attack, I have revoked their talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. This personal attack against blocking admin Cullen328 is beyond the pale. This is clearly a person that lets rage get the best of them, and is not responsive to feedback. Not sure if we should close this, or let it play out and turn into a CBAN. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good block and I'd have done same if you hadn't been here first. Regardless of whether the edits were improvements, no one has the right to treat other editors as KM888 did. Star Mississippi 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good block It'd take a hand-written miracle from God for them to change their ways anytime soon.
Investigating the hounding claim
Above, there is a claim that KMaster888 is WP:HOUNDING Warrenmck by editing 100 pages that Warrenmck has edited. The editor interaction analyzer suggests that there's only an overlap of 45 pages (42 if you subtract out my user talk, KMaster888's user talk, and ANI). Warrenmck, can you please be very specific about exactly which pages overlap? Maybe give a link to KMaster888's contribs and timestamps of where this range of hounding edits begins and ends? This is a serious claim and probably actionable if enough evidence is provided. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that there are >100 edits across the pages, since they tended to edit in a spree. The number of pages you found seems accurate, even accounting for the possibility of a few outside of this exchange. I’m not sure what exactly I can do to show the relationship to my edit history beyond I guess go pull said histories and compare them? But I wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority of the interactions you see were from that narrow window after your talk page.
- Sorry for the drama, by the way. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah that makes sense. I didn't think of the multiple edits to a page thing. No worries about the drama. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't apologise for this. Nobody should have to put up with such behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating WP:BEFORE
- Bgsu98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.
I noticed an editor named Bgsu98 who had been mass-nominating figure skater articles for deletion. It is too obvious to me that he doesn't do even a minimum search required by WP:BEFORE before nominating. (I must note that most of the skaters he nominates for AfD aren't English, so a foreign language search is required. Sometimes you need to search on a foreign search engine. For example, Google seems to ignore many Russian websites recently.)
I have counted 45 articles nominated by him at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating. And it is worrying that people seem to rely on the nominator's competence and vote "delete" without much thought.
I should note that Bgsu98 doesn't seem to stop even when an article he nominated has been kept. He nominated Kamil Białas (a national medalist) two times with the same rationale (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kamil Białas (2nd nomination)). One can really wonder why he does this.
P.S. More information is here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Figure Skating#Notability guidelines. What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE. It seems that no one acted on this change until Bgsu98 came.
P.P.S. As I stated on the WikiProject Figure Skating talk page I linked above, I think it was very unfair to change the rules. Especially since web sources tend to die out after some time.
P.P.P.S. I would also like to note that I am polite, while Bgsu98 has already accused me of "bad-faith accusations and outright lies" (source). --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- as the closer of several skating AfDs, I have no issue with a DRV if @Moscow Connection or any other editor believes I closed it in error. However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules. That isn't grounds for a DRV nor a report against @Bgsu98 who is nominating based on community consensus. Star Mississippi 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Star Mississippi. But just to give some scope, this cleaning house, mostly of ice skating junior champions, is not recent, it's been going on for at least 6-9 months now, it was originally done through the use of PROD'd articles. But while there have been some objections raised over the past year, Bgsu98's efforts have mostly received support from editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Over the past two weeks, through the use of AFD, we have seen dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of annual national skating championship articles either deleted or redirected. But I just want to note that these AFDs wouldn't have closed as "Delete all" or "Redirect all" without the support of other AFD participants. Very few editors are arguing to Keep them all. Liz 02:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- "However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules."
— They don't meet WP:NSKATE, but most (if not all) are famous people and should meet WP:GNG. Therefore, caution should be exercised when deleting. I don't think a national silver medalist can be unknown, it is just that reliable sources are hard or even impossible to find now. It appears that some years ago the rules didn't require WP:GNG, so skater articles were created with simply "He advanced to the free skate at the 2010 World Championships" or "He is a national senior silver medalist", which was enough for an article to not be "picked at". The editors who created skater articles back then probably didn't want to do more than a bare minimum and didn't care to add reliable sources beyond the ISU website profile. One who decides to delete a skater article must keep in mind that reliable sources probably existed at the time the article was created. Cause, as I've said, these skaters arn't unknown. They represented their countries at the highest possible level of competition.
(I've recently noticed that Google News don't go as far back as before. Some web sites deleted their older content. Some have even completely disappeared. Like, I mostly edit music articles, and I've noticed that if didn't create some articles 10 years ago, I wouldn't be able to create them now.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- Even if being a junior national medallist was enough in and of itself, WP:V has always been a thing. You can't just state some fact that would meet a specific notability guideline like WP:NSKATE without providing verification of the claim without the possibility that the article will be nominated at AFD or redirected. TarnishedPath 02:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi and Liz: A WP:DRV, a deletion review? Is it maybe possible to undelete "Lilia Biktagirova" (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova)? Cause I was searching for sources for Alexandra Ievleva and found something like a short biography of hers, two paragraphs long.
Here: "Тренер Трусовой, почти партнерша Жубера, резонансная Иевлева: кто соревновался с Туктамышевой на ее 1-м ЧР (2008)".
And again, it was Bgsu98 who nominated the article back in May. And he was told, I'm quoting User:Hydronium Hydroxide: "There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale." --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) - After looking at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova, I think no one will say that I was incorrect about how people vote at AfD. There's even a comment like this: "WP:NSKATE lists some very clear criteria for inclusion, which this article does not meet." And then a more experienced user noted that you should actually search for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG, but no one actually searched and the article was deleted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have also found an interview with Lilia Biktagirova: . Yes, it is an interview, but there an editorial paragraph about her (an introductiion). There also a short paragraph here → . Not much, but considering she competed almost 20 years ago... --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes @Moscow Connection you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @Liz provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. Star Mississippi 14:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes @Moscow Connection you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @Liz provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. Star Mississippi 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a content dispute. I think the user violates WP:BEFORE, otherwise it would be impossible to create tons of nominations. And please look at the AfD page, all his nominations simply say: "Non-notable figure skater", "Non-notable figure skater, PROD removed", "Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements" or "Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals". It is obvious that there's no WP:BEFORE research and as little consideration as "humanly possible".
Okay, since Bgsu98 pinged someone in his support, I'll ping BeanieFan11 and Doczilla. (Sorry for disturbing you, BeanieFan11 and Doczilla.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- When closing one AfD, I made some observations about that day's many AfDs and noted in that one close regarding Bgsu98: "The nominator's burst of dozens of nominations within half an hour failed to stimulate any discussion about many of them." In my meager opinion, the massive number of rapid deletion nominations rather strongly might suggest, at the very least, a lack of due diligence regarding each and a likely violation of WP:BEFORE. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a content dispute. I think the user violates WP:BEFORE, otherwise it would be impossible to create tons of nominations. And please look at the AfD page, all his nominations simply say: "Non-notable figure skater", "Non-notable figure skater, PROD removed", "Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements" or "Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals". It is obvious that there's no WP:BEFORE research and as little consideration as "humanly possible".
- Moscow Connection claims to be polite, yet wrote the following: "random people at AfD don't care about actually checking the notability and just vote "delete per nom". Pinging Shrug02 who also found that comment objectionable. I have made an effort to thank editors who have participated in my AFD's, regardless of whether they have always agreed with my findings, because AFD's that end in "no consensus" do nothing but waste everyone's time.
- He has been adversarial and confrontational in every communication to me. From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hanna Harrell: "By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD... Like, you nomitated Kamil Białas 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale... Are you planning to nominate it 100 times?"
- I always appreciate constructive feedback when it's delivered in a courteous and professional manner. Moscow Connection seems incapable of courtesy or professionalism. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- C'mon, User:Bgsu98, civility goes both ways. We can discuss the value of these articles and the AFD process without attacking each other. Flinging mud doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. Liz 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I apologize, Liz; I am just at my wit's end with this editor. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's my take, User:Bgsu98. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. Liz 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I have been pinged on this discussion I thought I would 1 confirm I did find @Moscow Connection to be somewhat rude and condescending in their repeated assertions that those who vote on these skating AFDs do not do any research and are basically sheep just voting delete and 2 most of these nominated bios are a few sentences or just a table of stats copy and pasted so @Liz I doubt anyone spent hours putting them together. Finally I feel @Moscow Connection is now looking to use any procedure they can to try and besmirch @Bgsu98 and derail their valid efforts to remove some of the seemingly thousands of sports bios that do not meet current Misplaced Pages guidelines and are of interest to few, if any, general reader. If anyone is in need of reprimand or sanction over this matter (which has been blown out of all proportion), it is @Moscow Connection Shrug02 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why should I be "reprimanded"? My comments about "people at AfD' were non-specific, while Bgsu98 directly accused me of lying. (In the Russian Misplaced Pages, he would be blocked for this "automatically".)
Also, a note to admins: Can it be that Bgsu98 finds fun in annoying other editors? I can't really explain the content of his user page differently. Yes, surely, different people can have different motivation for editing Misplaced Pages, but I don't think it is a "normal situation" when you look at someone's user page and see how the person likes to be "evil".
And, btw, please note that Bgsu98 summoned Shrug02 here for the purpose of supporting him. I haven't summoned anybody. (Maybe some people would notice, but Bgsu98 deleted my ANI notice from his talk page immediately.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- @Moscow Connection I am going to be generous and presume English is not your first language so your choice of wording might be a little off. However, I was not "summoned" or asked to support anyone. @Bgsu98 pinged me and I gave my view. I did not say you SHOULD be reprimanded, I said IF anyone was to be sanctioned over this matter then it would be you. My reasoning for this is your attacking @Bgsu98, making broad statements questioning the intelligence of people at AFD discussions and using this forum incorrectly. As for what happens on Russian Misplaced Pages, that is their busines. I hope you have read @HyperAccelerated's comment as I think it sums this situation up nicely. Shrug02 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't questioned anybody's intelligence. It is just my experience that many people trust the nominator and vote "delete" without much thinking. They maybe quickly visit the article in discussion, look at the "References" section, that's enough for them. And they typically don't speak Russian or Hebrew or whatever. So, when they see "Selepen", they hardly go to yandex.ru and search for "Шелепень". --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, "summon" is not the right word. Sorry. "He asked you to come". But that "I am going to be generous" sentence doesn't look polite. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- According to this, "summon" and "ask to" are the same thing. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Moscow Connection
- Cambridge Dictionary definition of summon (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/summon) is "to order someone to come to or be present at a particular place, or to officially arrange a meeting of people."
- No-one ORDERED me to take part in this discussion.
- If there is so much significant coverage for these skaters then the simple solution is for you to add it to the articles in question with suitable references and then AFDs will end as keep.
- I am now finished with this discussion and I hope the admins step in and end it soon.
- All the best to everyone involved. Shrug02 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Moscow Connection wrote the following in his original complaint: ”…decided to mass-delete articles that don't comply with WP:NSKATE… I am sure most articles he deleted had the right to stay per WP:GNG.” I don’t have the ability to “mass-delete” anything, and if most of those articles met WP:GNG, the users at AFD would have voted to keep them. Just two examples of MC’s falsehoods. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK. But you have also mass-prodded articles, that's the same as "deleting". (Like a "delayed deletion".) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Moscow Connection I am going to be generous and presume English is not your first language so your choice of wording might be a little off. However, I was not "summoned" or asked to support anyone. @Bgsu98 pinged me and I gave my view. I did not say you SHOULD be reprimanded, I said IF anyone was to be sanctioned over this matter then it would be you. My reasoning for this is your attacking @Bgsu98, making broad statements questioning the intelligence of people at AFD discussions and using this forum incorrectly. As for what happens on Russian Misplaced Pages, that is their busines. I hope you have read @HyperAccelerated's comment as I think it sums this situation up nicely. Shrug02 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why should I be "reprimanded"? My comments about "people at AfD' were non-specific, while Bgsu98 directly accused me of lying. (In the Russian Misplaced Pages, he would be blocked for this "automatically".)
- As I have been pinged on this discussion I thought I would 1 confirm I did find @Moscow Connection to be somewhat rude and condescending in their repeated assertions that those who vote on these skating AFDs do not do any research and are basically sheep just voting delete and 2 most of these nominated bios are a few sentences or just a table of stats copy and pasted so @Liz I doubt anyone spent hours putting them together. Finally I feel @Moscow Connection is now looking to use any procedure they can to try and besmirch @Bgsu98 and derail their valid efforts to remove some of the seemingly thousands of sports bios that do not meet current Misplaced Pages guidelines and are of interest to few, if any, general reader. If anyone is in need of reprimand or sanction over this matter (which has been blown out of all proportion), it is @Moscow Connection Shrug02 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's my take, User:Bgsu98. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. Liz 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- C'mon, User:Bgsu98, civility goes both ways. We can discuss the value of these articles and the AFD process without attacking each other. Flinging mud doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. Liz 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let me help you out here, Moscow Connection. As it happens, Bgsu98 is a veteran editor with both tens of thousands of edits and a long history of editing skating articles. He is not, as you imply, some bomb thrower hellbent in laying waste to skating articles. Moving right along ...
(2) Your curious assertion that he was the first person to AfD no-longer-qualifying skating articles is inaccurate; I did so myself, right after the NSPORTS changes, and I recall several editors also doing so.
(3) The Bialas AfDs did not close as Keep, as you wrongly assert. They closed as "no consensus", with almost no participation and multiple relistings; that's exactly the kind of situation where renomination to seek an actual consensus is appropriate.
(4) Rules change on Misplaced Pages, by the bucketload. I have a hard time seeing what is "very unfair" about this, unless "very unfair" is a secret code for "I don't like it, so it's unfair." And ... seriously? You've been on Misplaced Pages for fifteen years, have over sixty thousand edits, have participated in nearly a hundred AfDs? I'd expect this level of confusion from a first-week newbie, not from an editor of your experience. Ravenswing 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- He only joined in 2021. I've looked at his "Pages Created" count, what he has been doing is creating pages for small figure skating events (for their yearly editions) since late 2023. That's hardly "a long history". --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- “Small figure skating events” like the National Championships of the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, and Italy; the Grand Prix series, including the Grand Prix Final; and the Challenger Series events? 1) Article Creation isn’t the only metric by which Misplaced Pages contributions can be measured, and 2) Referring to any of those events as “small” is ridiculous and insulting to all parties involved. I should have never even responded yesterday when three different administrators asserted that the original complaint was groundless. I’m done responding to this complainant. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- He only joined in 2021. I've looked at his "Pages Created" count, what he has been doing is creating pages for small figure skating events (for their yearly editions) since late 2023. That's hardly "a long history". --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given it is acknowledged that large numbers of articles on figure skaters do not meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria (
What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE.
