| Revision as of 23:06, 22 October 2009 view sourceElen of the Roads (talk | contribs)16,638 edits →Legal threat by ANI vandal: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:45, 14 January 2025 view source S Marshall (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers32,444 edits Akin to Gibraltar | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>__NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}} | |||
| {{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 = 4636e7fd80174f8cb324fd91d06d906d | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | ||
| |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--> | |||
| As this page concerns INCIDENTS:U | |||
| == Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from ] == | |||
| Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = There is consensus that {{user|DarwIn}} is subject to an indefinite topic ban from gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people, broadly construed, and an indefinite one-way interaction ban with {{user|Skyshifter}}, broadly construed. A majority of editors have concluded that, based on DarwIn's conduct and lack of contrition, his word is insufficient to prevent further disruption. ] (]/]) 00:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| Do not place links in the section headers. | |||
| (Immediately UNDER the header is preferred). | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| Entries may be refactored based on the above. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| --> | |||
| == Blogs used as references == | |||
| For the last 2½ weeks or so, editors have been trying to remove links to a blog used as a reference in an article. The blog in question is http://mentalblog.com/ , an apparently defunct, anonymous blog, and the article is ]. I brought the issue to WP:RS/N (see ]), where it seemed the consensus was pretty overwhelming in favor of removal, but two or three movement members are insisting on the article Talk: page that the blog is nonetheless reliable as a source for Schneerson's will, based on their personal knowledge of Schneerson's signature etc. They refuse to allow links to the blog in references to be removed, and revert any such removal within minutes. Since article Talk: page discussion and WP:RS/N discussion appears to have made no impact, I've brought the issue here for wider review. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : The assertion made by this editor is incorrect. The main argument is that there is no consensus to remove a source which contains what I and other editors know to be genuine copies of the original. I have explained so in a reply to this editor on ], please see there as to whether his removal reflected consensus. The blog source removed by ] and restored by me and others is just a PDF copy of two pages from a book. I and others have seen that book, and it is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability. Several editors have reversed his removals and protested against them on the talkpage of ], but ] insists he is right and keeps seeking other venues inside Misplaced Pages (first Misplaced Pages:RS/N and now WP:ANI) that would justify him, and is overly zealous on this subject (see the length and time frame of the discussions), which is also no appreciated by other editors. ] (]) 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you've seen the book, why not source the book instead of the blog? ] (]) 21:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Debresser's post above is a perfect example of the issue; the blog is a reliable source because "I and other editors know to be genuine copies of the original." In the same dispute, Debresser has refused to give page numbers for "the book" in question, though he has inserted it as a reference, explaining that he read it years ago, but is sure it contains the material somewhere. His co-members of the movement have insisted—based on their personal assessment of "the book"— that "the book", published by little-known rabbi on an unknown press, is more reliable than books published by a university professor-subject matter expert, on reliable presses. Debresser and a couple of others have refused to accept that Misplaced Pages is guided by ] and ], not their personal assessments of source reliability. See the RS/N or Talk page discussions for more details. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ec}} Let me lift the relevant part out of the previous paragraph for easy reading: ''it (the book) is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability'' ] (]) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Your lifting words out of context is not appreciated. And nobody has refused to accept any Misplaced Pages guideline as you assert without any proof. It is just that editors disagree with you as to the reliabilty of certain sources. You seem to have a problem with that. That is not good on Misplaced Pages, which is based on consensus. And ''that'' is the real issue here with you. You just don't have consensus for your removal, as I explained to you on my talkpage. ] (]) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] says that blogs are not reliable. Please explain why the defunct, anonymous blog mentalblog.com is exempt from this rule. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I refuse to enagage in this content-related dispute for the third time. You have had your answers on the talkpage and on that noticeboard. Now please calm down and accept the fact that people disagree with you. ] (]) 21:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"Calm down"? Please don't speculate about other editors' emotional state. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Stick to the issue please. ] (]) 23:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages is about reliable verifiable sources, not what you know to be the truth. Find a suitable source for the information, otherwise it should come out. ] (]) 21:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: We have heard that before. You completely ignore the subject. Which, BTW, reminds me that I do not think this is a post for WP:ANI, since this is subject related. ] (]) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is a behavior issue, since you have ignored the consensus at ], and continue to edit-war the blog link as a reference into the article. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: People should have the decency not to revert in the middle of a wp:ani discussion. Not after being informed of that, at least. ] (]) 23:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Indeed. So stop reverting. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: As I told you before on my talkpage, your so-called consensus is disputable. ] (]) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hmm, three members of the movement say it's reliable, 7 uninvolved editors say it's not. Not much that's "disputable" there. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: That is a factual untruth, and ill becomes you. It is sad you have decided to resort to such methods. ] (]) 00:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well, let's see. I said it wasn't reliable, as did , , , , and . That's 7 editors who say it's unreliable, none, as far as I know, involved with the Chabad movement. Against that we had you and Zsero saying that the blog was reliable, and , saying it was the wrong question/board. So, I don't think my math was that far off, was it? Which part was the "factual untruth"? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: The part omitting ] here, ], who is clearly enough in favor of keeping the blog, and ] on the talkpage. ] and ] are not clearly against on the noticeboard, as far as I understand. All of this are things you conveniently do not mention or alter. ] (]) 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have no involvement in this whatsoever, as I've never even heard of the article prior to this discussion. But I am absolutely flabbergasted that a well-respected editor such as Debresser would even consider trying to claim that personal knowledge is an acceptable source. Blogs are not reliable sources for such material, period, find a reliable source. How difficult is that? Edit warring isn't the way to deal with a sourcing dispute. ] (]) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Please follow the thread. I said "you have ignored the consensus at ]". Count Iblis didn't comment there, nor did Chabad member Yehoishophot Oliver. As for Bongomatic, fortunately we are able to read his exact words on: . As for the rest, the words of the individuals are plainly evident from the links I provided. So, yeah, 7 uninvolved editors said it was unreliable, 2 movement members said it was reliable, and 1 editor wouldn't give an opinion. All done here. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : And rightfully so. That is why am I so happy I have not made such a claim. Please read my words carefully. ] (]) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Gentleman, what you're missing is that while personal knowledge is not a valid source for ''facts'', it is certainly a valid source for the reliability of sources. What "reliable source" do we cite for the proposition that the NYT is a reliable source? We don't, and we don't have to. The only personal knowledge Debresser and I (and others) are claiming is that the scanned page does indeed appear in the book. -- ] (]) 21:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| BTW, since ] has forgotten to do so, I posted at ] that this discussion is taking place. ] (]) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Dear fellow editors, please read everything carefully, and understand what the issues are. Has any of you had a look at the disputed footnote already? ] (]) 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Jayig is ignoring one crucial fact: the blog is not cited as a source for anything. The will itself is the source; it is a primary source, cited for nothing more than what it says, and for that purpose it is the best possible source. (Secondary sources are only needed for interpretation, not for direct quotes or description.) The blog is simply a URL where a scan of the will can be found, for the reader's convenience. If the will were not to be found anywhere on the web, it would still be just as valid a source, but the reader would not be able to personally verify that it says what the article describes it as saying; linking to the copy at the blog solves this. | |||
| The scan itself is obviously genuine, which can be determined by anyone familiar with the subject's signature, which thousands of people are. It is also known to be genuine because it appears in the book which is cited as a source; that's where the blog scanned it from in the first place! Removing the link to the blog cannot possibly make the article better or more useful, and therefore is against the prime WP rule: to make a better encyclopaedia. -- ] (]) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Let me see if I've got this right: 1-"anyone familiar with the subject's signature" has now become a reliable source. 2-"it appears in the book which is cited as a source", except the cite is to a blog, not to the book, which for some reason the proponents are reluctant to source to. Is this correct? ] (]) 22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: For the '''third time''': ''it (the book) is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability'' ] (]) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Have you had that look at the footnote as recommended? ] (]) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Coming late to the discussion here, but we don't use "convenience" links. We site the reliable source. We don't provide unreliable sources to hold the information as "convenience" because we can't trust that the unreliable source is holding the correct information. You might assert it is, but no other editor can trust that. They are after all, an unreliable source. That means that we sometimes have citations without weblinks and that is fine.--] (]) 23:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed. This is the point - the book exists, and will not be changed. The scan may be accurate now, but it may change later. ] (]) 10:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::How can any .pdf file, which can be created by anybody with minimal forgery, be used as a reliable source? ] (]) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: We must have 100-250-500 thousand PDF sources on Wikipdia, as you well know. So your point of view is untenable. ] (]) 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::PDFs found on ] are considered reliable. PDFs found on ] are not. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have the book and can supply the page numbers required for the source. To be sure the blog is not being used as a source, the source is the book. The question now is if we may link to this blog (which itself is undoubtedly ''not'' a reliable source) just for convenience sake. Is that a problem? there are actually many references in articles which link to blogs and private websites, should these also be removed? can we finalize what wikipedia's policy should be for these links (or has it been done already)? | |||
| About the book Heshbono shel Olam: It is written by Binyamin Lipkin and published by "Mechon Hasefer". Avraham Alashvili is the head of this Mechon (organization). Lipkin has written another book I know about callad "Al Hakavenet" about the ] terrorist shooting and the aftermath. This second book is published by " Hostzaot Toras Chayim" which I believe is well know publisher in Israel. ] (]) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : All that is in the article already, apart from the precise pagenumbers. ] (]) 22:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :]. In general, blogs are not acceptable sources. You'd have to give specific links as to whether or not the blog is a reliable source. If you have the book, if you sourced the claim to that, it would solve this entire mess. ] (]) 22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thank you. we have heard that ad nauseandum already. ] (]) | |||
| :::And yet, for some reason, you are refusing to do the bare minimum needed to end this contretemps. Is it just a matter of bullheadedness, and that it has to be your way or no way? ] (]) 22:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Talking about "bullheadiness". For the fourth time: the book is already there as a source. Please leave this discussion... ] (]) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Without a dispute about statements made in the source, it is not ok. to remove the source, even if it is a type of source that you would prefer not to use in general. ] (]) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't understand which side of this discussion you're endorsing here. But I'm out of this discussion, I don't like beating my head against a wall and it's clear that nobody here is interested in trying to resolve this, they're just interested in getting their way. ] (]) 22:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Let me help you. He says: "keep the blog". As have many before him. Which is my point, that there is no consensus for its removal. ] (]) 22:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::You have it exactly backwards. Zsero . There was no consensus for its addition. There still is none. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Well, in the beginning there was chaos, then... How far do you want to go back? ] (]) 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Let's go back to when the link to the blog was first added. I believe that was on , by Zsero, was it not? And it was , was it not? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I think the clear question here is as follows: Why does the blog need to be cited if the content exists in an identical fashion in a book already cited within the article? 100 words or less please.—] (]) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :For the same reason why I included preprints links in ] and in many other articles: accessibility ] (]) 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::And how do we know that the material on this defunct, anonymous ] is an accurate representation? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::The blog is not anonymous, he has stated his name many times: Tzemach Atlas living in the Boston area. ] (]) 23:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: And what is the problem with it being defunct? ] is also "defunct": he is dead. ] (]) 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have now inserted the page numbers of Lipkin's book. Those are the same copy's. You and anyone else can check them. I hope this this solves the problem as ] suggested.] (]) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :One would hope, but I have no doubt the blog link will soon be back. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed, if the issue has been resolved, why shouldn't it? ] (]) 23:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Because it has been resolved by providing a (somewhat) better source, so there's no need for the irredeemably unreliable one. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The link to the blog is a ''copy'' to what ''both sources'' are discussing, it's not being used as a source, it's there for accessibility. ] (]) 00:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please review the discussion at ]. Aside from the fact that ] and ] specifically exclude these kinds of sites as reliable, the concern raised by seven editors there (and several other editors here) is that we had no reliable source indicating that blog pdf was an accurate representation of anything. Misplaced Pages editors, btw, don't count as ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Jayjg, I've been in similar disputes before and my experience is that what you are doing here is unnecessarily causing a conflict. I think this is as far as you could take it. You could temporarily add the "dubious" tag and then try to get hold of the book or try to contact people who have the book to verify if the PDF file is bona fide. As I understand it, Shlomke has already done that. The problem with remove the link to the blog is that no one has raised questions about about the contents. This will then cause anger. It is a bit similar to how not sticking to AGF causes anger. You are a priori treating a valuable source of information as unreliable, even though it may well be 100% accurate. ] (]) 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Did you review the consensus at ], which was exactly the opposite of your position? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You've won me over. Although I do not doubt these particular scans since I'm able to compare them to the book and I see them to be the same, as a rule if this practice were allowed, there would be many fakes on WP as anyone can make any image they want, put it up on a website or blog and claim it is a primary source. I will wait for this discussion to finish before editing. ] (]) 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Jayjg, from a pure Wiki Law perspective you are right. But then Misplaced Pages is ]. In this particular case, your objections to the blog link based on only Wiki Law has raised tensions. You can imagine that allowing the blog link for pragmatic reasons here and perhaps in other articles on similar grounds may lead to new rules for potentially unreliable sources. This case is exceptional because we have an editor who has verified that the blog link gives accurate information. ] (]) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Count Iblis, what you may not know is that even the source this material is allegedly copied from is not reliable. It's a book published by a nearly unknown publisher, written by a rabbi whose only other claim to notability is that he apparently at one time edited a small weekly '']'' newspaper. And ''neither source is even necessary''; the article already has links to a ''reliable'' book that contains all the necessary information, so there's no need for either the blog pdf or the book it allegedly comes from! So, tell me, what's the point in including them? We already have a reliable source for all the information, so why put in the unreliable ones too? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::About reliability of of Heshbono shel Olam: As pointed out above, it is published by "מכון הספר" ("Mechon Hashefer") a publishing organization run by Rabbi Avraham Alashvili. When doing a google search for "מכון הספר" come up. There seems to be another org. with this same name that is not connected, but there are still plenty of results for this books publisher. I have a book published by them called "Hefsek B']" written by Rabbi Yoav Lemberg. The ] them as a publisher in a listing of publishers. About Binyamin Lipkin, I see another book by him called "Al Hakavenet" as mentioned above, printed by Hotzaot Toras Chayim . for בנימין ליפקין. No question about reliability. The question is if this source is necessary, especially since we have an English source. But the English source does not have copy's of the will's, which the Hebrew one does. So if an editor is insisting on inserting it, then why not? ] (]) 04:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::What do you mean, "No question about reliability"? Is "Mechon Hashefer" a ]? Is it the personal enterprise of Rabbi Avraham Alashvili? Does it have a website? Is there any third-party information about it? Just publishing a few books doesn't immediately make this a reliable source. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| ] is reverting on ], even after he was informed that this is the subject of a wp:ani discussion. In fact he removed my comment rudily from his talkpage. ] (]) 23:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I propose warning this editor that this is unacceptetable. ] (]) 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :And you keep reverting him in turn. Do you propose warning yourself too? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: You don't have to add here every ill thought through comment that pops to mind. Really. ] (]) 23:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: In particular, I was reverting to the version from right before this thread, and only his uncvivil edits. Uncivil in that they mix into a discussion. ] (]) 23:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Whether it's the subject of AN/I discussion or not, there is no reason to suspend editing of the article. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">]</span><sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">].</sub> 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I consider it a lack of decency not to await the outcome of the discussion. Perhaps you mean other edits, that are non related? That I agree with. ] (]) 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::And it seems everybody else considers leaving it against our ]. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 23:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I was not considering your personal standards of decency, nor would I, just normal editing practice. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">]</span><sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">].</sub> 23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I blocked for 24 hours for reverting while knowing full well an attempt to resolve the situation was being made here. In my opinion, that is clearly edit warring. --] (]) 23:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::P.S. the same will happen to anyone else who reverts, while knowing the situation here (after this message). I will happily unblock Bali is he agrees to join the discussion and stop reverting. --] (]) 23:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===More tendentious editing=== | |||
| Here's an example of the kind of tendentious editing that I've been faced with, right in this very thread: | |||
| I made a comment at 21:22 GMT, referring to "" A couple of minutes later, Debresser below another post of his. Well, of course, at this point my comment "Debresser's post above" no longer makes sense, since it's below a ''different'' Debresser post. Despite my moving it back, he , and even changes the indenting, so that it now definitely looks like I'm responding to the second comment, not the first! I try to put it back where it make sense, even explaining in an edit summary that Nonetheless, he moves my post again, while claiming that I have "no right" to . This is the kind of topsy-turvy tendentiousness I have to deal with. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Please, let's not start a second edit war. Debresser just leave Jayjg's comment where he placed it or I'll have to block you for edit warring. --] (]) 00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: No problem. But he is mistaking. There was an edit conflict here, and my reply ended up below his, and out of context. I tried to fix that. ] (]) 00:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are both correct in that both of your posts refer to the post "above" and thus don't make sense out of order. Unfortunately one has to be out of order and yours technically came second because of the edit conflict. I have added {{tl|ec}} to indicate this, which I suggest is a much better may to "fix" things like this in the future. :) That said, it is not something ''either'' of you should have been edit warring over as any intelligent person could figure out which post you guys were referring to form the context. --] (]) 00:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === What is a blog? === | |||
| A blog is a (generally non-notable) person's personal opinion, posted on a self-published site where the author is the the sole "editorial control". Thus, they are primary sources. When the blog author is an expert, blogs may be used as primary sources, within limits articulated in other policies. Likewise, when a blog belongs to a newspaper or other traditional media who exercises editorial control over the blog, then the blog is acceptable. | |||
| In this case, it appears that a PDF copy of a published source, hosted on a blog site, is being criticized solely because it's on a blog site. That's just silly. | |||
| * Would the reference be acceptable without the PDF? Sure seems like it. | |||
| * Does linking to the PDF help understanding? That seems to be the argument. | |||
| * Is there any editorial control exercised by the poster of the PDF? It seems not. | |||
| Thus, the real issues seem to be | |||
| # Is this PDF hosted in violation of copyright laws? If so, it should not be linked... but the fact that it is hosted on a blog site has nothing to do with that. | |||
| # Is the PDF a copy of a vanity press book, rather than an RS book selected and edited with appropriate editorial control? If so, then it should be limited to use as an unreliable source. | |||
| And yes, ANI is a silly place for this. ] (]) 01:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :For clarity, what would make the blog author an expert? ] (]) 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Someone who has been cited and published as such. If an individual is constantly cited or interviewed on a subject, they can be considered an expert on it. We let reliable sources determine who are experts and who are not. Their self-published sources are usable only in the context of what they are an expert on. So someone who is constantly interviewed about military policy might be an expert on military policy but if he wrote a post about how his Toyota is a piece of crap we couldn't cite him on that.--] (]) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::If they are a recognized academic expert in a field, who has published in third-party reliable sources on the subject. ], for example, who is an expert on ], has a , which one could cite (with caution) on the topic of Holocaust denial. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do they have to be an academic to be an expert? I think not. ] (]) 04:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, they have to be published and recognized as such. Their personal qualifications are immaterial if reliable sources are referring to them and using them as experts.--] (]) 04:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, but you have no evidence that the person hosting that PDF hasn't altered it or won't alter it in the future. That is why we don't link to it. An unreliable source holding "reliable" information isn't usable. Cite the reliable source. We don't use convenience links because we can't trust them. They can cite it without the blog link and its perfectly fine.--] (]) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Then should every Google Books link to content be removed? After all, Google isn't a reliable source. Your argument assumes bad faith on the part of the non-RS, that it would falsify material. If the blog site claims to reproduce a verbatim copy of a copyrighted RS document, the primary issue is copyright. If it's fair use, it would then fall to the person who challenges its veracity to demonstrate that the offline RS doesn't say what a (potentially) unreliable RS says. Your interpretation would provide the torturous outcome that I can claim an offline RS says XYZ and not be subject to challenge except through someone going to get a copy of the offline source, but that someone else can claim an offline RS says XYZ, cite a PDF of an allegedly verbatim copy on an unreliable website, and the ''document link'' can be challenged, but not the content of the assertion. That's just silly. ] (]) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I also don't think falsification is the suspicion standing behind the policies. And this has been mentioned on the talkpage before. That a suspection of falsification is not acceptable as an argument, unless there exist specific reasons to suspect so. ] (]) 07:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The fact that the blog isn't reliable is enough to make the copy suspect. A source which isn't reliable is unreliable by wikipedia's standards and we simply cannot link to it in a citation, because it isn't the source. The book/original document is the source.--] (]) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I agree that this can be an interpretation fo wp:rs. I find it hard to agree with this interpretation though. And with me other editors involved in this discussion. ] (]) 08:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you really want to compare Joe blogger to google a public organization? The problem with the document link isn't whether or not you or I believe the document has been falsified, its that the average reader of wikipedia has no way of knowing who this blogger is and where these pages came from. It becomes a crutch and it misleads the reader into thinking the reliable source is the linked documents and not what is actually being sourced. Google is a public company and depending on what goes on behind google books, there could be a case made to consider what they scan and publish on to be reliable sources.--] (]) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, Jclemens, it's silly this ended up here. It started on the article Talk: page, then moved to the RS/N board, where 7 people said it was an unreliable source (against the two editors who kept inserting it). When those two editors insisted that there still wasn't really a consensus against inserting it, it moved here, because that's pretty much the next logical step. While one could argue that it was initially—in part—a content dispute, once the RS/N consensus was clear, it became an issue of inappropriate behavior; see ], which describes this behavior pretty exactly (particularly "Cannot satisfy ]" and "Rejects community input"). ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe he's looking for a wider audience (sometimes denigrated as "forum shopping"). I've seen far too many "we can't cite blogs" rote arguments, without understanding the basis for such an argument in the actual policies like V, N, and RS. I am not speaking to conduct issues, but failing to take an unreasonable answer and walk away is not disruptive editing. Frankly, I'm unimpressed with the responses in this section. You may all be ticked off at the guy for bringing it here, but calm down, have a nice cup of ], and think through the policy bases for the exclusion of such a link. It's not as strong as the level of consternation would imply. ] (]) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The one forum shopping is ], who started out on the talkpage, met ''unanymous'' disagreement, continued on the noticeboard to get support, and now came to WP:ANI to get it enforced. Isn't the talkpage where it should be decided what should and should not be in the article in this specific case? I find it interesting, that on the talkpage ''all'' editors apart from ] want to keep the blog, while on the noticeboard almost all are against keeping the blog (counting again ] with those against and the people who came from the article talkpage as in favor). It does suggest to me that those who know what they are talking about have a better understanding of the issue than outside noticeboards (that are notorious for being frequented by their respective hardliners). ] (]) 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I don't see any forum shopping. It is perfectly reasonable to go to the reliable sources noticeboard for the review of a source. And no, the talk page of the article is not where it should be decided if a source is reliable or not, as not many editors would see the discussion, and it is prudent in such a discussion that uninvolved editors are present for the obtaining of consensus. Lastly, seeing as how you are so steadfast in refusing to abide by WP policy regarding reliable sources, he brought the discussion here for enforcement. Perfectly reasonable.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 09:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Going there is reasonable in general, but in this case, where there was ''unanymous disagreement'' on the talkpage, that was forumshopping. Then trying to enfore his opinion by coming to WP:ANI, even though there was no ''clear consensus'' (although I agree a certain majority shares his opinion) was incorrect. I'm unwatching this discussion. If there will be any things that concern me personally, please contact me on my talkpage. Thank you. ] (]) 10:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::By "''unanymous disagreement'' on the talkpage", you must mean the three ] members who seemed to be unaware of or uninterested in ] and ]. Taking an RS issue to the ] board is not "forum shopping", it's ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The agreement of ''three'' editors does not give you rights to do whatever you want with a page. It was not, nor will it ever be forum shopping for Jay to have gone to RSN and here. | |||
| :::::::Agreement on an obscure article by most of the only editors that edit it does not give them the right to walk over policy. If that was the case, then several thousand articles that have been previously deleted wouldn't have been. I shouldn't have to explain why. | |||
| :::::::Secondly, there ''was'' '''clear consensus''' at RSN. Three dissidents who were trying to control the article don't count. Only uninvolved editors count in the matter, and consensus among those uninvolved editors was that the sources were not reliable. Consensus doesn't require that the original dissidents agree with everyone else.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 08:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: When you say '''clear consensus''', do you mean about the blog or the book? ] (]) 13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Book === | |||
| *We have two issues. #1 is the book reliable? Bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I suspect it is not. #2 is a link the to blog of a copy of the page unacceptable? Assuming that the book ''is'' found to be a reliable source, we have often linked to scanned copies of a page. Often. I'd say cite the book and provide the link. If the book isn't a reliable source, it might be reasonable to mention the book if a RS has discussed or at least mentioned the book. Otherwise, out it goes. ] (]) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*Just put it in external links. Per ], external links can include, "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Really, you're not trying to use it as a reference, because you already have a reference (the book). So put it in an external links section. Assuming that the copyright issues mentioned are found to not be a problem. -- ''']'''] 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :**That makes sense, although if the goal is to let people find the will that might make it a bit harder. Ah well, it seems reasonable and within our guidelines. ] (]) 23:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :***I already brought the book to the RS/N noticeboard. Unsurprisingly, the consensus of uninvolved editors there was that it was not reliable. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Are there any sanctions the community can take against editors why say blatant lies in ] discussions? Because if so, this is the time, and this is the man. ] (]) 10:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :**** The consensus at ] was mainly about using the blog ''as a reference'' (vs linking for accessibility which we are discussing here), not about the book. I've added additional information above about the reliability of the book which I think would make the book pass. Do you suggest I put that information there too (even though that was not the intention of that notice, as the name suggests), or perhaps start a new discussion? ] (]) 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*****I'd suggest starting a new discussion. ] (]) 13:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :******I will leave it to those who want to use the book as a second reference. I'm fine either with or without it. ] (]) 02:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Copyright === | |||