), I’m not really seeing anything unexpected here. — - Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- As someone uninvolved in all of this, I’m reading that OP gets into a dispute about AfDs and then goes to ANI to make their grievances more visible to admins. Does OP not realize that admins are primarily responsible for moderating, closing, and relisting AfD discussions? Also, as someone else pointed above, this is a content dispute: it does not meet the standard for being urgent, chronic, or intractable. OP’s choice to insult another user by calling their behavior “crazy” multiple times is inappropriate and makes me believe that they might have just thrown a WP: BOOMERANG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- the bar for notability for skaters went up, someone came along and started nominating based on the new guidelines, and OP is upset. that seems to be the gist. i was not involved but didn't that happen in the porno biography area a few years ago? some change raised the bar so a lot of stuff was deleted. ValarianB (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do heavily advise slowing down on the nominations. There is not enough editors in the figure skating topic area to give the appropriate amount of time to search for sources for these articles. To be honest, I'm sure that a good number of ones that were closed as "delete" were actually notable but no one did any in-depth BEFORE search (many would not have coverage in English and the coverage would be in foreign newspaper archives). I asked the user yesterday about the extent of the BEFORE searches and only got "Yes, but not as much as some people like" – and then I asked what search was done for the most recent example, from a few hours prior, and they said they had no recollection (which is concerning IMO, to have no idea what searches you did for an article you nominated a few hours prior). Note that the AFD rationales are often really poor; many are simply
Non-notable figure skater
, which doesn't say much of anything. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I will slow down on nominations and focus on improving other aspects of the the FS articles, such as updating the infoboxes and tables to conform with our MOS. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- And @Moscow Connection, you can help by, when the nomination involves a person whose native language is written in non-Latin characters (e.g., Cyrillic or Hebrew), replying in the AfD with a link to the native language web search for that person to help establish the presence or absence of notability support. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- But there are 45 (!) articles nominated for deletion. I looked at the AfD page and understood that it was physically impossible to do anything. So I decided to bring this situation to the attention of the Misplaced Pages community. It is easy to create 1000 AfD nominations with the same rationale ("Non-notable figure skater"), but even these mere 45 AfD nominations utterly scared me and discouraged me from even looking at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating. (I really can't do anything. I have some other articles, the ones I created, that need attention. And I have long "to do" lists that wait for years to be taken care of.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The answer being, "So?" If neither the article creators nor anyone else has sought to provide proper sourcing for these articles -- the Ievleva article, for example, was created seventeen years ago -- then that just suggests no one's given enough of a damn to bother, and Misplaced Pages will survive these stubs' loss. It is not, nor ever has been, "physically impossible" to do anything about mass deletions; that's ridiculous. An AfD discussion is open for seven days, and it's easy to find adequate sources for an article ... certainly, in the cases of these Russian skaters, for a native speaker of Russian such as yourself. If you can't, the answer isn't that there's some flaw in the process or that Bgsu98 is pulling a fast one on us all. The answer is that the subjects are non-notable, and don't merit Misplaced Pages articles. Ravenswing 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The nominator has agreed to slow down, so the point is kind of moot, but I still wanted to make clear: Ravenswing, 45 AFDs rapidly is ridiculous, especially when next-to-no-BEFORE is done and there previously was no indication of stopping – remember that there's only a few editors in the topic area – and many of these, which are notable, require more than simple Google searches to find the coverage that demonstrates notability (i.e., for many, the coverage would be in places such as difficult-to-find offline newspapers in foreign languages) – making so many nominations rapidly without appropriate searches will inevitably result in some truly notable ones being deleted due to the lack of effort. While you may not care about the stubs, others do, and simply because the two editors who drive-by to the nom and say "Delete per above" didn't find coverage absolutely does not equate to the subject being confirmed non-notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The answer being, "So?" If neither the article creators nor anyone else has sought to provide proper sourcing for these articles -- the Ievleva article, for example, was created seventeen years ago -- then that just suggests no one's given enough of a damn to bother, and Misplaced Pages will survive these stubs' loss. It is not, nor ever has been, "physically impossible" to do anything about mass deletions; that's ridiculous. An AfD discussion is open for seven days, and it's easy to find adequate sources for an article ... certainly, in the cases of these Russian skaters, for a native speaker of Russian such as yourself. If you can't, the answer isn't that there's some flaw in the process or that Bgsu98 is pulling a fast one on us all. The answer is that the subjects are non-notable, and don't merit Misplaced Pages articles. Ravenswing 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, I have attempted to do something yesterday. I voted and commented on two nominations. ("Alexandra Ievleva" and "Viktoria Vasilieva".) Cause these two are Russian figure skaters, and I know they are famous enough. Immediately a user came and wholesale dismissed all the sources I found. I don't really want to play that game, it's too tiresome. I have found another source for Alexandra Ievleva just now. Let's see what the outcome will be.
But really, I can't do it anymore. Maybe if these were articles I created, I would invest into searching for sources. Now, I just tried a little bit and saw that some people really want to delete these articles for whatever reason. There are a few people actually searching for sources at some nominations, but mostly it's just that old "you go and provide third-party reliable sources independent of the subject, so I can look at them and dismiss them" game.
Okay, people will say I am the bad person here, but I have actually tried to save a couple of articles. I don't understand why people so eagerly want to delete articles than can actually be kept. (Okay, there are mostly interviews and short news about the figure skaters placing here and there or missing some events, but those sources are reliable enough. And one can actually take the sources into account and leave the articles be.)
By the way, I have tried searching on what was once Yandex News, but the news search doesn't work anymore. (Here's an example.) There's nothing prior to 2024 when Yandex sold its assets including the news engine. And I can remember when the list of news articles there went back to 2003 or so... --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- What I’m reading is that you don’t like how AfD works, and there hasn’t been any departure from normal processes. ANI is not the appropriate venue to discuss these issues. HyperAccelerated (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if this looks like a ramble. These were initially two or three separate replies. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- But there are 45 (!) articles nominated for deletion. I looked at the AfD page and understood that it was physically impossible to do anything. So I decided to bring this situation to the attention of the Misplaced Pages community. It is easy to create 1000 AfD nominations with the same rationale ("Non-notable figure skater"), but even these mere 45 AfD nominations utterly scared me and discouraged me from even looking at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating. (I really can't do anything. I have some other articles, the ones I created, that need attention. And I have long "to do" lists that wait for years to be taken care of.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- And @Moscow Connection, you can help by, when the nomination involves a person whose native language is written in non-Latin characters (e.g., Cyrillic or Hebrew), replying in the AfD with a link to the native language web search for that person to help establish the presence or absence of notability support. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will slow down on nominations and focus on improving other aspects of the the FS articles, such as updating the infoboxes and tables to conform with our MOS. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
...editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes
. Just curious if you or anyone else honestly believes that the opinions of these editors takes priority over the view held in the real world that six million articles falls substantially short of "the sum of all human knowledge". One such view published almost five years ago contained the following statement: "According to one estimate, the sum of human knowledge would require 104 million articles". I know some of you are in serious denial and will try to suppress this as a result, but I'm gonna keep saying it anyway. We don't have the sum of all human knowledge, nor are we trying to achieve it. At best, we're the sum of what Google and legacy media has spoon-fed you today within the past X number of years. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions (posted 00:37, January 9, 2025 UTC)
- RadioKAOS, I'm not going to argue about whose "view takes priority" in the area of the sum of human knowledge but in an AFD discussion, decisions are made by determining the consensus of the editors who bothered to show up and present compelling policy-based arguments. That is typically editors who are active on Misplaced Pages and have an opinion about an article, not any scholar coming up with estimates on the necessary number of articles we should have. How many AFDs do you participate in on a regular basis? And there is no one here that who will attempt to "suppress" your argument. As long as you are not personally attacking any editors, I think you are free to have whatever opinions you do have about this project. No penalty. Liz 03:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: The problem is that these editors who "bother to show up" don't equally represent the community. Maybe I'm wrong, but there are some people who are mainly active on AfD and who act as "gatekeepers".
A normal editor can easily not notice when a page is nominated for deletion, but the AfD regulars will come and vote "delete".
Also, I wonder how it happened that the NSKATE guidelines were changed so drastically. I think I have found a discussion about that but I am not sure. A user who was tired of people voting "keep per WP:NSPORT", proposed to get rid of the "Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports)" completely. And then there was a discussion with around 70 people attending. But for some reason at least some sports got spared the worst fate (or got out intact), while figure skating was "destroyed". Moreover, the Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports) revision history shows signs of edit warring. So it is just possible that the "deletionists" were the most active/agressive and they won. Some sports wikiprojects defended their sports, and some like WikiProject Figure skating weren't active at the time and didn't do anything. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Moscow Connection, I guess you can choose to call them "gatekeepers" but I consider them dedicated volunteers. The number of editors who participate in AFDs has declined for at least the past two years, so if you can think of a way to get more editors involved, or if you want to help out by spending, let's say, 10 hours a week evaluating articles and sources in AFD deletion discussions, your help would be welcomed. But don't criticize the editors who actually show up and help. Without them, we would only have the opinions of editors who nominate articles for deletion and I'm sure you wouldn't like it if all of those nominated articles were simpy deleted without any feedback at all from other editors. Liz 06:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not an AfD regular, and what happens there scares me. When I commented, people just bombarded me with "This is not a third-party reliable source independent of the subject", and it didn't look to me like they even knew what "third-party" was. (I could swear my source was third-party and reliable and independent, but they said it was not and bombarded me with some random links to the WP space.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I had a look at the AfDs you participated in and I think I can explain why there. In this AfD all the links you provided were to sports.ru - these are not independent because sports.ru is the website for the Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member. They thus don't demonstrate the subject has any independent coverage of their athletic career. I hope this helps. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You act like some people on AfD who dismiss sources "for the sake of dismissing". Why did even think it was a website for some "Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member"? It is just a sports news website (a sports portal) like any other. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- ru:Sports (сайт). Really, that's quite similar to what happens on AfD. I can go deep into Google Search, spend lots of time, but some people will just say "not third-party" or smth like this. Where do they see that and how do they come to their conclusions? It's a mystery to me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I had a look at the AfDs you participated in and I think I can explain why there. In this AfD all the links you provided were to sports.ru - these are not independent because sports.ru is the website for the Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member. They thus don't demonstrate the subject has any independent coverage of their athletic career. I hope this helps. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: The problem is that these editors who "bother to show up" don't equally represent the community. Maybe I'm wrong, but there are some people who are mainly active on AfD and who act as "gatekeepers".
- (nods) Heck, "some authority" came up with canards such as that we all ought to take 10,000 steps a day, drink eight glasses of water a day, and that our basal body temps are all 98.6. I likewise decline to bow before the suspect, threadbare wisdom of "one estimate" that we need 104,000,000 articles ... speaking of serious denial. (grins) Ravenswing 07:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Ravenswing:, why are you trying to "repulse" my attemps to save a couple of articles at AfD? First, you came here to defend Bgsu98. And then, you came to the two nominations where I commented, only to wholesale dismiss all the sources I found.
And when I found another source, you said that there were "3 sentences" while there were actually 7.
I've looked at your contributions, you don't look like someone who can read Russian or has any interest in figure skating. So why are you doing this? (Okay, you can have the articles, you won.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Please be careful with the WP:ASPERSIONS, Moscow Connection. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- My 2 cents. In my experience, Bgsu clearly does not conduct BEFORE searches (and seems proud of it), ignores actual coverage of the subjects (even when present in the articles), mass nominates batches of articles (50 in 30 minutes is a hilarious example), consistently fails to adhere to AGF, quickly re-nominates articles when the result is not to their liking, inaccurately summarizes examples of SIGCOV when they are provided in discussions, and tops it off by clearing their XfD logs. JTtheOG (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a significant number of evidence-free aspersions you're casting, would you like to evidence them? Incidentally, mass-nominating articles isn't necessarily an issue; I have done it in the past but I still examined each article before nominating them in one batch. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not wish to dig through hundreds of AfDs, no. Just providing what I've gathered in my experience. And I disagree that 50 AfDs in half an hour is not an issue.
- Here is one example of the types of responses you can expect to get when you provide SIGCOV in one of his discussions:
Nobody is going to add anything to this article. The same people pop up on these AFD's, squawk about how someone having their picture taken for their local newspaper qualifies as "significant coverage", and then the article is left in the same crappy condition it was when we started.
JTtheOG (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- And here is an example of the nom wholly ignoring GNG and insisting on using deprecated NSPORTS guidelines after SIGCOV was added to the article. Dozens and dozens of more examples. JTtheOG (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another example of ignoring SIGCOV already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: @Black Kite: 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 more examples, all within a week of eachother and many with SIGCOV already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here is an example from two days ago where they nominated a skater who finished top 4 at the World Championships because they assumed the sources in the article were the only sources available on the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK this AFD, coupled with the historical ones, is very concerning. I understand that not every editor is going to be able to find every source, but it appears that Bgsu98 does not even bother looking. I would support a topic ban from AFDs. GiantSnowman 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here and here is an example of four users expressing their concerns about BEFORE searches and their misunderstanding of notability policies. More recently, concerns were raised here and here, although bgsu deleted the latter from their talk page with the message
Stay off my talk page. You have some nerve using the term “good will” considering your appalling behavior.
JTtheOG (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- And here are More and more and more and more and more and more and more examples of nom ignoring the concept of GNG and/or entirely disregarding SIGCOV already present in the article. As Liz notes here, close to 100 articles were deleted through PROD before I was able to contest them. Many of these that I contested and were later kept in AfDs with clear GNG passes are present among the examples I've given. JTtheOG (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks - anything more recent than May 2024? GiantSnowman 22:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here is an example from two days ago where they nominated a skater who finished top 4 at the World Championships because they assumed the sources in the article were the only sources available on the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: @Black Kite: 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 more examples, all within a week of eachother and many with SIGCOV already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you could provide some examples of a) a number of nominations in a short period of time and b) several AFDs where the rationale is deeply flawed. GiantSnowman 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you go to 10 May 2024 here, you get exactly 50 nominations in 30 minutes. A good number of those were kept per AFDstats. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Great, thanks - see above, I think we need an AFD topic ban. GiantSnowman 22:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you go to 10 May 2024 here, you get exactly 50 nominations in 30 minutes. A good number of those were kept per AFDstats. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another example of ignoring SIGCOV already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- And here is an example of the nom wholly ignoring GNG and insisting on using deprecated NSPORTS guidelines after SIGCOV was added to the article. Dozens and dozens of more examples. JTtheOG (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a significant number of evidence-free aspersions you're casting, would you like to evidence them? Incidentally, mass-nominating articles isn't necessarily an issue; I have done it in the past but I still examined each article before nominating them in one batch. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- My 2 cents. In my experience, Bgsu clearly does not conduct BEFORE searches (and seems proud of it), ignores actual coverage of the subjects (even when present in the articles), mass nominates batches of articles (50 in 30 minutes is a hilarious example), consistently fails to adhere to AGF, quickly re-nominates articles when the result is not to their liking, inaccurately summarizes examples of SIGCOV when they are provided in discussions, and tops it off by clearing their XfD logs. JTtheOG (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, let's start with that I'm a frequent participant at ANI, and I no more "came here to defend" anyone than any other editor who's chimed in here. I dismissed those sources wholesale because I burned some time to look over each and every one of them (as did more than one editor), and found that not a single one of them provided the "significant coverage" in detail to the subjects that the GNG requires. As it happens, I have edited skating articles in the past -- you're not claiming to have truly gone through my whole twenty-year contribution history, are you?
So why am I doing this? Perhaps it's strange to you that anyone could act out of a dispassionate wish to uphold Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, instead of out of partisan motives, but you'll find that most ANI regulars do just that. Ravenswing 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please be careful with the WP:ASPERSIONS, Moscow Connection. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Ravenswing:, why are you trying to "repulse" my attemps to save a couple of articles at AfD? First, you came here to defend Bgsu98. And then, you came to the two nominations where I commented, only to wholesale dismiss all the sources I found.
- I've participated in a lot of these AfDs, I believe mostly !voting delete, and I've gotta say I am not happy to see it implied that AfD participants were blindly going along with Bgsu. I guarantee that I perform thorough searches on every single AfD I !vote it, especially these mass-noms with essentially no rationale. Bgsu's noms are, for better or worse, fairly accurate and generally result in the deletion of articles that should be deleted. However, I have seen several examples of incivility and assuming bad faith from this user (although I have experienced neither myself) and I agree that the sheer quantity of nominations does not promote a healthy level of community input. The individual noms are generally okay, but mass noms like this one I found today, tried participating in, and gave up on can be a little overwhelming. I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for. Toadspike 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did say a few days ago I wasn't going to engage in this discussion any further but since I keep getting notifications about it I figured I'd weigh in as the conversation seems to have gone in a totally different direction. As @Toadspike and others have pointed out I too am not happy that it is being implied that people who voted in these AFDs are blindly following @Bgsu98 without doing any independent research. I refuted this on the figure skating talk page when this all started and on this page. Also, as has been previously pointed out by other editors, this particular discussion began with @Moscow Connection basically not liking the rules on significant coverage and then coming to this forum to seek retribution against @Bgsu98. Now it seems that their improper use of this forum, ref bombing of articles and general complaining that they don't like something and how unfair it is in their opinion, may actually lead to them getting what they want. This sets a very poor precedent that if you don't like something on Misplaced Pages and you jump up and down and wail about it enough you can get your way. Yes @Bgsu98 probably nominates too many similar articles at one time but they have agreed to slow down now, and yes they have nominated articles for AFD that have then been kept because significant coverage was found, but they have also nominated a lot of articles which have not been found to have significant coverage and have subsequently been deleted following the due, consensus based procedure and closed as such by an admin. @Moscow Connection is already seeking to have articles which have been deleted following AFDs unilaterally reopened. If you now sanction @Bgsu98 we may as well just give Jimmy Wales a call and ask him to hand over Misplaced Pages to the whims and wants of @Moscow Connection Shrug02 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't asked anybody to give Misplaced Pages over to me. What do you mean by "unilaterally reopened"? If you are refering to me asking Star Mississippi to undelete the "Lilia Biktagirova" article, what's wrong with it? It was deleted without a proper Google search, and I have found some sources for her. Just look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova. At the very end, a user that goes by the name of Kvng, noticed:
No one in this discussion (including myself) has mentioned anything about searching for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG
, but that was all, no one did anything. You and another user seem to have claimed here that you do a proper search on every Bgsu98's nomination, but I don't see you on that AfD page.
You really sound like you think I'm doing something awful in my attempt to rescue an article. Come on, she's not someone terrible who wants to promote herself on Misplaced Pages or something. She's just a fairly famous figure skater. You don't need to defend Misplaced Pages from her. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - I've decided to save "Alexandra Ievleva" (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Ievleva) and I've already found a couple of dozen articles talking about her. Yes, maybe the others will say those are mostly interviews and the Women's Sport website is not good enough, but I have found lots and lots about her! I don't think you or Bgsu98 would be able to do that cause you don't read Russian and don't know how to search (I tried to add different additional key words, and every time I found something new). --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1 you don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what, 2 now you say I "don't know how to search" which is yet another unfounded suggestion that I don't make any effort before giving opinions on AFDs, 3 you don't know what searches were done on Lilia Biktagirova and neither do I, 4 I wasn't involved in that discussion and I try to focus more on adding to articles then deleting them, 5 my point was, and is, you don't like the rules so you have launched a campaign of complaining to try to get your way instead of going through the proper channels and seeking to get consensus to alter said rules. Frankly I'm tired of this and of you belittling everyone else as if you are the only person who knows what is right and are somehow able to read the minds and intentions of everyone else. Go ahead and, as you put it, "save" your Russian skaters. I genuinely hope you do and that the articles are filled with interesting and well-sourced information. That's the aim of Misplaced Pages to inform the population about things worth knowing. Shrug02 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "
You don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what
"
— What I do is called abductive reasoning. What you just did by claiming you can read Martian, I honestly don't know.
I've started this discussion because I saw the user's 45 nominations at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating and that scared me a lot. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- It's called ironic humour and, with everything going on in the world right now, if a Misplaced Pages AFD scared you a lot then you are obviously in the very fortunate position to have so few worries. Anyway I'm moving on to spend my time more productively. I sincerely wish you the best in your endeavours. Shrug02 (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "
- 1 you don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what, 2 now you say I "don't know how to search" which is yet another unfounded suggestion that I don't make any effort before giving opinions on AFDs, 3 you don't know what searches were done on Lilia Biktagirova and neither do I, 4 I wasn't involved in that discussion and I try to focus more on adding to articles then deleting them, 5 my point was, and is, you don't like the rules so you have launched a campaign of complaining to try to get your way instead of going through the proper channels and seeking to get consensus to alter said rules. Frankly I'm tired of this and of you belittling everyone else as if you are the only person who knows what is right and are somehow able to read the minds and intentions of everyone else. Go ahead and, as you put it, "save" your Russian skaters. I genuinely hope you do and that the articles are filled with interesting and well-sourced information. That's the aim of Misplaced Pages to inform the population about things worth knowing. Shrug02 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't asked anybody to give Misplaced Pages over to me. What do you mean by "unilaterally reopened"? If you are refering to me asking Star Mississippi to undelete the "Lilia Biktagirova" article, what's wrong with it? It was deleted without a proper Google search, and I have found some sources for her. Just look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova. At the very end, a user that goes by the name of Kvng, noticed:
- I appreciate your input and insight. As I told BeanieFan11 earlier, I promised to slow down on nominations, and in fact, I had decided that I wouldn't even entertain the idea of additional nominations until the ones already in the system work their way through.
I can also promise to strive to be more thorough in researching these potential nominations and provide more detailed rationales in the future. I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two! Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Sorry, Bgsu, I completely missed that you had committed to slowing down. I think that's a great idea that resolves the issue here. Just remember, when you get frustrated by other editors, do your best to stay polite – if you can't, simply step away from the keyboard for a moment. I don't want to see you get in trouble for one too many snarky comments. Toadspike 09:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- 20 nominations per day is 7300 per year. The limit should be more like 0. (And if it is decided to be 1 or something like that, Bgsu98 will have to demonstrate that he has searched for sources every time. I prefer 0, naturally.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- A limit of 0 is asinine, and I highly suggest you strike this comment. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, agreed - really not helping move away from the comments above the MC is here because they don't like AFD. GiantSnowman 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- A limit of 0 is asinine, and I highly suggest you strike this comment. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I do not know whether @Bgsu98 should be restricted from AfD as I haven't been able to go into the weeds on this, I disagree with
I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for.
@Toadspike. No editor should be nominating 20 articles per day. That's unsustainable for AfD participants, clerks or closers. We do not have the editor volume to assess that many nominations from one nominator. Star Mississippi 00:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- 20 per day is a lot, but given the numbers thrown around above (50 in 30 minutes) I figured it would be a massive improvement. But since Bgsu has committed to nominating far fewer articles with
Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two!
I suppose the whole discussion is moot. Toadspike 11:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- I don't think it's that easy. The question is who will check all the hundreds or thousands of his previous nominations. Definitely not me. (I've looked through several active ones, found some sources, commented here and there, and got very tired.)
As I have commented below, when problems were found with Sander.v.Ginkel's articles, he was told to go through all his articles and check them. (Actually, there was a user who volunteered to help, but that user was revealed to be Sander.v.Ginkel himself, cause no one in their right mind would have volunteered to check 40000 articles. I, personally, don't want to be a slave and don't want to check Bgsu98's past nominations, especially knowing how little effort he put into creating them and that I would have to spend years looking for sources.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- It's a volunteer project. Someone may choose to, as you did initially, or no one will. But unless they're salted, there's nothing prohibiting restoration to drafts if WP:SIRS can be found. We can fix going forward but can't always fix what happened before even when there's a collaborative effort. Star Mississippi 13:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it's that easy. The question is who will check all the hundreds or thousands of his previous nominations. Definitely not me. (I've looked through several active ones, found some sources, commented here and there, and got very tired.)
- 20 per day is a lot, but given the numbers thrown around above (50 in 30 minutes) I figured it would be a massive improvement. But since Bgsu has committed to nominating far fewer articles with
- I did say a few days ago I wasn't going to engage in this discussion any further but since I keep getting notifications about it I figured I'd weigh in as the conversation seems to have gone in a totally different direction. As @Toadspike and others have pointed out I too am not happy that it is being implied that people who voted in these AFDs are blindly following @Bgsu98 without doing any independent research. I refuted this on the figure skating talk page when this all started and on this page. Also, as has been previously pointed out by other editors, this particular discussion began with @Moscow Connection basically not liking the rules on significant coverage and then coming to this forum to seek retribution against @Bgsu98. Now it seems that their improper use of this forum, ref bombing of articles and general complaining that they don't like something and how unfair it is in their opinion, may actually lead to them getting what they want. This sets a very poor precedent that if you don't like something on Misplaced Pages and you jump up and down and wail about it enough you can get your way. Yes @Bgsu98 probably nominates too many similar articles at one time but they have agreed to slow down now, and yes they have nominated articles for AFD that have then been kept because significant coverage was found, but they have also nominated a lot of articles which have not been found to have significant coverage and have subsequently been deleted following the due, consensus based procedure and closed as such by an admin. @Moscow Connection is already seeking to have articles which have been deleted following AFDs unilaterally reopened. If you now sanction @Bgsu98 we may as well just give Jimmy Wales a call and ask him to hand over Misplaced Pages to the whims and wants of @Moscow Connection Shrug02 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Of note. User JTtheOG is canvassing apparent like-minded editors to this discussion, here and here. Zaathras (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are not like-minded actually. In fact, both had previously expressed they disagreed with my initial assertions, which I had not yet provided evidence for. I was notifying them of examples being provided here of previously unsubstantiated aspersions. JTtheOG (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- "As per previous discussions..." I love hearing that JTtheOG is having discussions about me with other users, but has never once attempted to communicate directly to me. (Snide comments in AFD's don't count as broaching conversation.) Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If even that's true, no none came. (No one of the whole two.) And Bgsu98 did the same by pinging his like-minded AfD colleague. (He pinged him immediately.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are not like-minded actually. In fact, both had previously expressed they disagreed with my initial assertions, which I had not yet provided evidence for. I was notifying them of examples being provided here of previously unsubstantiated aspersions. JTtheOG (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a fellow WP:FIGURE participant, and without having gone over the particular cases, I am normally a rather deletion-oriented editor but am an inclusionist for skating specifically as sources are not as online on this topic as usual, and often in foreign languages, so I am not usually in favor of deleting a skater's article unless we really do exhaust all possible sources of notability. I do request that @Bgsu98: convene a broader discussion over notability as I also do disagree with the current guidelines, but even without that a discussion is warranted. Even if a mass deletion is warranted, it should be handled in one mass AfD, not a gazillion separate ones.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I came across this randomly in my watchlist.. can I recommend everyone take a step back and focus on the issue at hand? Currently, WP:BEFORE states the following:
Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability: The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.
So, I'd ask @Moscow Connection: to please consider whether their views on BEFORE are in line with what it actually says. I appreciate that MC states many of these nominated articles are for non-English speaking and in some cases non-Western world skaters, and so it may not be possible to find many of the potential sources in an English language Google search.But MC, can you identify any deletion nominations for which there were sources that could be found in any of the following: a normal Google search, or a Google Books search, or a Google News search, or a Google News archive search? If you can identify such, please provide the deletion discussion, and a link or other method of showing us how you came across the sources on one of those searches. If you can't, then it sounds like your argument is more for expanding WP:BEFORE to require non-English language searches for non-English subjects. I take no strong view on whether it would be a good idea - I think that BEFORE should certainly recommend more far reaching searches for subjects who may not be satisfied by a Google search.. but required? Not everyone knows how to use other search engines, and they may not even know what terms to use (or be able to type them easily). And that doesn't even begin to touch the big problem with Google - Google results (if you're logged in, at least), are significantly based on your search history, and if you use Google Chrome browser (on mobile or PC), or the Android OS, they are also based on your usage of those platforms (such as websites visited, apps used, etc). So it's entirely possible that MC searching Google may see a result on the first page or two that someone else searching Google would not have seen on the first couple pages at all.Regardless, that's an argument/discussion to be had on another page (likely WP:VPP). Since this all seems to be a misconstruing of BEFORE by MC, and assuming everyone involved tones down the rhetoric, I'd recommend this move towards a reminder to MC that BEFORE, as it stands now, does not require anything beyond a Google (and Google News and Google Books) to be searched, and until that changes, the mere fact sources exist on other search engines does not constitute a violation of BEFORE unless there is evidence they would've been found through those search means. And I recommend that MC (or anyone, really) starts a discussion at the appropriate place if they think changes to BEFORE are necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- I read this and tried to search some names from AfD on Google Books. A search for Nicole Nönnig's name definitely returns something non-trivial: ("Nicole Nönnig kehrte allerdings nach kurzer Pause zurück . Mit Matthias Bleyer bildete sie ein Paar , das 2003 sogar internationale Wettbewerbe bestritt . Die Schlittschuhe haben Nicole und Matthias inzwischen jedoch an den Nagel ..."). --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll leave this to others to discuss, but this is the type of "evidence" you would be expected to produce to show that the user did not comply with BEFORE. That said, one instance of mention in a book does not meet WP:GNG, so unless you can show that there are multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that would've been found on a BEFORE, then it still doesn't mean that the user did not do a valid BEFORE. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the book: . (I've tried and tried, but I don't know how to add "bks" to the Google Books search URL.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- A search for "李宣潼" on Google News returned this article: and a couple more. The one I linked looks very solid, it is a full-fledged biography. (The AfD discussion is here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Li Xuantong. As usual, the rationale is:
Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements.
) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - And one more article → about Li Xuantong and her partner Wang Xinkang (also nominated for deletion by Bgsu98). It's like a print magazine article + interview, looks "massive". --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another example: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kim Yu-jae.
A simple Google News search for "김유재 2009" returns a lot. I didn't look too far, but I found two lengthy articles about her and her twin sister on the first page (, ) and voted "keep".