| ] touched on a good point above that no one seems to be discussing. Ignoring the fact whether this blog should be used a "convenience" for a ] (which I personally think is ridiculous), if copies of pages of the book are copyrighted, we shouldn't be linking to them. Period. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 13:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *We link to material that is under copyright all the time. Sometimes to nyt.com. Sometimes to archive.org or googlebooks. As long as the selection we are linking to is legal (under the fair use doctrine) I think we are fine. ] (]) 19:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the question is whether the blog is a violation of copyright. In that case, we wouldn't link to it. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Aye. For example, we might link to an official site with a film trailer on it; we wouldn't link to a site with a pirated copy on it. <b>]</b> 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sure, but we might (and do) link to other sites that (for example) make fair use quotes of copyrighted material. And we often link to archive.org for copyrighted material that is no longer available on the original site. ] (]) 23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::My understanding is that the blog would not be in violation of copyright, because the will's in the book are not the original work of the author, they are copy's of the Rabbi's will's (perhaps public info?) ] (]) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Above when giving some detailed facts, you wrote "why not?". It seems to me that Jayjg and everyone else should ask this question. It's time to write up a new wiki policy ], an extention of ]. ] (]) 23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why not? becuase linking to this blog does several things, it gives the impression that the blog or the author of the blog are some kind of reliable source, it also drives traffic to a random blog. Allowing these kinds of links would not only imply credibility to unreliable sources they would end up being used to host content just to get traffic from wikipedia as holding convenience links. We currently don't have anyway to differentiate between a reliable source and a convenience link and I'm completely against putting any kind of unreliable source in a position to masquerade as a reliable one.--] (]) 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Exactly. There's a reason we have ] and ]. Heck, we're not even supposed to link to blogs as external links; see ], number 11. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::But it's not a link to a blog, is it? It's a link to a document being hosted at a web site that also hosts a blog. Now, I agree that the blog itself isn't a reliable source, but a link to the document should be allowable per ] if it's not being used as a reference. -- ''']'''] 00:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Anyone can host anything on a website. Is that website a reliable source? Its not a citation unless its being hosted by a reliable source. Otherwise we're giving credibility to random websites, blogs, etc.--] (]) 03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: ], my comment "why not" above was not about linking to the blog, it was about using the book "Cheshbono Shel Olam" as an additional reference. See above. I'm basically in agreement at this point with what you and Jayjg are saying. I would like to see what the final consensus is on this issue and apply it to similar situations in the future.] (]) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ah, okay. If the talk from RS/N is properly quoted, then it would seem like the majority support not linking it, which has in the past been the agreement I've always worked under.--] (]) 03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Likebox and tendentious re-insertion of original research == | |||
| I apologize for the length of this post; the incident has been on and off for several years, so a thorough description is necessarily somewhat long. Brief summary: this is essentially a case of ] regarding WP:OR. Discussion has been attempted several times to no avail, and so I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to review the situation. | |||
| User:{{ultc|Likebox}} has, in several incidents since 2007, inserted what he calls "modern proofs" into the articles ] and ]. These were removed because they give original interpretations of the material that cannot be sourced to the literature on the subject. Likebox acknowledges that his motivation is that he feels that the literature should have been written in a different way: | |||
| * "There is nothing wrong with the proofs, except that they are different than the usual textbook presentations." | |||
| * : "I agree that textbooks do not often mention quines in this context, but I feel that this is a pedagogical mistake." | |||
| * : "The modern "literature" is textbooks, which are written by a different process than research papers, and are not generally very well written." | |||
| These arguments are parallel to the arguments he made in 2007, such as "Misplaced Pages is a place where certain questions need to be resolved. What constitutes a valid recursion theory proof is one of those questions. ... Textbook proofs are reworked by secondary authors, and they are, as a rule, the worst proofs in the literature." | |||
| Numerous attempts have been made to resolve this via discussion. Some of the older discussions are at: | |||
| * (November 2007, starting with the section "modern proof") | |||
| * ] (November 2007) | |||
| * ] (November 2007) | |||
| * ] (March 2008). | |||
| Likebox acknowledges that, when he inserted this material before, it did not gain consensus . He now says he is making the edits to make a point, to press his case for a proposed guideline . | |||
| When Likebox inserted the material again this month, the matter was raised at | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Several editors in these two discussion pointed out that the novel proofs should not be added , , , (not counting those who said this the last time it was added), and consensus is against including the material that Likebox has added. Nevertheless, Likebox reverted his edits again today . Likebox has said he plans to continue doing this . | |||
| Because the consensus against adding this material that developed both in past discussions and in the more recent discussions has failed to convince Likebox to stop adding this material, I would like to ask some uninvolved administrator to review the situation. Likebox appears to be a productive editor apart from these two pages, so perhaps a topic ban would resolve the continued disruption he brings to those pages. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 00:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :What is exactly the problem with including a novel derivation that is more accessible (apart from it violating the usual wiki rules)? Novel derivations, albeit usually quite simple derivations, are given in many wiki physics and math articles. ] (]) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC | |||
| ::The issue here is not that Likebox is expanding or rewriting proofs from the literature in his own words. The problem is that Likebox is simply ignoring the literature, and rewriting everything the way he wishes the literature was written, As I said, this has already been discussed at great length, which is why I am bringing this here, since Likebox has apparently ignored numerous explanations of WP:NOR over a period of years. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, but what Likebox is not doing is modifying the standard proof that is in the article, he is adding a new section for a "modern proof". At least that is what I see . The way this is written suggests that this actually is the modern proof, while in fact it is Likebox's proof. To me that would be the main problem with the text and not any OR policies (I've violated OR on similar grounds in many articles). | |||
| :::If it were up to me, I could live with a rewritten version of Likebox's text such that it is immediately clear that it is an alternative proof that can only to be found here. ] (]) 02:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Right: the text suggests it is the modern proof, while it is really simply Likebox's original interpretation of how the theorem "should" be proved. But if this alternative proof can only be found on Misplaced Pages, then it violates WP:V and WP:NOR. This has been explained to Likebox by numerous people, which is why I opened a thread here. Simply pointing out that the proof is not permitted because of WP policies has not discouraged Likebox from adding it over and over. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 02:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Um, Iblis? That would make it a textbook case of ]. ] (]) 02:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::CMB, I think Likebox would argue that the whole point of the proof is to make Gödel's theorem verifiable from first principles to interested Misplaced Pages readers. The proof itself is then not the main subject, it is merely an argument that shows why Gödel's teorem is true. That's also how I have defended including original derivations in other wiki articles. But you can make the proof itself to be the subject of the article that then has to be verifiable itself from citations to the literature. | |||
| :::::I agree that a consensus needs to exist among the editors before this can be done. An alternative could be that Likebox creates a Fork of the article. He can then write up his proof there, but then in such a way that it is clear that the article is an accessible self contained proof that is not similar to what can be found in the literature. | |||
| :::::JoshuaZ, In practice we do allow original derivations in wikipedia even though, strictly speaking, this violates OR. I raised the problem a few times on the OR talk page and I was always told that I could invoke IAR. The OR policy was not going to change any time soon to legalize what was going on on a small number of pages. ] (]) 03:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Even if we were to allow OR in this case there's nothing resembling either a consensus to do so. Indeed, all the regular math editors who have weighed in don't want this included. As such an individual who has not weighed in let me add that I agree. Indeed his presentation if anything obfuscates what is going on in Godel's theorem. The primary issue that we should be discussing in this thread is what to do with this user not whether the content should be included. ] (]) 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We could tell Likebox to put his proof for the moment on a subdirectory of his talkpage so that he can work on it to make it acceptable from a purely mathematical perspective (disregarding OR). That would solve the immediate problem. The OR issue can be dealt with later. ] (]) 03:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| (unindent) Count Iblis, 1) Misplaced Pages, including Misplaced Pages user space, is not a venue for developing original proofs of anything (some synthesis from published proofs is necessarily accepted, but that's not what we're talking about here). If Likebox wants to publish new proofs, that's what journals and textbook publishers are for. 2) As CBM says, Likebox's attempts to insert his own research into those articles has been going on for ''years'', so a compromise involving writing them in userspace doesn't sound likely to hold up. 3) The basic problem with Likebox's "proofs" is that they are bogus (see the ] from 2007, particularly ) in terms of both content gaps and presentation. | |||
| See also the declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and yourself) just a couple weeks ago where ], a knowledgeable chemistry editor, proposed a long term block against Likebox. Likebox is highly intelligent and is fairly small fry compared with Misplaced Pages's worst problem editors, but he disrupts several specialized areas whose editors really have better things to do than deal with him. Some kind of editing restriction definitely seems to be in order. ] (]) 06:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The "declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and ) just a couple weeks ago " was declined because an amicable resolution was achieved. Likebox's derivations are useful and no different from hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. --] <sup>]</sup> 08:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Michael, if Likebox and OMCV have worked out their differences, that is great, though I'd be more assured if OMCV said so directly. Likebox's derivations are ''not'' the same as "hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Misplaced Pages"--can you identify a single other proof in Misplaced Pages that so radically departs from published proofs of the same fact, in both substance and style, and has been rejected repeatedly by consensus of knowledgeable editors, but has still stayed in WP? It's true that math editors often (sensibly) go along with it when a math article says something that isn't in a textbook, as long as what is said is correct and is generally fits the standard approaches. That doesn't even slightly describe Likebox's "proof", whose basic motivation (that the textbook proofs are no good) is fundamentally wrong, in addition to the proof itself being mathematically wrong, and whose presentation in the article was just plain ugly, and was found by consensus to not be appropriate for the article. The proofs of the incompleteness theorem found in logic textbooks are perfectly good, and they are studied and understood without undue trauma by many thousands of undergraduate math and philosophy students every semester. Their only problem is that Likebox doesn't like them. ] (]) 18:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <-- As an involved administrator I wish to make a point. This is not an isolated incident. Likebox has been doing the same type of thing in a totally unrelated article called ]. Another article where he has expressed a strong opinion on the, and rather than attempt to compromise over the issue and work through the edits he would like to add sentence by sentence, he has resorted to re-adding the text every so often with comments on the talk page such as | |||
| :*"This means we need to have a big change, and go on from there. I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks. Likebox (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)" (see ], ],) | |||
| :*"Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)" | |||
| :*"Again, there is no point in talking to people like you. You must be put down by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)" | |||
| No only has he made these threats but he carries them out by periodically making large changes to the article: | |||
| , and by insisting that large amounts of material that he has written to the talk page is not archived but each time is copied back to the start of the talk page, , he is disrupting the usual development of new conversations on the talk page. | |||
| These two disputes on articles about very different subjects are not about content, but are about how Likebox fails to handle consensus building and is disrupting the project. -- ] (]) 13:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :] also behaves in a similar way on the Global Warming page and perhaps also on other wiki pages. But he is not editing there very frequently, so it is not really a problem. No one is arguing that he should be banned. He is not behaving like , neither is Likebox. ] (]) 14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually Likebox seems to be a very nice guy and generally seems to have very reasonable opinions. (Which doesn't mean that I always agree with him about everything. I don't.) He just seems to be a bit too stubborn when he realises that he is pushing against a consensus. But he is open about this and I haven't seen him use any dirty tricks. ] ] 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Wiki-nagging === | |||
| Since some people are talking about my edits, let me try to explain. There are three accusations above about my nagging: | |||
| # Godel's incompleteness theorems/Halting problem | |||
| # History Wars | |||
| # Quantum mysticism | |||
| 3 was resolved by a fork, and everyone seems to be OK with it for now. OMCV has said "I can live with this text" on the forked ] page. So that's done with. No more nagging. | |||
| 2 is a ''big'' issue. Misplaced Pages needs to be mindful of racially offensive historiography. On U.S. history pages, this is dealt with reasonably well. On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources. I only do it when they archive the discussion, because the issues are not resolved. The nagging is just to alert any interested editor that if they wish to contest this historiography, they will find at least one supporter. | |||
| 1 is the main issue, and it has come up before. Why do I keep nagging here? One reason is that I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs. This is the third time I've put it up. The first time, it stayed for months. The second time, it was deleted, but at least people understood it is correct. This time, the issues have been clarified to the point where I know everyone's position. | |||
| I don't like this consensus, not because the text I wrote is so great, but because I am pretty sure that if Misplaced Pages can't give a simple proof of Godel's theorem, it's going to be a problem for other logic articles. There are a ton of proofs in the literature that are more obscure today than they should be, because the language has not been properly modernized. The method of injury/priority is by now over 50 years old, and still is obscure enough that people are discouraged from using it. | |||
| The only editor who pretty much fully understands the text and strongly opposes it is CBM. His position is that text on Misplaced Pages should follow the consensus of textbooks. Needless to say, I think this is an absolutely terrible idea. Other editors have opposed the proof for other understandable reasons. | |||
| I do agree that there might be a some issues with the proof as written. The reason I wrote it in exactly this language is mainly because I have been "talking" this proof to people for many years, and it has ossified in my mind, but also so as to prove the Rosser version of the incompleteness theorem easily, which I don't know how to do easily in other ways. As Michael Price has said, the real issue here is that the proofs in the literature are never self-contained. They always refer you to some other theorem, and some other theorem, and this is a disservice to someone who wants to learn the proof quickly. | |||
| In these cases, the policy of ] suggests that text that only fills in intermediate steps in a proof is OK, so long as the statement of the theorem is OK, the main idea is sourced, and the intermediate steps are verifiable from first principles. This is true of the proofs I am suggesting. I could place them somewhere else, but there is no guarantee that they will stay up. Also, I am hoping that someone who likes the proof can speak up. There used to be supporters in the past, who have drifted away (also opponents). | |||
| I believe that this issue will be resolved one day, when a clear proof of the theorem is up. Until then, I nag a little bit, very infrequently, to keep the issue alive.] (]) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Likebox, your statement "I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs" presupposes that people don't understand the proofs now. That is bogus: 1) if your proofs are so hard to understand, what business do you have claiming them to be better than the textbook proofs that people ''do'' understand? 2) Your notion that people other than CBM don't understand your proof is wrong. I'm sure Hans Adler understands it. I understood it (the 2007 version, I haven't bothered looking at more recent ones). I'm sure plenty of other editors involved in that article understood it too, and found it unsuitable for the article. If your proof is so great, why don't you send it to (say) American Mathematical Monthly, and if they publish it, Misplaced Pages can cite it? The issue here is not that you have bestowed on us a new and wonderfully clear proof foolishly rejected by Misplaced Pages's hidebound bureaucracy clinging to stupid rules. Misplaced Pages's more active math editors are smarter than hell and they are quite capable of ignoring rules with the best of them, when that's the right thing to do. ''This is not one of those times''. There are other online encyclopedias like SEP, which don't have Misplaced Pages's policies against original research, because they rely on recognized expert referees to make content judgements similar to how a journal does. I don't think SEP would accept your proof, so I don't think Misplaced Pages should accept it either. If you submit it there and they accept it, then we can revisit the issue. Otherwise, stop beating the dead horse. ] (]) 00:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The issue of "experts" is a red herring. This is mathematics, and it is trivial to check when a proof is correct. Correctness is not the issue anymore, it is originality. | |||
| :::: I apologize for interspersing comments: while I agree that most of the mathematically minded editors (including Trovatore and Hans Adler) ''did'' understand the proof very quickly (Trovatore noted an error in the original version of the Rosser proof within a few minutes, which I quickly fixed), there were also several very loud voices that did ''not'' understand the proof, and the debate with them drowned out any reasonable discussion for a long time. All these people are gone, and the people that remain understand that the proof is accurate. | |||
| :::: While the proof is very easy, this is exactly why many non-mathematical people thought it must be wrong. It's too simple to be correct. The reason I started editing the page is when I saw a comment on the talk page from years ago that said "The lay person will ''never'' understand Godel's incompleteness theorem". And I thought to myself "Why not?". I expected that a simple proof would make people angry, precisely because it sidesteps a lot of notation and terminology that people who write about the theorem would like to pretend are necessary. | |||
| :::: The question of originality is difficult to address. I know that this proof of Godel's theorem by itself is not original. The Rosser proof is borderline for Misplaced Pages, but it is not original either for a journal. You can go on, however, to prove a few new theorems in the same style, and if enough of these are found, the result might be suitable for a journal.] (]) 18:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your post above is mostly wrong: | |||
| :::::#Your proof of the incompleteness theorem is in fact not correct, in that CBM explained that it has a large gap. While it doesn't actually prove something that's false, a famous description that comes to mind is that it's ]. That is, your "proof" is not a proof. | |||
| :::::#Checking when a proof is correct is certainly not trivial (as your own inability to do so shows), except possibly for the case when the proof is completely formalized and can be checked by computer. Quite a lot of undergraduate math education (e.g. introductory real analysis) is mostly geared towards teaching how to write and check proofs, and at this point I don't have the impression that you are so hot at it. See Thurston p. 8 for more discussion of the cultural acclimation process necessary to understand what an acceptable unformalized proof is. That acclimation is what Hans Adler was describing in his RFC response, I think, and it does not seem to me that you have absorbed it enough, thus the resistance you get. ( Remember also that Gauss famously gave the first "rigorous" proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra in 1799, only to have a gap discovered in it ~150 years later. Checking proofs is also (part of) why math journals have those referees that you sneer at. A lot of the early development of mathematical logic was precisely an attempt to pin down exactly how to check a proof. Don't trivialize that which is not trivial.) | |||
| :::::# As an aside, formally proving the incompleteness theorem is in fact rather complicated: see . You will see the formalization cited spent considerable effort addressing the issues CBM described and which you simply handwaved. | |||
| :::::#Showing non-OR-ness on the other hand ''is'' trivial: just cite a textbook or published article giving a similar proof to yours, and establish notability for it by the usual means. That you haven't given such citations is a strong sign that your proof is OR. | |||
| :::::#Even if your proof was completely fleshed out and checked, the amount of space you want to devote to it in the article is ridiculous. If it were published in a journal, I'd support adding a sentence to the article like "Likebox has given an alternative proof using Turing machines" with a citation, but anything more than that would be undue weight since the proof is so unorthodox. Of course that would change if textbooks and journals started switching to your style of proof in large numbers, but not until then. | |||
| :::::#I am glad that you acknowledge that mathematically-oriented editors other than CBM also understood your "proof". I just looked at the current version of ] and ''not a single one'' of those editors supported inclusion. Trovatore, Zero Sharp, Arthur Rubin, and Paul August all spoke against inclusion. Hans Adler didn't weigh in, so I assume his view didn't change since last time. While a few editors like Count Iblis liked your proof, none of them as far as I can tell have shown any familiarity with the existing logic literature including the usual published proofs. With no disrespect intended to those editors (we all have our own areas of interest), the notion of deciding what to include in Misplaced Pages based on such uninformed judgement is squarely in ] territory and is precisely what the NOR policy is designed to prevent. We are trying to write an encyclopedia whose contents are acceptable by professional standards, so while I can understand a case for inclusion if someone like CBM thinks it's ok, it's completely different if only some less informed editors (anyone unlikely to be given the responsibility of refereeing such a proof for a journal) think it's ok. | |||
| :::::#Also, your continued harping on the proposed ESCA guideline to shoehorn your bogus OR into Misplaced Pages is shaping up to be a strong argument against accepting that guideline. If the proposed guideline supports including your OR when informed consensus says it's bogus, the proposed guideline is no good and should be rejected. | |||
| :::::#Finally even if your proof is correct and backed by citations, there is more to the suitability of a given proof than mere correctness. It was a big deal when Erdős and Selberg found arithmetic proofs of the prime number theorem when there was already an existing proof, because the old proof used complex analysis which while correct was considered mathematically unsatisfying. It's of course a subjective matter, but your own proof's excursion into Turing machines for something that can be done directly with arithmetic could be seen as similarly unsatisfying. I am confident that the logicians who wrote the existing textbooks that you don't like, knew perfectly well what Turing machines are and could have written machine-based proofs if they felt like it. They used the approach they did because they found it more tasteful or appropriate. It is not persuasive seeing you attempt to substitute your own judgement for theirs. You are trying to override not only the NOR policy, but the neutrality policy as well, in wanting to present a fringe-ish proof in place of a mainstream one. That, I think, is what CBM is getting at by staying to stay with the consensus of published sources. You cannot be the arbiter of what the best of the available ''correct'' presentations is, never mind that you want to use an incorrect one. | |||
| :::::You are one of the reasons why I lost interest in editing the incompleteness theorem article a couple years ago. CBM has a fact-based writing style where he rarely expresses personal opinion about anything, and I can't speak for him, but that he finally brought this issue to ANI after all these years makes me theorize that he is quite fed up. So, I continue to support his call for an editing restriction against you. ] (]) 02:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| (deindent) Hey, Mr. anon. you are totally wrong. | |||
| # CBM's "explanation" is totally unfounded. The gap"he pretends to find is the exact embedding of a computer into arithmetic, meaning, how do you take statements like "R halts" and turn them into statements about integers. This "gap" is not a gap at all, but a painfully obvious statement which is easy to prove. It is precisely because ''this'' is much easier to prove than anything about logic that I chose the presentation that I did. CBM is resistant to doing things in any way but the textbook way. That's legitimate. But even he doesn't pretend that there is any inaccuracy in the proof anymore. | |||
| # Perhaps it's not trivial for ''you'', but I don't find it difficult at all, and neither do any of the editors at Godel's theorems. They have checked the proof, and all of them agree that it is correct, with the exception of Arthur Rubin, who might or might not. N.B. Gauss's proof does not have a gap in it. His proof is that the winding number of the map z->z^n + lower order is n at infinity, and winding number is additive under bisection of a region. This proof was correct, and has stayed correct until the present day, ignorant opinions nonewithstanding. | |||
| # Proving Godel's theorem is easy--- provided you do it exactly the way I showed. | |||
| # Blah blah OR blah blah. No proof of Godel could be considered OR today. Period. It's too well understood. | |||
| # The amount of space is just right, since it is a ''complete'', ''self-contained'', ''easy-to-understand'' proof of the theorem. That is important on a page called "Godel's incompleteness theorems". | |||
| # Yeah, yeah, but all of them now agree that it is correct. Other editors in the past have criticized it 'because they thought it was incorrect. Many of the editors who like this method are just ''keeping quiet''. With time, consensus will become "include", because that is true. It's just a question of when. | |||
| # Yeah. It's not obvious. ESCA takes a little while to appreciate. | |||
| # Dude, ''all'' the current textbooks use Turing machines to prove the incompleteness theorems. You should not edit the page if you don't understand this elementary fact. It is good that you were driven away. | |||
| In fact, one of the nice things about rephrasing proofs in different ways is that it lets you see if you really understand the theorem. If you truly understand the proof, then it doesn't matter how you phrase it. In this case, the proof I am giving is just a minor restatement of the usual proof in textbooks, but making it self-contained, and not shying away from using explicit computer programs.] (]) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Likebox (re item 2), ], one of the foremost mathematicians of the past century, wrote: | |||
| ::I wish to point out what an immense gap Gauss's proof contained. It is a subtle point even today that a real algebraic plane curve cannot enter a disk without leaving. In fact even though Gauss redid this proof 50 years later, the gap remained. It was not until 1920 that Gauss's proof was completed. | |||
| :(Citation: Smale 1981 ]). Of course the gap is very famous and many others have written about it too, as you are apparently well aware. That you would consider someone like Smale to be "ignorant" and yourself to be a better evaluator of proofs shows the boundlessness of your arrogance and incompetence. As far as I'm concerned, it establishes that you have zero credibility about anything. So I've had enough, and will not bother replying to the rest of your similarly erroneous crap. ] (]) 10:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Smale is talking about the ], which states that a closed continuous curve in the plane has an inside and an outside. This theorem can be proved using the winding number of a continous curve, much as Gauss proved the fundamental theorem of algebra. To say that Gauss did not prove the Jordan curve theorem in his winding number argument is disingenuous. It is applying standards of what 20th century mathematicians find interesting to 19th century work. | |||
| ::: In the 20th century, the Jordan curve theorem became a subject of intense study, because it was related to the formal axiomatization of topology. The proof of the Jordan curve theorem for ''differentiable curves'' is not difficult, and can be done using mathematics available to Gauss. In fact, this proof is just the winding number of Gauss. A point is on the inside of a differentiable curve if the winding number of the vector from the point to the curve is equal to 1 (or -1). The point is outside if the winding number is 0. The definition of the winding number, the proof that it is additive, and the division lemmas were well within the standard mathematics of Gauss's day. | |||
| ::: But the proof of the Jordan curve theorem for ''continuous curves'' without assuming differentiability, is more subtle, because continuous curves can be complicated. They can have positive lebesgue measure in the plane for instance. To prove the theorem for ''continuous curves'' requires a good axiomatization of topology, which allows the winding number to be made into a homology or a fundamental group. These advances required the late 19th century axiomatization of limits and calculus, which were unavailable to Gauss. | |||
| ::: When Smale says that Gauss had a gap in his proof, what he means is that the Jordan curve theorem, and the notion of winding number, were not properly understood in the broadest possible context until the early 20th century. But it is ''uncharitable at best'' to call this a gap in Gauss's proof. Gauss was only dealing with the winding number of a highly differentiable object, and he could have defined this winding number by an explicit integral. It is not right, in my opinion, to blame a mathematician for not focusing on the broadest possible statement of a lemma used in his proof, especially since Gauss's proof was a stimulant for the development of topology in general over the next hundred years.] (]) 22:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Like box you wrote: "On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources." In this ANI we are discussing a page called "History wars" which is about a debate taking place in Australia. As you threatened you would on the talk page you periodically revert the article content to a version of the text you wrote. Such threats and the actions are considered on Misplaced Pages to be disruptive, particularly when you have consistently refuse requests to go through you additions sentence and address the issues raised in those discussions. You have been asked on numerous occasions to produce sources eg: | |||
| {{quotation| | |||
| :::If you have sources that you can cite showing that comparative genocide scholars have been using Tasmania as a defining example of a genocide "ever since" the 1940s, i.e. they were saying it in the 1950s, the 1960s and all the way through to the present day, let's see them. Not just vague phrases like "repeated in several sources" but give us verifiable citations, otherwise, how about you just admit you can't support your preferred wording with appropriate sources and we go on from there. Webley442 (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do ''research''. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)|] | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| ], 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) | |||
| ::But instead of doing so you threaten and revet to unsources versions. It seems to me from reading what ] has written that your behaviour over several unrelated articles is similar. Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish ], and in doing so after it has been pointed out to you that you must produce sources to back up all your controversial claims precisely (i.e. with no ]), you are sill inserting disputed text into articles. -- ] (]) 09:07, 20 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :::@] You stated that DarwIn is a "a known transphobic", are there any other such instances at pt.wiki, other than two AfD nominations on 28 December 2024? ] (]) 19:46, 13 January 2025 (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) | |||
| ::::: To PBS: You are talking nonsense. It is absolutely true that everywhere outside of Australia, the Black War has been a defining example of genocide all through the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and today. The source I gave you "The Last of the Tasmanians" should have settled the issue as far as the inaccuracies in Windschuttle. This is just the latest source, in addition to Lemkin's notes, the detailed analysis of Lemkin's notes by another scholar, Rashidi's book, the countless web pages, the academic articles by Madley, the academic articles by Ryan, and the textbook on Genocide by Tatz. All these sources, and on the other side is Windschuttle, and a couple of right-wing Australian revisionists, most of whom don't contest what happened. | |||
| *:*'''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) | |||
| *:*:::::::Prior to 28 December 2024, did he do anything like this? ] (]) 20:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::Nope, not one incident that I can remember of. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::And regarding my comment above this, after I read the events a bit more: DarwIn didn't use "quotes" in an attempt to judge whether the child is transgender or not. He just used quotes because "trans" is a shortened version of transgender, and thus quotes were appropriate. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 22:56, 13 January 2025 (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) | |||
| ::::: I urge anyone here to look over the page, the discussion, and the archived discussion. It is painfully obvious that there is no proper coverage of the majority of sources on the Black War, and there will not be so long as several editors gang up on whoever inserts it.] (]) 18:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::::::Likebox I note (and I hope others have) that you do not deny that you have repeatedly edited in your large changes to the article ] after making threats (more than once) on the article's talk page that: "I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks." without any support on the talk page for the edits. | |||
| :Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway.] ] 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I did not raise the issue of edits to the ] to open up another forum to discuss the rights or wrongs of the sources. I did it to highlight a pattern in your failure to act within the acceptable methods of consensus building in the Misplaced Pages project, which appears to span several different subjects and involve several different groups of editors. -- ] (]) 11:53, 21 October 2009 (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.]] 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) | |||
| Ok. | |||
| You are (and have been) consistently editing against consensus in a | |||
| number of articles. As Hans Adler quite generously and correctly | |||
| points out, you are doing it 'in the light' and not resorting to (for | |||
| example) sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry to push your agenda. That is, | |||
| doubtless, to your credit. Nonetheless, you have '''by your own | |||
| admission''' continued to edit against consensus '''and what's more''' | |||
| pledged to continue to do so. Despite how much you would like to | |||
| portray yourself as the Innocent Victim of the Big Bad Wikiocracy, | |||
| (and, as an added bonus, portray those people who disagree with you as | |||
| idiots who Just Don't Understand You. The very arrogance!) you are | |||
| quite simply being disruptive. Period. Therefore, it's time (long | |||
| past time) for sanction, an edit restriction, something. You've | |||
| managed to exhaust even Carl's legendary patience. Enough is enough. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ;Clarification | |||
| I have invited ] to comment here. ] (]) 04:10, 21 October 2009 (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. | |||
| :Its true that I reached text "I could live with" when trying to edit with Likebox but the process took '''far to long'''. It was a little more than two months for something that should not have taken more than two days. Honestly I think it was the threat of arbitration that ultimately pushed him into a reasonable frame of mind in line with WP policy. The text we disputed currently exists as a compromise, a compromise which I believe still contains implied OR that Likebox has "owned". Its a compromise because it isn't worth fighting over. I mostly definitely found Likebox's editing style/comments disruptive and exhausting. I made my case against Likebox's activities on quantum mysticism and it was declined in the given context. If anyone wants to review my concerns when exploring or establishing an editing pattern or history they only need to look . I offer this comment because it was requested and my interaction with Likebox have been discussed in a few places. With that said, I do not wish to participate in the discussion further. I plan to do my best to avoid Likebox now and in the future.--] (]) 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *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. | |||
| *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 ] 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. | |||
| *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) | |||
| ===Proposed Community Sanctions=== | |||
| :: "Editing against consensus" means that I have brought the issue of Godel's theorem up once every year and a half, to see if consensus changed, and made an argument on history wars every time they tucked away the previous talk page discussion into premature archive. That's not particularly inflammatory. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :: OMCV and I have no more dispute.] (]) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' -] (]) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's still editing against consensus if you add it, even once, after it's reverted. Shall we reach an agreement that you are subject ot 1RR every 2 years in regard the material you continue to add against consensus, or as to "testing the consenus". — ] ] 06:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *: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) | ||
| :::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) | |||
| === Proposed editing restriction === | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::::::"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) | |||
| ::::::::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. | |||
| When I started this thread, I was not aware that there were similar issues on other pages. Now it appears that the same sort of problem has happened on other topics. Given the number of editors who have commented here that Likebox should pursue a different method, perhaps an editing restriction would be enough to resolve this thread. I would suggest the following: | |||
| {{quotation|If Likebox adds material to an article that is later removed with a claim that the material is inappropriate, Likebox is prohibited from adding that material again until clear consensus in favor of the material is established on the talk page of the article.}} | |||
| This would still permit Likebox to edit normally and discuss things on talk pages, but it would address the primary difficulty, which is that Likebox continues to insert the same material long after it is clear there is no consensus for it. Moreover, the proposed restriction still allows consensus to change. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 12:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :PS: The editor was mocking this discussion in the Telegram group while I was writing this. ] (]) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It is a pity. I would be in favour of an article on for instance the computer program approach to Gödel's proof. But sticking in 8k of own's idea of better pedagogy is just not right. One needs to stay reasonably close to what is actually done in published sources. He should go an write wikibooks or wikiversity if he wants to do that. And by the way I believe writing a long spiel obscures the points if any in an argument. ] (]) | |||
| ::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. | |||
| ::I think this 0RR restriction should be limited to articles on philosophy and to articles on mathematical logic. I don't think it is necessary for articles on ordinary physics topics, like e.g. quantum field theory, special/general relativity etc.. On those type of pages, someone like Likebox repeatedly reverting the page would be ok., because from time to time cranks appear who add (subtle) nonsense and for outsiders it is not clear to see what the consensus really is (the pages are not always frequently edited). I think Likebox' professional working experience lies more in this theoretical physics direction. Perhaps the disputes we've seen with likebox is the typical case of the "arrogant theoretical physicist" trying to lecture philosophers and mathematicians (just joking). ] (]) 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::Likebox's tendentiousness on talk pages is disruptive in its own right and I'd be happy if the restriction included it somehow, but whatever. DMCQ: Wikibooks doesn't want bogus OR either. If Likebox wants to publish his proof, he should write a journal article about it, I'm serious. (I think his present version needs patching up though). Count Iblis: I'm not involved in any physics articles but I see Likebox's antagonism of OMCV as an alarming thing, and the restriction should try to prevent recurrences of that. | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::Note: it looks like I inadvertently posted to this thread under two different IP addresses (my ISP connection must have reset yesterday without my noticing it), which I hope didn't cause confusion. 66.127.54.181 and this current address are both me. ] (]) 21:37, 21 October 2009 (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 . 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--> | |||
| ::: What is this nonsense? There are ''two pages'' in question, both of which are shoddy. One page, ] presents a racially biased version of Australian history, the other page ] does not present a proof. | |||
| :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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| :] - 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) | |||
| ::I saw a discussion in the group and created the account to not appear as an IP. ] (]) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (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) | |||
| :::@] Perhaps? @] suggested @] take it to metawiki for UCOC violations, but she's understandably noticeboard fatigued. I think there's a good case for it as the UCOC says | |||
| :::* expected behavior includes {{tq|Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves. People may use specific terms to describe themselves. As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people, where linguistically or technically feasible.}} - misgendering a 9-year old across multiple wikis would do that | |||
| :::* Unnacceptable behavior / harassment (3.1) includes | |||
| :::** {{tq|Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence, appearance, ethnicity, race, religion (or lack thereof), culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, sex, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, or other characteristics. In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression constitute insults collectively, even if individual statements would not.}} - This includes the repeated misgendering as well as insults against the girl's mother | |||
| :::** {{tq|Hounding: following a person across the project(s) and repeatedly critiquing their work mainly with the intent to upset or discourage them.}} - the behavior on ptwiki then being followed by unilateral deletions on commons and this whole debacle on enwiki fits the bill | |||
| :::* Unnacceptable behavior / Abuse of power, privilege, or influence (3.2) includes | |||
| :::** {{Tq|Abuse of seniority and connections: Using one's position and reputation to intimidate others. We expect people with significant experience and connections in the movement to behave with special care because hostile comments from them may carry an unintended backlash. People with community authority have a particular privilege to be viewed as reliable and should not abuse this to attack others who disagree with them.}} - the block placed on Skyshifter for calling blatant transphobia transphobia certainly fits the bill | |||
| :::Leaving this all here in case Skyshifter wants to take it to metawiki at some point. ] (]) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would address section 3.2, power imbalance does not seem to be much at play here. Looking at Skyshifter's pt.wiki block log during their time as admin (June 2020 - January 2024), they were blocked five times for various reasons. Looking at Skyshifter's pt.wiki user group , they were once temporarily desysopped for the biggest wheel warring in pt.wiki history, and once permanently desysopped. ] (]) 21:41, 13 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) | |||
| *'''Support''' per the diffs provided and the editor's attitude in this thread. --] (]) 19:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' both the topic ban and one-way interaction ban for Darwin, and frankly an indefinite ban would not be out of place. Between the diffs (like calling trans daughter {{tq|troglodyte}} behavior and stalking another user across multiple projects) and the editor's behavior in this thread (misgendering a living person, doubling down, accusing users who point out this inappropriate behavior of being thought police, and trying to misuse administration to sanction a user for calling out this incivility), Darwin has not demonstrated the necessary willingness to abide by the ] (which requires that projects create a {{tq|safe environment that fosters diversity, inclusion, equity, and cooperation}}) or the ] (which obligates users to respect people {{tq|who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns}}). As such, I lack confidence that only a topic ban or interaction ban would prevent misbehavior, though I believe they would be better at preventing misbehavior than doing nothing. There is ] on Misplaced Pages or any Wikimedia project because prejudicial behaviors like racism, sexism, queerphobia, etc. violate the Charter and Code of Conduct. Users who would downplay Darwin's egregious incivility and abuse of seniority for means of intimidation, who would try to play off the existence of entire categories of human as mere opinion or shrug off written defenses of the rights of users who face massive prejudice as dismissible essaying, should reread and recommit to the Charter and Code of Conduct. ] (] | ] | ]) 05:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Universal Code of Conduct is in force in English Misplaced Pages, but section 2.1 applies only to fellow contributors. BLP is more relevant for those outside Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I don't think harassment or personal attack has been proven since they target content for ideological reasons. I don't think BLP or GENDERID has been violated since they did not introduce it to mainspace. I look into whether they are pursuing battleground behaviour, and I found they are not, as they dropped the stick at 16:07, 29 December 2024, albeit begrudgingly. I found no policy grounds left to impose sanctions. ] (]) 17:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:BLP and GENDERID are not restricted to just mainspace. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I did not read BLPTALK, you are right, BLP applies at DYK nomination and ANI. I find them violating BLP when they stated "thrusting that identity on the child" at DYK nomination despite a medical record to the contrary, but I do not find them violating BLP at ANI, albeit begrudgingly. The statement at DYK nomination deserved a warning, but since they dropped the stick, no more preventative blocks needed. ] (]) 18:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I don't know if that's necessarily the case though. Their last edit on en.wp is which they then deleted from their user talk page. I don't think that a strategy of lying low until the pressure clears at AN/I should allow editors who have made and then doubled down on such inflammatory statements as DarwIn did entirely off the hook. And, frankly, if DarwIn has been so firm that they will steer clear of ] then it's not like a community ban on participation there will be anything other than a note that the community supports their avowal of non-participation there. ] (]) 18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::It is clear that they hold grudge, but they are merely on the defensive there, and user talk page is not a wall of shame. I do think it is desirable that editors lie low due to ANI, we always want to see things de-escalate. A topic ban would be much broader than their pledge to abide by GENDERID without debate, as GENSEX's scope is "gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people". ] (]) 18:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Darwin agreed to drop the stick a day prior, and then continued editing anyways up until an hour after this topic was created. | |||
| *:() they say "I'll not revert this again if removed. Others can evaluate it and decide for themselves." (Revision as of 19:18, 28 December 2024) | |||
| *:They then immediately went back on this in their next edit and added it back despite it being removed () (Revision as of 12:34, 29 December 2024) The ANI was made an hour later where they again said they would drop the stick an hour after that. | |||
| *:They have already promised to drop the stick and then didn't. ] (]) 19:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::They followed their word "I'll not revert this", ''this'' as in their paragraph. It was a step in the direction of dropping the stick, and this ANI thread was not even posted yet. ] (]) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@] You are mixing up things, what I said I would not revert again was the removal of the comment, which I didn't. ] ] 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The ''only'' edit between you dropping the stick and continuing to edit war was Skyshifter removing your comment. () | |||
| *:::You then responded by reverting all the way to the original edit you made by re-inserting your reverted edit from a day prior before the conversation. () | |||
| *:::You going back and re-adding this () after the discussion is clearly edit warring. ] (]) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::@] What is the problem with that specific edit at all, apart from apparently making the sentence too long or being incorrectly formated (which was fixed afterwards)? ] ] 00:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::In an attempt to avoid spiralling this response chain into something unproductive, I'll put it like this: | |||
| *:::::Whether the inclusion of the detail 'four years old' should be included or not is largely irrelevant to the conduct. I will address them separately. | |||
| *:::::For the merit of adding it, I think the first questions are "why is this detail relevant?" and "why is it being added if it isn't?" The reality is that it is not relevant ''unless'' it is trying to subvert the legitimacy of the claim. This answers the second question and shows that it is indicative of ] editing. Your arguments on the page and here have been pointed out by several others of being indicative of this and a ] attitude to the topic. As the one adding the detail, the impetus to answer the question of relevancy is on you. When you gave your answer on the talk page in that comment it was that you were skeptical to the subject's autonomy in making that choice and felt adding 'four year old' as a detail was sufficient to voice this skepticism in wikivoice. | |||
| *:::::For the conduct, you were repeatedly and by multiple editors reverted and dissented to. Then despite this you put the original edit back into its place even after saying you would leave it there and let others comment. To me this is clearly edit warring and ]. ] (]) 00:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Dronebogus, and as Darwin has agreed to step away.] (]) 18:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Even if Darwin has agreed not to edit in the discussed areas, is extremely concerning (]). In addition, I feel that the user log created by any sanctions will be much more actionable should any further problems arise. There have been sanctions for far less, and I'm honestly as to confused why this is being opposed. ] (]) 19:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:], Darwin's earlier comments on that particular thread, while not particularly civil, are perhaps summed up by ] comment of his. He also is stating a desire to drop the damn stick. There's no point in placing the CTOP notice when Darwin has been the subject of a thread a '''third''' the length of ], Darwin understandably thought the same. {{green|Please go away, you came here to harass me for no reason, so you couldn't be more unwelcome in this place}} is hardly a personal attack on its own, let alone with the context I explained above. ''']]''' 23:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Dronebogus and Halbared. DarwIn has already agreed to ] and I see he has. There is no need to drag this on longer than it should be. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I don't know what anybody is trying to achieve with a topic ban, DarwIn stated {{tq|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,}} their true dispute here is quite narrow, they don't think a four year old can become trans, which I disagree with and which is inconsistent with ], but that's all. ] (]) 22:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:No, he repeatedly insulted a living person, claiming she somehow turned her daughter trans, attributing this to sources which never said that (and in fact highlighted how bullshit that was), following an editor around to keep insisting that. Sources also note this person was the subject of harassment and claims she turned her daughter trans. This was not just attacks on 2 living people (claiming one forced a trans identity on her child and the other is "too young" to be trans), and lies about sources, and cross-wiki hounding, but plain and simple bigotry. If this wasn't an experienced editor, he'd be indeffed by now, and it's disappointing but not shocking some don't seem to see a problem with this. | |||
| *:Also, he's still on the same bigoted shtick on ptwiki. Here he is ''yesterday'' saying other editors have an "agenda" and insisting that the trans kid is probably going to regret transitioning. ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::First, ], especially on your previous vote. Second, that diff is from the Portuguese Wiki, and as said before, what goes on the PT Wiki stays on the PT Wiki, in which the EN Wiki has no business in. I'm not intending to harm you in any way, but the sad reality is that we have no business in what goes on in other wikis. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Respectfully, if someone says something on English wiki, and then goes to another wiki and discusses their conduct on English wiki, they can not claim 'home base' and act like it is irrelevant - especially if their words elsewhere casts significant doubt on their explanation for their conduct. ] (]) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === ] taking matters from another Misplaced Pages to seek revenge. === | |||
| ::: To Dmcq: The 8k discussion is just the latest expansion of a very short text. The short text is found on ]. If you like it, write a short version. The reason I keep expanding it is because people keep deleting the short versions with silly comments.] (]) 22:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|1=100% affairs of other wikis. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{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. | |||
| :: I agree, this proposal does not go far enough. Moreover, it seems to me that it's the kind of behavior we should ''expect'' from ''any'' editor and as such doesn't really amount to much of a restriction, per se. I'd also like to point out that Likebox's comportment in this very discussion has shown him to be argumentative, abusive ("It's good that you were driven away" -- really?), incivil, and most importantly unrepentant. This as well as his repeated 'pledges' (read: threats) to continue 'nagging' (read: disruptive and tendentious editing) does not bode well for the future. I think we're letting ourselves in for a world of eternal hurt if stronger steps aren't taken to curtail this churlish behavior. But, perhaps that's a discussion for a different venue than ANI (I confess, I don't know what the recourse there is).] (]) 04:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is nothing wrong with the way Likebox discusses the topic. The only thing is that Likebox should perhaps voluntarily stick to 1 RR on pages where he is arguing against more than one or two stablished editors. Things go wrong the moment others stop discussing the topic and start a discussion about the way Likebox is editing. Then Likebox can write something about that too and very soon one of the parties will say something that is perceive to be incivil. If Likebox would voluntarily stick to 1 RR then the others are less likely to be annoyed. The others can then more easily agree to discuss the topic of the article wit Likebox and not Likebox himself. ] (]) 14:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry Count. Shoehorning unsourced OR based on his belief that he can explain Godel's theorem better than Godel (or than any textbook covering the subject), or his belief that "I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books" (see long quote higher up) is adequate for shoehorning his POV into history articles, or his general incivility is not "nothing wrong". ] (]) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I realize I said I would stay out of this but I understand the exacerbation that 71.139.6.70 is expressing all too well. I felt that way when I was searching for support or arbitration when dealing with Likebox. I also disagree with Count Iblis on a number of issues. Likebox's problem behaviors as an editor require no provocation and make it difficult (perhaps intentionally) to discuss content, if you don't think this is true please review Quantum Mysticism's talk page and my talk page in detail. Based on discussion on this page, my experience, and a number of Likebox's own claims he plays the long game. I think any voluntary reforms will be disregarded once those who would hold him accountable have moved on (as I would like to do now). Considering all of this, I think Carl's suggestion is interesting, in the end we only want Likebox to display the "kind of behavior we should expect from any editor". The suggested restrictions should come with clearly defined and progressive sanctions. With reasonable sanctions that can be feasibly enforced Carl's proposal would be a significant restriction on Likebox's problem behaviors, which is all we really want to target. A clause concerning civility should also be added and I think it would cover the major issues. This would be much better than my original request for a long term block.--] (]) 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| (deindent) Or perhaps, instead of focusing on the supposed "problem behaviors", you might want to focus on the pages themselves? These "problem behaviors" are caused by persistent attempts to fix problem pages. | |||
| 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. | |||
| For "]", These problems were noted by several people. Unlike the paragraphs quoted out of context above, if you look at the text I proposed for History Wars (preserved on the talk page), I presented material culled from about a dozen new sources that were each removed systematically by PBS and Webley. This coordinated editing has prevented material about the Black War from being presented on Misplaced Pages, and I urge other editors to go there, read the sources, and check for themselves. | |||
| 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. | |||
| History is different than mathematics. History ''must'' stick to sources very closely, and adhere to undue-weight religiously. Mathematics is verifiable from first principles, and can be checked by individuals without external references. This difference is the essential reason for proposing ]. Editing on a subject which can be verified from first principles is ''very different'' than editing an article on the Punic Wars. | |||
| <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding OMCV, he has bad feelings, because we disagreed on edits he was making. These edits were ''factually incorrect'', were opposed by several editors, and improved as he learned more about the subject. The final text we settled on was written almost entirely by him, after he had gained enough familiarity to write accurately. This process took a long time, but produced a reasonable text. | |||
| :{{replyto|Eduardo_Gottert}} You need to provide evidence when opening an ANI thread, not on request. ] (]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The job I am doing here by poking at problem pages makes enemies. It is important to challenge stuff in this way, and it is important for Misplaced Pages editors to avoid intimidating other editors from challenging material.] (]) 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::'@] 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) | |||
| :: BTW, it would be no problem for me to stick to 1RR. Perhaps that would satisfy everyone.] (]) 20:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::''Editing on a subject which can be verified from first principles is very different than editing an article on the Punic Wars.'' No it is not any different. Every blithering crank injecting their pet FLT proof (or these days, P=NP proof, or in your case, incompleteness theorem proof) claims that it is verifiable from first principles and dealing with them is endlessly time consuming, as you are demonstrating. That is why we don't go by verifiability from first principles--we go by verifiability from sources. If you don't like this, the right place to debate it is ], not in math articles or their talk pages or here. I would not expect a favorable reception there though. If by 1RR you mean one reversion per 24 hours, that's completely useless, since you have been at this for years. ] (]) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| == Disruptive editing of Outlaw motorcycle club == | |||
| *: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}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ==Incivility and ABF in contentious topics== | |||
| {{user|Delicious carbuncle}} is repeatedly reverting legitimate edits to ] on the flimsy excuse of some unspecified "formatting" problem., , and . After long discussions at the ] (and ]), the ], and then ] (for outrageously deleting talk comments), several editors agreed that this information belongs in the article, and that the only question was one of what the wording ought to be., , , , , . | |||
| ]'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: | |||
| Delicious carbuncle ignored every request to offer any compromise wording or to collaborate in any way, Instead, they stonewall. Today, Delicious carbuncle is simply reverting edits, and has refused multiple requests to specify what the formatting errors are, or to simply go ahead and fix the supposed formatting problem. | |||
| Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills. | |||
| What this comes down to is an editor who ]. Bluffing about formatting errors is silly, childish, and disruptive. I'm requesting that this user be banned from ] for a reasonable period of time as a means of encouraging Delicious carbuncle to edit constructively and to respect the consensus reached by other editors.--] (]) 16:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883 | |||
| And can be reverted back to the way I left it without me also being dinged for a 3RR violation? Thanks.--] (]) 17:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :A quick glance at the recent history of and will show that Dbratland has completely misrepresented the situation in his comments above. Formatting is not the issue, as Dbratland should be very well aware at this point. This and this should shed some light what is really happening. I've grown rather tired of Dbratland's tendentious methods, so I'll likely not comment further unless compelled to defend myself. ] (]) 18:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| WP:NPA | |||
| ::Four separate statements about formatting problems: that my edit made"...no attempt to format them correctly." you called my edit a "text dump;" i.e. there was some phantom problem with the of raw, unformatted text? Note that the edit summary says they don't wish to edit war; within an hour they violate 3RR. "text dump." That was a reference to of a new revision, and Delicious carbuncle again did not try to constructively offer any changes. they said "There is somewhat more to this than the formatting..." | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324 | |||
| ::But '''now''' formatting is not the issue? You can't collaborate with an editor whose bluffs have be called on the Administrators' noticeboard just to get them to take half a step towards working constructively. --] (]) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Seems to be continued differing opinions over sources. Disruptive is a mischaracterization, though ''both'' editors need not edit war. Consensus (if there is any) isn't justification for warring. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 21:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Profanity | |||
| :This is a reading comprehension problem. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966 | |||
| :Delicious carbuncle read ] and somewhere in there it says he is allowed to talk page comments. It makes no impression editors tell him you can't do that, and WP:TALK does not say what he thinks it says. | |||
| Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor | |||
| :When these three edits , , and are a violation of 3RR, he simply . | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877 | |||
| :It goes a long way to explaining why he clings to the belief that I'm biased and trying to slant articles to make motorcycle gangs look good. I have this editor disputing with me what sources say, but this person will not listen to anyone who points out his reading of the words is mistaken. He decides it means what he wants, and then digs in and to anyone else. | |||
| Unicivil | |||
| :That is why a ban is called for. Discussion does not work with Delicious carbuncle and consensus means nothing if it doesn't agree with him.--] (]) 22:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dbratland, I suggest you drop the whole "deleting talk page comments" accusations. There ''are'' legitimate reasons to remove other users' edits on a talk page, I've done it multiple times. DC thought that he was right to do so on that talk page, others disagreed, and he hasn't done it since. Bringing it up over and over again makes it look like you're just stirring up trouble to punish him, which isn't going to strengthen your claims. You're both edit-warring, and the way to resolve this is not through administrator action, but ]. -- ''']'''] 22:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm bringing it up to point out how many times he had to be told he was wrong about WP:TALK. I can put up a half dozen diffs of how many different editors it took if that will help. My point is that I'm being told to work out my differences with a person who does not listen to sense. What am I supposed to do with him? I offered many variations on how to word the article, and it made no impression. I went ahead and made my changes without his input, and he reverted. We've had 3rd opinions five or six times. What's left? Can you talk to him? If you or anyone can make him be reasonable, I'll be happy. But again and again and again he has shown that he won't listen.--] (]) 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Maybe I'll get involved, I was going to suggest you take it up with ] but since I volunteer there anyway I guess I can just give it a try. I can't help but feel there's a way to compromise without having to escalate this further. -- ''']'''] 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC | |||
| :::::I would appreciate it if you would like to try.--] (]) 23:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027 | |||
| <s>Sigh. Dbratland has evidently decided to even while this is at ANI and no further discussion has taken place on the talk page.</s> ] (]) 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Seriously? Even replacing one fact tag with three solid citations is a problem for you? Have you even looked up "Hollister riot" at Google books or the Google news archive? Ever? Books, articles and documentaries that say the so-called riot was sensationalized are a cottage industry. ''They quote a half dozen living eyewitnesses who say it was not a riot.'' Would you like 20 citations to support this single statement? I can do 20. Can you find even one source willing to defend the reporting of the incident? Even the SF Chronicle and Life magazine don't even try to make excuses for their abysmal coverage back then. I'm beginning to think you are totally unfamiliar with this subject and have not read the sources that go with it, which calls into question what business you have accusing me of bias or making blanket revisions to sections of this article. This is going beyond absurd.--] (]) 04:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dbratland, I owe you an aoplogy - I saw the edit summary of ''"replacing deleted citations, adding Yates1999"'' and didn't look closely enough at the diff. I assumed you had made yet another attempt to revert. I have no problem with your additions other than to suggest that it might be better use of your time to improve the main article at ] and direct readers there. Your tendency to include long quoted passages in citations is unusual and, given that I have already noted your tendency to selectively quote references, probably not a good idea. Thanks. ] (]) 15:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your complaints are the only reason for the quotes.--] (]) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, you were well before I arrived on the talk page. ] (]) 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441 | |||
| :::::I would argue that the "disruptive editing" of this particular article has been going on for quite some time. Anyone can skim over the history of the article and see a slow pattern of ] pushing a POV of his onto this article. Slowly removing or altering sections dealing with the criminal aspect of the content, while selectively and misleadingly using references to push a pro image. ] (]) 05:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And you are selectively ignoring all of my edits on many articles dealing with outlaw motorcycle clubs that do the reverse of what you accuse. Stop repeating this rubbish unless you are prepared to back it up. Find the diffs that prove your accusation and I will then proceed to bury them in diffs that show the opposite. You don't get to just go around making accusations against people without proving it.--] (]) 05:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yawn. That article's entire history is my proof. ] (]) 13:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] does not work that way. You are blatantly, repeatedly violating the policy of AGF, and it needs to stop.--] (]) 20:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Contact on user page attempted | |||
| ::::::::Actually, AGF states that it is fine with proof. This article is my proof. ] (]) 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795 | |||
| :::::By the way, thousands of editors were putting quotes in {{tl|Citation}}'s quote= field long before I came along. But the set of citations you were complaining about had no quotes until you decided to make an issue of them. The quotes in this case were for Delicious carbuncle's benefit.--] (]) 05:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| {{Resolved| ] blocked for making legal threat. ] looking into any relevant article/BLP issues. Best to handle this through email etc. ] (]) 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| Can we get some more eyes on ]? There seems to be some tag-teaming going on to remove maintenance tags and insert self-promotional info. ] (]) 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :The IP has been warned for and has refused to AGF as indicted by the comment above. ] (]) 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :@]: 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. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::It's a sockpuppet account of the SCOX trolls. Leave the photos in the article is better with them. People need to know all sides of me, not just the opinions of the Merkey-hating trolls from Yahoo SCOX. The whole point of biographies of living persons is to enhance the content of an article. PLEASE. Thaknk. ] (]) 19:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::Where are your sources, Mr. COI? <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 19:47, 19 October 2009 (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) | |||
| ::::No, that is not what should be asked. Why did you delete the sources and content? ] (]) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (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) | |||
| ::::<s>What sources? I didn't see a single source in your edits.</s> Never mind, I didn't see the ''primary'' sources at the bottom; that section is decet. Still, is there a reason why you're editing your own article again? And adding an ''unsourced'' DOB, ''unsourced'' spouse, ''unsourced'' ''unsourced'' ''unsourced''? <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 19:55, 19 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :::::You did delete several sources including sourced text. For example, you did delete this reliable secondary reference. {{cite web | |||
| :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) | |||
| | url=http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600143930/3-Utahns-indicted-on-peyote-charges.html | |||
| ::@] 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) | |||
| | title=United States Attorney Press Release Mooney indictments}} | |||
| :::...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why are you saying I am editing my own article. Please strike you comment or run a checkuser. ] (]) 20:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, in British slang, "thick" = "stupid". ]] 19:54, 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' ]? 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) | |||