(I would also note that there are already some AfD regulars present in that discussion. But no one has googled her name.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - OMG, Bgsu98 nominated her sister for deletion, too: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kim Yu-seong. He nominated her on January 1, and no one has commented since. (Okay, I'll vote now and save her.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You do realize there’s a difference between an article about a person and the person themselves? You’re not saving anyone here. You are a volunteer Misplaced Pages editor, not a volunteer firefighter. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HyperAccelerated: Did it sound strange or silly? Sure, I understand the difference. But people do say "article's notability" when it's actually "the notability of an article's subject". I thought that an article and its subject are interchangeable in colloquial wikispeech. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You do realize there’s a difference between an article about a person and the person themselves? You’re not saving anyone here. You are a volunteer Misplaced Pages editor, not a volunteer firefighter. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll leave this to others to discuss, but this is the type of "evidence" you would be expected to produce to show that the user did not comply with BEFORE. That said, one instance of mention in a book does not meet WP:GNG, so unless you can show that there are multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that would've been found on a BEFORE, then it still doesn't mean that the user did not do a valid BEFORE. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I read this and tried to search some names from AfD on Google Books. A search for Nicole Nönnig's name definitely returns something non-trivial: ("Nicole Nönnig kehrte allerdings nach kurzer Pause zurück . Mit Matthias Bleyer bildete sie ein Paar , das 2003 sogar internationale Wettbewerbe bestritt . Die Schlittschuhe haben Nicole und Matthias inzwischen jedoch an den Nagel ..."). --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know the entire thing is a bit of a long read, but I would like to note that Bgsu98's tendency to make XFDs without any regard for GNG/BASIC - even for those where GNG/BASIC is met (1, 2, 3) - dates back to May 2022. In fact, last year I issued a warning on their talk page (which they then deleted) that this issue was creating more work for editors, but this is still continuing as of late. There seems to be an IDHT issue with WP:NOTBURO. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, trying to defuse the situation more. @Bgsu98: It appears that MC has been able to provide at least two examples for which there are multiple examples of potentially significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. And another user has identified at least 3 other AfDs in which sources were quickly found by other users. Yes, some of them (such as MC's examples) were found by Google searching the non-Latin alphabet version of the subject's name, but nothing in BEFORE suggests that searching only the subject's Latin name is appropriate. And it appears that these sources are all found with a quick Google search of the subject's name in the non-Latin script. Can you explain why you did not find these sources, or why, if you did find these sources, you did not identify them at the AfD discussion and/or did not consider them sufficient for GNG? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think of the limitations on nominating articles that User:Bgsu98 already stated they were willing to adopt? It's higher up in this discussion. Liz 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I spent a good 30-45 minutes reading this discussion before I made my first comment attempting to defuse this. I do not think that a voluntary restriction is going to be a good thing here, unless it is given the enforceability that a consensus here can give. I initially was concerned that EC was making this report with a poor understanding of BEFORE. But given that EC (and another editor) has/have now provided multiple examples of Google searches that show, at least at first glance, one or more sources that meet GNG for their related articles, I think there is ample evidence that Bgsu98 is violating BEFORE. I don't particularly care why they're violating BEFORE, but I would support waiting for their explanation regardless.If Bgsu98 is unable to provide any legitimate explanation for the at least 3 cases that have been identified now as having clear sources in the searches required by BEFORE, I would support a restriction on nominating articles for deletion in any way (PROD or AfD, or otherwise) since they cannot be trusted to follow BEFORE before they do so.All of that said, I think this should be moved to a subsection - starting with EC and Miraclepine's reports of specific cases. I stepped in as what you may call an inclusionist, thinking I'd be in support of sanctions immediately, but this is a complicated situation, and to be blunt, everything above my comment seems to have led nowhere. At the same time, I support giving Bgsu98 a chance to respond explaining why their BEFORE search was sufficient, before any sanctions are issued. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've provided some 20 examples as well. JTtheOG (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say: "Not before Bgsu98 goes through all his previous nominations and his PRODs and searches for sources for them." He probably deleted (okay, "nominated") hundreds of pages, he did enough damage and now should work on fixing it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not too helpful right now, man. No one can be forced to do anything. JTtheOG (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't propose to force anyone. But I have just came across a Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request and remembered how he was told to go through all the articles he had created and check/fix them before creating more. We have a similar situation here, I think. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Articles that should not have been deleted have been kept by consensus at AfD. This is how AfD works. They are in the exact same state that they were before they were nominated, perhaps even better by WP: HEY. No “damage” has occurred. Additionally, if you think an article has been deleted when it shouldn’t, it is your responsibility to bring your concerns to DRV. This does not change just because you made a thread at ANI. You do not get to pick and choose which policies apply to whom. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bgsu has already agreed to limit their nominations to a couple a day. This is a far stricter constraint than what could have probably been reached by consensus. What more do you want? For reasons I don’t understand, your response to this is “the limit should be more like 0” without any grounding in policy. As I see it, Bgsu is plainly negotiating in good faith, while your behavior is bordering on bullying. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HyperAccelerated has hit the nail on the head. This discussion should have been tossed immediately or at least closed down well before now. The early responses were that this was a content dispute not appropriate for ANI then the OP kept going with rapid fire posts and a few editors who appear to have a pre-existing axe to grind with @Bgsu98 revved it up into what it has become. As a side note it will be very interesting to see how the outstanding AFDs are adjudicated and by whom. Shrug02 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't propose to force anyone. But I have just came across a Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request and remembered how he was told to go through all the articles he had created and check/fix them before creating more. We have a similar situation here, I think. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not too helpful right now, man. No one can be forced to do anything. JTtheOG (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I spent a good 30-45 minutes reading this discussion before I made my first comment attempting to defuse this. I do not think that a voluntary restriction is going to be a good thing here, unless it is given the enforceability that a consensus here can give. I initially was concerned that EC was making this report with a poor understanding of BEFORE. But given that EC (and another editor) has/have now provided multiple examples of Google searches that show, at least at first glance, one or more sources that meet GNG for their related articles, I think there is ample evidence that Bgsu98 is violating BEFORE. I don't particularly care why they're violating BEFORE, but I would support waiting for their explanation regardless.If Bgsu98 is unable to provide any legitimate explanation for the at least 3 cases that have been identified now as having clear sources in the searches required by BEFORE, I would support a restriction on nominating articles for deletion in any way (PROD or AfD, or otherwise) since they cannot be trusted to follow BEFORE before they do so.All of that said, I think this should be moved to a subsection - starting with EC and Miraclepine's reports of specific cases. I stepped in as what you may call an inclusionist, thinking I'd be in support of sanctions immediately, but this is a complicated situation, and to be blunt, everything above my comment seems to have led nowhere. At the same time, I support giving Bgsu98 a chance to respond explaining why their BEFORE search was sufficient, before any sanctions are issued. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think of the limitations on nominating articles that User:Bgsu98 already stated they were willing to adopt? It's higher up in this discussion. Liz 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose any sanctions to Bgsu98. I did a spot-check of some of the more contentious AfDs and, honestly, the keep !votes did not provide a compelling argument to keep in any of those cases. As I mentioned to Moscow Connection above, for example, they provided six links to one of the subjects - and every single link was in the sports.ru domain which is not independent and does not establish notability for a Russian athlete. It's very unfortunate that so many editors here have expressed either distain for or fear of the AfD process, which is integral to the quality of this project and which I would heartily encourage more editors to participate in. And I can assure those people with misconceptions that many AfDs conclude with an article being kept or with no consensus - which is a de-facto keep. The sum of all human knowledge is a lofty goal. But one philosophical point I would ask extreme inclusionists to consider is that there is a difference between knowledge and data. AfD is a process whereby we distinguish between knowledge and data according to criteria - imperfect criteria surely but criteria - which we agreed to as participants in this project. We shouldn't be punishing a person for efficiently doing a hard job just because it's one that has a side-effect of upsetting people. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- In case it was not already clear I too Oppose sanctions against @Bgsu98. They should be given the chance to prove they will stick to their pledge to slow down on AFD nominations. Also sanctioning them will set a precedent for others who are unhappy with AFD proceeses and outcomes to seek similar sanctions against other nominators and could well have the effect of putting many people off participating in the process for fear of retribution when in fact it would be better if more people took part. Shrug02 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whereas I support some kind of restriction on the number of AFDs they can start per day. GiantSnowman 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I offered up self-imposed restrictions above, including the caveat that there would be no further skating nominations until the ones currently in the system work their way through. According to my log, my last nomination was January 7th. As more contentious AFD's can sometimes take up to a month to process, that should allow for sufficient time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, your log is regularly cleared, including your most recent nomination. JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once an AFD is settled, I remove it. What's the problem? The log shows active AFD's only. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, your log is regularly cleared, including your most recent nomination. JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I offered up self-imposed restrictions above, including the caveat that there would be no further skating nominations until the ones currently in the system work their way through. According to my log, my last nomination was January 7th. As more contentious AFD's can sometimes take up to a month to process, that should allow for sufficient time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whereas I support some kind of restriction on the number of AFDs they can start per day. GiantSnowman 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- In case it was not already clear I too Oppose sanctions against @Bgsu98. They should be given the chance to prove they will stick to their pledge to slow down on AFD nominations. Also sanctioning them will set a precedent for others who are unhappy with AFD proceeses and outcomes to seek similar sanctions against other nominators and could well have the effect of putting many people off participating in the process for fear of retribution when in fact it would be better if more people took part. Shrug02 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- How about Bgsu98 just agrees to not nominate more than, I don't know, two articles per day (based on their comment
I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two!
) and we end the discussion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- @BeanieFan11 I second this proposal. Shrug02 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- We should definitely end it. I'm not an admin but that seems more than fair. JTtheOG (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Two a day is fine by me. GiantSnowman 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- We should definitely end it. I'm not an admin but that seems more than fair. JTtheOG (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there should be a requirement for him to show some sources he has found. (In every nomination. If there aren't any, then a link to a Google search query can suffice.)
Cause I've seen him lately on some figure skater articles in my watchlist, and I don't see him adding any references ever. It looks like his edits are purely technical. (As well as his nominations.) He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content, just updates scores and changes the table formatting. (And nominates for deletion.)
Does he ever search the net? That's the question. Has it happened even once that he wanted to delete an article and then found a source for it, added the source and went away? --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- Wow. Mister "I would also like to note that I am polite" is again denigrating others' work, as if adding scores and formatting tables to meet Misplaced Pages's MOS is unimportant. "He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content." Yep, very polite. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- And, as I've said, one should also search in the skater's native language. And for Russian figure skaters, Google doesn't work, you need Yandex. (And Yandex is not good as a search engine, some effort is needed to find anything. The major sports websites have profiles for everyone, you need to find the needed profile and go from there. It sounds too complicated, but that's how it is.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, he doesn't appear to know how to use the Internet Archive. The Matthias Bleyer article had a good reference, I found it in the archive. His nomination (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matthias Bleyer) doesn't mention the reference, like if it doesn't exist. Maybe he didn't even look at the references section. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What I mean is that he should be required to show some sources he has found and to explain why these sources do not suffice. (After all, if he nominates an article, then obviously he doesn't find the coverage sufficient.)
There's always something. (Almost always.) But since he nominates mostly skaters who have finished their careers, the number of potential sources (news articles) found on the internet shouldn't be big. There are usually just a few. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BeanieFan11 I second this proposal. Shrug02 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Smm380 and logged out editing
- Smm380 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 195.238.112.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
I have warned this editor twice about logged out editing because they are evidently editing the article history of Ukraine both logged in and as an IP. This makes tracking their edits more difficult since they have made hundreds altogether in recent months (and they are only focused on this specific article). The IP edits seem to come from 195.238.112.0/20 (at least most of them) and they are often made shortly before/after Smm380 decides to log back in. See for example this edit by Smm380 and this edit by the IP a few minutes later regarding the same section. This is now especially a problem because they are deciding to make reverts as an IP.
In general, they have not listened to prior warnings. I have given them multiple warnings about adding unsourced text, but they are still continuing to add unsourced text without including citations first. But they have not responded to any of my warnings or explained why they are still doing this. Mellk (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I noticed the concerns raised regarding edits made both from my account and an IP address, and I’d like to clarify that this was neither intentional nor malicious. I simply forgot to log into my account while making those edits.
- I apologize if this caused any confusion. My sole intention was to improve content related to Ukrainian history, a topic I am deeply passionate about.
- Regarding the delayed response to your messages, I sincerely apologize. I hadn’t noticed the notifications until recently, as I was unfamiliar with how Misplaced Pages’s messaging system works. Now that I understand it better, I’ll ensure to respond more promptly in the future.
- I truly appreciate the valuable work you do to maintain the quality and reliability of Misplaced Pages. I will make sure to contribute responsibly and stay logged in during my future edits. Smm380 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Another not here IP
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2601:18C:8183:D410:1D8C:39C9:DCEE:1166 (talk · contribs) is altering another users posts to insert political commentary ] as well as making PA's, with a clear statement they do not intend to stop ], and edit warring over it as well. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Now past 3rr reinsertion of their alteration of another users post. So its now vandalism. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
As well as this tit for tat report ]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- IP blocked for edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Heritage Foundation planning to doxx editors
Closing to prevent a split discussion. The most central discussion about this is currently held at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. —Alalch E. 22:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See current discussion on Heritage Foundation talkpage. Various sources are beginning to report on this, see , . It seems they plan to “identify and target Misplaced Pages editors abusing their position by analyzing text patterns, usernames, and technical data through data breach analysis, fingerprinting, HUMINT, and technical targeting,” and “engage curated sock puppet accounts to reveal patterns and provoke reactions, information disclosure,” and “push specific topics to expose more identity-related details.” An IP user on the discussion page says "they intend to add malicious links (sources) that will set cookies, grab your IP, and get tracking going for your device. This has likely already started. Be careful, there are lots of ways to hide where a link goes." Photos of Japan (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there's a far more productive discussion going on at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. BusterD (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- A friendly reminder: It's always a good time to review the strength and age of account passwords, plus consider two-factor verification. The world is constantly changing... BusterD (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Isn't doxing a federal/punishable offense in ten states (more or less), including DC? If they grab the information of or out a minor, that can easily be taken on as a form of harassment and won't end well. EF 17:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- No doubt the Trump adminstration will make pursuing such cases a high priority. EEng 22:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm unsure why this isn't a WMF issue, due to potential legal and safeguarding issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The WMF has been made aware. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Truffle457
Editor blocked indefinitely. Liz 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Truffle457 (talk · contribs)
"Murad I the ruler of the Ottoman Turks seems to have been a blasphemous person"
I don't even know what to call this. This user has few edits but most are like this. Beshogur (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a new user with only a single level I notice on their page. I've issued a level II caution for using talk pages as a forum and added a welcome template. If this persists, stronger measures may be needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Beshogur, I'd advise talking with an editor, through words, not templates, before filing a complaint at ANI. That's a general recommendation unless there is active vandalism going on. Liz 22:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- His comments are disturbing tbh. Beshogur (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The user's response to Ad Orientem's warning demonstrates that they have no insight into their misconduct and are WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Indeffed per WP:CIR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, by having a conversation, you discerned that CIR applied. Some communication, I think, is better than silence at least when you are trying to make sense of an unclear situation. Liz 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
YZ357980, second complaint
I have again reverted YZ357980's insertion of an image of dubious copyright; change of Somali Armed Forces native-name to an incorrect format; and violation of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG at Somali Armed Forces - see ] which had another editor fix the incorrect file format. I believe this editor is WP:NOTHERE and not willing to communicate and I would request administrator attention to this matter. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, that image has been on Commons since 2015 and was made by a different user. That said, YZ357980 continues to make these borderline disruptive edits and has never posted on an article talk page or a user talk page. I've pblocked them from articlespace until communication improves, as it is not optional. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1. Thankyou!! Much appreciated!!
- 2. Yes I was aware of the status of those images, but I repeatedly told YZ357980 that it was of borderline copyright and WP had to follow US copyright law. I have managed to get the equivalent Iraqi ones deleted; I will go after the Somali ones to try to get them deleted.
- 3. Someone (an anon IP) posted on his talkapage as if replying, see . Please feel free to reconsider your actions should you wish, but I continue to believe YZ357980 is NOTHERE. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given this which is clearly YZ not logged in, the block has been changed to full indef. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
My reverted edit at List of Famicom Disk System games
At worst, this deserves a {{minnow}}. This is, at heart, a content dispute, and Talk:List of Famicom Disk System games is the place to discuss it. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi
I added {{clear}} to the top of table of List of Famicom Disk System games to make the table use the whole horizontal space. I did it according to other list of video games articles and reception section of some video games articles to help the table list look better or not reception table to conflict with references (double column references more specifically).
However @NakhlaMan: reverted my edit and with a rude language called it "UGLIER" and calls it waste of too much space.
With my edit, it adds just a small space to the top of list heading but the table could be read easier and uses the whole available space. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this is the right place for this. Yes, the user could have been much nicer on their opinion, but this is too much of an escalation, too fast. I would advise commenting on their talk page, or on the page talk page. Cheers, Heart 04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
- Yes, their edit summary was mildly rude, but this is not actionable, please open a discussion on the article's talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Edit War in Korean clans of foreign origin
Ger2024 blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User: Ger2024
Ger2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ger2024 has been Misplaced Pages:Edit warring and violated WP:3RR (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly WP:NPOV despite my direct requests asking them to not engage in an edit war and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
- This report belongs at WP:ANEW. Heart 05:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
- Who posted this complaint, they didn't leave a signature which, to me, shows a lack of experience. They also didn't leave any diffs so it's impossible to judge if there were indeed reverts. And as HeartGlow states, this is more suitable for ANEW which focuses on edit-warring. Liz 08:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unclear if genuine question or rhetorical, but in case it's the former, it seems to be User:Sunnyediting99. (They have over 1000 edits and have been editing since 2022, but it appears they may be used to using the Reply tool, which might explain why they didn't think to ~~~~ since replying in that manner does that automatically? I think? ...Not trying to excuse it so much as I'm trying to understand it.) - Purplewowies (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I was a bit sleep deprived when I made, I'll go to WP:ANEW.
- And yea im way too used to the reply tool, i think i make these posts like once perhaps every few months so i got a bit rusty on this. Thanks! Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unclear if genuine question or rhetorical, but in case it's the former, it seems to be User:Sunnyediting99. (They have over 1000 edits and have been editing since 2022, but it appears they may be used to using the Reply tool, which might explain why they didn't think to ~~~~ since replying in that manner does that automatically? I think? ...Not trying to excuse it so much as I'm trying to understand it.) - Purplewowies (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Subtle vandalism by 8.40.247.4
Excellent report results in a two-year block. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 8.40.247.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Since early 2020, User:8.40.247.4 has consistently and subtly made edits that:
- minimize achievements and contributions of black people in American society
- obscure or soften wording about right-wing and far-right leanings of conservative figures
- promote fringe, racist, or pseudo-scientific theories
The IP generally attempts to disguise the edits by lying about changes made in the edit summary. Here is a list of problem edits in chronological order:
| Date | Page | Issue |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 2020 | McComb, Mississippi (diff) |
|
| May 31, 2020 | John Derbyshire (diff) |
|
| Jul 21, 2020 | Richard Hayne (diff) |
|
| Jul 28, 2020 | Louie Gohmert (diff) |
|
| Sep 24, 2020 | Back-to-Africa movement (diff) |
|
| Jan 14, 2021 | Virginia Dare (diff) |
|
| Apr 28, 2021 | Bret Stephens (diff) |
|
| June 25, 2021 | John Gabriel Stedman (diff) |
|
| Oct 7, 2021 | Appalachian music (diff) |
|
| Nov 27, 2021 | Steve Sailer (diff) |
|
| Jan 26, 2022 | Mongoloid (diff) |
|
| Jul 6, 2022 | Indian Mills, New Jersey (diff) |
|
| Feb 20, 2023 | Myth of meritocracy (diff) |
|
| Mar 26, 2023 | Millford Plantation (diff) |
|
| Jun 17, 2023 | John Birch Society (diff) |
|
| Jan 9, 2025 | Robert Gould Shaw (diff) |
|
| Jan 9, 2025 | Virginia Dare (diff) |
|
The IP doesn't make enough edits at a time for vandalism warnings to rise to level 4, and thus has never been blocked (which is why I'm reporting this here and not at WP:AIV). These groups of edits are also spaced out over months, so a different user warns the IP each time (eight times so far!). The user, unfamiliar with the IP's editing history, treats the old warnings as "expired" and simply issues another level 1 or 2 warning.