| :Evidently {{user|Jvmphoto}} is {{userlinks|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey}}, who is indefinitely blocked. Unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, Jvmphoto should be blocked on that basis. -- ] • ] 20:18, 19 October 2009 (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) | |||
| ::Done. ] (]) 20:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| I did some cleanup of the article, unaware of this discussion and JVM being indef blocked. --] (]) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ===Legal threat, protected=== | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| Subsequent to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's block and FisherQueen's decline, Jvmphoto posted , which seems to me to be unambiguously a ]. So I've protected his talk page (but not blanked it; another admin may choose to do so) to prevent further threats. Evidently he's au fait with the arbcom, Jimbo, and the Foundation, so he knows where to go to ask for an unblock, and he should be doing that on his main account anyway. -- ] • ] 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:For context, ] is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Oh FFS. Jeff always talks that way. He's also pretty much incapable of working with the Misplaced Pages community, so I will send him email asking him if there is any error of fact that needs correcting. He's not evil, actually he's a great guy with many good and steadfast friends in the tech industries who really respect him, but he is very passionate about some things and he has been royally trolled because he rises so readily to the bait. Oh, and that photo is the same as the one on his FaceBook profile, so is probably OK even if it was a joe-job (which it probably wasn't). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:10, 19 October 2009 (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) | |||
| ::No guy, he's not well respected in the tech community. With the attempt to buy linux for $50K, his continuous ranting on the lkml, his theft of Novell's property and the subsequent attempt to sell it to Microsoft(which got him a a beatdown in court) and his uncontrollable hunger to file really strange lawsuits http://scofacts.org/merkey.html, he's a laughing stock. For the record, I was ]. I have not editing wikipedia in a long, long time. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *:::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) | |||
| ::I've received a few unpleasant emails from JVM, but I'm keen to agree that he means well and just reacts badly to not being in control of a situation. I'd appreciate it if you let him know that personally, I have no hard feelings against him, but obviously on-wiki there are rules, etc. ] (]) 16:04, 20 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :::Isn't this guy the one who said "I will sue you in a COURT OF LAW in Trenton, New Jersey"? Regardless of whether he means well deep down inside, we shouldn't give him further opportunities to go make legal threats on Misplaced Pages, not even if they're unintentionally hilarious. ] (]) 02:40, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| == POV pushing and propaganda by ] == | |||
| *: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) | |||
| {{resolved|article fully protected for 1 week - editors to attempt to reach consensus, I will remain on standby to assist.--] <sup>]</sup> 21:31, 20 October 2009 (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) | |||
| {{user|Ketabtoon}} is once again propagating ] and ], this time in ]. He is sourced and relevant material, proving that the "Afghan Mellat" party is considered ethnocentrist, nationalist, and racist. He removes a relevant source (from the ]) which explains that the founder of the party was fascinated by Nazi ideology. He also removes a relevant link to the homepage of the ], proving that although the "Afghan Mellat" party calls itself "social democratic", it is neither a member of nor accepted as such by the Socialist International. ] (]) 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| :::::::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) | |||
| ::::::::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) | |||
| :::::::::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. | |||
| :::::::::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) | |||
| ::::::::::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) | |||
| :::::::::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) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| :Please refer to the article's discussion page. (] (]) 17:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| :: I already have. And I am not interested in any "discussion", when there is a clear act of propaganda for a fascist and ethno-nationalist party and ideology. It's already a shame that you knowledge the party's (and its founder's) liks to the ] regime of ]'s Germany, yet you say: "the source does not mention by which aspects of Nazi policy he was fascinated." So I am asking you here: is there any aspect of Nazi policy that YOU support? ] (]) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::I asked the admins (or other parties involved) to refer to the talk page. (] (]) 17:35, 20 October 2009 (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!) {{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) | |||
| :::] is very disruptive, a racist and he should be banned. , He has been blocked so many times but is still edit-warring, POV pushing, vandalizing pages and ]ing. , Since he's restricted from making over 1 RV, he instructed another Tajik to come to Misplaced Pages to revert pages for him. He may also be borrowing his account/passwords and using it. Tajik is engaged in ethnic war, he's obessesed with hating Pashtuns and he should be banned so Misplaced Pages can improve. Everything he edits is about ethnicity, he should be at least be restricted from editing Pashtun related articles.--] (]) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :*: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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::: 119.73.4.170 is the IP of banned ]. This has been confirmed by admin ] here: . However, it's not really a surprise that this banned user is coming to support ]. He did the same in ] and ] (and of course vice versa). ] (]) 18:57, 20 October 2009 (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. ] (]) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I have fully protected ] for one week whilst you are both edit-warring over the content of the article. I have also reverted the obvious new vandal edits by IP 166.205.131.88 at that page. I have ignored the comments of the suddenly arrived 119.73.4.170 who does appear to be here only to disrupt. I will be watching the talk page for any supported consensual requests for addition/deletion of material to the article. I ask that you either reach agreement of NPOV content which does not provide UNDUE coverage of any particular area - or you walk away from each other to edit at articles with a different theme.--] <sup>]</sup> 21:28, 20 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :Please don't accuse me for being disruptive. You're helping a racist editor to spread his racism. All I did was comment on Tajik and his actions here, this was not directed only to you but to all editors. Racism is just going to eat you live, it'll make your life very short.--] (]) 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::::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}} | |||
| As a passer-by without any knowledge of the article itself: Firstly, "Social democrat" is not necessarily the same as "socialist", nor is there any guarantee that a legitimate social democratic party is a member of the socialist international. Secondly, a mere fascination with a certain ideology does not equal ''support'' for that ideology. The claims made by Tajik may or may not be correct, but the reasoning used in his comment is definitely faulty.] (]) 23:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Send to AE?=== | |||
| == 836-character sig == | |||
| 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) | |||
| {{resolved|1=MFD closed as delete, user advised not to use signatures over 255 characters as this is considered disruptive and carries with it the risk of being blocked. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 14:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{user|Launchballer}} has a which is based on an unsubstituted template. After numerous warnings and threats on his talkpage, from myself and a couple of admins – / – (stretching back well over a month!), he was finally induced to change it. Whereupon it became , taking up 9 lines of my widescreen computer. He also insisted on using the (bright yellow) tag as the subject heading of every thread he started. | |||
| :Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories". | |||
| I informed him of this on his talkpage, where he : ''My signature is a measly '''twelve''' characters,'' and ''Don't tell me a five-line string of characters is nine lines long HOW DARE YOU try to fool me.'' This message was signed with (you guessed it!) the unsubstituted template. | |||
| :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) | |||
| Given that he has ignored and quibbled with repeated requests to shorten his signature length so that it is fewer than 255 characters, and fits in the box at ] as per ], and that he has not edited Misplaced Pages at all (save for arguing about his sig) for over a week, may I request that he is blocked until he explicitly agrees to start obeying our policy? I'll inform him of this thread. Thanks. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 19:37, 20 October 2009 (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. | |||
| :I used language like "HOW DARE YOU" because I can't believe for one minute your computer is widescreen when it takes up nine lines (Mine's also widescreen, and it takes up five lines) which means either yours is not a very good widescreen or you are lying through your teeth. Also, the reason for the truncation is to prevent too long an end result (which is what I've done). Given that, I'm not sure what I'm here for, especially that I cannot get that any more condensed.--<!-- Please leave the following five lines of signature markup alone, as it is VERY complicated. -->]]]]<!-- End of signature markup, feel free to edit beyond this point. --> 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::Ah, is his trick... keeping the template and manually substituting it afterwards. And, for your information, it is taking up '''nine lines''' of my 1280x800 screen. If you want a screengrab, I'll take one. I am ''not'' ]. Block still requested. <font color="#C4112F">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 19:50, 20 October 2009 (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) | |||
| They're screendumps, not screengrabs. Here's mine:]--<!-- Please leave the following five lines of signature markup alone, as it is VERY complicated. -->]]]]<!-- End of signature markup, feel free to edit beyond this point. --> 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>I '''second''' to motion to bring this to ].</s> <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) -- Open thread below. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Topic ban for Lardlegwarmers=== | |||
| ::I'm seeing five-and-a-half lines of code, and that's at 1650x1050 widescreen - clearly too much. Please reduce your signature to something that fits within the 255-character limit, or else someone may have to do it for you. Thank you in advance. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|status=Topic ban imposed|1=By the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, {{u|Lardlegwarmers}} is ] from the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Again, if you can find a way of shortening it WITHOUT touching the implemeted effects or removing the links, I'm happy to change it. But I don't know of any way.--<!-- Please leave the following five lines of signature markup alone, as it is VERY complicated. -->]]]]<!-- End of signature markup, feel free to edit beyond this point. --> 19:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::::I think you may have misunderstood what I've said. The code is far too long and has to be trimmed. You need to create a signature that fits within the limit; that may well involve giving up some of the features and links you've implemented. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 20:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 21:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm counting 8 on this standard-res monitor. I was pushing four when I started my RFA and was criticized there for sig length. Do yourself a favor and trim down the code. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Seems unnecessary and retaliatory. I say that even considering Hob Gadling a friend of mine. ] (]) 19:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| *'''Support''' The user is basically a ] who looking at their editing history, their basically sole purpose to edit Misplaced Pages is to aggressively POVPUSH about lableak on talkpages, a topic they can't even edit the main page of because they don't have ECP. They're not the only offender, but they are major one. Their contributions are only raising the heat and frankly do not improve the topic area. ] (]) 19:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{ec}} Well, here's my screengrab (don't be so petty about the term, Launchballer, and read ). Count the lines yourself... I took the liberty of numbering them in the diagram to help you. And every other Misplaced Pages user manages to have their signature at a reasonable length, you are not a special case, you can too. <font color="#FFB911">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:This is not a SPA. I’ve been editing on Misplaced Pages for a month or two, focusing some of my attention on the lab leak hypothesis because the article itself would benefit from a more balanced presentation of the topic, especially the broader social and political implications of the theory, based on reliable sources. For example, the article's suggestion that the lab leak hypothesis foments racism is simply not verified. Politicians and extremists have taken advantage of the hypothesis for their own reasons, but it's otherwise a viable scientific hypothesis. (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57782955) I've been on the talk page helping to sift through a lot of the original research and the sources (a lot of them) that don't actually say what people are alleging they say. Also, I have been trying to find some kind of consensus for filling in the conspicuous gaps where there ought to be information about notable non-scientific events like coverage of the notable U.S. Congress committee that focused on the lab leak idea and made major headlines in the media--and it's completely omitted from the article. I've worked to clean up the articles where they use journalistic sources to verify biomedical information. And I'm dealing with helping to sort out this chronic name-calling where there should be civil dialogue. In a separate topic, I've been working on fixing an obvious BLP violation where the article talk page consensus might be showing a bit of resistance to the site's policy itself. ] (]) 10:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It's seven and a bit here. Launchballer, your signature has too many links. Too many effects. There is no need to "condense" your sig - cut it down, because it's disruptive. A block is coming from someone if you don't respond constructively. <small><span style="border:2px solid #660000;">]</span></small> 20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' pro-fringe single purpose accounts are bad for the project. ] (]) 19:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - What exactly is the reason to do this here? If jps wishes to file a vague ANI complaint against LLW (a new editor), there is a legitimate process for that which would look a lot less like witness intimidation. - ] (]) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :''(multiple edit conflicts, not helped by the fact that adding a template and then substituting it afterwards doubles the number of edits you make to a page, which is itself ridiculous)''. Launchballer, you don't ''need'' all of the following (a) a fancy font (b) colours (c) class=explain (d) links to your contribution page (e) links to your email. Simple links to your user and talk page will do to start with; then add anything else you want until you reach 255 characters; then stop. It's simple, really. Otherwise, you will be blocked until you agree so to do. ]] 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC) <small>whose signature is the least fancy of all of those on display...</small> | |||
| ::Your own POV editing is openly in question as well, particularly considering on your talk page with LLW. Statements like this "{{tq|If you are interested in what the FBI knows but can't say, the next six months are expected to bring the release of a great deal more information. Stock up on popcorn I guess. If you want to improve the lab leak article, I don't know what to tell you. As you've noticed there are some deeply rotten things going on and the admins seem afraid to step in}}" very heavily indicates your own POV inclinations regarding scientific topics. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>(])</small>I have a 1360x768 resolution, and it takes up 7 lines of text for me... that's extremely excessive... I subst my sig, specifically from ], but I actually make an effort to keep it 255 characters or under... <font face="Segoe Print">] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 20:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::Note to closer: Palpable is another lableak POVPUSHING SPA. They only made about 70 edits between their account creation in 2006 and 2022, when their editing shifted to be basically solely arguing about lableak on talkpages for over 2 years at this point. ] (]) 20:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::I think you'd find it's a little more complicated than that, but it is not relevant to this discussion. Also, witness intimidation. - ] (]) 20:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Are you talking about mine, or Lauchballer's? <font face="Segoe Print">] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 20:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Witness intimidation" 😂 so are we now a court of law? His honor, ] is our ]? ] tells us you are an ] that has ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Was talking about Launchballer's, sorry for unclear antecedent. ] (]) 20:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] is not witness intimidation, nor is this a court. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's definitely a consensus here that the signature needs to be shortened; Launchballer, shorten your signature immediately or you will be blocked until it is changed. Thank you. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm happy to discuss my background and motivations over email with an admin who has a record of neutrality regarding FTN. - ] (]) 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::In fairness, I would be the first to admit that my signature is long; I use a substituted template to manage and preview the code, it stands out, and probably takes at least four lines on a standard resolution such as Jeske's. However, my signature is still under 255 characters, nor do I sign with a transcluded template, which is ] by the signature guideline. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is at ANI, so it should be discussed at ANI. "I'll only discuss it in secret" is not how things are played here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yours takes up more like 3 in toto. Mine's 208 characters, and takes up 2½ lines.-<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Noted, thanks. - ] (]) 05:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' They have openly stated, as I linked above, their purposes of pushing information that the scientific community is "trying to cover up". Their POV pushing is blatant and reinforced by them being an SPA in this topic area. A topic ban would be a potential stopgap to hopefully have them actually become a proper constructive editor, rather than just outright banning them for their clear ] activities. So, if anything, a topic ban is much more merciful than the alternative. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Silverseren is heavily involved in the underlying dispute. I have never said that there is "information that the scientific community is 'trying to cover up', just that there was never a thorough investigation and the debate is ongoing or inconclusive (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57782955) (https://www.wissenschaftstehtauf.ch/Inside_the_Virus-Hunting_Nonprofit_at_the_Center_of_the_Lab-Leak_Controversy_Vanity_Fair.pdf), that we ought to remove or attribute the sources we use whose authors have a direct relationship with the facility that the theory implicates (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/ "Shi herself and the WIV itself have an obvious conflict of interest") and that we won't be including in the article any of the less prestigious, primary sources (e.g., https://www.jpands.org/vol29no1/orient.pdf) nor the non-peer reviewed sources (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VC/VC00/20230711/116185/HHRG-118-VC00-20230711-SD005.pdf - a U.S. defense laboratory that sequenced the virus and https://www.scienceopen.com/document/read?vid=23853f40-72f5-443a-8f87-89af7fce1a92 - a Bayesian analysis) in support of a lab leak scenario. ] (]) 10:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' tban from COVID articles. The editor has ]ed themselves, it seems. SPA consumate. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I '''support''' in the first place a topic ban from Covid-19 broadly construed, but will also support a tban from COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory in case that narrower ban gets more traction here. ] | ] 10:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| :@], Misplaced Pages being "]" in this context just means that we use the most prestigious source material available to verify our claims. It doesn't tell us to suppress verifiable information just because it would "challenge the status quo" in society. By the way, I am not saying that my account exists "to challenge the status quo". I'm just correcting what might be a misrepresentation on your part as to what that document prescribes for us. I have always used high-quality sources in any of my edits to the main-space articles and used the talk pages to express my concerns about unverified claims. ] (]) 11:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I fail to see how this addresses Hob Gadling's chronic and intractable behavioral issues. ] (]) 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' – weak support for TBAN from COVID-19 overall, strong support for COVID-19 Origins, broadly construed (to include Gain of Function research, Fauci, WIV, etc) - This editor has repeatedly cast ASPERSIONS , has stated several times over that they intend to edit in a POV way to 'correct the biases that are in favor of the democratic party' , has shown a very poor understanding of policy (e.g. trying to advocate for a POVFORK , saying a discussion shouldn't be closed because no one could truly understand how complicated it is ) and a poor ability to assess the content of sources where they have a clear bias, repeatedly hitting others over the head with that ''failure to understand'' (e.g. ]/] ). I think they could probably benefit from editing a less contentious area of Misplaced Pages. (and yes I have participated in some of these discussions involving LLW) — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 21:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Shibbolethink is heavily involved in the dispute and misinterprets as bludgeoning my consistent opposition to their prolific use of faulty citations. The examples of citations they provided here are a perfect case study in what I had assumed was a good faith misunderstanding but am now convinced must be intentional mis-attribution. None of the links they provided substantiate anything they’re saying. ] (]) 22:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' – COVID-19 broadly construed. I originally suggested trouts. But Lardlegwarmer’s responses in this section have convinced me that this user has problems with NPOV, DUE, and RS that continue even on AN/I. Perhaps six months editing elsewhere will be of value. And yes, I have been involved. ] (]) 21:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Consensus on a ban proposal is not supposed to include editors that are involved in the underlying dispute. Why are these accounts casting votes?] (]) 22:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Says who? Everyone can comment here. ] (]) 22:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::They can comment but the authority to ban comes from a “consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute” so I’m assuming that means they don’t get a vote(?) ] ] (]) 02:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Actually, I think six of the !votes are from editors who have posted to a Covid article, including two of the three opposes. I don't know about the other pages you listed as I've never heard of most of them. I am involved in one of the seven pages you listed in your filing. But I don't see how I'm involved in the {{tq|underlying dispute}} you have with Hob. The closer can take this all into account. ] (]) 12:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Lardlegwarmers may be right. Palpable's Oppose !vote, in particular, reflects involvement in the Covid lab leak dispute and should be disregarded. ] (]) 22:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The criteria of having simply posted to a COVID article does not serve as a threshold for being in a dispute with lard leg warmers. If a vote is to be disregarded for its caster's fulfillment of being involved in a dispute with lard's POV-pushing, then a talk page discussion, diffs should be linked for certain proof. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Echoing @]'s statement. I understand how it can be seen as problematic (also why I'm not voting), but that's not the standard. Furthermore, if it was, that would equally disqualify @] and @]. (It shouldn't, just to be clear, but just making sure that's documented if we're going down this road.) ] (]) 21:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Covid-19 T-ban. Their behaviour here smacks of "Them vs. everybody". ] (]) 22:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I understand your sentiment, but what am I expected to do when all these editors are directly invoking my name and mischaracterizing my behavior and using sanction-gaming to push me out of a contentious discussion? ] (]) 02:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Surprised the CIVILPOV-pushing edit requests flooding my COVID watchlist this past month didn't result in a tban earlier. ] (]) 03:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Well it would have spoiled all the fun, since a CIVILPOV guy is apparently fair game to use as target practice for ad hominems in the talk page ] (]) 10:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' given the behavior in this area of editing. And before you reply, Lardle, I suggest you read ]. You don't need to comment on every !vote here. | |||
| :(ec x3)Lauchballer, when you have to call out the end of your sig so others know where to start editing, it's too big. Besides the fact that it's not very useful. I'd make an attempt to contact you on your talk page but it's pretty hit-or-miss to click on your sig to find it. So, not only is it over the char limit, it fails to be a useful addition to the talkpage. ] (]) 20:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :— <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| === Proposals re Hob Gadling and civility === | |||
| ::And sorry if I've just triple edit conflicted anyone, but I've left a notice on Launchballer's talk page telling him to change his sig or be blocked. With unanimous consent here, it seems there's more than enough support for such a block if he continues to refuse to change his signature. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Block, change the template he's using to standard sig, then protected it until it can be bot-subst'ed. Misplaced Pages is not designed for ]s. ] ] 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's possible he stopped editing; his last edit was over an hour ago. I would hold off on a block until we see him edit without chainging the sig. Other than that, I agree with my esteemed colleagues above - when you need a warning within the sig, it's too much. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 20:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Hob Gadling}} | |||
| Recently I have also had to change my signature, here is some advice. You do not need to declare the same colors four times, only once. Same with bold. Also, use the words red and cyan instead of the hexidecimal codes. See my sig if this confuses you. <span style="background-color:Green;"> ] ] </span></span> 20:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| There are concerns about ] regarding this editor's behaviour. Should a ] be in order? A ]? Or an ] when addressing other users? The community will decide. | |||
| Try something like this: | |||
| <span style="background |
<span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :<s>'''Support 1 month block''' – Hob needs an ultimatum, and the behaviour, even though they're right much of the time, is unacceptable per ].</s> <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This feels ]. ] (]) 18:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|extended discussion}} | |||
| :::Sure it would be. As ] once ]: "Consequences." <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 18:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::When ] shot ] in '']'', was that punishment? Or was that the ''consequence'' of Bill Skarsgard acting in a contentious manner and engaging in general buffoonery, conducting himself way out of place and S(crew)A(round)+F(ind)O(ut)? You conflate "punishment" with there being consequences for tomfoolery. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We're discussing this on Misplaced Pages, not John Wick: Chapter 4, so I'm not sure how that has any relevance.<br>Also, that sounds exactly like a punishment to me. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 18:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm disappointed you can't understand ]. 😔 <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I suppose that, say, per example, a ] who edits their respective topics is "punished" when the consequences (block) start to kick in for their general bothersomeness? Look, we can have a whole schpeel about what the ], or we can subvert expectations and be really straightforward about a subtle subject. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| *'''Oppose block''' I don't think this is a sanctionable level of incivility. I'd be ok with sending them a trout. ] (]) 18:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose block''' Hob is a long term contributor most often engaged in the thankless task of keeping fringe nuttery from overtaking a range of obscure articles. I don't see a history of problematic incivility that would warrant a block. ] (]) 18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support block''' as per BarntToust. Over the years I've seen the editor be rude and borderline bully, if not outright. It doesn't reflect well on Wiki.] (]) 18:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{anchor|HOB edit restriction}} | |||
| * A 1 month block is not likely to change long-term behavior, and would only amount to punishment. That's why we don't do temporary blocks in cases like this. Rather, something is needed that will force Hob to adjust their behavior if they want to continue to edit. An indef block would do it, but seems over the top. One alternative would be an ]. What about: | |||
| :{{tqb|Hob Gadling is prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities, including but not limited to other editors' reasoning skills, their ability to evaluate evidence, and their capacity to identify nonsense. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months on ].}} | |||
| :Of course Hob would be free to point out that a source is not RS, that something is not supported by a source, that this or that position is ], or anything else related to the editorial process, but they would be prohibited from commenting on other editors' ''ability'' to come to such conclusions for themselves. | |||
| {{collapse top|some of the diffs above to which this would apply|bg=LightGray}} | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| :I think this would solve a lot of the civility problems we see in the diffs. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 19:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Should we apply the same strict civility standards to ] (]) 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|extended discussion}} | |||
| :::]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No. ] (]) 19:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"I am your father." <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::General complaints with the direction of the project and bemoaning that we ain't a ] don't exactly scream "ur contribs and opinions are BS" like they do w/ Hob. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I just think it's a little rich for someone whose semi-retirement comment bemoans "incompetent editors" at some length to be the person to propose a specific instruction that another editor be {{tq|prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities}}. Glass houses, stones, all that. ] (]) 19:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yeah. I'm glad they didn't direct this at anyone specific, though. I've seen people complain that the ] is misappropriating funds to be a charity instead of a web hosting organisation, but long my five years of editing here have been since I've seen anyone with the audacity to take it directly to ] or the accounts of the ]. (I mean, for the most of the years as an IP it's been semi-protected but hey ain't seen anything about it in the Signpost). <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I mean, as long as nobody is being directly addressed in ''any'' scenario of any complaint, whether its Foundation business or Meritocracy grievances or words about the intellectual capacities of editors with opposing viewpoints, and its kept broad and generalised about the ''overall'' direction of the project, it's like trying to hold recourse against an editor for having a "I think Democrats are slandering ] on Misplaced Pages" userbox vs. the editor actually going out in the wild to ] a Democrat over their position in a discussion on ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Unfortunately for this case, there's diffs galore of Hob going out of their way to call others' opinions and mental capacities bullshit and dull, and thus we are here. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 20:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| :::Oh I deal with the same problems Hob does, believe me. Many around here do. ] is a thing, and yes, I personally believe it should be enforced much more vigorously. But no, I generally don't comment on other editors' intellectual capabilities in discussions. Most editors do not. If you want to discuss this further, please do so at my user talk. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 20:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And those words, editors, are the summary of the conclusion drawn at the above "extended discussion" CT. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 20:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose block''' Obviously punitive. We don't do that. ] 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Strongly '''oppose block''' per my ]. ] | ] 19:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| *'''Support editing restriction''' ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' any sanctions on Hob Gadling - I'm not seeing any clear sanctionable misbehavior here. ] ] 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Punitive. ] (]) 21:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Just not seeing it as sanctionable. As an aside, the four (count them four) collapses in this filing are an example of why I prefer AE. ] (]) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose''' per Pppery, O3000 etc. Tired of efforts to sanction good editors based on concepts of civility which are overly formalistic and don't duly assign weight to context (in my opinion, of course). ---] ] 23:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''- I also see no obvious justification for a block. ] ] 10:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring to prevent an RFC == | |||
| *Or, even better, something like this: ] (]). The more outlandish the signature, the less likely it is that people are going to take you seriously. --] (]) 21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| @] has removed an RFC tag from ] now within . | |||
| :*'''Strong Disagree''' I know of plenty of admins and trusted users with funky signatures. Atama, Tinuchurian, raeky, Durova, NuclearWarfare, etc. He is entitled to his quirkyness as long as it follows the rules. <span style="background-color:Green;"> ] ] </span></span> 23:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Actually a few years back with this basic sig the idea was to have something just a little bit different--slightly different shade of blue from the usual signature, different font that still displays well on most browsers. Eye-catching rather than flashy. And fwiw, a bad sig is more worthy of a trout than of a block. Let's get back to work. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| For what it's worth, I've ]. ] - ] 23:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] 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. | |||