I believe this IP should be banned for a while. Unfortunately, there are probably many more like this one that haven't been caught yet. --Iiii I I I (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I spot checked these and yeah this is bad. Using false and misleading edit summaries to remove in most cases sourced descriptions to slant articles. spryde | talk 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ. Blocked for two years, since it looks like the IP is stable. charlotte 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Iiii I I I (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this discussion is a good example of providing all the infomation needed to the admins to make the decision. If only everyone who complained here did the same. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Iiii I I I (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ. Blocked for two years, since it looks like the IP is stable. charlotte 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Egl7, anti-Armenian behaviour
Egl7 indef'd for being here to argue instead of building an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Egl7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Egl7 clearly has bone to pick with Armenia, including dancing on the fine line of Armenian genocide denial, not to mention severe WP:CIR issues. As a Russian admin admit perfectly put it when they indeffed Egl7; "Since the participant clearly came to Misplaced Pages to fight, I have blocked him indefinitely, because with such edits one cannot expect constructiveness from him."
- Egl7 never tries to take responsibility for their actions, instead being upset and obsessing over that I didn't revert a random IP that added "Armenian" under "common languages" in an infobox almost two years ago , mentioning that 7 (!) times
- According to Egl7, having three things (out of 25) about Armenia on my userpage - being part of the WikiProject Armenia, being interested in the history of Greater Armenia, and opposing the denial of the Armenian genocide, means I support "Armenia's actions" , whatever that means. They never explained it despite being asked to, which leads me to the next thing.
- Here is this incredibly bizarre rant by Egl7 for me having stuff about Armenia on my userpage and not Azerbaijan, accusing me of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment and whatnot;
- Egl7 does not understand when someone is not interested in engaging in WP:FORUM whataboutism, instead resorting to WP:HARASS, first on my talk page , then an article talk page , then their own talk page . This random question about the Khojaly massacre appeared after I asked them if they denied the Armenian Genocide since they considered me having a userpage about it part of "supporting Armenia's actions". According to this well sourced Wiki section , the term "genocide" is a "fabrication" for the Khojaly massacre, which is "used to counter the narrative of the Armenian genocide."
- Dancing on the fine line of Armenian genocide denial, if not denying it
- Despite being blocked on the Russian Misplaced Pages for it, their first action here was trying the very same thing they were indeffed for ; changing "Nakhichevan" (Armenian spelling) to "Nakhichivan" (Azerbaijani spelling)
- I truly tried to have WP:GF despite their disruptive conduct and previous block, but this user is simply WP:NOTHERE. There also seems to be severe WP:CIR at hand, as they struggle understanding a lot of what I say, including even reading WP:RS, which I had to ask them to read 5 (!) times before I gave up. As seen in our long discussion , they also to struggle understand basic sentences/words, such as the difference between "official" and "common".
I'm not going to respond to Egl7 here unless an admin wants me to. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
HistoryofIran, anti-Azerbaijani behaviour
WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@HistoryofIran clearly has bone to pick with Azerbaijan, including reverting my good-faith work which includes correction of arrangement of the "Today is part of" infobox following the country, in which, at present, the largest part of the territory of the Nakhchivan Khanate is located. @HistoryofIran is reverting back changes, saying that my https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nakhichevan_Khanate&diff=prev&oldid=1268162595 edit is not an improvement without any real reason and without offering any argument. Also they are stating that there is a restriction according to Misplaced Pages:GS/AA, while ignoring edits of other users. I asked them many times to open a discussion so both sides could offer different proposals which in turn would lead to a consensus. In response all my requests were ignored. Also they have been accusing me of having conflicts with other users and countries while I have never noted or mentioned any and they have been impolite to me all the time, while i have never been impolite or rude to them. I want to say that I am blocked on ru.wikipedia, again, because of no real reason(They are vandalizing and projecting their actions onto me) and now i'm even worried that en.wikipedia will do the same to me.
They are also dancing on the fine line of denying Khojaly massacre, if not denying it.
Thank You. Egl7 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Boomerang this is a clearly retaliatory filing. I think Egl7 is WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Boomerang obvious retaliatory filling. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a non-EC editor, you should not be discussing Armenia/Azerbaijan issues at all except for making specific, constructive edit requests on the relevant talk pages. Once you received notice about the restriction, none of your related edits were in good faith, and all may be reverted without being considered edit warring. And quite frankly, the diffs that HistoryofIran has presented about your behavior don't look great. Your behavior on Russian Misplaced Pages doesn't affect your rights on English Misplaced Pages, but since you brought it up, I have to agree that you were there and now here more to fight than to edit a collaborative encyclopedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CoffeeCrumbs tell me, please, if there is a restriction why are everybody's edits are ignored except mine? You are not doing justice. Egl7 (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because the restriction is specific to people who do not have extended confirmed status. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- i know that i'm being picky and can sound like a snitch, don't get me wrong, but, at least, i'm editing from an account while other users are editing from random IPs. How is it possible for a random IP to have an extended confirmed status? Egl7 (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The person you created this obviously retaliatory report against is not an IP and does have EC status. The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not taking about @HistoryofIran here. Look up the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nakhichevan_Khanate&action=history. You can see that there are IPs, edits of which were ignored even if those edits have been done after the restriction had been set. This is what makes it unfair. By this logic my edits should've been ignored too. Egl7 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- No IP has edited the page in question in nearly a year. You are complaining about a non-issue. signed, Rosguill 16:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The restriction has been set much earlier than a year. Egl7 (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right, but at ANI we deal with
urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
The IP edits here are old news. Further, having now reviewed the page's last 5 years of history...out of 7 IP edits made, 5 were reverted almost immediately, 1 is arguably not covered by GS/AA (Special:Diff/1203058517), leaving exactly 1 edit that probably should have been reverted but wasn't (Special:Diff/1177447457, which added "Armenian language"). You'll notice upon minimal investigation, however, that HistoryofIran's most embattled edits to this page were to remove "Armenian language" from the article in July of 2023; it's rather disingenuous to accuse them of all people of turning a blind eye here. signed, Rosguill 16:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- This does not refute what I said above. Egl7 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are actually 2 or more of them. I guess it's his duty to support both sides and remove or add information which is or is not necessary. Egl7 (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're trying to say here at this point, but it also doesn't matter. HoI raised multiple valid concerns regarding the quality of your editing in an area that per our community guidelines, you should be intentionally avoiding. In response, you filed a retaliatory report and are now arguing technicalities that are tangential to the substance of HoI's initial report. The fact that you are arguing such trivial, irrelevant points is evidence against you in these proceedings. Your best course of action is to follow Simonm223's advice above. Failure to take that advice at this point is almost certain to end with you blocked. signed, Rosguill 16:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right, but at ANI we deal with
- The restriction has been set much earlier than a year. Egl7 (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- No IP has edited the page in question in nearly a year. You are complaining about a non-issue. signed, Rosguill 16:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident? Egl7 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not taking about @HistoryofIran here. Look up the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nakhichevan_Khanate&action=history. You can see that there are IPs, edits of which were ignored even if those edits have been done after the restriction had been set. This is what makes it unfair. By this logic my edits should've been ignored too. Egl7 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not. However, someone making an inappropriate edit without being caught does not make your inappropriate edits into appropriate ones. There have been many successful bank robberies in history, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to rob the bank next to my grocery store. You need to start focusing on how you conduct yourself, not on how others do, because right now, you appear to be headed towards a block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand you. But i want to note that no matter how successful are the robberies, a lengthy criminal investigation will be launched. In addition, i want to say that i wasn't aware of those edits before I did mine. Egl7 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You did receive a warning on your talk page. Your conduct issues are not limited to violating ECP. You would be wise to heed the advice given in this thread from Simonm223 and Rosguill. The community does not have much patience for nationalist editing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident? Egl7 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:GS/AA,
The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed
. That includes complaints about other editors. Which you should know already, as you have been repeatedly warned about GS/AA and should have read that page carefully. signed, Rosguill 16:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- So Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident, which in my case is "HistoryofIran, anti-Azerbaijani behaviour"? I am asking this because you said that "The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward". And still, what you said in this comment does not refute what I said above. Egl7 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:GS/AA,
- Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident? Egl7 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You did receive a warning on your talk page. Your conduct issues are not limited to violating ECP. You would be wise to heed the advice given in this thread from Simonm223 and Rosguill. The community does not have much patience for nationalist editing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand you. But i want to note that no matter how successful are the robberies, a lengthy criminal investigation will be launched. In addition, i want to say that i wasn't aware of those edits before I did mine. Egl7 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The person you created this obviously retaliatory report against is not an IP and does have EC status. The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- i know that i'm being picky and can sound like a snitch, don't get me wrong, but, at least, i'm editing from an account while other users are editing from random IPs. How is it possible for a random IP to have an extended confirmed status? Egl7 (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lists of everyone that has been sanctioned for GS/AA violations, or CT/AA violations more broadly, can be found at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Armenia_and_Azerbaijan#Individual_sanctions and further at WP:AELOG under each year's Armenia-Azerbaijan (CT/A-A) section. Note that this only lists people who repeatedly ignored warnings and got blocked for it, simple reverts are not logged. I would encourage you to avoid getting your own username added to that list. signed, Rosguill 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because the restriction is specific to people who do not have extended confirmed status. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CoffeeCrumbs tell me, please, if there is a restriction why are everybody's edits are ignored except mine? You are not doing justice. Egl7 (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- All I see is Egl7 doubling down. I have already tried to tell them that there was nothing wrong with the IP edit they are fixiated on, and that it doesn’t excuse their unconstructice edits regardless. The fact that they were caught red handed in genocide denial and anti-Armenian conduct and then fruitlessly attempts to make me appear as the same with Azerbaijanis by copy-pasting part of my report and replace “Armenian” with “Azerbaijani” says a lot about this user. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HistoryofIran "There was nothing wrong"
- As @Rosguill said 1 is arguably not covered by GS/AA (Special:Diff/1203058517), leaving exactly 1 edit that probably should have been reverted but wasn't (Special:Diff/1177447457, which added "Armenian language").
- As I understand you were aware or now are aware of those edits done by those IPs what tells me that you admit that you ignored or are ignoring the edits that have been done after the restriction has been set and now you are still stating that there was or is nothing wrong with those IPs' edits. Egl7 (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- And we're done here. If you can read my comments here close enough to try to use them to make tendentious arguments at HoI, you should be able to understand that I already told you this is not even slightly appropriate. signed, Rosguill 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I endorse this block. Cullen328 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- And we're done here. If you can read my comments here close enough to try to use them to make tendentious arguments at HoI, you should be able to understand that I already told you this is not even slightly appropriate. signed, Rosguill 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Yemen meh's unreferenced edits
I'm reporting @Yemen meh: for unreferenced edits. They've been told many times in the past to post references, and looking at their contributions page, they have done so many unreferenced edits in the last few days. Hotwiki (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, just few days ago - this happened. Hotwiki (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
IP hopper repeatedly adding unsourced and incorrect information to UK Rail articles
Discussion moved from WP:AIV to avoid cluttering up that noticeboard with discussion.
There is a user at the 27.55.xxx.xxx range that is repeatedly adding unsourced and invalid information to UK rail articles. The primary problem is the addition of a Maximum Speed to steam locomotives - steam locomotives in the UK did not really have a formal maximum speed, so this parameter is not used in these circumstances. As the user is hopping between IPs, it's proving nearly impossible to leave adequate warnings on talk pages, and as noted at AIV a rangeblock would affect a large number of innocent good faith users. Is there a way forward here, or is it a case of whack-a-mole?
Diffs:
- 27.55.93.62 (talk · contribs) -
- 27.55.83.83 (talk · contribs) - &
- 27.55.79.100 (talk · contribs) -
- 27.55.70.101 (talk · contribs) - , &
- 27.55.68.32 (talk · contribs) - .
Cheers, Danners430 (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seems the only answer is to continue playing w-a-m until our Thai friend gets bored. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've created an edit filter, Special:AbuseFilter/1335, to detect IPs in that range editing articles that contain {{infobox locomotive}}. I've set it just to log for the moment; let's see what it catches. — The Anome (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 78.135.166.12
78.135.166.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning & hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4 (addition of content not in pre-existing source, Pixar not mentioned), 5. Waxworker (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Persistent violation of established consensus on McLaren Driver Development Programme
OP has flounced. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
McLaren Driver Development Programme is one of many motorsport-related articles that includes sections listing which racing championships drivers have won. Historically, these sections have only included season-long racing series championships, not simply the winners of notable races. However, Thfeeder, MSport1005, and Road Atlanta Turn 5 have persistently tried to list winning the Macau Grand Prix as a "title." I have addressed this and explained the consensus multiple times, and repeatedly asked for them to return to the page to the consensus and start a discussion about changing that consensus, but all have refused and have insisted persisted with continually reverting the page. MSport1005 specifically has engaged in edit warring and personal attacks as well. All I am asking is that the page be reverted to consensus, without the one single race included as if it is a season-long championship, and then we can discuss why or why not to add it. All have refused. I don't think this ever needed to be escalated to the admins but literally everyone else involved has refused to have a simple discussion about this. I really don't understand their behavior. Personally I believe this change would significantly impact dozens of articles and would require larger discussions at the WikiProject level, but again, it does not seem like others are willing to have this discussion. Lazer-kitty (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: the relevant talk page discussion can be found here. No "personal attacks" were exchanged. Instead, Road Atlanta Turn 5 and I have tried to urge the user above to seek consensus peacefully instead of making threats and imposing their views. The user cites an "informal consensus" but has been unable to prove its existence.
- MSport1005 (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Lazer-kitty, this looks like a content dispute. The steps for resolving such disputes are listed at WP:DR. I think you would find it very difficult to pursue this dispute here, but first you would need diffs showing bad conduct by others, and your conduct would also be looked at. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Phil Bridger I mean, scroll up. The guy literally just attacked me and accused me of making threats and trying to impose my views, both of which are false. It was absolutely just a content dispute until they started behaving that way. Lazer-kitty (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lazer-kitty, your second comment at Talk:McLaren Driver Development Programme#Macau was
First off, apologize immediately for your insults above. These are completely uncalled for.
There were no insults and such a rapid escalation of aggression is inexplicable. Forced apologies are worthless. Then, you described this routine and mundane content dispute as "vandalism" even though you presented no evidence of deliberate intent toobstruct or defeat the project's purpose
, which is required for a valid accusation of vandalism. It looks to me like you are being far too aggressive here, and so I recommend that you adopt a more collaborative attitude. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- Yes, that comment was in response to
I kindly urge you to cut down your condescending tone and edit warring, or external measures could be taken.