| Launchballer, it might be a good idea to get one's name noticed for the quality of one's contributions and insights, rather than the length of one's signature. ;) <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :I've edited the user's signature code page down to 270 characters (the software limit is 255). The appearance is maintained but the mouseover effects, email link, and html comments are gone. I think the MfD can be ended if the user can live with this change, and agrees not to make the code any larger. Perhaps protecting the signature page could enforce that somewhat. ] (]) 03:47, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :: The MfD seems to be heading for an outright delete anyway, which is probably for the best considering that it's crept back up by about 50% since you pared it down. ] - ] 09:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ahh and this is why I keep this page on my watchlist. I love the smell of chaos in the morning. Good luck solving this without a few MfDs, I tried. Equazcion tried. Durova suggested a trout instead of a delete, and... drumroll please... nothing. <span style="background-color:Green;"> ] ] </span></span> 13:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have since taken it down. Not to 255, but please bear in mind how high it was to start off with.--<span style="background:#0FF;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 15:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Just remember ... it '''must''' fit within the box on your ''My Preferences'' page. To paraphrase a famous trial: "if the sig don't fit, you must MfD-it" (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 15:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The sig he signed with above is 247, so it's acceptable (we don't include the timestamp in char limit). –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 15:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: TreasuryTag's signature . | |||
| <span style="color:#333;font-face:Trebuchet MS;solid #FAECC8;background-color:#FAF6ED;padding:5px 5px;letter-spacing:2px;text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><sub>]</sub><i>]</font></sup></span> 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::KoshVorlon, you have one of the most distracting signatures I've ever seen, and I would ask that you check the length of my signature (which is varies, but is generally around '''172 characters''' – and always within the limit) before tossing around ]. And bringing up bad blood in this way isn't very nice either. Thanks in advance. <font color="#C4112F">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 07:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===KoshVorlon's signature=== | |||
| {{resolved|1=Signature pared down, warning re: disruptive signature use issued. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 13:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::Editors are allowed to use complicated markup as long as the final product is under 255 characters. Also, I don't think you're really one who should be talking about distracting sigs! –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 18:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Treasury, point is, you have gone after both myself and Lunchballer for having a signature that (in raw code) is 9 lines long, the printed version, or as xeno put it, the final product, is one line, in lunchballer's case, it's all of 10 letters long, mine's addmittedly longer, at 49 characters. Both are under the limit given. The funny thing is, your signature is also (in raw code, 9 lines long). Yet you insist that his sig and mine are wrong, but it's okay for you to have just as long of a signature. | |||
| It simply looks wrong, that's all. Regarding AGF, belive me I do, I made no accusation against you, just pointed to your signature and stated a fact. I already know I '''absolutely''' need to AGF for a long period of time here before I can ask anyone on the 'pedia to AGF in my case. See you around | |||
| <span style="color:#333;font-face:Trebuchet MS;solid #FAECC8;background-color:#FAF6ED;padding:5px 5px;letter-spacing:2px;text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><sub>]</sub><i>]</font></sup></span> 12:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::''What do you '''mean''' "It simply looks wrong,"?'' What looks wrong? It's either within the 255-limit or it isn't, and mine is. And I agree with Xeno, I don't know why you've changed your signature so that it obscures surrounding text, but it needs to be reduced again. Thanks. <font color="#A20846">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 12:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The 255-chars limit ''includes'' markup. Xeno's ref to "final product" is the product, in wikicode, produced by <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. TreasureyTag's signature template may be complicated, but once subst'd, is within the limit. Launchballer's original signature is not. ] (]) 12:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Exactly. And a signature could still be under 255 characters of wikimarkup yet be distracting. KoshVorlon, you should really retire that garish sig. I notice that it has seemingly grown so that it's obscuring the tails on letters once again. In ] you agreed to keep the padding at 2px, but you've increased it back to 5px. That is unacceptable. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 12:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I've ] of adjusting the widths back to the way Xeno put them originally, and incidentally stumbled across ]... strange. <font color="#7026DF">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 13:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC. | |||
| ::::::::Are there any guidelines about including at least part of or at least some some connection one's actual username in a signature? Kosh's sig is both awkwardly long and has nothing to do with the actual username. ] (]) 13:10, 22 October 2009 (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. | |||
| ::::::::: So long as there's a hyperlink to the user page I don't see a problem in that specific regard (it's handy for those of use who sign pages using our real names). It would, of course, be nice if people didn't fill their sigs with ASCII junk and bad poetry, but that's an Internet-wide problem really. ] - ] 13:20, 22 October 2009 (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. | |||
| :::::::::''"While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents."'' I must say, I am entirely unimpressed that KoshVorlon chose to go back on the ANI thread. I can only ] he forgot that it was agreed that a 5px padding was disruptive. In any case, I've to meet the length requirements and as to his signature use. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 13:24, 22 October 2009 (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. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| '''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. | |||
| Could somebody please block or firmly admonish this user? For the past several days, he has made hundreds of unilateral page moves without any consensus or discussion and likely against MoS. It's gonna take ages to clean. Several users including myself have already explained to TrueColour why what he did is wrong and needs to be reverted straight away. TrueColour disagrees with the concerns, which is fair enough, but when I start reverting the mess he reverted me back and is now accusing me of unconsensual page moves and edit warring. Could somebody put an end to this? I prefer not to block the user myself as I am Portuguese and his disruption has mainly affected articles on Portuguese municipalities and districts. All such articles, to be precise. A lot to clean. Thanks. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 19:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Discussion is in progress. I've asked TrueColour to stop his moves pending the outcome of the discussion. Can you hold off on moving any back yourself, Husond?--] (]) 20:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you offering to move hundreds of articles back after the discussion ends, plus redoing the changes made to those articles by other users while the discussion was taking place? It was an undiscussed non-consensual mass move, everybody discussing with this user agrees that it shouldn't have happened. If the user persists, it's disruption. The longer it takes to fix it, the harder the task will be. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 20:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Moving after edits doesn't remove those edits, so that argument doesn't apply.--] (]) 20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Unfortunately in this case it does. The editor didn't just move the articles, but also edited the first paragraph to have them conform with his moves and the subsequent duplication of the subject. Cleaning will involve moving+reverting. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 20:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The first paragraph doesn't necessarily need to match the article title, though it's generally desirable. As long as he discusses and doesn't move anything else, I don't see that further action is needed. I've hinted that editing articles to match his desired naming scheme might be a Bad Thing as well. --] (]) 20:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's not just that, but also insertion of sentences directing to new articles that the user effectively split and which shouldn't exist as separate. Hundreds of them. Again, the longer the changes stay in place, the harder it will be to fix. You can't protect hundreds of articles while a discussion is in place. If you really want to help, check the magnitude of his edits, investigate what he did and what needs to be undone, calculate the work that will take for that, and then maybe you'll realize that leaving everything as it is while a non-discussion takes place (because nobody else agrees with what the user did) is probably not a good idea. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 21:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'll be surprised if bots, redirects, and ] can't clean things up effectively enough. --] (]) 21:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Sure. Feel free to bring them on later. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The user doesn't need to be blocked and I'm not sure what you mean by ''admonish'' (sounds like some sort of ''official'' warning or reprimand, I'm not aware of anyone on here with that sort of authority short of going to RFAR). The move issue is a name (read "content") dispute. True Color's responses were a bit defensive and difficult but the comments that led to them were a bit bitey. Both sides should back off, cool off, and discuss the naming convention. A third party, maybe Sarek, may be able to help the two sides see each other's points of view as both sides have merit and deserve to be understood before anyone goes further or reverts all. The fixes are relatively simple in the event everything eventually needs to go back the way it was. Recommend close this thread and consider ] if Sarek can't break the deadlock.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 21:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::]? Sorry, fixing this problem is already too much work, I don't think I would need a week of unproductive and insanely boring discussion on top of it. No, let's reach this compromise instead: I will not bother with this "content dispute" anymore, and Misplaced Pages has just gotten a few hundred disruptive-useless-split articles that damaged the original ones. All happy. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I must concur with Husond's opinion (I assume he asked me as somebody who ''does not'' cooperate with him, most of the time). This seems a remarkably useless series of splits, which move the articles on the actual towns to such unEnglish forms as ], to make some point about there being an administrative division of the same name on a different level. ] <small>]</small> 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Doug, you found to be "bitey"? Really? Maybe if you are going to go to the trouble of commenting here, you could be a little more specific about exactly what you are talking about. --] (]) 23:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I did not find that comment bitey. I did find bitey: ignoring that editors are charged to ], listing a half-dozen or more places that the editor should have gone for consensus, most of which are rarely used for such discussions (I've never heard of posting an idea for a rename at the Village Pump), etc. But most importantly, my point was that ANI is not the place for this discussion. This is not the place to debate whether page moves were necessary and proper, even if they were were against consensus, past practice, etc. This is a ] matter and should be closed and taken elsewhere.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 05:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is not a dispute resolution. All users are welcome to be bold, but when the boldness is damaging and reported as such, persisting in this boldness counts for no less than plain disruption. Disruption that needs to be halted and fixed, not to be hindered by bureaucracy and complacence. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 06:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It ''has'' been halted, without blocking or admonishment. TrueColour has created ] to discuss the subject, but I haven't seen you there yet.--] (]) 11:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::a) I got a life outside Misplaced Pages; b) I'm not joining any discussions unless his mess gets reverted. You can keep hundreds of damaged articles for as long as I care. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::And I suggest that next time you look with a bit more attention because I'm actually there - ], on the thread right above the one you linked. Two seconds it would take to notice, but I admit that I should know by now that the time conceded by ANI peers is strictly reserved for deliberations. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 18:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I read that first, and in enough detail to see that you had not yet addressed the issue you're urging that TrueColor be admonished for.--] (]) 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Another evidence that you treated this case like a dead raccoon. Next time I won't bother to come here and I'll just get the job done. The ] part was funny though. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 18:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * ] states ''be bold''. That I was. And I think that the established article style is not the best for future growth. I am now harassed by Pmanderson. It follows a more detailed statement: | |||
| * The Portuguese class identifier "''distrito''" is usually translated as "''district''". The districts are referred to normally as "''distrito de Something''" which in English yields either ""''district of Something''" or "''Something District''". In enWP the format "''Something Classname''" is widely used. Apart from usage in article titles that format is mentioned in ]: "''so if one district in a country is moved from X to X District, it is worth discussing whether all districts should be moved.''". The existence of that example in WP:NCGN indicates that the use of "''Something District''" is accepted. | |||
| * The reasoning for the article titles of the ] is similiar: ''concelho'' is translated as "''municipality''", the entities are called "''concelho de Something''", translating to "''Municipality of Something''" or "''Something Municipality''". A ] shows that this format is used for several other sets of municipalities within WP and that this format is the one that is overwhelming used by those sets that use the class identifier in the article title. | |||
| * ] states: "''Places should generally be referred to consistently using the same name as in the title of their article''". "''Something District''" as article title allows one to write <nowiki>]</nowiki> while "''Something (district)''" cannot be directly linked. Articles titled that way are instead often referred to as "<nowiki>district of ]</nowiki>", which in fact is misleading since the link under "Something" goes to "Something (district)". | |||
| * When ] wrote on my talk page he asked for reversion of "page moves and content removal" insinuating that I removed content while I only split some pages. He further wrote "''Your district moves are also against the manual of style, please move back.''" In his he wrote "'' Please put everything back and then improvements can be discussed. I further bring to your attention that titles such as "Braga Municipality" or "Braga District" are against the Manual of Style. The subject type for geographical entries goes in parenthesis - "Braga (municipality)" or "Braga (district)". ''" When I asked where this is written he didn't bring a link. He also was very pushy to revert the moves, I told him that the districts moves can be reverted without problem at any time. Nevertheless he started reverting the page moves, knowing that "Something (district)" is disputed. This is kind of ]. I told him to . He also had stating " ''this might be up your street. Mass moves made by a new user. MoS-related.''". Moving the articles of the 18 ] are certainly no mass moves. And I think what matters are the actions, not the age of the account. Old and new accounts have all to respect the same rules and shall adhere to MoS. | |||
| * In the case here it seems that I knew the MoS better then them. | |||
| * Following the invitation by Husond, Pmanderson . I didn't see why s/he came and I thought s/he might be interested in solving the content dispute. But since s/he brought up the notion of silliness and wrote in a very commanding tone I pointed to ] and deleted the comment. Pmanderson is trying to play a power game, and wrote: "'' our guidelines are ''guidance'', not rules; they record what is customarily done, and are not intended to be comprehensive "rules" forbidding all silly notions which anybody might come up with until the heat-death of the universe.''" Followed by "''As it happens, we have already considered this question, not at any page of the Manual of Style, but at ], a ]. Our first rule, and our last, is call things what reliable sources call them, unless there is some good reason, like disambiguation, to do otherwise.''". See again the usage of "''we''", same way as ] did. | |||
| * After Pmanderson invoked the rule of "what reliable sources call them", I asked back what the name in Portuguese is, so that Pmanderson could find out her/himself that the classname is part of the object and translated into English this would lead to "''Something Municipality''". | |||
| * Now after having posted "Our first rule, and our last" Pmanderson in a very patronizing way : "''read ] and find that, this being the English Misplaced Pages, what matters to us is what these towns are called ''in English''". | |||
| * I asked where I did not use English, . That the question "Where not?" is not correct English and correcting it. To further state: "''Resende Municipality, Portugal'' is one way to distinguish the municipal government from the old town; but it is not the natural and idiomatic way.". This shows that the topic is missed by Pmanderson, since the articles "''Something Municipality''" are not about municipal governments but about geographical entities. It further shows lack of knowledge what article titles are for and that for articles on toponyms they are often not "natural and idiomatic": ] is one example and you find many more at ]. | |||
| * I then how s/he in his/her dialect of English would call the articles. The started with the notion that "''First, we don't need two articles (and it's not helpful to have them); we need one article on ], which distinguishes between the town and the municipality''". Which is a shift from her/his only slightly older comment "''Probably the best would be to have one article for both, and differentiate.''". It more and more seems to me that Pmanderson is only into the dispute for a power game and not much interested in the articles on the ] as I am. The reply goes on "'' If we had to have two , the natural name for both would ]; since that's ambiguous, the simplest course is not to make something up, or to translate as English does not, but to add a parenthetical disambiguator to the less read one: ]''". Pmanderson now made up a method of disambiguation I couldn't find anywhere else, violating her/his own statement "''the simplest course is not to make something up''". | |||
| * I think it is harmful to the development of Misplaced Pages that people like Pmanderson play power games with users and make up rules out of nothing. | |||
| * Pmanderson should be de-admined for her/his harassment and her/his power game playing. At 17:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Pmanderson her/his attitude how to solve content disputes. "''Speaking of which, this may be the solution for the disruptive True Colour. Let me know if you do - it would probably be unwise to block him yourself, but he should be blocked.]. ''" This shows that Pmanderson wants a solution /for a user/ and not a solution /of a content dispute/. I strongly recommend that what Pmanderson wants to be performed on others should best be applied to him/herself. | |||
| * ] and Pmanderson should learn how to respect MoS better and also to respect ], ]. Only that Husond comes from Portugal does not make him to own the pages related to Portugal. | |||
| * Husond writes : "''For the past several days, he has made hundreds of unilateral page moves without any consensus or discussion and likely against MoS. It's gonna take ages to clean.''" Nice to see the notion of "likely against MoS". Seems Husond is not so convinced anymore that it is against MoS. But then I wonder, why he is so sure that all needs to be reverted. Also interesting that stuff that /one/ user can do in several days will take several users to take ages. It seems Husond is exaggerating to get his agenda through. | |||
| * Husond: "'' TrueColour disagrees with the concerns, which is fair enough, but when I start reverting the mess he reverted me back and is now accusing me of unconsensual page moves and edit warring. Could somebody put an end to this? ''" - To call the edits of other people a mess is against WP:NPA. And I guess the best way to stop the accusations of "unconsensual page moves and edit warring" is to stop the underlying actions. | |||
| * I want to send a big thank you to ], ], ] for their strict but friendly involvement. If anyone of these people is not an admin I recommend to make him/her an admin. Keep up your work! You are, as far as I can see, good examples for how to apply WP:AGF. | |||
| * To end my statement with something positive I would like to say that related to articles on the ], I: | |||
| ** imported the river list from pt WP, see ]. | |||
| ** created an overview about the ]. | |||
| ** turned the lists of municipalities that were split by district into one big sortable ] | |||
| ** improved ]: turning a simple the list of the municipalities into a sortable table, incl population and area data, numbers of parishes, cities and towns for each municipality. | |||
| ** for the municipalities in that district I started to import population history from pt:WP | |||
| ** disambiguated several false links | |||
| ** when I came across badly formated DAB pages I converted them to adhere to ], esp. | |||
| * ] (]) 00:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Support'''</s>. ] (]) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wow! Kudos to Sarek and Doug. Now we have disruption AND unsubstantiated wikilawyering. Good job. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 06:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Strike as withdrawn for Axad12 ABAN to concur with {{u|Cullen328}} and the ''oppose'' decisions below. | |||
| :*I thank Sarek of Vulcan for his advice, both here and on , that TrueColour hold off on his moves until discussing them and receiving consent; as he said there "let discussion conclude before you move any more. Continuing might be classed as disruptive and blockable." | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :*TrueColour has not stopped; this is the burden of his complaint. He should read ]; boldness is fine, ''until you are reverted'' - at which point you should stop and discuss. ] <small>]</small> 16:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *: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=== | |||
| == Editors PhilthyBear and ScottRios being disruptive at Toronto == | |||
| 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". | |||
| 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. | |||
| After a lengthy (2+ month) discussion involving pretty much every editor that showed on the talk page, a new skyline photo was chosen by an almost unanimous consensus (Though few editors participated, there was plenty of time to do so for those who chose not to). Upon attempting to change it, two editors (] and ] have repeatedly undone the edit claiming it against consensus (which they did not participate in). I have reverted twice, and am temporarily withholding a third at this point until I get a go-ahead (Though I feel strongly that this should count as vandalism and not 3RR). The editors have failed to even comment on the talk page, and only revert the edits despite both my edit summaries mentioning the talk page discussion. | |||
| 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) | |||
| ;Diffs | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| * My addition of consensus per | |||
| ::Was that purposely mis-stated to be provocative and mislead the discussion here? | |||
| * first revert by PhilthyBear with summary of "No one agreed to this picture. It's terrible" | |||
| ::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."'' | |||
| * first revert by myself with summary of "Actually all but one person in the talk page did. Please take comments there." | |||
| ::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, | |||
| * second revert by PhilthyBear with summary of "Actually it was only 3 people discussing the change. Hardly a consensus." (and continued to not participate in the discussion) | |||
| ::You made no attempt to collaborate at DRN, posting only one off-topic | |||
| * second revert by myself with summary of "Stop reverting against CURRENT consensus and take this to the talk page please. You don't discuss, you don't get your say." (which is true, if they will not discuss on the talk page then their say should be ignored as undemocratic) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| * revert by ScottRios with summary of "This is not a dictatorship User:Floydian. You have been reported for 3R's" (a rather snappy summary, without any comments on the talk page (the user did not report me for my 2 reverts) | |||
| :::{{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) | |||
| ====A Possibly Requested Detail==== | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] (]) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (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) | |||
| ::@] 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) | |||
| ===The actual content that led to this dispute=== | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :Cullen, | |||
| :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. | |||
| :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}}. | |||
| :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 . | |||
| *User:PhilthyBear has not participated at ], and very few other talk pages, which shows a lack of cooperation with other editors | |||
| :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) | |||
| *User:ScottRios has only participated in discussion at ], and never at ] | |||
| ::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=== | |||
| I am notifying these users now. - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|status=Not Implemented|1=Axax12 has voluntarily agreed to avoid editing ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:20, 11 January 2025 (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) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ], 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) | |||
| *:::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. ] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (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 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. | |||
| *:::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. ] (]) 05:18, 8 January 2025 (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) | |||
| ** ] has committed 3R's and is disrespectful to other users. The ] page main image has been used for some time and is perfectly good. User:Floydian removed the picture after a lengthy incoherent discussion with 3 other editors most of which was personal chat. The image which he replaced the good quality image looks of poor quality and resembles a 1982 family photo quality. A coherent conversation on the talk page should take place and not personal chat with dozens of images posted. ] (]) 21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| After having a quick look through the talk page I'd like to say that it appears that ] is in the right here. There is clear consensus (it's not his fault only a few users took part in the discussion) and despite anything else, that trumps all. There's no point in coming on to this noticeboard and saying he engaged in 'personal chat' when one can go to the discussion and see that is simply not true, I think there was a good quality, in-depth discussion about the subject in hand between editors that seem to take a keen interest in it, I think if anything it is one of the better talk exchanges I have seen. Also, if ] did revert the 3rr rule (I would argue he didn't, he was combatting vandalism, i.e. editors going against consensus) or was disrespectful then don't simply make that your response to this post because it simply looks like you're grabbing at straws, if he has played unfairly then start a new thread about his conduct. In summary, there is concensus to change the picture and what it should be changed to and therefore PhilthyBear and ScottRios should accept that and take any concerns to the talk page. ] (]) 22:24, 20 October 2009 (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) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per above. I just don't see a need for such strict measures. ] (]) 16:22, 8 January 2025 (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) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ===Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN=== | |||
| ::The point was also to draw more conversation in to the talk page, a point which PhilthyBear clearly missed (and given the quick removal of my post from his talk page (which is technically against policy I believe), has no interest in persuing). - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 22:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| It is (although this is a source of controversy) acceptable to users to do anything they like with their talk pages, there's not much that can be done about it. However, it is gernally the sign of a poor editor. The user in question seems to have a history of clearing his talkpage due mostly, it would appear, to other users raising concerns about his questionable behaviour, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. ] (]) 23:12, 20 October 2009 (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) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *: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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.]] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::This comment just reinforces my support position that a two-month break is a good idea.]] 04:14, 9 January 2025 (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. | |||
| *:::::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) | |||
| *::::::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 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. ] (]) 06:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::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) | |||
| *'''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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 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, ] (]) 08:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hey, all: This thread's over 100 comments now. Can we please stop now? ] (]) 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? ] (]) 06:50, 10 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:33, 10 January 2025 (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. | |||
| ::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. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Sockpuppetry in Philippine articles == | |||
| :::Also possibly not entirely relevant to this discussion, but are users ScottRios and PhilthyBear the same user using sock accounts to get around the three revert rule? Yes they are both Canadian editors so do share some article editing history, but their manners and turns of phrase sound identical, especially when it comes to mistakes. For instance ScottRios's edit summary here is more than a little similar to Philthy's edit here where they both accuse him of 3R's (erroneously I must add.) I think this bears looking into, though I'm willing to admit I could be wrong and go with AGF. ] ] 01:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Page protected. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| **:Try to keep your points clear, the issue is disruption through multiple reverts and apparent refusal to discuss. Consensus can and does change and the fact that a perceived consensus existed is only important for supporting the need to discuss; in other words "we've had a discussion, so BRD isn't an appropriate method for editing here". A discussion between a small number of people does not "trump all". Also removal of comments on the user's talk page merely means that the user has read them.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 05:51, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :::I personally feel that if you don't speak, you don't get your say. Reverting is not a method of communication, and trying to have your say through reversion summaries is totally inappropriate behavior. I also feel I was pretty clear as I make the claim of vandalism and lack of communication in the first paragraph, before the diffs. - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 16:43, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| Let me just clarify two of my points you raised. Firstly WP works on consensus, and therefore if a group of people reach a consensus, then we work with what that group decides (in most cases). Simple. Secondly, an established, respected editor blanking their talk page of valid comments (lets forget vandalism here) is one thing (I personally would still consider that person a poor editor and not give them the time of day, but I would bare in mind their experience) an editor who devotes most of his time on WP to be disruptive and incivil who then goes on to blank their talk page is '''obviosuly''' a different matter alltogether. ] (]) 10:04, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :While it would have been perfectly legitimate for PhilthyBear and ScottRios to question the consensus that had been reached, they instead took the bully approach with unilateral reverts and unfortunate came-out-of-left-field name calling (both of them throwing around the word "dictator"). They both clearly had things to say, but acted on them in a really inappropriate manner. Until they choose to become involved in the manner in which they did, the discussion on the talk page had been lengthy, with some differences of opinion, but had remained civil the entire time - sadly, now we've ended up in this forum, which is really disappointing. Ironically, had they both bothered to chime in on the talk page (assuming for a moment that one of them isn't a sock puppet), I don't think there would have been consensus for the change that so infuriated them. But while consensus is not immutable, it doesn't get changed through actions like those of PhilthyBear and ScottRios in this particular case. --] (]) 01:18, 22 October 2009 (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}} | |||
| == User:Wigglebuy579579 == | |||
| == Incorrect usage of {{]}} == | |||
| {{atop|status=Resolved|1=Wigglebuy 579579 was pblocked, and following discussion has been unblocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{Userlinks|Wigglebuy579579}} keeps engaging in disruptive editing behaviour: | |||
| # they created dozens of articles by copy-pasting AI-generated text; | |||
| # they ignored all warnings onto their talk{{nbs}}page; | |||
| # they duplicated draftified articles by simply recreating them. | |||
| {{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> | |||
| : 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) | |||
| :], 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) | |||
| :: 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) | |||
| :::{{re|Liz}} Examples include: | |||
| :::#], ] and ]; | |||
| :::#] and ]; | |||
| :::#] and ]; | |||
| :::#]; | |||
| :::among others. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::The ] essay recommends G3 for articles for which text-source integrity is completely lacking. — ] ] 01:22, 8 January 2025 (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 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) | |||
| ::::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 | |||
| ::::{{ping|Wigglebuy579579}} care to explain? '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 03:28, 8 January 2025 (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) | |||
| :::Thanks for checking. Those are now deleted. — ] ] 16:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*] 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 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) | |||
| ::::: I have unblocked following discussion with the user. ] (]) 19:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think this is a good conclusion to the issue. The unblock discussion is at ]. — ] ] 19:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating ] == | |||
| I believe a note needs to be made in the edit notice for this page, along with other noticeboards. I just finished cleaning up a mess created by improper use of this template. It is placed '''below''' the section title, '''not above it''', as if it is placed above it, then when the archival bot archives the thread above where the template was placed in, it takes the template with it, basically disrupting how the archives for the page look. Because the discussion top template was removed by the bot, we now have several unrelated threads hatted together as if they were related. This cannot be stressed enough.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 04:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Bgsu98}} | |||
| Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.<br /> | |||
| Making a note here so that this doesn't get archived. It needs to be addressed.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 23:46, 21 October 2009 (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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Grundle2600: continued problems == | |||
| 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. | |||
| Between 20 March and 21 June, ArbCom took on a case examining the Obama articles in detail, and ended up finding (among other things) that {{user|Grundle2600}}'s edit-warring was problematic, and as a remedy, imposed a revert limitation (1RR) for 6 months on him ]. On 25 June, the community were still finding problems with Grundle2600's disruptive conduct, which resulted in the community imposing a 3 month topic ban on him from all articles relating to US politics and politicians (although explicitly allowed to comment on talk pages). Unfortunately, his conduct has continued to be a problem, particularly after the topic ban has expired. | |||
| 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 was making test edits on his talk page to measure to the minute when his topic ban would expire ( ) which was deeply concerning. The moment it expired, he returned to editing those articles. Since then, he's reignited old ], and continued to disruptively ], making ] edits along the way too: | |||
| * 25 September 2009: | |||
| * 26 Sept 2009: | |||
| * 26 & 27 Sept 2009: | |||
| * 5 October 2009: | |||
| * 12 October 2009: | |||
| * 13 October 2009: | |||
| * 19 October 2009 (even after the ] was filed, reinserting contentious material previously removed and discussed): | |||
| 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) | |||
| He has also continued ] in its other forms, like ]. | |||
| :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) | |||
| Clearly, further sanctions beyond 1RR is necessary, and those sanctions would need to be greater than 3 months (somewhere between 6 months and indefinite). ArbCom have suggested that the community use its tools to sort it out. A single uninvolved admin can end this disruption by invoking ]. However, I can also draft something that goes beyond the scope of that probation, if the community needs to impose a broader remedy on him that covers all articles/pages relating to US politics and politicians. Based on the above (and any further evidence that comes to light), any thoughts on which way to go? ] (]) 06:43, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :There is no point putting up with such crap when there are plenty of other good editors actively working on the same subject. Impose a permanent topic ban as broad as you see necessary. ] (]) 07:07, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| ::I agree with the IP. If the editor has shown that they cannot work under the restrictions imposed, then it is better that the are not allowed to edit in that area. An indefinite topic ban is in order, unless the editor would prefer to be blocked indefinitely as an alternative. ] (]) 07:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :::OK, the first alternative would be "Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing pages related to US politics and politicians." The second alternative would be the same as what's written ], except it would read as "indefinite topic ban - he is" and would omit the "for a period of three months" part. Can you (and others) explicitly clarify whether you prefer to include or exclude talk pages in the ban? ] (]) 15:18, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :: 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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::Okay. --] (]) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. ] ] 03:41, 8 January 2025 (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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :] 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. | |||
| :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?"'' | |||
| :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) | |||
| :*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) | |||
| :*:I apologize, ]; I am just at my wit's end with this editor. ] ] 04:45, 8 January 2025 (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) | |||
| ::Let me help you out here, Ravenswing. I suspect he's saying it's "very unfair" because it seems to him like it's not fair! <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:04, 13 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) | |||
| :::*I'm not sure if I should allow this to be entered here but for the record, here goes... I'd rather lose one capable gung-ho staff (but he is always late) than to lose a bunch of average performing staff (but they take their work seriously and are always on time). It's bad for morale if that one gung-ho staff is allowed to carry on misbehaving and I risked that fact affecting the others due to my oversight or turning of a blind eye to. Having said that, Misplaced Pages is a community and as such is a collaborative effort by many individuals, its time to stop such nonsense once and for all. Out. --''] (]) 08:12, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :*Support indefinite topic ban including article and talk pages on all articles reasonably seen as related to current United States politics. ] (]) 12:35, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :*Support indefinite politics topic ban (including article talk pages), if only so we don't see him counting down in a year to see when he can start making problematic edits again. --] (]) 13:38, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :*Support indefinite topic ban on all US politics topics-related issues as I did . ] <small>(])</small> 14:31, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :*Support indefinite ban, ban to extend to talk pages. ] (]) 15:02, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :*Support indefinite ban on politics related articles, and temporary ban from related talk pages.] (]) 16:10, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :*Support indefinite topic ban on all politics related articles, and I think including talk pages is a must (the problems—particularly in terms of extreme tendentiousness—continued under the previous three-month topic ban when Grundle2600 was allowed to comment on talk pages). If agreed to this should be implemented as a community imposed topic ban, not something done under the terms of Obama article probation, since the latter does not allow an admin to ban an editor from all political articles, but rather only from those relating to Obama. I have no idea whether Grundle2600 is actively trying to be disruptive at this point or whether he is simply incapable of "getting it" when it comes to the problematic nature of many of his edits, but by now is doesn't really matter since this is a very longstanding pattern which is disruptive either way, and since there have been at least a dozen or so editors who have spent many, many hours trying to work with him and explain the problems with his editing, but to no avail whatsoever. Finally, while at the moment there appears to be a developing consensus for a topic ban, I think this thread needs to stay open for another day or so to allow further comment, and we certainly need to give Grundle2600 a chance to reply here. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 17:20, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :*For the love of god, support, and please make sure it is for article talk pages as well. We had to put up with this behavior during the only-banned-from-article-page topic ban, and it wasn't pleasant. ] (]) 18:36, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :*Suppore indefinite topic ban on all politics-related articles and their talk pages. About a year ago, I used to edit some of the articles in question. Don't imagine I ever will again. Failure of the community to deal with this kind of ongoing nonesense was one reason why. He may think the well-meaning naif persona suits him, but no one should be asked to deal with this stuff (of course, people have to here every day). But this is fairly far beyond the pale.] (]) 23:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitrary break=== | |||
| :*Support indefinite topic ban on all politics-related articles and their talk pages. I checked some of the above diffs which show that Grundle2600 will never voluntarily pass on an opportunity to inject POV into articles and talk pages related to U.S. politics. As an example, see ] where Abrazame gives several long and interesting explanations why some Grundle2600 edits were not helpful, only to receive a change of subject. ] (]) 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :::I had not seen that, but any outsider looking into this situation should read the talk page thread linked to by Johnuniq—it's a textbook example of Grundle's editing pattern. Abrazame slipped too readily into minor incivility, but that editor laid out in ''exhausting detail'' the problem with Grundle's proposed changes. And how did Grundle reply? He didn't, he completely ignored Abrazame's lengthy post, and simply "You have not answered my questions" (which Abrazame absolutely had done). I can say from experience that this is a common practice for Grundle, who often blatantly refuses to ] being made and will persist in the face of objections or temporarily change the subject and then come back to the original issue at a later time. Collaborative editing with an editor who approaches editing in that way is simply not possible. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 02:39, 22 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :*The political articles are a maelstrom that is too easy to get sucked into. The user should "boycott" those articles and focus on something that he would find more satisfying to edit. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 07:31, 22 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :*Support topic ban. Repeat problems, repeat warnings, repeat offenses. There's a group of editors involved in these topics that really need to be reined in, and this is definitely one of them. ] <small>]</small> 19:18, 22 October 2009 (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) | |||
| ::::::::::::Going through their contributions, I see about a week ago there was a period of 30 minutes where they did seven AfDs -- not what I would call a paragon of thoroughness. But fifty in a half-hour is absolutely absurd regardless of when it happened -- I take more time than that to line up a shot when I throw a tissue into the trash can at the other end of the room. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:07, 13 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) | |||
| *:Mass AfDs routinely get shot down reflexively, on the (somewhat threadbare) grounds that they should all be reviewed on their individual merits, and not lumped in a group. Something of a Catch-22 there. In any event, the answer for an inadequately sourced article is not to jump through extraordinary hoops to find what isn't there. The answer is that the article cannot be sustained -- but can be recreated without prejudice should such sourcing surface down the road -- even when it's an article on a figure skater. ] 00:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Right, good point. But it still makes sense for cases where the rationale is mostly the same. Maybe not 100 articles in one but 5-10. This should help keep it at a more manageable level. ] ] 05:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I agree with you, but in recent years, a significant number of editors haven't: sufficient to sabotage most attempts to do so. ] 13:33, 12 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) | |||
| **::Personally, I would feel I had done a slipshod job if I made a nomination for an article with some passing-mention search results, and I did not address these in the nomination statement, or at the very least indicate that I had made the search. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:10, 13 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) | |||
| **::At this point, I'm seriously starting to think Moscow Connection needs topic banned from AfD in general, if not the entire subject matter of these articles. MC has demonstrated an inability to edit collaboratively without resorting to personal attacks and demands. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:::I am regrettably willing to support either of those sanctions against MC at this point. They’ve been warned multiple times about the possibility of a ], and those warnings were not heeded. While I really want to assume good faith here, their behavior resembles ], following Bgsu from nomination to nomination and casting a copious amount of aspersions on this ANI thread. Even if some of the Keep votes provide legitimate sources, the act of following a user across many discussions and refbombing them (in at least one case, as described in the discussion below) is not acceptable. ] (]) 00:50, 12 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) | |||
| **:MC, you are rapidly digging a hole you will not be able to get out of. This incessant demands and aggressive comments are wearing thin, and if you do not stop you are likely to face ] sanctions yourself. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **::{{reply|HandThatFeeds}} Okay, okay, sorry! By the way, I didn't even have this page on my watchlist and was just waiting for the outcome. (I came here yesterday, and there were no new replies. So I thought that was all, everyone was just waiting for an admin closure. I, personally, had said everything I wanted, I didn't even have anything to add.)<br />P.S. I just came here now because Bgsu98 have edited some of my Russian figure skater articles just now. (I'm not attacking him, he hasn't ever nominated even one article of mine for AfD. Maybe because I'm trying to add a source or two to them.) --] (]) 04:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think this would be reasonable. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I can see how Bgsu's nomination volume can be a problem, and support his voluntary limitations and promise to provide more thorough deletion rationales. At the same time, given the kinds of sources MC has produced as "evidence" of GNG at, e.g., ], I think his perception of our notability requirements is wildly out of line with the community's. As @] pointed out in that AfD, MC basically ''repeatedly'' refdumped a bunch of interviews and couple-sentence mentions despite being informed of their ineligibility in contributing toward GNG, so if those are the kinds of sources they are bringing up now to demonstrate "nonexistent BEFORE searches" I am quite skeptical that the problem is as actionable as they claim. That, coupled with their broad disapproval (unawareness?) of our current NSPORT guidelines, makes me concerned about the notability of their own creations—are they also basing those articles on interviews and routine transactional blurbs? ] (]) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've started to wonder the same thing: that if MC is either utterly unaware of relevant notability standards or (as I suspect is the case) utterly defiant of them, are they another Lugnuts or Dolovis, and their article creations full of NN subjects? Ultimately, I don't give a damn whether MC (or anyone else) likes or approves of Misplaced Pages's standards, but they have to comply with them all the same.<p>In any event, I '''oppose any sanction or limitation on Bgsu'''. I am not sure when people got the idea that filing bulk AfDs was against policy, but they are very greatly mistaken if they do think that. ANI is not the proper venue for a community discussion on changing that policy, and I recommend the Village Pump. ] 23:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I came across this article today: ]. was the state of the article MC left before another user (and regular contributor to FS articles) added some of the tables. There is also this one: ]. ] ] 01:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Hello. I've just noticed you edits to my articles and added some reliable sources.<br />Sorry that I left the articles like that, but I'm not too interested in figure skating lately, I just saw the 2025 Russian Championships results and wanted to create some stubs for some new "figure skating stars". (Back in the days, other users, ones who know how to format all the tables, would come and do everything. Just a blink of an eye, and there's a lengthy article — competitive highlights, music, everything. But now I can't see anyone. Maybe they are upset by the changes to NSKATE and stopped working on Wiki.) --] (]) 04:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I have added simply terrific sources everywhere. (Everyone has a full-fledged biography on a big media site.) --] (]) 06:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I simply searched on Google.com. and came out on the first page. You posted here instead of simply googling.<br />P.S. I know that this article is not my proudest moment. But I don't really edit figure skating articles lately and I have never been active much in this topic. Not on the English Misplaced Pages, anyway. --] (]) 10:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::There is no such thing as 'your' articles, see ]. ]] 10:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Also that source is very dubious. Look at their about page. Notice that they have a Guinness World Records Certificate image there? It's not got the official Guinness world records logo and there are errors in how the numbers are notated on it. Which suggests this newspaper has a fake Guinness world record cert on their about page. So, yeah, not very reliable. ] (]) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Hello! First of all, I must explain that I only came to that nomination because {{u|Berchanhimez}} asked me to find some examples of Bgsu98 not doing any WP:BEFORE research. So I went to ] and looked at the current nominations. I am very sorry if I "dumped" a lot of "bad" sources on that AfD page, but I simply wanted to show everything that I had found. And I believe that it is advisable that Bgsu98 does something like this in his future nominations. Like: "Look what I have found on Google. This, this. this. I believe it's not enough and the skater is not notable. Now let's discuss."<br />P.S. At first, I wanted to find some of his old nominations of some really big names, but I didn't know how to find them. So that's what I did, I came to the current ones. (I looked at some figure skating championships articles, but there were no red links. It seems that, after an article gets deleted, he or someone else deletes all the links to it.)<br />P.P.S. I should probably be advised to retire from this discussion. Cause I'm being attacked already. And it looks like some people are already advising me to go away. So I'm going away. I'm still hoping something good will come of this. --] (]) 10:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I think this is good of you. You’ve provided your examples, and it’s now up to others to decide whether they are examples of violations of BEFORE or not. Thank you for refocusing your comments on specific examples rather than the back and forth that was going on. | |||
| *::I tend to agree that BEFORE should not be a private thing. If someone does a BEFORE and finds nothing, stating such is good. But if they find borderline or a bunch of insignificant coverage, then providing at least examples of that in the nomination with a short explanation as to why they do not consider them valid goes to show they actually did a BEFORE. | |||
| *::I don’t think a voluntary restriction on number of AfDs is enough to assuage the fact that the nomination statements are short and don’t address the sources that should be found during a BEFORE. But hopefully a limit of two per day will result in better nomination statements that address more borderline sources. | |||
| *::At this point it doesn’t seem there’s any appetite for sanctions, and I think MC has been explained why many of the sources they have found don’t qualify for GNG. So maybe a closure with no action overall, and hopefully going forward less nominations at a time will result in more discussion in those nominations so that issues over why the sources found aren’t adequate can occur on each individual nomination. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 17:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Is this another one of those things where between the people who spend dozens of hours a week on enforcing policies and making up new policies and arguing about how to modify policies look down our noses at the people who "merely" write/edit articles when they are confused that the rules they laboriously followed for years have been randomly changed without even their knowledge, let alone their consensus? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:No, it's more like a dispute between someone sending a bunch of articles to AfD because they lacked proper sourcing, and a fan of those articles throwing everything they can at the wall to try and "save" those articles, while smearing the person who sent them to AfD. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Never mind what I said uptopic, JPxG: policies and guidelines change, from time to time. Always have, always will, and neither yours, mine nor anyone else's personal approval are a precondition of ratifying them. It is incumbent upon editors to stay abreast of such changes if they're engaged in ongoing article creation, but at any rate, they're not exempted from them. Leaving aside that the GNG and SIGCOV have been around for many years now, the changes in NSPORTS are a few years old themselves.<p>In any event, you surely can't be advocating that the most productive way to handle being in this situation is to kick, scream, and rail against the injustice of it all, as opposed to "Gosh, sorry, I didn't know. I'll go read those guidelines now, and conform hereafter." ] 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **{{reply to|JPxG}} That's a good observation! :-)<br />But what I wanted to do here on ANI is to stop just one particularly active editor who mass-nominates articles for deletion without doing a ] search. His actions are bot-like, and his AfD nominations usually receive one or two bot-like "delete" votes. We may as well just delete all the articles that are now outside of ]. It will be more fair than <u>imitating</u> an AfD process.<br />P.S. I do appreciate the people who work on AfD and put their time in reviewing the nominations. I see that some of Bgsu98's nominations do end in a "keep" thanks to those hard-working people. But there are many more that would have been kept if a proper web search was done.<br />P.S. I really can't participate in this ANI thread anymore, cause I have tried to comment on some AfD nominations and what I've got are just accusations of disrupting/sabotaging the process. --] (]) 01:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == IP hopper repeatedly adding unsourced and incorrect information to UK Rail articles == | |||
| ====Exact wording==== | |||
| Since we have a rough consensus here, I'd like to nail down the exact wording for when consensus is clear. Following on NCM's comments above, I propose the following. Please only comment here if you support the community ban '''and''' have a problem with the below -- if you oppose the ban, comment in the thread above, please. Thanks.--] (]) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Discussion moved from ] to avoid cluttering up that noticeboard with discussion. | |||
| {{quote|<s>{{Userlinks|Grundle2600}} is subject to an indefinite community ban from editing articles related to US politics and politicians. He may not participate in discussion on talk pages, unless this sanction is modified later. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks.</s> (See terser version below)}} | |||
| 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? | |||
| Please change ''a indefinite community ban'' to ''an indefinite community ban''. ] (]) 16:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Fixed, thanks. | |||
| I made a strikeout above; the struck words don't help clarify anything. ] (]) 17:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It was meant to be a strong hint that if he can prove on other subjects that he can participate constructively on talk pages, this ban could be modified, rather than being a never-darken-our-door-again thing. --] (]) 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Diffs: | |||
| ::Right. But any sanction can be modified later; no need to spell it out. ] (]) 17:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * {{user|27.55.93.62}} - {{diff2|1268535786}} | |||
| * {{user|27.55.83.83}} - {{diff2|1268296480}} & {{diff2|1268295870}} | |||
| * {{user|27.55.79.100}} - {{diff2| 1267871857}} | |||
| * {{user|27.55.70.101}} - {{diff2| 1267858727}}, {{diff2| 1267858319}} & {{diff2| 1267859313}} | |||
| * {{user|27.55.68.32}} - {{diff2| 1267728237}}. | |||
| Cheers, ] (]) 10:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Shorter wording: | |||
| :Seems the only answer is to continue playing w-a-m until our Thai friend gets bored. ] (]) 11:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{quote|{{Userlinks|Grundle2600}} is under an indefinite community ban from editing articles or talk pages related to US politics and politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks.}} | |||
| ] (]) 18:36, 22 October 2009 (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) | |||
| ===Statement by Grundle2600=== | |||
| 1) Most of the people in this discussion who are saying they want be banned are the same people who keep erasing the information that is critical of Obama that I add to articles. I think they just want to censor me from adding information that is critical of Obama to those articles. | |||
| == Persistent addition of unsourced content by 78.135.166.12 == | |||
| 2) The reason I made those test edits on my talk page was to make absolutely 100% certain that I did not violate my topic ban. There is no rule against me editing my own talk page. The fact that people want me punished for this says more about them than it does about me. | |||
| {{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) | |||
| 3) There was to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. | |||
| :IP is still continuing to add unsourced content to articles after final warning. See {{diff|Aardman Animations|prev|1268639327|here}}, and {{diff|Universal Animation Studios|prev|1269039294|here}} where the added content again isn't in the pre-existing source, the ref doesn't mention Pixar. ] (]) 23:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 4) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling. | |||
| == Persistent violation of established consensus on McLaren Driver Development Programme == | |||
| 5) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate ], which states, "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." | |||
| {{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. | |||
| 6) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an <i>extensive history of illegal drug use</i>, and <i>avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student</i>? | |||
| :] (]) 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}} | |||
| == An IP who gave me a fake 4im warning == | |||
| 7) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent? | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Issues addressed. Signature can be handled on their Talk. No longer a matter for ANI ] ] 14:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| There was a IP address (]) who | |||
| 8) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable? | |||
| # Called me blind in an edit summary after i reverted his edit | |||
| 9) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars? | |||
| # trouted me and gave me a 4im warning | |||
| I think this is the appropriate place to take this report. | |||
| In every one of these cases, people want me banned so they can stop me from adding information that is critical of Obama to the article. | |||
| ] (]) 17:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The less nefarious explanation is not that people are "censoring" you, it's that the content you try to add often does not conform to our policies about NPOV, undue weight, reliable sources, original research, etc, and that your editing really is problematic (hence sanctions from both the community and ArbCom in the past). You have provided no evidence whatsoever that you are being "censored", while there is clear evidence (see some of the diffs above) that at least some of the people reverting you are giving policy-based reasons for doing so. If you assume good faith you'd have to assume they are not out to get you, but rather that they genuinely believe your edits are not appropriate. As you are well aware, there have been numerous times in the past where you proposed some addition and then, upon objection from other editors, even ''you'' came to admit that adding the content was a bad idea, so there's a precedent for this "good faith" reading of objections to your edits. | |||
| Thanks, ] ] ] 22:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Also while I've had no involvement with your editing since you've returned from your topic ban, I know you are framing some of the issues/questions above in a rather biased manner. Finally, I know part of the problem in the past is that you often simply do not get your facts straight. That is evident again in number 6 above in a rather egregious fashion. The incident in question was not statutory rape since the minor in question was at the age of consent (16 not 15, see ), and furthermore said minor has come forward and said there actually was no sexual contact at all (see again the linked article). So not only are you wrong, you are actually defaming a living person (without naming them explicitly here). Editors who attempt to put in only negative or positive information about a given subject tend to run into those kind of problems. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 18:44, 21 October 2009 (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. ] (]) 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) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Community block appeal by ] == | |||
| ::Bigtimepeace, when I added that info about the (since likely debunked) statutory rape, it was backed up by reliable sources. When people deleted it, no one mentioned your article as a reason to delete it. I agree that this new information may justify not including the info - now it depends on different reliable sources that contradict each other. Since this is about a living person, it's better to err on the side of caution and not include the info at this point in time. As more info becomes available, it may or may not justify putting the info back into the article. That being said, the info about his past frequent illegal drug use is true - he even admitted to it in his own autobiography. How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an <i>extensive history of illegal drug use</i>? ] (]) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = Decline | |||
| | result = It is clear based on the input here and at their Talk before the discussion was carried over, that no consensus to unblock is going to emerge at this time. It is recommended that Drbogdan take on the feedback provided before future unblocks are requested ] ] 15:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Continued discussion of ban=== | |||
| }} | |||
| *'''Strong oppose''' block. Grundle's explanation and the discussion above makes clear that this editor is acting in good faith and seeking to have the encyclopedia abide by the core NPOV policy. Editors should be encouraged to work with him to make sure notable content is included appropriately in the appropriate articles so as to abide by our policies. The content he's discussing is certainly notable, so it's really a question of how and where to include it with the proper wording. ] (]) 19:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{user links|Drbogdan}} | |||
| ::Having your personal history in mind you should (and probably do) know that you're not helping Grundle but again trying to start another drama-thread that is about you and not the editor in question. Could you please restrain yourself from doing so for the good of Grundle? Thanks.] (]) 20:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose''' for the reasons cited by CoM. ] (]) 20:27, 21 October 2009 (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. | |||
| ::We sure pay attention to anonymous socks that don't have their own reasoning.] (]) 20:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :::Since you obviously know so much about me: who's the sockmaster, Clean-keeper? ] (]) 21:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::::Blablabla. You're repeating yourself already (and in the wrong place).] (]) 21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| None of the people who want me blocked or banned have answered my questions, with the above exception regarding one of my two questions in point number 6. ] (]) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :Part of why your editing pattern is problematic is that you have a tendency to start multiple threads (and/or ask 9 questions at once) and then chastize other editors for not responding to you, which often then leads to you making certain article changes simply because no one directly told you "no." I think many editors are sick of interacting with you because you bring up the same issues over and over again and have admitted in the past that you are editing with an agenda (i.e. that you want to add "negative" material), and thus unsurprisingly they don't respond to your every point. I also know that at least some (if not all) of the issues you bring up above (twice!) have been discussed to greater or lesser degrees as you are undoubtedly aware, and thus it's unsurprising that people would be reluctant to revisit them here on ANI in a thread that is not about content but rather about your editing behavior on political articles. I think it's telling that you throw out all these content questions while saying nothing about the fact that you are (again) making , engaging in slow-burning edit wars when you have already been against that, and generally treating editing on political articles as though it were a battleground. You have been doing these things for at least six months by my count, and in the process you have wasted an extraordinary amount of other editors' time. Your last community topic ban was basically unanimously imposed, and with one predictable exception that seems to be happening here, which is, again, rather telling. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 02:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|Once six months is served and understanding is admitted}} | |||
| ::Bigtimepeace - I have responded to your comment about me having an "agenda" in the "updated" section of my comments. ] (]) 11:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:''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) | |||
| ===Updated statement by Grundle2600=== | |||
| This is addressed to everyone who wants me blocked or banned: | |||
| 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) | |||
| 1) Most of the people in this discussion who are saying they want me banned are the same people who keep erasing the information that is critical of Obama that I add to articles. I think they just want to censor me from adding information that is critical of Obama to those articles. | |||
| :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) | |||
| 2) The reason I made those test edits on my talk page was to make absolutely 100% certain that I did not violate my topic ban. There is no rule against me editing my own talk page. The fact that people want me punished for this says more about them than it does about me. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::::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: | |||
| :::::{{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) | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| :::::::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) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| *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) | |||
| **<small>Tech issue appears to start after the "Separately from this close" quote above. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| **: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. ] ] 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. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Further Discussion of Community block appeal by ]=== | |||
| 3) There was to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. | |||
| 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) | |||
| 4) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Unconstructive editing by Wolverine X-eye == | |||
| 5) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate ], which states, "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Wolverine X-eye is indefinitely blocked by community consensus, i.e., ]ned. (This is a case "where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours".) If there are concerns about the validity of any GAs or reviews, feel free to start a follow-up discussion at ] or elsewhere. ] (]) 22:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| 6) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an <i>extensive history of illegal drug use</i>? | |||
| 7) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent? | |||
| 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. | |||
| 8) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable? | |||
| 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: | |||
| 9) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars? | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| 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) | |||
| In every one of these cases, people want me banned so they can stop me from adding information that is critical of Obama to the article. | |||
| 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: | |||
| ] (]) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * 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. | |||
| Bigtimepeace - I didn't say that I had an "agenda." What I did say is that all editors are biased. I am biased, and so are the people who remove the info that I add to the articles. I said that I wrote in Ron Paul for President last year, and I asked if there were any editors who removed the info that I added that was critical of Obama, who were not themselves liberals, Democrats, political leftists, supporters of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, etc., and no one answered. I think that every person who has been erasing the negative info that I add about Obama is on the political left, but none of them are willing to admit it. So yes, I am biased, but so are all editors. The only difference is that I am willing to admit that I am biased, and they are not. Also, wikipedia's official policy actually agrees with me on this. ] states, "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired." Before I possibly get banned, I think that all editors who support my ban should be required to state which political candidate they most favored in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. Even editors who live outside the U.S., or who are too young to vote, can still tell us which candidate they most supported, even if they were not actually able to vote in the election. This information about the political views of the editors who want me banned would expose the huge systemic bias that exists at wikipedia. ] (]) 11:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * 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 | |||
| :Apologies for bluntness, but it is none of your goddamn business what the political leanings are of ''any'' user is here, unless it is something they willingly choose to discuss with you. Pulling a McCarthyish witch hunt on people who hold a different opinion than your own is not a wise direction to take this. And you '''still''' have a fundamental misunderstanding of ]. Compare its ''"Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias"'' with your reach-out-to-Jimbo of "''I know that NPOV requires all points of view to be included in articles."'' There is a world of difference between "significant" and "all", and your inability/unwillingness to get this is what is leading to this topic ban. You do have an agenda; trying to jam in fringe criticism and minority points of view into political articles. ] (]) 13:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * 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'll agree to your characterization of what you said Grundle, but it makes no difference. Not only have you admitted that you have a bias, you admit that you intend to edit with one, and that the way articles should be built is for everyone to give free reign to their own personal biases (which, you are correct, everyone has). You've previously articulated this point and . Many have tried to explain to you that ''all'' editors need to edit in as NPOV of a fashion as possible, but you obviously seem to reject that, rather envisioning an article development process whereby editors put in all manner of biased material and somehow we end up with a good article in the end. That approach would be a disaster, and the fact that you still subscribe to that view is central to the entire problem here. Note that this was a point I first made to you (see ] for the complete thread which makes for instructive reading, including the 15:46, 26 May 2009 comment by Grundle which says among other things "I will never, ever, erase anything if it's well sourced, no matter how unbalanced it may be. I wish that other people here would show the same respect to me"—an attitude still in evidence here). --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 16:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bigtimepeace, I said what I said, because when I see that something is unbalanced, I fix it by adding another point of view, instead of erasing the info that is already in the article. I wish other editors would do the same. ] (]) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I hope that a satisfactory conclusion can be reached, and thank you for your time. ] (]) 00:29, 11 January 2025 (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) | |||
| ===Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions=== | |||
| ::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) | |||
| 1) There was to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article? | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::{{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) | |||
| :::::I think it is understandable that you would be curt with an IP who is only here to act as the peanut gallery to comment . But that said, the way you dismissed someone's concerns regarding ] is still inexcusable. If someone deletes text from an article stating then it is ''never'' appropriate to reinstate text that another user says is not supported by the source ''unless you can verify that the text is actually supported by the source''. You told her and when she asked you responded . | |||
| :::::This user went through the trouble of checking all the sources, even purchasing one of the books so she could check it herself, and you just dismissed her telling her to read a source (that she already had) that you yourself had not read. I will give you credit for eventually checking the sources and realizing that ] was correct and the source didn't support the text, but your behavior towards her was still aggravating and inappropriate. ] (]) 17:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::if i may,<br>Elmidae did comment on your high number of edits during the narwhal talk page discussion, although in passing. TangoFett agreed with The Morrison Man ]. either way, it is good practice to listen to and be considerate your fellow editors regardless of whether it's one or one hundred of them.<br>additionally, one can go through the four peer reviews and five FACs within 6 months to find more convincing evidence of what TMM is describing. | |||
| :::* FAC 1: "]" | |||
| :::* PR 2: (after 5 days - PRs are not time-sensitive) "]" | |||
| :::* FAC 3: (tim riley explains on 3 july that he is having hand surgery shortly) "]" on 10 july; "]"; "]" | |||
| :::* PR 4: "]" | |||
| :::* FAC 5: (after UC had given multiple ''extensive'' reviews for previous nominations) "]"; (re Airship) "]"; "]" | |||
| :::i have chosen some representative quotes, but i suggest clicking through and reading/skimming each "article milestone" on ] for the full context. in my own analysis, i see an editor who clearly ''wants'' to improve articles, and has done so many times, but simply '']'' when constructive criticism is levied at their projects. Mike Christie already said this at FAC #5, but UndercoverClassicist is one of the most diligent and helpful reviewers at FAC - i have never seen him lose his patience like this, and that says something to me. from FAC 1 to FAC 5, Wolverine has displayed little of the kindness, consideration, or patience which he has demanded from reviewers. wikipedia is a volunteer project, and that extends to our content review processes, which are especially vulnerable to reviewer burnout from this exact type of attitude. <span style="color:#507533">... ] * <small>he/they</small> * ]</span> 16:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would prefer not to get involved in an ANI discussion, but here we are. I will add my statement of also having noticed Wolverine XI's less than mature behavior at the List of pholidotans merge, and the time they- without making significant improvements- nominated ] for Good Article three times in a row before it passed (and without really addressing the comments of the two reviewers who failed it). | |||
| :Unfortunately, I feel it necessary to point out that Wolverine's frequent username changes make looking into their past activity difficult. But since his first(?) time here at AN () his fast editing and unwillingness to learn has been a problem, and unfortunately Wolverine is currently on . It's been a year since he was unblocked and he still hasn't learned, and I no longer have much hope that he will. ] (]) 15:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''Comment''' - Without a comment to the conduct of Wolverine X-eye, I want to make the note that ] was at both in a merge discussion and ] at the same time. The nomination for FLC stalled while the merge discussion happened. The list was ultimately promoted. ~ ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 16:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I know my behavior on the List of Pholidota was wrong and I apologize for it. I just got heated after what I felt was uncivil comments directed towards me by Elmidae. I could have responded better, I agree. Regarding fishing cat I did what I could with that article and have already responded elsewhere. Content building can be stressful, so comments that are made may not accurately depict your actual intent. Not saying that's the case here. I was also new to the GAN process, and thus made some mistakes. Perhaps maybe a break from GAN is the way here. ] (]) 16:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The new-to-this excuse does not fly anymore; you've been trying to get articles to GA for over a year now. And you keep saying you'll do this or that but never actually do it. ] (]) 16:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've stopped taking on numerous reviews and really haven't been reviewing that much as of late and I don't expect that to change anytime soon. And I said I "was" new, notice that is in the past tense. I will take it slow with the GAN process and avoid making repeated GANs like fishing cat. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. ] (]) 16:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Even at the time of submitting fishing cat for GAN, you weren't exactly new to the process. This was three months after you did your first GAN (sei whale), and in that time you also completed them for four other articles (Megaherbivore, Indian rhinoceros, brown bear and snowy albatross). ] (]) 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Under a previous username, ], they brought snow leopard to GA a year and a half ago. He hasn't been new for months. ] (]) 17:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Completely forgot about that one. OK, so I may not have been new in terms of nominating, but I was in terms of failing, as fishing cat was my first GAN fail and I really didn't know how to react to that. I also didn't have a great understanding of spot checks, citation style and other such stuff that makes a good review. I really only knew how to do a prose, image, and earwig check. ] (]) 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Wolverine is the new username of "20 upper", a user who has previously beeen indefinitely been blocked for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing nearly 2 years ago now. They aren't a "newbie" by any stretch, and they should know better. They need to be firmly told to knock if off regarding rapid fire editing and disruptive repeated GA nominations. ] (]) 16:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Proposal: Indefinite block === | |||
| For continued disruptive editing and ] issues after his "last chance unblock" (see ], "20 upper" is the old username for Wolverine) I propose that Wolverine X-Eye be indefinitely blocked. ] (]) 18:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per nom. ] (]) 18:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Weak support''' - While this is highly problematic behavior, I really don’t think an indefinite block would be the best outcome of this (I’ve had several good interactions with them in the past), although an indefinite topic ban from the GA process (reviewing, nominating, etc.) is warranted, and maybe that could also be discussed. I initially opposed this, but after the last-chance unblock was brought up I'm weakly supporting. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 18:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling. | |||
| ::Wolverine was told in 2023 that: {{tq|this is a last-chance unblock - any further misconduct will result in an indefinite block.}} and yet he's completely failed to mature or improve in any way. He's just as abraisive and incompetent as his was back then. Enough is enough. Sometimes you've got to put the boot down. ] (]) 18:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't see that they are on a last-chance block, I've changed my vote accordingly. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 18:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'll admit that I was uncivil in those incidents mentioned above and I apologize. I'll take a ban at GAN process. I've mostly remained civil throughout the first year I came back, but there were some incidents were I was unwittingly uncivil. I request one-last chance. I promise you I had no intentions of insulting anyone. I took on more GA reviews than I could at GAN and that was my fault. I only wanted to improve articles. Please take this in consideration. I've not violated any content policy like I did the first time out. I know my behavior in GAN is bad, but I promise you that's not how most of my interactions are. Thank you, ] (]) 18:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you had one last chance you would be indefinitely blocked. What you are requesting is two last chances. ] (]) 18:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::OK, this will be my last response: I'm sorry. I didn't mean any harm. People make mistakes. It was not my intention to be uncivil. I know I've made mistakes during my GA-run like not being able to finish reviews, making multiple nominations and not responding well in the Fennec fox GAN. I think a ban from the GAN process is the best option here, because I do try to improve Misplaced Pages articles. When the Morrison Man warned me about my editing style, I thought he only meant the edits I made to the pages he linked above. I guess I was wrong. I really tried my best to be as productive as I can. I really did. But huh, if this is how the community wants things to end then let it be. I guess this is my last edit. I want to thank everyone who has been good to me. Your kindness made this experience somewhat more pleasant. One last request: please blank my page but do not delete it and add all my current talk page messages to archive 3. Time to scramble my password then. ] (]) 06:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' per nom. At some point, second chances run out. ] (]) 18:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' per nom. ] (]) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' – reluctantly, as I have engaged with this user on multiple occasions mostly at GAN and FAC, in the hope that they would improve. But it has to end now, it is hurting the project. --] (]) 19:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' per nom. this user has consistently done this with disregard for their actions. a second chance is futile, as this would definitely '''not''' be the second. ] (]) 19:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' per nom. I also want to point out an element that few people have noted : even if Wolverine still had the potential to better themselves as an editor, the , doing justice himself, accusing a fellow editor of being a creep trying to acquire personal informations from a minor, despite the other user stating themselves that they were adult, and seemingly out of spite after being accused of not having done any review of the ] he had taken and seemingly refusing to close it, forcing Dxneo to do it thoroughly himself. Of this affair, a few conclusions can be taken : | |||
| :* Wolverine actually hinders the GA review process by placating low standards, trying to reroll every couple of weeks articles he wants to get to GA in the hope of attracting reviewers with a layman knowledge of the subject and low standards of appreciation, which creates substandard messes such as the ] article, that he credits himself for despite barely writing anything ; | |||
| :* Wolverine takes up reviews that he will never actually review, creating cold cases that other people will have to close by themselves. Since the review system is seemingly based on how many reviews a person has reviewed themselves, this is a clear sign that Wolverine try to abuse the system ; | |||
| :* Even more worryingly, Wolverine clearly strongarms people that disagree with them. I've been a victim of this clear bad behaviour when opposing his GA nomination of Fennec fox, I was called out for my, I quote, "inexperience", despite them now claiming inexperience as a defense point. If it don't really impact me much, in the case of others, however, being menaced of being reported for an actual crime (in fact, a simple off-topic discussion between two able-bodied consenting adults), for a perceived slight, consequences may have been much dire ; | |||
| :* And, as a corollary, I still don't think the Fennec fox article is in a GA state currently, and I think we should seriously think about demoting the substandards articles promoted by Wolverine - Narwhal, Megaherbivore come also to mind - or at least organising a thorough peer review with experienced editors. | |||
| :*] (]) 21:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' per nom. As Larrayal points out, Wolverine actively hinders the GA review process and I agree with we should consider demoting the articles promoted by them. ] (]) 22:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tqq|despite the other user stating themselves that they were adult}} for the record, the other user . - ] <sub>]</sub> | |||
| :::I'm honestly confused by that conversation, even upon rereading. It seems Dxneo says they are 23, and Dissainkabi says they are 13. But later Dxneo says Dissainkabi is one year older than them, and it seems Dissainkabi's sister took their phone and was replying on their behalf at the start. Regardless, I think it's inappropriate for Wolverine to be "reviewing" a user talkpage and condemning a friendly conversation for not following ]. ] (]) 00:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, that was odd - but agreed, they aren't the WikiPolice and shouldn't act like it. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', enough chances already. ] | ] 22:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| :'''Support''' Per nomination. ] (]) 03:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate ], which states, "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." | |||
| :* '''Support''' per nom. Throughout their activity this past year or so Wolverine has been asked repeatedly to adjust their editing style and behavior, only to ignore any sort of push back and try to force their way into obtaining the GA status often simply through spamming the nomination back to back without putting in the work. While it would of course have been preferable for him to learn from the repeated critiques and become a productive editor, it is clear that he refuses to change his ways, making up excuses whenever he gets close to facing consequences (even now). Coupled with his other behavior and previous alt accounts factoring into this, an indefinite block seems to be the last option.] (]) 09:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == KirillMarasin promoting medical treatments and "conversion therapy" == | |||
| 4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an <i>extensive history of illegal drug use</i>? | |||
| {{user|KirillMarasin}} | |||
| 5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent? | |||
| 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) | |||
| 6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy? | |||
| :I don't think I promoted anything though. I didn't say it was good or bad, I was trying to be neutral. ] (]) 15:28, 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) | |||
| ::::It's short for "Reliable Sources". You can learn about it at ] @]. ] (]) 15:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you, I've already read it. ] (]) 15:24, 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 tested the treatments on myself before writing. ] (]) 15:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Anecdotal evidence does not belong in an encyclopedia. Only scientific evidence qualifies as a reliable source that can be quoted. ] (]) 15:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::] is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:20, 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) | |||
| *:::The editor ] to ] in the past, before the most recent spate of unsourced or promotionally-sourced edits, so it does not seem to have had any positive effect. -- ] (]) 15:43, 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) | |||
| :], ]. I can assume good faith, as this editor presumably grew up in a culture where widespread homophobia is normalized (referring, of course, to 4chan), but these edits are repulsive. I would expect that an editor of 15 years would be aware of policies like ], let alone ]. Editors who like to tweak numbers and facts without citations can wreak a lot more disruption than just inserting insane nonsense on controversial articles, which is easily spotted and reversed. –] (] • ]) 15:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars? | |||
| ::I tested the treatments on myself before writing. And why do you use strong language on my edits instead of trying to stay neutral? ] (]) 15:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::]. ] (]) 16:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Misplaced Pages does not publish ]. –] (] • ]) 17:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wow. It's understandable that a newbie might believe that such obvious ] might be acceptable, but for someone with KM's tenure here to present "{{tq|I tested the treatments on myself}}" as a justification for adding something to '''any''' article, let alone one subject to ], is extremely concerning. ] (]) 18:08, 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) | |||
| :I'm sorry for posting low-quality content here. I will adhere to the rules in the future. ] (]) 15:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I find that impossible to believe, given your tenure here and apparent ]. At this point I can only assume you are trolling. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think an indefinite block for ] is an appropriate remedy. ] (]) 20:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Having looked through this, all I can say is ''wow''. Even leaving aside the ''obvious'' problems already listed above, and with {{tqq|Have you tried this on yourself before making a comment? If not, then I don't have time to argue with you.}}, there's the odd fact that the editor was away for a time and then came back here to do ''this'', inserting what are or are indistinguishable from promotional links, and generally taking a hard turn from most previous editing, making me wonder if the account is ]. Suggesting an indefinite block because either it's that or it's very elaborate trolling. - ] <sub>]</sub> 19:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:No ] the account is compromised, but that doesn't conclusively prove it isn't. --] (]) 20:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:While they've been relatively inactive for years, the only year since first becoming active that they have made no edits at all is 2022. They have been making psychiatry-related edits since at least 2018 (see e.g. addition of a treatment claim based on their admittedly original research) and their most recent music edit (previously their primary editing interest) was in . I guess it {{em|could}} be a compromised account but I think it's probably not ] (]) 22:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I have indefinitely blocked KirillMarasin for persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. By "poorly sourced", I mean shockingly bad sources. This editor's history is strange. The editor was moderately active in the video game topic area 12 to 14 years ago and then effectively disappeared. After their return in December, their sole focus has been spreading nonsense about sexuality and "conversion therapy". At this point, they are not competent to build the encyclopedia. ] (]) 20:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've seen people offer established accounts for sale, maybe that's what happened here? ] ] 21:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I find it more likely this is someone who fell into the "redpill" community and decided to come back to Misplaced Pages to ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:They have been somewhat active on ruwiki and actually got a warning over homophobia on their talk page in July 2023. See: ]. ] (]) 00:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I feel it unlikely anyone paid for this account, why would someone pay for an account then say such clueless stuff? There's also the fact the 2018 stuff seem similar enough. I don't know if the Russian editing could be a factor in why they're so confused. Are sourcing standards weaker or is the OR not outright forbidden on the Russian wikipedia? I'd hope no wikipedia allows Reddit let alone 4chan, the same with OR, for medical information but I could imagine some allowing at least Reddit along with some forms of OR for gaming related stuff. (I mean we don't consider simple plot summaries from OR.) In any case, I'm fairly sure this isn't the first editor we've had who was sort of okay while editing some stuff but who's editing fell apart when it was something they particularly cared about. ] (]) 03:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The contribution that got him the warning on ruwiki was not about adding content, but about removing content (regarding child adoption by gay couples) accompanied by a discriminatory comment towards LGBTQ+ people in the edit summary (translation of the comment: "removing disgusting content"). | |||
| *:::Generally speaking, they only have 196 edits on ruwiki versus 3,351 on enwiki, so I wouldn't expect that differences in sourcing standards on ruwiki could have any notable effect on his editing on enwiki. | |||
| *:::I only brought up ruwiki to point out that he has been active there, while he seemed to have "disappeared" on enwiki. Meaning, the account might not be compromised, i.e. it's not an account that suddenly returned from wiki-retirement, but an account that probably was consistently active throughout the years, even if at low activity level, and the LGBTQ+ issue also doesn't seem to be an out-of-character new development. ] (]) 20:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Proposal: Community ban for KirillMarasin === | |||
| For seeming ] and ] issues, I proposed that KirillMarasin be community banned. ] (]) 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per nom. Also support a GENSEX TBAN. ] (]) 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * (edit conflict) I propose a ''']''' on all editing, appealable no sooner than six months from now. I also propose a ''']''' on ] and on sexual health matters, broadly construed. That topic ban would be appealable no sooner than six months ''and'' 500 constructive article edits after the community ban was lifted. Comment: There are significant problems with this user's editing. These are deeply concerning given the length of time this account has been active. Claiming 4chan is a reasonable source to use, claiming personal experience is a reasonable source, etc. Before any unban, I'd expect to see a convincing argument from KirillMarasin that they understand what was wrong with their edits ''and'' with the sourcing of their edits. Frankly, this doesn't cover all the bases. There are other serious concerns here. But... it would be a start. --] (]) 20:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' as per Hemiauchenia's reasonings. ] (] - ]) 20:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per nom, using Reddit and 4chan as sources in this topic area is totally unacceptable, and then claiming they've tried it is unbelievable, honestly, I think we're being trolled here.]] 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Even now, I see no indication that he understands what the problems really are. I'm not sure about the question of trolling. It certainly had crossed my mind but, given that he appears to be Belarusian, it might be that he is merely be reproducing lies taught to him as facts in school. If so, I feel at least some sympathy for him but that doesn't change the outcome here. He has had enough warnings. You can't be citing Reddit and 4chan, especially for medical or medical adjacent subjects, and expect to remain an editor in good standing. --] (]) 20:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Note''' I have indefinitely blocked this editor. The community ban discussion should proceed. ] (]) 21:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support a community ban from en.wp with a requirement of a GENSEX tban if subsequently lifted.''' This is either incompetence, trolling or both. ] (]) 21:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' but endorse the block. At this point, the only difference between a community ban and the current block is how the editor can appeal. A block would be reviewed by an uninvolved admin, while a ban would be reviewed by the community. I support bans when I feel that the appeal shouldn't be reviewed by a single admin, but this case is pretty garden-variety and I see no need to involve the community in a review of any appeals. See the table at ] — ] ] 21:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:No, this case is not "pretty garden-variety", it is absolutely appalling that an editor is using social media platforms as sources in this topic area, and dubiously claiming they have tried it on themselves. I am uncomfortable with a single admin reviewing any appeal, the community should have a say in this matter.]] 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yes, it is appalling. By "garden-variety", I meant the issue is simple to analyze and an unblock review would have clear criteria to be successful. I think of community bans when I see problem editors who admins have failed to block for some reason, or editors who have caused widespread disruption affecting many users and pages. On the other hand, if you are concerned about having a single admin review the appeal, then a community ban is quite appropriate. — ] ] 22:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Behavior is completely beyond the pail of acceptability. ] (]) 22:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak support''' I sort of agree with rsjaffe that this seems simple enough that I'm not afraid of leaving it for an admin to handle the unblock. I mean when an editor twice tells us they tested something on themselves, it's a clear sign the editor's understanding of even the basics of how we create Misplaced Pages even after a long time and 3000+ are so poor it's going to take a for them to get back. And that's being very generous and assuming they just didn't recognise the RS acronym rather than not even being aware of the term 'reliable source'. Which even being that generous they still didn't understand the concept putting aside OR given 4chan etc. However unlike rsjaffe I don't see a harm in a cban and given that this discussion was started before the indef, I feel it's fine to continue it as noted by the admin. ] (]) 03:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' (and I endorse Culln328's block as an administrator). To have returned after many years of absence solely to push conversion therapy pseudoscience using the least reliable sourcing imaginable clearly violates so many policies and guidelines that unblocking should require the confidence of the community. ] (] | ] | ]) 05:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' CBAN (and endorse indef) - promotion of fringe ideas and POVpushing like this has no place on wikipedia. The ] issues are the cherry on top. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 06:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' Having read more of the discussion in the previous section, I agree, reluctantly, that a CBAN is the only way forward here. — ] (]) 10:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Promoting conversion therapy, along with the RU wiki issues, tells me this person needs to be kept away from our community until they've had a substantial amount of growth. This isn't something any admin should be able to revoke on their own, the community needs to be involved before this person comes back. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't the forum for that discussion. These point should be, and have been, addressed on the relevant talk pages. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 18:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == History of disruptive COI editing == | |||
| == I can't remember this sockmaster == | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] {{toolbar|separator=dot|] | ] }} is a sock, but I don't remember the name of the sockmaster. He has recreated wikiprojects that were deleted at ] as POINTy creations of a sock. A clear ] case. Please look at the deleted versions and post here the name of the account. --] (]) 08:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe I know which case you're talking about, but I can't remember the name either, let me search through my watchlist and archives and such.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}}Investigations concerning the above conducted by myself and mainly Redvers(mostly Redvers) have turned up five accounts, all blocked by Future Perfect. I however need some sleep, but I'll be contacting him, and filing an SPI, tomorrow.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I think the account you both have in mind is {{Userlinks|Teckgeek}}. No comment as to the question of whether Yousaf is a sock puppet. ] 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually the account I had on my mind was a similar sounding username.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::SPI filed, see ].— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Found the name of the sockmaster, please see ].— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 06:12, 22 October 2009 (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) | |||
| == IP Vandalism == | |||
| :Hello, ], | |||
| :You'd probably get more of a response if you provided diffs of edits of this "long history of disruptive COI editing" you are concerned about. I don't see the one edit you listed as egregious, anyone could proably find a source for a politician's promotion since they are public figures. It doesn't seem "controversial" or "peacock" to me. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi @], we both know that per ] we shouldn't edit articles we have ]. Be it in good or bad faith, I believe generally editors should avoid editing. They should leave that to third party editors like us. He could had make a request to have any material added to his father's article. | |||
| ::As far as his editing history goes, he first started editing in 2022 see here . If you see his edits thereafter all of them are unsourced and most likely come under ]. He then edited again in 2023 see , by this time he was already warned. But he still tries to ignore the warning and continues with his editing. His last edit was in 2024 . | |||
| ::I wouldn't had a problem if he did this additions to some other article other than his father's. Knowing the COI rules, I think he should be blocked. We never know when his editing behaviour might be a much problem for us in the near future. Especially considering the article's low value for editorial oversight. ]<sup>2003</sup>(]) 11:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd say that's enough repeat violations that ] should be pblocked from the article, and only allowed to suggest edits on the Talk page. It's not enough for a site block. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive Sumeshmeo == | |||
| Various IPs are blanking user talk pages and replaceing them with "YOU ACTUALLY THINK I SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR RETALIATING AGAINST WIKIPEDIA'S LIBEL AND HARASSMENT? YOU TRULY ARE A BRAINWASHED IGNORAMUS.". | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Sumeshmeo}} | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| * 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 have blocked Sumeshmeo indefinitely. ] (]) 08:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{IPVandal|141.209.57.67}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *{{IPVandal|69.156.98.49}} | |||
| *{{IPVandal|206.116.6.148}} | |||
| *{{IPVandal|198.189.57.4}} | |||
| *{{IPVandal|141.151.201.57}} | |||
| *{{IPVandal|66.229.2.214}} | |||
| == Uncivil behavior == | |||
| Similar vandalism also by {{IPVandal|98.168.193.11}} | |||
| {{ping|Jasper_Deng}} has been continually bludgeoning a conversation about a page rename, casting unsupported aspersions, acting uncivilly, and newcomers (me). | |||
| One talk page has been semi-protected by another admin, I've asked Fred Bauer if he wishes to have his semi-protected. ] (]) 09:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '''Teahouse''' | |||
| :Since I posted the above, further IP vandalism has occurred to . Not sure what is going on, but it seems to fail ] at the least. ] (]) 09:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just grawp having his daily fun. ] —] 09:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, Jarl tends to target not articles, but users. Just say the three magic words, though, and he'll scram. (You may only need one, but make sure I'm not on the page as well.) -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 09:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've tagged all the IPs as suspected socks. Also semi-protected DarkFalls talk page as I feel that the vandalism is now excessive. ] (]) 10:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Now DarkFalls unprotected the talk page, but it's his decision to do that as "the idiot might decide to vandalize the mainspace instead". He "would prefer to keep the theatrics in one page, and on a page where it does not cause much damage". Quotes from my talk page. ]] 10:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::OK, how best to deal with this then? An immediate 1 week block for all IPs who perform such vandalism? ] (]) 10:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::<small>Copied from my talk page ] (])</small> Commenting here because ANI is protected: you should know that you are apparently dealing with a bunch of ] idiots , i.e. there is more than one vandal. I don't know what to suggest doing about it other than letting the recent change patrol know what's up, so they can make sure to revert it all. I don't know who "Dark" is. Maybe it's worth finding out, maybe not. ] (]) 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::69.228, "Dark" is ]. <font face="Segoe Print">] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 15:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Channers? Semi all associated articles; don't bother tracing the IPs because they're all one-offs. Wait until they get bored, and then unprot. One thing /b/ is not known for is a long attention span. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 19:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Another thing /b/ers are not known for is ''intelligence.'' I advocate harsher sanctions, such as directly contacting the IP address owner, and telling them that their client is getting out of hand. /b/ers enjoy vandalism, and won't go away with anything short of being forced to. <span style="background-color:Green;"> ] ] </span></span> 05:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Childish kids with nothing better to do than vandalise. I do believe Grawp is behind all this, but yeah, I couldn't really care less what some kids from 4chan has to say about me. I get my share of death threats, and laugh about them. —] 06:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Believe it or not, I can, if you want, make a phone call to a friend of mine in the Secret Service and have the IP investigated. The Special Task Force on Computer Crimes takes death threats very seriously, (considering that they are feds, they take ''everything'' seriously.) You want? <span style="background-color:Green;"> ] ] </span></span> 17:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Disruptive editing on ] == | |||
| They followed me to the teahouse and: | |||
| {{resolved|1=Discussion returned to talk pages ]] 22:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| *Bludgeoned me | |||
| I am reporting this here based on my understanding of ] and in particular ]. | |||
| *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. | |||
| In the ] article a consensus was reached yesterday on the lead sentence in which the previously disputed use of the word “political” was agreed to be dropped. Consensus and reasoning are here: . There were clear issues concerning ], ], ] & ] relating the insistence that this group is, in its present form and structure, a political group. | |||