You don't consider that insulting? I do. I was not being condescending, I sincerely tried my best to be polite, nor was I edit warring. Literally all I want to do is be collaborative and they all refuse. I have asked for collaboration numerous times! Lazer-kitty (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- No, that's not an insult. You're talking down to other editors, which can feel condescending to them. I strongly urge you to dial it back and engage in creating a new, solid consensus around this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that comment was in response to
- Lazer-kitty, your second comment at Talk:McLaren Driver Development Programme#Macau was
- Phil Bridger I mean, scroll up. The guy literally just attacked me and accused me of making threats and trying to impose my views, both of which are false. It was absolutely just a content dispute until they started behaving that way. Lazer-kitty (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reading through the talk page is pretty bizarre - Lazer-kitty is insisting their opinion is consenus against 3 editors who disagree with them. I know nothing about motorsport but to me this is evidence that consensus is against LK, not with them as they claim. I think this earns a trout for opening this filing, the misunderstanding of the concept of consensus, and for battleground behaviour - but there's nothing here that needs admin attention. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone involved for bullying off me this platform. Never in my life did I expect that 20 years of editing would end with being gaslit by multiple admins and editors. Really appreciate your efforts in killing this encyclopedia. My only hope is that one day someone forks Misplaced Pages into a new encyclopedia with competent oversight, i.e. people who can see through obvious trolling and bad faith actions, and who don't rely on aggressive tone policing to make their judgements. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) The filer appears to have vanished and retired. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- As multiple people have pointed out, you are seriously overreacting. Your behaviour is completely disproportionate to the content dispute you are involved in. You only have yourself to look at there. If this is how you react to people disagreeing with you, you are the one with a serious problem. Tvx1 20:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Engage01: ad hominem personal attacks and one against many
Engage01 (talk · contribs) has been arguing to include an incredibly lengthy quote in Palisades Fire (2025). Upon my removal of the quote and suggestion to bring it to the talk page, they've begun a large-scale argument that me and most other editors that disagree with the addition of the quote as lacking competence, not understanding quality, or one-word "wrong" replies. Consensus is clearly against them but instead of coming up with actual policy-based reasons for every other editor !voting in the poll they set up (all in favor of not having the quote) they've chose to accuse us of not understanding policy or not seeing that the individual in question is important in the matter enough to deserve a long quote. They haven't been around for long, and have gotten multiple warnings for personal attack-type language in the conversation. I've been asked by them to "remove myself from the conversation" and they suggested I was "learning while you edit" while not understanding WP:DUE. I don't have time to add any diffs (all the comments are still live) except for Special:Diff/1268631697, them blanking their talk page, and here a few minutes later, where they keep their argument at "I can't understand how editors can misapply "undue weight."". This could be a severe case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU with the blanking. I'm hoping whoever sees this can at least get them to cut out their personal attacks. Cheers. Departure– (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I thought I removed the quote first, but it was removed again by Departure. Nevertheless this user has made personal attacks on my User talk page as well. I posted two warnings here and here on their talk page but Engage01 just blanked them very quickly. I wish to WP:DROPTHESTICK but this user started a new section on my talk page (linked above) to argue about "undue weight" which is something I don't recall mentioning at all in this situation.
- I remember now. I moved the quote from the body of the article to inside the citation but I had a feeling that it was only a gradual stage before it would be fully removed by WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you for bringing this to the ANI. Kire1975 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've pblocked them for one week from the article and its talk page for disruptive editing, personal attacks, incivility, and bludgeoning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The method of engagement at that talk page is really poor. I've closed the section now that the editor has been p-blocked, no need to continue to sink time into it. Daniel (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know they're partially blocked from that page, but I went through their edit history and I found (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) different diffs of them adding the quote in question into the article (at least 7 of which were after it had been removed), and I think that constitutes edit warring. They never got notice for violating 3RR but they very clearly did. Maybe the block from the Palisades Fire should be extended or expanded? I've seen worse sanctions for less disruption. Departure– (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The method of engagement at that talk page is really poor. I've closed the section now that the editor has been p-blocked, no need to continue to sink time into it. Daniel (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Problems with Pipera
Pipera blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Pipera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I've listed some illustrative diffs below along with explanations where needed. I've tried to be concise but it's difficult at times to explain the issues. There are more problems I've got documented, but I tried to not overwhelm this filing.
I'm concerned that Pipera does not understand what wikipedia is for and what we do - their continual references to the fact that they are a descendant of the article subjects and that they know through their own research that historians or scholars are wrong, is a big problem and they have not taken explanations of what we do here (as opposed to a genealogical research site) on board. Their continual sourcing problems - removing sources, adding unsourced information, arguing that sites like WikiTree are reliable, arguing that they know better than the reliable sources, and, worst, the changing of sourced information to say something different than what the source actually says - all these are big red-flag issues. Explanations of how they have issues have been met with either no-engagement with the points raised or walls of text. I also have WP:CIR concerns as they seem unable to edit without formatting, grammar, and other issues.
As for a solution, I'm open to suggestions. A topic ban from medieval biographies would probably solve the current problem, but I'm not sure that will not just move the problem elsewhere. If someone would volunteer to mentor Pipera, that might work, but I've exhausted my good faith already in the last month, and it would need to be someone with a lot of patience, and I'm not sure the CIR issues won't just show up somewhere else.
- In a series of edits from 24 to 26 Dec 2024 at Ralph Basset Pipera changes sourced information to have it say something that the source does not quite say, adds information that is unrelated to the subject of the article, along with grammar issues. I pointed out the problems with these edits on the talk page here which got a series of replies that repeated parts of the article and frankly, I'm not sure what they meant to convey with it.
- In a series of edits on 31 Dec 2024 at Henry I of England, Pipera removes sources from sourced information, adds unsourced information, and generally mucks up the text and formatting. After being reverted by an editor and re-adding their edits, they post a long digression on the talk page. I documented the problems with their edits on the talk page, but they were never addressed.
- 2 Jan 2025 At William the Conqueror, Pipera adds a citation needed tag to an already cited sentence, one cited to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
- On 4 Jan 2025 at Enguerrand II, Count of Ponthieu, Pipera changes Enguerrand's offspring from a daughter to a daughter and son, removing the sourced statement that Enguerrand had no male offspring, and changing his brother and successor Guy into a son instead. This is done while keeping the three sources that previously supported Guy as a brother, not a son. One of the attached sources is Musset p. 104, which can be accessed at the Internet Archive it says "Guy I of Ponthieu is a well-known figure who inherited the county after the death in battle of his brother, Enguerrand II, in 1053" See talk page where a discussion about another source that supports Enguerrand as having no male offspring is dismissed as "There are a number of updated versions the work" but without substantiating such a claim.
- In a series of edits on 6 Jan 2025 at Sibyl of Falaise Pipera copies an earlier section of the article into a new place without removing it at the older location so that now the article repeats the section starting "Katherine Keats-Rohan argues instead...". This series of edits also adds unsourced information and removes sourced information. I reverted the edits with the statement "remove repetition and restore sources to information" but was re-reverted with the edit summary "Undid revision 1267745167 by Ealdgyth (talk) sorry this is my family tree and I know what was placed here is correct". There are further edits to this article here and then a discussion on the talk page about what they said was a "will" of William de Falaise actually turns out to be a charter. I pointed this out on the talk page, and that got a flurry of replies on the talk page just don't make any sense to me. Maybe they are upset that some historians might think Sibyl was illegitimate? They keep saying things like "They state Sybil of Falaise might have been yet another b######d." which took me a bit to realize that they were censoring "bastard". Note that the article still in places calls this charter a "will" and says that "In the charter of William de Falaise, he bequeaths everything to his wife Geva." However, Pipera at Talk:Sibyl of Falaise#Marriage and Issue claims to translate the charter and their translation says nothing about William bequeathing everything to his wife - it's a standard gift-charter giving some property to a church, with his wife mentioned as also giving the property along with William. This raises serious issues about Pipera's ability to read and understand sources and use them appropriately.
- In a series of edits ending on 6 Jan 2025 Pipera adds unsourced information as well as a long series of genealogical descents to an article about a 12th-century nobleman, much of the information is not really related to the subject of the article.
- On 7 Jan 2025 at Richard de Courcy Pipera changes sourced information without updating the source, removing the "probably" from "probably was the son", and making it a categorical statement that Richard was the son of Robert de Courcy.
- 7 Jan 2025 at William de Courcy (died c. 1114) Pipera removes sources from information and adds unsourced information. I reverted with an edit summary of "Restore sources to information, no need for this heading, and we do not need a list here" but was re-reverted with the edit summary "with all due respect we have this everywhere in Misplaced Pages, further it adds clarity to the entry. In my opinion. Further, added the name of Williams wife Avice to the entry BTW she is the daughter of the Earl of Skipton her mother is Cecily de Rumily they are my 23rd Great Grandparents". I then attempted to discuss at the talk page here but this has been ignored.
- 9/10 Jan 2025 at Talk:Sibyl of Falaise - I reply here to a comment of theirs. Pipera reverts it with an edit summary of "Do not delete my tak page responses", but I did not delete any of their responses, I merely replied. Two edits later, they delete a whole section they had started, including the replies that I had made to them, pointing out problems, violating WP:REDACT.
- I've tried to avoid bringing this here, but I've reached the point where I cannot keep dealing with Pipera (talk · contribs). They continue to add unsourced and unrelated information to articles, refuse to take on formatting advice, continue to assert that they know better than the reliable sources in articles, and continue to post walls of text on talk pages that do not help with collaborative editing.
- I've listed some illustrative diffs below along with explanations where needed. I've tried to be concise but it's difficult at times to explain the issues. There are more problems I've got documented, but I tried to not overwhelm this filing.
- I'm concerned that Pipera does not understand what wikipedia is for and what we do - their continual references to the fact that they are a descendant of the article subjects and that they know through their own research that historians or scholars are wrong, is a big problem and they have not taken explanations of what we do here (as opposed to a genealogical research site) on board. Their continual sourcing problems - removing sources, adding unsourced information, arguing that sites like WikiTree are reliable, arguing that they know better than the reliable sources, and, worst, the changing of sourced information to say something different than what the source actually says - all these are big red-flag issues. Explanations of how they have issues have been met with either no-engagement with the points raised or walls of text. I also have WP:CIR concerns as they seem unable to edit without formatting, grammar, and other issues.
- As for a solution, I'm open to suggestions. A topic ban from medieval biographies would probably solve the current problem, but I'm not sure that will not just move the problem elsewhere. If someone would volunteer to mentor Pipera, that might work, but I've exhausted my good faith already in the last month, and it would need to be someone with a lot of patience, and I'm not sure the CIR issues won't just show up somewhere else.
- In a series of edits from 24 to 26 Dec 2024 at Ralph Basset Pipera changes sourced information to have it say something that the source does not quite say, adds information that is unrelated to the subject of the article, along with grammar issues. I pointed out the problems with these edits on the talk page here which got a series of replies that repeated parts of the article and frankly, I'm not sure what they meant to convey with it.
- That ha been reolved,
- In a series of edits on 31 Dec 2024 at Henry I of England, Pipera removes sources from sourced information, adds unsourced information, and generally mucks up the text and formatting. After being reverted by an editor and re-adding their edits, they post a long digression on the talk page. I documented the problems with their edits on the talk page, but they were never addressed.
- The page dealing with his children has yet to be resolved.
- 2 Jan 2025 At William the Conqueror, Pipera adds a citation needed tag to an already cited sentence, one cited to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
- That has been resolved.
- On 4 Jan 2025 at Enguerrand II, Count of Ponthieu, Pipera changes Enguerrand's offspring from a daughter to a daughter and son, removing the sourced statement that Enguerrand had no male offspring, and changing his brother and successor Guy into a son instead. This is done while keeping the three sources that previously supported Guy as a brother, not a son. One of the attached sources is Musset p. 104, which can be accessed at the Internet Archive it says "Guy I of Ponthieu is a well-known figure who inherited the county after the death in battle of his brother, Enguerrand II, in 1053" See talk page where a discussion about another source that supports Enguerrand as having no male offspring is dismissed as "There are a number of updated versions the work" but without substantiating such a claim.
- In regard to this matter see: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Adelaide_of_Normandy#Comtes_de_Montreuil which no one has replied to.,
- In a series of edits on 6 Jan 2025 at Sibyl of Falaise Pipera copies an earlier section of the article into a new place without removing it at the older location so that now the article repeats the section starting "Katherine Keats-Rohan argues instead...". This series of edits also adds unsourced information and removes sourced information. I reverted the edits with the statement "remove repetition and restore sources to information" but was re-reverted with the edit summary "Undid revision 1267745167 by Ealdgyth (talk) sorry this is my family tree and I know what was placed here is correct". There are further edits to this article here and then a discussion on the talk page about what they said was a "will" of William de Falaise actually turns out to be a charter. I pointed this out on the talk page, and that got a flurry of replies on the talk page just don't make any sense to me. Maybe they are upset that some historians might think Sibyl was illegitimate? They keep saying things like "They state Sybil of Falaise might have been yet another b######d." which took me a bit to realize that they were censoring "bastard". Note that the article still in places calls this charter a "will" and says that "In the charter of William de Falaise, he bequeaths everything to his wife Geva." However, Pipera at Talk:Sibyl of Falaise#Marriage and Issue claims to translate the charter and their translation says nothing about William bequeathing everything to his wife - it's a standard gift-charter giving some property to a church, with his wife mentioned as also giving the property along with William. This raises serious issues about Pipera's ability to read and understand sources and use them appropriately.
- See: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sibyl_of_Falaise#Vague_history_of_Sybil_being_the_Niece_of_Henry_I_of_England. And https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sibyl_of_Falaise#Article_Concerns!
- In a series of edits ending on 6 Jan 2025 Pipera adds unsourced information as well as a long series of genealogical descents to an article about a 12th-century nobleman, much of the information is not really related to the subject of the article.
- On 7 Jan 2025 at Richard de Courcy Pipera changes sourced information without updating the source, removing the "probably" from "probably was the son", and making it a categorical statement that Richard was the son of Robert de Courcy.
- Richard was the son of Robert de Courcy, and his mother was named Herleva de Bernieres. His father was Balderic 'the Teuton' and an unnamed granddaughter of Geoffrey, Count of Eu . He was one of nine children bound by this relationship.
- He actually is his son.
- 7 Jan 2025 at William de Courcy (died c. 1114) Pipera removes sources from information and adds unsourced information. I reverted with an edit summary of "Restore sources to information, no need for this heading, and we do not need a list here" but was re-reverted with the edit summary "with all due respect we have this everywhere in Misplaced Pages, further it adds clarity to the entry. In my opinion. Further, added the name of Williams wife Avice to the entry BTW she is the daughter of the Earl of Skipton her mother is Cecily de Rumily they are my 23rd Great Grandparents". I then attempted to discuss at the talk page here but this has been ignored.
- 21:25, 7 January 2025 Pipera talk contribs 5,529 bytes +76 Undid revision 1268026529 by Ealdgyth (talk) with all due respect we have this everywhere in Misplaced Pages, further it adds clarity to the entry. In my opinion. Further, added the name of Williams wife Avice to the entry BTW she is the daughter of the Earl of Skipton her mother is Cecily de Rumily they are my 23rd Great Grandparents. undo Tag: Undo
- 9/10 Jan 2025 at Talk:Sibyl of Falaise - I reply here to a comment of theirs. Pipera reverts it with an edit summary of "Do not delete my tak page responses", but I did not delete any of their responses, I merely replied. Two edits later, they delete a whole section they had started, including the replies that I had made to them, pointing out problems, violating WP:REDACT.
- Proceedings by Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Publication date 1919
- https://archive.org/details/proceedings65some/page/8/mode/1up?q=Sibyl+
- * Eyton, in his Domesday Studies, styles this " an old legend (we can call it no more) of the Welsh Marches We cannot imagine how Henry I. could have such a niece as this Sibil ; nor can we say how Sibil de Falaise was related to William de Falaise, or why she or her descendants should have succeeded to any of his estates." Pipera (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support block
topic banpossibly per nom. I've been watching the complete palaver that is William Martin, 1st Baron Martin—"his daughter Joan of which I am a descendant"!—with askance. Their talk page comments are near incomprehensible, and malformed and they seem to delight in... misunderstanding. Repeatedly. If as Ealdgyth suggests, the TB proves insufficient, the this can be revisited, but in the meantime, it's worth a shot.I had an edit-confliuct posting this, due to Pipera posting above. And incidentally proving the actual point. The reply is bizarre; they seem to have duplicated wholesale Ealdgyth's original post. They are completely incapable of communicating in a manner that is not disruptive. SerialNumber54129 21:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changing my suggestion to a full block; their replies demonstrate they either don't understand what Misplaced Pages is for, and are unwilling to learn, or simply don't care. Either way, NOTHERE applies in spades. SerialNumber54129 21:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Talk:Henry I of England - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Henry_I_of_England Henry I of England
- In regard to this matter, I was restoring an earlier version of the article. listing the children legitimate, illegitimate and mistress to the children section of the article. it was not my work it was the work of others that came here circa 2006 -7 that placed this here, and it was removed.
- I added:
- Baldwin, Stewart (2002). The Henry Project: The Ancestors of King Henry II of England. The American Society of Genealogists.
- I was told that this was an unreliable source when the work is on the American Society of Genealogists website, Baldwin is a writer of historic books. He is a valid source of information, further his work in the reference section shows some of the sources that are in the Misplaced Pages articles.
- I was told that WikiTree is a user generate source, Misplaced Pages is also a user generated source.
- Additionally, I was told that Alison Weir was not acceptable in the article.
- == Using these within a Misplaced Pages Article ==
- Broken up into:
- There is no rule here stating that these cannot be used within any part of a Misplaced Pages entry.
- You also removed Alison Weir as a reference, explain to me why she was removed? Pipera (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regards Pipera (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Finally, other genealogical sites like WikiTree have attempted to place the children of Henry I in the right place and manner, in other incidents globally people are now adding Henry I as the father of Sybil de Falaise based on the article here at Misplaced Pages. She is not the niece of Henry I whichever way this is stated, in relation to William Martin https://en.wikipedia.org/William_Martin,_1st_Baron_Martin#References this has been resolved, and yet on my talk page I went into great detail about the usage of the tag in two other Misplaced Pages articles.
- Also, I am academically qualified to read source materials like:
- Robert of Torigni or Torigny (French: Robert de Torigni; c. 1110–1186), also known as Robert of the Mont (Latin: Robertus de Monte; French: Robert de Monte; also Robertus de Monte Sancti Michaelis, in reference to the abbey of Mont Saint-Michel), was a Norman monk, prior, and abbot. He is most remembered for his chronicles detailing English history of his era.
- https://entities.oclc.org/worldcat/entity/E39PBJxhgfHcDqQdqcGCG7gh73.html and Normannorum Ducum, Orderic Vitalis and William of Jumièges read their works and apply them to any historic context as I have in other genealogical sites as well as read Parish Registers in the 1500's and apply this to research.
- Pipera (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please block this person now, any admin who sees this. I have lost count of the number of Misplaced Pages policies which they are intent on ignoring, and if swift action isn't taken this discission will be longer than the rest of this page put together. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. --Kansas Bear 21:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because I came to Misplaced Pages to extend articles, add new information, rolled back and not one academic response. I have been given personal opinions of which I have taken on board. I have not gone into iny article with the intent to add incorrect information to the articles. I have been adding here since 2001, and decided to come into these articles to expand them. That is my intention to do so. In the case of Henry I of England I was adding to the Family and children section and added additional links I have not entered any other part of the article.
- In the case of Sybil of Falaise there is no way she can be Henry I of England nice as the records of his brothers and sisters state so. I have raised these concerns in the talk page, see Talk:Sibyl of Falaise - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sibyl_of_Falaise as I see it. Pipera (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please block this person now, any admin who sees this. I have lost count of the number of Misplaced Pages policies which they are intent on ignoring, and if swift action isn't taken this discission will be longer than the rest of this page put together. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They have been blocked. GiantSnowman 22:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I got here late. Thanks to Ealdgyth for bringing this issue here, and to all who participated. After an initial attempt at dealing with Pipera's disruptions and chaotic editing/communication pattern, I must admit I soon walked away. Thanks those with more patience than I for trying longer. Eric 22:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks to Ealdgyth for the thread. I participated sufficiently to see this was real problem, but didn't act decisively. BusterD (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
An IP who gave me a fake 4im warning
There was a IP address (177.76.41.247) who
- Called me blind in an edit summary after i reverted his edit
- trouted me and gave me a 4im warning
I think this is the appropriate place to take this report.
Thanks, Tenebre_Rosso_Sangue, ULTRAKILLing Vandals! Call for Medic! My Stats! 22:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, a 4im warning was certainly an overreaction and the edit summary could have been nicer, but your revert was obviously wrong. The IP has since self-reverted the warning. No admin action is needed here, but you should read IP edits more carefully before reverting them, and consider changing your distasteful signature. Spicy (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Distasteful? What do you mean? it is simply a videogame refrence to Ultrakill.
- And i did admit fault for the bad edit (and for my unnecessarily silly first response).
- Thanks, Tenebre_Rosso_Sangue, ULTRAKILLing Vandals! Call for Medic! My Stats! 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- However, @Spicy I was gonna change it due to me changing my username soon. So, in the meantime, i will change it. Tenebre_Rosso_Sangue, ULTRAKILLing Vandals! Call for Medic! My Stats! 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be great i you could remove all of the extraneous phrases and change it so that it is just your username and a link to your User talk page. Liz 00:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fail to see the need to jump all over Tenebre over their signature. There are a number of other editors and admins who have similarly goofy signatures and jumping down one editor's throat seems petty. Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be great i you could remove all of the extraneous phrases and change it so that it is just your username and a link to your User talk page. Liz 00:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- However, @Spicy I was gonna change it due to me changing my username soon. So, in the meantime, i will change it. Tenebre_Rosso_Sangue, ULTRAKILLing Vandals! Call for Medic! My Stats! 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Community block appeal by Drbogdan
Drbogdan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has asked for a review of their community block enacted as a result of a discussion here six months ago. Just FYI for context the original title of the section on their talk pages was "Request to restore editing per WP:STANDARD OFFER as suggested" and several users involved in the previous discussion were pinged, and a block review began there before I shut that down and informed them it needed to be done here, so there's going to be some volume of comments right away, in addition to the lengthy text of the request itself. Beeblebrox 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
CLOSING ANI CONCLUSIONS - MY (overdue perhaps) REPLIES Somewhat new to all of this (been busy in other wiki-areas over the years - see below), but seems it's been over 6 months since the start of my indev block (start date = July 6, 2024) - perhaps WP:STANDARD OFFER may now apply I would think - and hopefully, WP:AGF and WP:NPA (direct and/or indirect) apply here as well of course. Thanks. ::::I closed this quickly a few minutes ago since the latest comments have been fairly plain personal attacks, rather than discussing the substance of the complaint and appropriate action. It took me a while to organize my thoughts and copyedit myself - there's a lot to unpack here.
Thank you for your comments and conclusions. As before, I've been very busy recently with mostly real-world activities (but also with some earlier online activities - 1+2+3 and others) . Sorry for my delay in not responding earlier of course. Hopefully, my presentation here is appropriate and entirely ok (I'm really new to this wiki-area). ::::Here we have a science expert mass-adding content based on low-quality popular science churnalism to our science articles, expecting that other editors will review it and determine whether to improve or remove it, and a complaint from the editors who have been cleaning up after them supposedly for many years. This discussion can be summed up with a quote from the competence is required essay: "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up." We excuse this behaviour from very new editors who don't yet understand that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia with standards for inclusion and not a collection of links. The community expects an editor with 90,000 edits to understand what content should be in an article and what constitutes a reliable source, especially for an editor who is also a subject matter expert.
Mostly untrue claims. Certainly none intentional. As before, claims have been exaggerated (also noted by others Here and elsewhere) and/or interpretable (with no or few supporting diffs) (along with selection bias - ie, selected 10 or so articles out of hundreds of edited articles?) (source). Such claims, perhaps to seem more credible than they really may be, seem to have been presented under cover of apparent WP:POLICIES of one sort or another. In addition, the importance of WP:IAR, in some relevant instances, have been downplayed and/or dismissed outright. For one example of possible related contention, the very long-time (many years) List of rocks on Mars article, originally a very enriched (helpful/useful) version (seemingly at least), and justified by WP:IAR, is Here, but is currently (without discussion or WP: CONSENSUS) changed to a less helpful/useful article instead. Seems like WP:MOS rules may overrule WP:IAR? Seems so at the moment in this instance. At least until there's a better resolution of the issue through further discussion and WP:CONSENSUS I would think. In any case, lessons learned here of course. ::::Drbogdan's replies to deserved criticism in this thread have been dismissive of the problem at best, if not signalling that they believe their academic credentials excuse them from needing to improve. The community has historically rejected this approach, and rejects it here. Since Drbogdan seems not to understand that they are making a mess and seems uninterested in learning how not to continue making messes, the community's consensus is that Drbogdan is blocked indefinitely.
Not true. Never said or thought this. Ever. Not my way of thinking. I've always tried to be open to improvement. Seems the better road generally. After all, nobody's perfect. Everyone could benefit from improvement of one sort or another I would think. My academic (and related) credentials have been presented only to describe my qualifications to edit Misplaced Pages, which, I currently understand, may be ok. Please let me know if otherwise of course. Nonetheless, my current UserPage is Here. (My earlier UserPage, if interested, is Here). ::-- ::
::Separately from this close, I also *must say* that their habit - eccentric, maybe? - of hacking together *long run-on strings of comments* - interspersed - as they are - with *forced pause* breaks and sprinkled with self-aggrandizing - and off-topic, yes - links to their *achievements* makes it - as others have said here - quite frustrating to converse with them. All the worse that the vast majority of their comments of this sort do not substantively reply to the comments they are left in response to.
Not ever true in my edits of mainspace articles. May be somewhat true on some talk-pages only. In any case, lessons learned here as well. Any specific rules broken in my editing have been entirely unintentional. As far as I currently know, all edits that may have been of some issue earlier have been completely corrected some time ago. I currently know of no real rules broken that may not be a matter of unsettled opinion. If otherwise, please specify rules that may have been an issue (and related diffs of course), and suggested ways that I may further improve my related edits going forward. I expect to adjust accordingly (and appropriately) as needed at the first opportunity of course. Thanks. ::::I'm also going to leave links here to Misplaced Pages:Expert editors, Misplaced Pages:Relationships with academic editors, and Misplaced Pages:Expert retention. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 8:18 am, 6 July 2024, Saturday (6 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−8) Thanks again for all your comments and conclusions. I should note that I have numerous Wiki-contributions/edits, including Misplaced Pages (98,481 edits+306 articles+70 tiemplates+30 userboxes+2,494 images+and more); as well as many Wiki-contributions/edits to WikiCommons; WikiData; WikiQuotes; WikiSimple; WikiSpecies; Wiktionary; other Wikis and other related Wiki programs. ADD: Drbogdan (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (WP:BEBOLD) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Misplaced Pages are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "WP:BEBOLD" and "WP:IAR", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Misplaced Pages, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Misplaced Pages as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "fact-checking" on some online websites. Re any apparent copyvio: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way. Incidentally, I entirely agree that my earlier user page needs a version trimmed down to the very basics, and without any material whatsoover that may possibly be understood as promotional. I have no problem doing that of course. Seems I may have been too WP:BEBOLD with that (and related presentations, including those involving references and the like). In any case, thank you for reviewing my request here. I hope my replies (noted above) help in some way to restore my en-Misplaced Pages editing. Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Prior talk page discussion
| prior discussion copied from User talk:Drbogdan. Beeblebrox 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
|
Strong oppose: DrBogdan has never acknowledged their destructive editing tendencies or willingness to be overly promotional in weighting their contributions to wikipedia, a trait was has continued well into their CBAN with promotional-ish replies here (diff) and his edits to his userspace largely being to maintain promotional links. He continues above in lionizing the volume of his edit history without regard for quality and linking, inexplicably, his facebook, livejournal, and wordpress pages. I and other editors have spent a lot of time since their ban cleaning up the daily updates and image galleries added persistently to articles. Since his ban, I did more cleaning at Commons and this resulted in the deletion of 78 promotional images and selfies not contributing to the project. In this process I learned that Drbogdan has had a history of uploading images with copyright issues, as well. The meat of it, though, has been how he absolutely ruined entire science articles that have required complete rewrites to bring up to standard. I have maintained a list of this process since it’s very time consuming. So far I’ve had to rewrite (with help from others in places) Curiosity (Rover),List of rocks on Mars, Ingenuity (helicopter), Jezero (crater), Animal track, Bright spots on Ceres, and Aromatum Chaos, in addition to the cleanup done before his CBAN. All of these were victims of indiscriminate image galleries added to articles and daily updates on mission status. If we look at one I still haven’t gotten to, like Mount Sharp, it’s still an absolute mess of images smeared all over it. The intent of this list isn't to be any kind of gravedancing, but rather Drbogdan's major contributions have been so consistently low-quality that it's necessary to manually review every single article he's been heavily involved in to remove indiscriminate galleries. Drbogdan’s defence here and in the past has been a mix of the Shaggy defense and blaming my “persistence” at the ANI, despite my initial arguments at ANI being opposed to a ban. I think it’s pretty clear at this point that Drbogdan is motivated to edit, but unwilling to acknowledge any of the shortcomings in their editing process and I don’t actually see a planet in which their presence here is a positive given the timbre of this unban request. Especially considering it was so obviously going to be posted bang-on the six month mark. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (WP:BEBOLD) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Misplaced Pages are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "WP:BEBOLD" and "WP:IAR", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Misplaced Pages, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Misplaced Pages as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "fact-checking" on some online websites. Re any apparent copyvio: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way. Drbogdan (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
|
- Shouldn't this be on WP:AN, not WP:ANI? also, this is weird. This section, and this section only, has a pause between typing the "]]" at the end of links when I hit it fast. Not other sections on the page, and not the edit summary box either... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tech issue appears to start after the "Separately from this close" quote above. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I put the discussion here because this is where the block was decided. Seems like it should go back to the same place?
- I've had a really long couple of days but if there are still technical problems here tomorrow I'll look into it. Beeblebrox 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think unblock requests usually go on AN, but that's fair. And as a further note, the "delay" between the "]]" typing gets longer the further I go down the page when editing that section. Editing just this subsection, it's just fine, so there's something in that quote or just below it that is making Firefox go pear-shaped. It's very weird. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tech issue appears to start after the "Separately from this close" quote above. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Further Discussion of Community block appeal by Drbogdan
Any replies from Drbogdan to further comments here may be copied over. Beeblebrox 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not sure what that stream of consciousness is trying to say but it goes nowhere near addressing the issues resulting in the ban. DeCausa (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not seeing anything in the Wall of text that shows the editor understands why they were banned and how their behaviour needs to change. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I see nothing here that suggests Drbogdan understands the problem and is willing to take positive steps to avoid it. Rather the opposite. XOR'easter (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock request does not address the reason for their ban. And the content of the request just goes to show why the ban should be continued and why they are not of benefit to the community and are just wasting other editor's time. Canterbury Tail talk 01:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose fails to address the reason the ban was given, nor give any adequate assurances that the behavior that resulted in the ban will not be an issue going forward.Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: The standard offer requires that banned users promise to avoid engaging in the behaviors that led to their ban. I do not see any such promise in this unblock request, so this appeal should be struck down. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. The unblock request provides neither adequate specifics to convince me that the previous ban was improperly applied, nor any apology nor promise to do better regarding the behavior that led to the ban. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - The unblock request largely shows the same issues they were blocked for - self promo (links to facebook, wordpress and livejournal), not taking on community advice (all responses are "nuh-uh, not true"), and difficulties communicating (formatting is a mess and responses are only tangentially related to what they are quoting). Their defense is mainly "I never did anything that bad", not the required acknowledgement of the problem and indication of improval. In the unblock request they specificly use this version of the List of rocks on Mars article as an example of a good contribution - which has
The name Jazzy, for example, was taken from a girl named Jazzy who grew up in Grand Junction, Colorado, USA. Her father worked for NASA and contributed to the findings and naming of the rocks.
unsourced in the second paragraph. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Unconstructive editing by Wolverine X-eye
I am posting this here because, among other concerns of continued disruptive editing, I believe that this user's actions are impacting the quality and integrity of the GAN process. I’ve looked at this for long enough and tried to aid where possible, but it seems that @Wolverine XI is unwilling to change their behaviour on this website, hence why I saw fit to bring this here.
They have passed several articles through GAN over the past few months that exhibit many edits in a short period (numbering into the hundreds), often paired with unexplained removal of information. These absurdly high edit counts clog up page histories and are not exclusive to their GAN targets either, as can be seen in this three-month-old discussion on the user’s talk page from back when I first noticed this ‘unusual editing style’. Some examples from around this time follow below, although I should add that this editing pattern has not changed:
Wolverine has been asked multiple times to try and reduce their edit counts so that page histories remain useable, and despite saying they will, have refused to take any actual action in this regard. One can see this pattern repeated over and over on their contributions page.
Sadly, high edit counts with minimal change are the least of the issues present here. Most recently, Wolverine passed Fennec Fox, but after closing and reopening the GAN himself in the middle of an active (and not strictly positive) review by another user. A new review was started by another user within a few days, and while they did acknowledge the existence of the second review, nothing was done about its improper closing and only a few sentences were added to the article between the two reviews (which can be found here and here respectively)
In many places where editors don’t immediately agree with Wolverine, he turns to insults, personal attacks and otherwise inappropriate comments. A non-exhaustive list of examples follows below:
- Under ‘Your talk page’, accusing another editor of inappropriately handling a discussion with a minor (the other user was, in fact, not a minor). Example 1
- Fennec fox GAN Example 1, Example 2
- List of pholidotans merge proposal Example 1, Example 2
- Narwhal talk page Example 1
- Own talk page Example 1
The user has also shown an unwillingness to put effort into article improvement when requested in the review processes, and an unwillingness to put effort into finishing reviews they start. Again, a non-exhaustive list of examples can be found below.