| 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.}} | |||
| ] has strenuously argued against this in the past but did not participate in the most recent consensus discussion. Nevertheless, a previously strong supporter of the word (]) did agree to drop his opposition in the discussion referenced above. Only following that agreement with a previous antagonist was the disputed phrase modified (by Snowded himself) clearly reflecting the revised consensus . The previous consensus had been weak and was confused by the use of the expression "]" which is no longer at issue. The latest consesus is strong - especially as it is backed by a previous opponent. | |||
| *They then me by again saying in part {{tq|I'm afraid you are overthinking it}} | |||
| Today ] maintains that the use of political is “factual and well supported content” in this dif. and maybe had not read the amended consensus before reverting what he judged to be an unapproved change. I therefore changed it back per consensus here pointing out the new consensus. However, he has since changed the lead back at this dif: claiming consensus, RS and bizarrely, “dictionary definition and the fact this is an encyclopaedia,” | |||
| * and made continued, unsupported, exaggerated claims of misconduct against me {{tq|Don't cast the WP:ASPERSION of "willful disrespect".}} | |||
| '''Talk page''' | |||
| He has strenuously argued about this previously. Without providing a source he has relied upon the interpretation that political is inferred in the use of “right wing”. That in itself is a ] rendering the use of the word “political” redundant. However, the main argument against using “political” remains most importantly the lack of any source. Given what is reliably sourced about EDL it would currently be unduly prominent in the lead for an organisation characterised as a street-based, football hooligan-based mob. | |||
| Back on the talk page, they: | |||
| If there is a more suitable venue for this please advise. | |||
| * 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 | |||
| ]] 12:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : This is a content dispute, so this is the wrong venue. Also, it is not my editing that is disruptive and there was no attempt at following ] before bringing this to ANI. A "new consensus" has not yet been established. For these two reasons at least it is premature to bring this here, especially as there has been no edit warring. However, I would welcome the input of more editors at the article and would hope more people get involved and add it to their watch lists. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '''So I warned them to stop bludgeoning on their talk page''' | |||
| ::Sorry Verbal, this is edit warring but I'll not revert it until guided. However, the consensus (even without you) is very clear. I've played everything by the book here. The content dispute was resolved by consensus and your edits were therefore out of line. ] point to here and I cannot find a more suitable forum unless the NPOV noticeboard is preferable. This would have degenerated into 3RR in a matter of minutes. Making false claims of a personal attack does nothing to help either. ]] 12:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{ec}}Two reliable sources (Reuters and tv press gazette) have been added, many many more could be added - but that would be pointless, and this discussion should return to the article talk - where people are still trying to get "far right" removed despite nearly every report describing them as such! See also recent attempts to get the BNP labelled "left wing". This area needs a lot more eyes. PS that isn't edit warring for technical (not more than 3 in 24hrs) and practical reasons - I added the requested RS in a two edit block. Please report me to ] if you disagree, but I'd ask you bring it up on my talk page to see if we can reach a compromise first. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 13:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| In the edit note, they: | |||
| :::Neither of the sources verify that EDL is a political group. I have brought it here because you are insisting that your consensus of last week cannot be replaced by a fresh consensus in which you did not participate and you will not allow the revised consensus to stand. If you accept the new consensus and are willing to discuss on the talk page then that is clearly the right place, but you cannot keep restoring "your" particular consensus - especially in view of the strength of the new one. ]] 13:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I disagree. Please take your concerns to the article talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 13:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *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.}} | |||
| :::::No problem in doing so if the article is returned to the consensus. The new material which was requested last week and not provided, still fails to advance your opinion that EDL is political and needs wider discussion before being accepted. As will the obvious taut. The status quo is the concensus version. You insisted on reversion to consensus last week regarding "far right" and I agreed. I am asking you to show those of us who disagree with you (about "political" in the lead) the same courtesy. ]] 13:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *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.}} | |||
| ::Following your suggestion to discuss on your talk page you have advised that if I revert the article to consensus you would '''''“think if you reverted again without discussion, you may well be blocked. Consider this your edit warring notification. Misplaced Pages doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour”.''''' | |||
| ::Anyone reading this, together with the article talk page and yours, will see that what you accuse me of is completely without substance. Your allegation (that I am promising future disruptive behaviour) is reprehensible. I think you are stepping close to breaching policy on conduct and would urge you to stop and ideally retract that statement. ]] 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Incorrect and misleading. The other editor has stated he wont debate the issue until I remove sourced information. There is also not a consensus for his version, even before the new sources were added. I reverted him once and then added sources and started a discussion on the talk page. I don't see why you have to reply to a post made on my talk page here. Reverting without discussion now sources have been added and a discussion added would be disruptive. I just counted up the opinions on the talk page, and didn't get a majority for removing political. I saw a few "don't care", some "remove right wing" and only two "remove political" - before the sources were added. Now sources have been added that changes the debate again, and discussion should continue. You boldly removed the phrase you are objecting to, for reasons I still don't understand, and I reverted and added new sources. I also started a discussion. Following the ] process, that discussion should continue. I has been my experiance that Misplaced Pages doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour (I stated this as the other editor stated they would only return to the debate if I restored his preferred version, and he asked what I would do if he did that himself). Please engage on the article talk page and show a clear consensus there to remove well sourced factual information. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::(edit conflict) For the benefit of doubt I have refactored the section concerned. It is here . In that section 5 editors concluded that “political” should be dropped. They are: ], ], ],] and me. Each one made the comment “support” or “agree”. No editors joined to say they did not agree. You obviously would have and have now done so. 5 editors supported the change which Snowed then implemented, not me. | |||
| The new material is not supportive and I’m not obliged to discuss it at anytime, much less when there is a dispute bordering on incivility. Last week you forced a reversion to consensus during the “far right” dispute. I agreed and eventually supported the consensus. Why am I in error following your good example and insisting that the new consensus should be adopted while discussion takes place? Snowded has just made a commendable suggestion and you should consider it. ]] 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : | |||
| ⬅Its a content dispute and should not be at ANI. The EDL page is controversial and for some time Leaky C attempted to argue against both the right-wing and the political labels. The claim has not been reduced a bit to accept right-wing but avoid political. Some of us think that the political label is not the most important - it self evidently is political but its not vital to state it. If a direct citation can be found then its use is uncontroversial, for the moment organisation should be good enough. However the history of this article is not good, and Leaky C has been edit warring and using drive by tagging at times. Best to cancel this thing from ANI all together, issue an RFC and let everyone calm down a bit. Its meaningless and unnecessary escalation to bring it here. Oh and Verbal is not edit warring against consensus. I made the change based on a talk page discussion before he had a chance to get involved. He is thus fully entitled to revert it - I was being bold. Leaky C is just wrong there and the blocking threats are silly and provaocative--] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Casting aspersions and threatening me with a block again {{tq| | |||
| :::I think you meant "now" not "not" (4th sentence). I haven't made block threats - the other user has against me - let's just be clear here. As for consensus - how is 5 editors agreeing something not a consensus? I have not edit warred. I have made 13 edits including tags and have reverted the other user 3 times over 2 separate aspects. Lets not throw stuff around not supported by the facts. I'm no bandit. The other editor has done many more reverts than I have. ]] 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Posting that WP:SHOUTING on my talk page is grossly uncivil and unwarranted and will get you blocked the next time you do that.}} | |||
| ::::Actually its two editors (of that 5) being prepared to accept a compromise but not agreeing with you, now with some new editors its changing. Whatever, you should not bring basic content disputes to ANI against another editor who acted properly. I was bold (in support of a compromise) they reverted. That is fine, they are allowed to do that. I meant "not", he is not edit warring against consensus he has restored it, as he was not happy with my compromise edit. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *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) | |||
| == ] using wikicleaner to bypass redirects contrary to ] == | |||
| :{{userlinks|TJ Spyke}} | |||
| '''''Edit to add: it has been brought to my attention that posting on this board comes with the expectation that I am seeking a ban/punishment. I am not. I am simply seeking an end tothe behavior I described below. | |||
| I've ] and was seemingly unable to successfully explain to them why it is generally unhelpful to "fix" redirects that are not broken (especially ''en masse'' and without regard as to whether the redirect might one day become an article - this is explained at the ] guideline). However, they continue, and often use a misleading edit summary of "Repairing link to disambiguation page". I invite additional scrutiny and comments as to how best to proceed. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 14:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Using misleading edit summaries is disruptive. Can you provides diffs where the user has done so?--] (]) 14:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: as an example, but pretty much every edit they make with this edit summary: ''WikiCleaner 0.96 - Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!'' - as they are bypassing redirects, not doing ] work. They are also bypassing redirects on talk pages and in archives () which should really never be done. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '''''I posted here because suggests that conduct policy violations can only be posted here, or arbitration (unless it is edit warring). Further the WP:DRN states it is for content disputes only.''''' | |||
| :Example: | |||
| :There is at least one actual disambiguation fix (]), though it's questionable whether it should have been fixed like this, in addition to the redirect bypasses (some just useless like ] to ], some actively harmful like ] to ]). If he continues, block him. If this "WikiCleaner" is unable to be set up to not bypass redirects, it needs to be fixed or banned. ] is a nice replacement that will disambiguate links, and bypass individual redirects when desired, such as on navboxes. | |||
| :If the triviality of this pop culture example disinterests you, imagine one like ] to ], where the former is definitely a valid topic for a separate article (). --] 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I reverted your bypassing in . --] 16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '''''Thank you, and my apologies for any confusion my venue selection has caused.''''' | |||
| :I don't use misleading edit summaries on purpose, I just sometimes forget to change the default edit summary (the majority of times my summaries are correct). I don't get Xeno's problem, I am not doing anything wrong. Instead of wasting time attacking me and going around reverting my edits for no reason (which is NOT acceptable, reverting valid edits that improve an article), maybe he could be constructive for once. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is no vengeance here. You are making edits contrary to the ] guideline. If these edits have consensus, then the guideline should be changed. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 15:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's not like it's a policy, just a guideline. I see plenty of other people fixing redirects as well, so why you seem to focus on me makes no sense. Even if you disagree with my edits, you have no rights to revert them (and if you do, I have the same right to revert right back, although I have not done this for articles). The only reason you seem to be going after me is because once in awhile I will fix a bunch of articles in a row. As for your earlier comment, the majority of the links won't get separate articles (for example, changing <nowiki>]</nowiki> to <nowiki>]</nowiki> or <nowiki>]</nowiki> to <nowiki>]</nowiki>. Even though it's just a guideline, I do agree it should be changed so that you would stop complaining. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Guidelines should still be followed absent a good reason not to. To do otherwise is disruptive. | |||
| ::::FYI it's never a good idea to under dispute while they're being discussed at ANI. | |||
| ::::The Duff beer change is ok (actually beneficial) but these changes are not. These are exactly the kind of redirects you should not be fixing. Why do you feel redirects need to be fixed in the first place? –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 15:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Those 2 examples are moot as the guideline you love some much specifically says that templates are exempt from it (and userboxes are considered templates). As for redirect fixing, it depends on the specific link being fixes. It could be something like making sure it's spelled correctly (fixing Super Mario RPG so that the link goes to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) or episode names (like $pringfield to it's full name). The vast majority of those Simpsons minor characters have consensus to be merged into one article (do you see Scott Christian ever having a article? He's had speaking parts in 2 episodes and both combined are about 6 lines, he hasn't even appeared on-screen in over 10 years). '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The guideline speaks to '''''navigational''' templates''. Userboxes are not, and users may have linked to the redirect for a reason, you should not change it. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :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 @]: | |||
| ::The main problem is not with the edit summaries; it is with the bypassing of redirects. Stop. --] 15:46, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| :::Do NOT delete my comments like you just did, that is vandalism. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 16:00, 21 October 2009 (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) | |||
| ::::Vandalism is deliberate. You're 0 for 2. --] 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] Can you help me understand what it is that I need conveyed to me? | |||
| :::I did not chose to be this sensitive. Frankly it is because of things that happened to me as a child. | |||
| :::It is not an enjoyable way to live my life, and I am actively working to improve my mental health on a daily basis. That said, it is who I am right now. I know this about myself, which is why when this all began I said to myself ''What can I work on related to this article, where I won't have to interact with Jasper?'' That's when they followed me to the teahouse. ] (]) 18:17, 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) | |||
| ::{{tq| get back to editing }} | |||
| ::I attempted to do so, by no longer focusing my efforts the article, but rather discussion of future policy/guidance. Jasper followed me there and repeated language that I ''specifically'' asked them not to, and accused me of canvassing, among other things. | |||
| ::And to be clear, as I stated above, I am ] who repeatedly asked Jasper to stop bludgeoning {{tq|So you continue. Very collaborative of you. "Vote my vote, or be harassed."}} ] (]) 18:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just want to add one more thing: {{tq|While Jasper Deng dislikes being harrangued on his talk page}} is posting one warning on a talk page haranguing? Whether Jasper's behavior is a policy violation or not, in good faith I believe it to be, so I posted on his talk page. I'm genuinely asking: I thought that's what I'm supposed to do to try to resolve disputes, but is your guidance that it's haranguing to do so? ] (]) 23:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :These kinds of interactions are not uncommon here (this is the internet, after all) and I suggest you two adopt a voluntary IBan policy and give each other a wide berth. I wouldn't be surprised if every editor on this project has other editors that get under their skin and most of us handle it by choosing not to interact with them. Yes, a therapist would advise against pure avoidance but this project functions, in great part, because our editors avoid others who get on their last nerve. I know that this isn't the slap down punishment that you seem to be seeking but if every editor quit because another editor cast aspersions, we wouldn't have any editors left. Civility is a goal to aspire to but it's not always embodied on this project. | |||
| :I have invited Jasper Deng to participate here and I'm hoping we can get to the point where you two can simply disengage with each other. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::thank you for your reply. I am not seeking a slap down, or punishment. I would like the behaviors to stop. | |||
| ::could you clarify what you mean that civility is a goal to aspire to? my reading of the policies is that civilly is a policy, not a goal. If that’s not the case, then I’ll need to reevaluate my participation. ] (]) 19:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am involved here as a participant in the naming discussion. Also this disagreement among editors has spilled over to my talk page. Civility is not always a black or white matter and there are many shades of gray, as reading all of ] shows. A relevant passage is {{tpq|Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences, some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright. Other editors may seem oversensitive when their views are challenged.}} I think that dynamic is at play here between these two editors. The disagreements concern the current wildfire catastrophe in the Los Angeles area and it is obvious that the emotions of many Californians and wildfire editors are raw, myself included. Some of us are better at masking that than others. I think that it would be wise for these two editors to steer clear of each other, and for all editors working on this literally hot topic area to check themselves and to avoid bludgeoning, being pedantic and being snide with one another. In my view, formal complaints alleging incivility are best limited to instances when the incivility is obvious to uninvolved editors. ] (]) 22:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for chiming in. A few things: | |||
| ::::*{{tq|In my view, formal complaints alleging incivility}} | |||
| :::::*I'm unsure of how else to get the behavior to stop, and I am unsure of what rises to the level of a post here or not. Are there guidelines/examples I can look at? | |||
| ::::::This is the second time now that I have experienced -- what to me appeared to be a black and white policy violation -- only to be told essentially 'oh that doesn't rise to the level.' I ''think'' I'm intelligent enough to understand policies, and it is only behavioral policy that I have experienced to have some secret code that I can't seem understand. Other policy seems to be applied directly by the letter of the policy. I don't know what else to do. Like I said, I know I am a sensitive person, but shouldn't there be a place on wikipedia for sensitive people too? It's helpful for me to know what the rules are, and I thought I did. | |||
| ::::*{{tq|limited to instances when the incivility is obvious to uninvolved editors}} | |||
| ::::::*Just to give you insight into my thought process: I first posted in teahouse about a policy conversation so that I could edit without interacting with Jasper. I tried to put myself in an area where I wouldn't need to interact with them. They followed me there. | |||
| ::::::*Next, when an experienced editor appeared to agree with me that ] I felt that was a policy violation. But I did not make a post and decided to let it go, so long as the debate continued to evolve unimpeded. | |||
| :::::::I saw what appeared to be bludgeoning/tendentious editing again, after both an experienced editor and I told Jasper to cut it out on the talk page and in the teahouse. I see now that it wasn't great judgement of mine to re-invovle myself by warning Jasper, and I will try to think better about that in the future -- and not edit so late at night when I'm tired. | |||
| :::::::*However it was only ''after'' that experienced editor also told them to cut it out, AND I saw what -- to me -- appeared to be bludgeoning/tendentious editing, that I tried to warn them on their talk page. They of course didn't reply on their talk page, but deleted my post, and posted on my talk page instead saying that it was improper of me to post on their talk page. I saw that as Jasper trying to intimidate me on my ''own'' talk page. Essentially saying 'you don't have rights' or 'the policies don't apply to me, newb.' But isn't the process that when an editor is having difficulty with someone, they are meant to post on that editors talk page to discuss it? By deleting my post and saying they will get me banned if I post on their talk page again, that because I'm new I don't have to right to do so, I felt they were trying to intimidate me, and I '''experienced''' that as cyberbullying. (To be clear: I am not making an objective judgement, nor am I pointing to a WP Policy, as to my knowledge, there is no policy that specifically discusses cyberbullying. Just stating my experience.) | |||
| ::::::::But it was my experience, it seemed to be against policy, and I wanted the behavior to stop. | |||
| :::::::*I am unsure of how else to get this type of behavior to stop, especially after they followed me to the teahouse and I told them stop, but they said essentially 'nah I'm gonna keep doing it.' | |||
| ::::::::Where can I go to discuss wildfires that they won't follow me? This is an important topic to me, along with millions of others. I believe you live in CA - I do too. | |||
| ::::::::All that said, at any point Jasper could ''also'' have stopped. ]. But that is not what occurred. | |||
| ::::*Lastly I'll say this: {{tq|The disagreements concern the current wildfire catastrophe}} | |||
| :::::*Yes, that is how it started. But I do '''not''' have concerns about rules being applied incorrectly when it comes to content. I see a lively discussion. I may not agree with the majority there - that's fine! Good, even. But that doesn't mean I'm okay with other editors controlling the process, nor acting uncivilly towards me. | |||
| ::::*My apologies for the verbosity. I think it would be helpful, if anyone experienced is willing, to let me know where in my thought process I went astray in addition to the place I already pointed out that I could have exercised better judgement. It would also be helpful if anyone experienced could point me to a way to get this type of behavior to stop, as well as somewhere I can see what type of behavior violates policy and and should be posted here, and what type of behavior does not. | |||
| ::::] (]) 23:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A suggestion, which I hope is taken as well-intentioned and constructive: if your posts on other fora are as long-winded as the above that may frustrate other editors. Suggest aiming for greater conciseness. ] (]) 23:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes I understand and mentioned that myself. I am confused about where I can get help stopping upsetting behavior, and because of the reception I got, am unsure of what to do other than offer my thought process so that I can better understand what I can do better in the future. ] (]) 00:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tq|This is the second time now that I have experienced -- what to me appeared to be a black and white policy violation -- only to be told essentially 'oh that doesn't rise to the level}} | |||
| :::::As the person who was brought here less than two weeks ago for what was the first instance, I may not be the best person to reply but I wanted to give advice on this {{tq|Like I said, I know I am a sensitive person, but shouldn't there be a place on wikipedia for sensitive people too?}} | |||
| :::::It is easy to get emotionally involved in articles and get down the rabbit hole of being too wrapped up in policies. I understand your stance in this instance and understand Jaspers as well, but sometimes it is easier just to disengage with editors rather than being 'right' or getting the last word. And it is also sometimes advisable to take a ] if you feel you are too involved or it is affecting your mental health (It is one of the templates on that page, as is feeling discouraged). Literally no one would fault you for that. Best of luck to you. | |||
| :::::] (]) 01:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''tl;dr: my experience with Jasper is part of a clear pattern of behavior.''' | |||
| :As I mentioned, I posted here because I wanted the behavior to stop, so I do not do any sort of deep dive on Jasper's page or behavior. However I saw ] by @], and I wanted to look at it. It wasn't in the archive on Jasper's talk page (or at least I couldn't find it there, not sure if I searched correctly). So I took a look at his talk page history. It quickly became clear that some of the things I experienced from Jasper are clearly part of a larger pattern of behavior. I didn't want to spend too long on this, so there may be more behavior there, and to be clear, this is only from looking at the edit history on his talk page: | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :: 1. He has (judging by other's comments on Jaspers talk page) a pattern of behavior that upsets others. After this occurs, other editors will leave a message on his talk page, and he will not only ''not'' engage in a conversation with them, he will remove the comment (rather than allowing it to get archived) with either an antagonistic or very generic edit summary. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :: 2. Jasper has a pattern -- again based on his comments -- of taking personal offense to people he has disagreements with leaving messages on his talk page to try to discuss the issue. In some instances, it appears as though this has been followed by immediate messages on ''their'' talk pages, indicating (to me) that it is only his talk page where issues cannot be discussed. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :: 3. In these instances, some of Jasper's edit summaries have the effect of silencing other wikipedians who, in good faith, attempted to discuss issues with him on his talk page. As we all know, one cannot respond to an edit summary in the same venue, leading the editor with two options: | |||
| ::: a. Take the time to compile their original comments, diffs, Jasper's edit summaries, etc. and finding a new venue for the discussion, where Jasper may or may not participate. | |||
| ::: b. Make a new post on Jasper's talk page, despite him telling them not to, which gives Jasper ammunition tat the other editor did something wrong. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :: 4. Whether on purpose, or as an unintended consequence of this behavior, this has created an appearance -- on the surface -- that Jasper doesn't cause any problems with other editors on wikipedia. Based on the following quotes, and from my experience, this is not the case. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :::1. @] | |||
| :::{{tq|Gaslighting}} | |||
| :::{{tq|I recommend not making comments telling someone "no, you just didn't read my comment properly" in a condescending fashion}} | |||
| :::{{tq|And, by the way, stop accusing now three users of edit-warring when you are the only one making hasty reverts}} ] | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :::2. @] | |||
| :::{{tq|I request that you link that discussion, especially since you are bashing me over the head with it and yet you have failed to actually provide a link to this discussion}} | |||
| ::::Jasper's edit summary in removing that comment {{tq|Request for discussion: proof was provided at AN3, please keep discussion centralized. You really ought to look at your *own* conduct before you cast aspersions.}} | |||
| :::{{tq|but I do not appreciate being called a disruptive editor, ESPECIALLY not in a closing message meant to be neutrally worded}} ] | |||
| :::{{tq|But, this feels like a biased closure occurred, and after all the recent heat at AN/I about neutrally worded things (and no canvassing), this might warrant a message an AN/I}} ] | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :::3. @] | |||
| :::{{tq|First of all, I think it is probably improper of you to issue a warning as an administrator with regard to a dispute in which you yourself are involved, and furthermore to threaten to block the user with whom you disagree. That ought to be done by a third party.}} | |||
| :::{{tq|I am so sorry that you are not interested. The thing is, though, that you must be. I think you reverted the above just because you wanted to evade those first two points more than anything. }} | |||
| :::{{tq|I am also not too sure that you are not violating WP:SOAP — but perhaps that's debatable. You have furthermore done nothing to make me think better of referring the matter of your behaviour to another administrator.}} ] | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :::4. @] | |||
| :::{{tq|It seems like you have some WP:BATTLEGROUND inclinations. }} | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :::5. @] | |||
| :::{{tq|Per WP:TR; I feel as though you should WP:ASG and be careful not to misinterpret situations with which you aren't involved}} | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :::6. @] | |||
| :::{{tq|I have enjoyed contributing here and do not wish to lose the privilege of doing so}} ] | |||
| ::::Jasper's edit summary in removing that from his page {{tq|you clearly didn’t read my edit notice which says to keep discussion on your talk page}} | |||
| :I am unsure of where to go from here, or what to do about this. It is upsetting to me to see someone who has more privileges than an average wikipedian behave this way. Frankly, based on the reception I got to my post, I'm not even sure if I should be adding this to my post, but again: I cannot find any sort of documentation about where to put these findings otherwise. If there is a better venue/forum, please let me know. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Also, this is in no way comprehensive, and based ''solely'' on Jasper's edit summaries/diffs from his talk page. It appears as though this behavior goes back a long time, but I have not done a deep dive to see whether it is just his talk page/edit summaries, or other behavior, too. | |||
| :Tagging those who have participated/are involved in the conversation so far, as I'm unsure if they will be notified of my comment: @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] ] (]) 22:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Let. It. Go.''' Both of your behaviours have been suboptimal, but below the threshold for anyone to do anything about it in an official capacity. Very bluntly now: if you are truly unable to stop obsessing about this, then yes, Misplaced Pages is the wrong venue for you to participate in. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 07:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The only things I'm going to say are: | |||
| * Delectopierre is incorrect that I'm casting an aspersion because their included a boldened, underlined, ''and'' all caps "third". Even here they both bolden and all caps "potentially". This is as ] as it gets. Their overall tone is, as I said on Cullen's talk page, incredibly aggressive and condescending. | |||
| * As stated on Delectopierre's talk page, I already voluntarily disengaged from interactions ''with them'' after Alex rightly called me out for the now-hatted back and forth. | |||
| * However that does not enjoin me from replying to ''one'' other oppose out of the two or three others that were received in the intervening time frame and, | |||
| * Therefore, Delectopierre's comment on my talk page and bringing this here is unnecessary escalation, particularly the former, and, | |||
| * Consequently, I do not take back the comment I left Delectopierre on their talk page; as many would agree here, it takes two to disengage and that comment on my talk page was a gross slap in the face in view of my own attempt to disengage. | |||
| * I remain committed to that disengagement but not to the effect of recusing myself from the consensus forming process on the talk page. I don't own the discussion but it doesn't mean I can't still participate and comment in it. | |||
| * I also still am frustrated with Delectopierre for attempting to apply policies and guidelines they do not actually have a proficient understanding of ''in a way such that they imply or claim otherwise'', such as ] and ], or even ] as demonstrated right here. That's no longer my problem as long as they do not do something like that talk page comment again. | |||
| * I apologize for the back and forth with Alex; however, I do not apologize to Delectopierre since they did not respect my own decision to not engage with them and continue to be condescending in this thread.--] ] 00:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I apologize for how my comment on your talk page came across. That was not my intention. I thought I was following the suggested protocol. ] (]) 01:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, and the fact that you may have read ] but you don't seem to understand it. "That GUIDELINE says templates ARE allowed to have redirects fix (and userboxes are considered templates)" gives this away; please read it again and understand why bypassing redirects on ''some'' templates can be beneficial. --] 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have more to say but for now I will accept that apology. Whether I'll give my own is going to have to wait. At this point I'll leave that part up to other editors.--] ] 01:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am not doing anything wrong. At least while this is still a issue, I will not edit a article just to fix redirects. If I need to edit the article anyways (like to revert vandalism or add to the article), I don't see the harm in doing some other fixes at the same time. As for your last comment, fixing links on templates is allowed, so I will continue on that (especially fixing "D'oh" to "D'oh!". '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I knew it would come here eventually, so here's a discussion I always thought stood out on their talk page: : A user came to their talk page with concerns about a bad revert, and to that they responded with "That's not my problem. You should look at the totality of your edit". "That's not my problem" is an incredibly uncivil way to respond to a genuine question, period. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 01:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The title of the section at ], "Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken" makes it plain by using quotes around '''fix''' that what you consider beneficial fixing is not actually beneficial, so as long as you claim you aren't doing anything wrong by "fixing" things, there is a problem. ] (]) 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|EF5}} Kindly, and bluntly, your participation here is not helpful. The topic at hand is the conflict between myself and Delectopierre. --] ] 01:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's not enough. Unless you understand why redirect bypassing is normally bad, do not do any. --] 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Anyone can comment on an ANI report, and I'm giving what I think is an appropriate example of uncivil behavior. Someone uninvolved can remove my above comment if they think it's irrelevant to the discussion. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 01:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You are doing something wrong and you've got several users here telling you that. You haven't given any legitimate reason to ignore the guideline other than you want to. In addition you're using misleading edit summaries and editing other people's talk comments and archives which you have no business editing ever, except in a few rare circumstances for things like vandalism, personal attacks, or perhaps someone putting a fair use image on a talk page. The fact that you're continuing with disputed work while a discussion is on-going is rather disconcerting.--] (]) 23:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given the inability or unwillingness of either party to voluntarily ], perhaps a two way interaction ban is necessary. ] (]) 02:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I offered to and did, except I thought they should know I accepted