- Own talk page, starting and then not finishing two GA reviews (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wolverine_X-eye/Archive_2#Inactivity_during_reviews) and drive-by nomination of the World War I article, a bit of a while back when compared to other examples in this case (6 months). https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wolverine_X-eye/Archive_2#Drive-by_nomination
- After being advised to do a thorough check on all the citations in the narwhal page (see the closing comments on review four, Wolverine opened a peer review for the article four days later stating that they ‘need to know where the article's source-to-text integrity is at’, indicating a fundamental lack of knowledge about the state of the article that he had, at this point, attempted to promote to FA four times in five months. In this same review, he also tried to get others to do a source review for him or make a peer review spot-check count in place of a spot-check at the next FAC.
I hope that a satisfactory conclusion can be reached, and thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Morrison Man (talk • contribs) 00:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't plan on getting involved in this, except to say that my October comment that you linked to is a follow up. The original is from June and can be found higher up on that archive page at User talk:Wolverine X-eye/Archive 2#GA nomination of Charles De Geer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, The Morrison Man, let me address this promptly. So your first paragraph talks about the high number of edits I make to GAN pages. Well, I don't necessarily see that as a problem because you're the only editor who has made complaints about this, and if I may, I'm by no means the only editor who exhibits such behavior, so it's not at all clear to me why you're targeting me on this. Now regarding the 3 articles you listed, those were the articles that you brought to my attention in that discussion, and since then I've not repeated the behavior. The Fennec Fox incident is not an issue IMO. The editor in the first GAN clearly stated that they think the article was not up to GA-standards and that I should re-nominate it. Seeing that they were new to GAN and that they happened to be inactive at the time, I decided to help them close the nomination as that was their intention, but they didn't seem to know how to follow through with that. In Example 1, I read the whole discussion and it was pretty clear the editor was a minor. Sure, the talk page owner happened to talk to two people, one a minor, the other not, but they clearly spent more time with the minor talking about irrelevant stuff that aren't wiki-related. The editor even admits that they were in fact talking to a minor. The Fennec fox GAN examples are not personal attacks. They're just criticism. There's a difference. About Pholidota: I got a bit heated after Elmidae insulted and made hostile comments towards me. Yeah, that was a pretty contentious discussion overall. The Narwhal talk page link is not a personal attack or a insult, rather it's simply telling the IP to leave me alone as they were annoying me with those pings. I wanted to be as blunt as possible. The last link is just me explaining to a new editor why I reverted their edit. I said I didn't want to have the conversation again because if you look through the archives, you'll see that we had that exact discussion, but with a different article, before. I didn't think it was gonna happen again, and I sure didn't want it to happen for a third time, so I let the user know. Your last part talks about me not putting effort in my nominations and reviews. Well, I'm not the only editor who struggles to finish reviews, and I'll admit that sometimes I bite off a little more than I can chew. I did finish one of those reviews though. I would also state that I've made over 30 reviews, and out of those 30, I failed to complete maybe six of them. World War I was a drive-by nom, I'll admit, didn't realize that at the time, but that's the only case where I've unwittingly made a drive-by nom, so...We reach the end of your comment, and regarding your remarks about the FAC situation, well all I can say is that I needed insurance before I made another nomination, as the last two noms failed for sourcing issues. I was not confident about my scanning of the article's sourcing, so I needed a source review to see if the sourcing issues were still evident. I did scan a large portion of the article's sourcing but I just needed that extra insurance. Yep, that should be it. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fennec fox edits are absolutey casting aspersions.
Is this all about the message I left on your friend's talk page? You don't do much reviewing and judging by this review you also don't seem to be an experienced reviewer. This review has been unfair and your judgment on multiple aspects are off by a long shot
is WP:ASPERSIONS. AlsoI decided to help them close the nomination as that was their intention, but they didn't seem to know how to follow through with that.
- you do not close your own GANs. If you start it, you do not close it. Full stop.The Narwhal talk page link is not a personal attack or a insult
- no, sorry, it is indeed a personal attack. WP:CIVIL is one of the Five Pillars, it is not optional and you seem to spend a lot of time tap-dancing on or over the line of it. I suggest you reconsider your approach in many areas to maintain a civil, collaborative environment. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- @The Bushranger: I made that comment based on a comment they made here. I also took into consideration the fact that they reviewed my GAN as their very first review less than 24 hours (if I'm not mistaken) after nomination. And so I'd say that's my evidence for the comment. I apologize if this is not enough. Regarding the Narwhal bit, I didn't intend to make the comment a personal aattack. I intended to make it clear to the IP that I didn't want them to annoy me with those pings. I could have handled the situation better, I agree. But what I found annoying was that they attacked me on the basis of a YouTube video that discusses how I wrongfully reverted the creator's edit, only to later realize my mistake, rectifying it accordingly. Nevertheless, I will definitely take your words above into consideration. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fennec fox edits are absolutey casting aspersions.
- Hi, The Morrison Man, let me address this promptly. So your first paragraph talks about the high number of edits I make to GAN pages. Well, I don't necessarily see that as a problem because you're the only editor who has made complaints about this, and if I may, I'm by no means the only editor who exhibits such behavior, so it's not at all clear to me why you're targeting me on this. Now regarding the 3 articles you listed, those were the articles that you brought to my attention in that discussion, and since then I've not repeated the behavior. The Fennec Fox incident is not an issue IMO. The editor in the first GAN clearly stated that they think the article was not up to GA-standards and that I should re-nominate it. Seeing that they were new to GAN and that they happened to be inactive at the time, I decided to help them close the nomination as that was their intention, but they didn't seem to know how to follow through with that. In Example 1, I read the whole discussion and it was pretty clear the editor was a minor. Sure, the talk page owner happened to talk to two people, one a minor, the other not, but they clearly spent more time with the minor talking about irrelevant stuff that aren't wiki-related. The editor even admits that they were in fact talking to a minor. The Fennec fox GAN examples are not personal attacks. They're just criticism. There's a difference. About Pholidota: I got a bit heated after Elmidae insulted and made hostile comments towards me. Yeah, that was a pretty contentious discussion overall. The Narwhal talk page link is not a personal attack or a insult, rather it's simply telling the IP to leave me alone as they were annoying me with those pings. I wanted to be as blunt as possible. The last link is just me explaining to a new editor why I reverted their edit. I said I didn't want to have the conversation again because if you look through the archives, you'll see that we had that exact discussion, but with a different article, before. I didn't think it was gonna happen again, and I sure didn't want it to happen for a third time, so I let the user know. Your last part talks about me not putting effort in my nominations and reviews. Well, I'm not the only editor who struggles to finish reviews, and I'll admit that sometimes I bite off a little more than I can chew. I did finish one of those reviews though. I would also state that I've made over 30 reviews, and out of those 30, I failed to complete maybe six of them. World War I was a drive-by nom, I'll admit, didn't realize that at the time, but that's the only case where I've unwittingly made a drive-by nom, so...We reach the end of your comment, and regarding your remarks about the FAC situation, well all I can say is that I needed insurance before I made another nomination, as the last two noms failed for sourcing issues. I was not confident about my scanning of the article's sourcing, so I needed a source review to see if the sourcing issues were still evident. I did scan a large portion of the article's sourcing but I just needed that extra insurance. Yep, that should be it. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
KirillMarasin promoting medical treatments and "conversion therapy"
KirillMarasin (talk · contribs)
I think we have two related problems with KirillMarasin. First up, he promotes and seeks to legitimise the pseudo-medical practice of "conversion therapy" (diff1, diff2, diff3 Yes, that really is a medical claim being sourced to Reddit!) and secondly he adds medical claims to other articles which are either unreferenced or which are improperly referenced to sites selling supplements (diff5, diff6, diff7 and diff8). Attempts by multiple editors to warn him have been unavailing and I read this as both a personal attack and a highly offensive suggestion that I practice "conversion therapy" on myself. Beyond that, this is a clear and sustained case of WP:POV and WP:IDHT. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if my edits are not high-quality, the article on conversion therapy has a lot of gaslighting, saying time and time again there are no treatments, when the opposite is true. KirillMarasin (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not according to science baaed RS which is all that matters from Misplaced Pages's PoV Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is RS? KirillMarasin (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good question! You were supposed to know that in order to edit Misplaced Pages. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is RS? KirillMarasin (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not only are your edits not of high-quality, at least two of your sources are garbage, and you're edit warring at that article as well. You need to step away from that article. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why would you even consider 4Chan to be a legitimate source for anything, let alone a science/medicine-based topic? That, in of itself, is a major issue. King Lobclaw (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not according to science baaed RS which is all that matters from Misplaced Pages's PoV Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just looking at the three conversion therapy edits mentioned by DanielRigal, this one makes a medical claim without citing any sources at all and this one cites reddit and 4chan for medical claims. Finally, this one cites a paper in the Journal of Neurosurgery for the claim that
some methods of conversion therapy were working
. The paper in question in fact says thatwhile Heath claimed that the patient had a full recovery and engaged exclusively in heterosexual activities, other sources argued that the patient continued to have homosexual relationships
. Any of these diffs on their own would be totally unacceptable. Additionally, a glance at Special:History/Conversion therapy shows that KirillMarasin not only added these claims once, but reinstated them after their removal was adequately explained. e.g. here they add the "some methods of conversion therapy were working" claim, here the addition is reverted with the edit summary explaining that the source does not support the addition, here KirillMarasin reinserts the text with the edit summaryIt doesn't need deleting, I'll try to edit it to better reflect the article.
When somebody reverts an edit because it contradicts the cited source, you need to fix that error before reinstating it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would a WP:TOPICBAN on WP:GENSEX prevent further inappropriate editing? Note this is a question, I'm not familiar with WP:GENSEX and it may very well not have any bearing or may be the wrong approach here. --Yamla (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there's a CIR issue as well. The slipping of sources from 4chan into a contentious topic seems either like overt trolling or a serious lack of understanding of sources.King Lobclaw (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd still like to WP:AGF, even though I'm beginning to have my doubts. I think this is a CIR issue first and foremost, with a mixture of POV-pushing and lack of understanding of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Since they are here, and reading this page, and haven't edited since they started following this conversation, I think @KirillMarasin: should read those policies first, before they attempt to edit again. If they continue with their current editing pattern, though, a WP:TOPICBAN would be entirely appropriate. — The Anome (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not all of the problem edits have been WP:GENSEX; the ones listed by the OP aa diffs 5 through 8 are on sexual health matters not under that GENSEX guideline. A more general medical topic ban, widely construed, may be more appropriate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there's a CIR issue as well. The slipping of sources from 4chan into a contentious topic seems either like overt trolling or a serious lack of understanding of sources.King Lobclaw (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
KirillMarasin (talk · contribs) has been here for more than a decade. It's hard to believe that suddenly, he doesn't know that 4Chan isn't a usable source - and in a topic like this, too. Signs are pointing to NOTHERE. King Lobclaw (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
History of disruptive COI editing
I didn't wanted to go through this, but I'm done being patient. There appears to be a long history of disruptive COI editing by Armandogoa on his father's article Carlos Alvares Ferreira. He usually edits this page after every few months or so, and seems to add unreferenced content as per his latest edit done on the page here . I had many of his edits reverted myself.
I also did place a COI warning on his talk page over a year ago . But he seems to not understand it this way. His father is an active politician, and considering our WP:BLP policies, I think this editor should be blocked to prevent any other controversial or peacock material added in the future. Rejoy(talk) 07:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive Sumeshmeo
Sumeshmeo has got 5 warnings together from December 2024 till now, to stop changing content without a reliable source but continues to do so ignoring and being non-responsive to warnings. Sumeshmeo got 3 same warnings in 2023. I do not think that Sumeshmeo is here to improve Misplaced Pages pages. RangersRus (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- In future, it helps if you provide diffs when making a report so people are better able to assess it. Having looked at Sumesheo's contribs, here is a recent egregious example where not only do they change the text of the article, they also change the title of the source cited so it appears to support that claim (and break the url in the process). In fact as far as I can tell, every single edit they have made so far this month is to increase the claimed gross takings of a film, without ever providing a source or explanation, in most cases explicitly contradicting the existing cited source. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Uncivil behavior
@Jasper Deng: has been continually bludgeoning a conversation about a page rename, casting unsupported aspersions, acting uncivilly, and biting newcomers (me).
Teahouse
During a lively discussion about a page rename, it occurred to me that I might be able to improve this encyclopedia by starting a conversations that could POTENTIALLY lead to future guidance or policy regarding how to name natural disaster articles. So I went to the teahouse to ask how I can start a conversation about that.
They followed me to the teahouse and:
- Bludgeoned me
- casted aspersions
it is frowned upon to post about an ongoing decision making discussion elsewhere (unless it is to raise serious misconduct concerns) as it could be considered WP:CANVASSING, particularly when the incipient consensus is leaning against your position
You'll note that my post in the teahouse was asking how to start a conversation about potential future policy improvements, not at all about the ongoing conversation. And even if it were, the practice is quite common on noticeboards, why would it be any different in the teahouse such that it would be WP:CANVASSING?
In the process they said Don't overthink this
to me.
To which I replied Please do not patronize me by suggesting I am overthinking this, and please don't WP:BLUDGEON me by responding to every comment I've made to someone else regarding this.
- They then willfully disrespected me by again saying in part
I'm afraid you are overthinking it
- tried to intimidate me because of their number of edits and made continued, unsupported, exaggerated claims of misconduct against me
Don't cast the WP:ASPERSION of "willful disrespect".
Talk page
Back on the talk page, they:
- Once again bludgeoned the process by replying to my vote
- Accused me of moving the goalposts
- Bludgeoned another editor as well
- Collapsed their bludgeoning with a close note that they agree (with themself?) that their comments were
more than necessary after taking a second look
Just recently I noticed they continued to reply to others' votes that went against their POV
So I warned them to stop bludgeoning on their talk page
Rather than replying, they deleted it from their talk page. In the edit note, they:
- Again tried to intimidate me because of their status as an experienced editor
As someone who is still rather inexperienced you should not be attempting to warn experienced editors like me.
- Cast aspersions and threatened me with a block
Your comment here is grossly uncivil and if you ever comment like this again you will be the one considered for a block.
They then left a message on my talk page:
- Casting aspersions and threatening me with a block again
Posting that WP:SHOUTING on my talk page is grossly uncivil and unwarranted and will get you blocked the next time you do that.
- And again attempted to intimidate me because of their status as an experienced editor
But you are in absolutely no position to attempt to enjoin me from further participation in that process. You do not understand the policies and guidelines you're trying to warn me about; don't pretend that you do (especially with respect to WP:OWN).
- And again, cast more unsupported aspersions in an uncivil manner
Coming to my talk page unprompted and without the other user's involvement is crossing the line to you harassing me. Cut it out.
This has been an upsetting experience for me. Perhaps I am too sensitive to edit on wikipedia.Delectopierre (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- After leaving making this post, I noticed @Jasper Deng also left a comment about me, casting even more aspersions in a thread I started on @Cullen328's talk page that had absolutely nothing to do with @Jasper Deng:
This user needs mentorship as they are flying too close to the sun. The comment I just removed from my talk page and the one I left them at User talk:Delectopierre#Stop suggests that I am not the most effective one to convey that to them. My participation in the RM isn't that unusual and I consider their comments highly condescending and, now, aggressive to the point that I will want to see them blocked if they do it again.
Delectopierre (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- Both users are right: Jasper Deng when they say, "I am not the most effective one to convey that to them", and Delectopierre when saying, "Perhaps I am too sensitive". Phil Bridger (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- My impression, based on this brouhaha: you are easily offended, but at the same time keen to tell off others. Bad combination. While Jasper Deng dislikes being harrangued on his talk page, but at the same time tacks unrelated complaints about you onto conversations not involving him. Bad combination. From the unassailable heights of my own moral perfection, I suggest you both simmer down and get back to editing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Review of an article deletion
The correct venue for this is WP:DRV. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I will like to request a review on the deletion of the article on Prisca Abah Theirson (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Category: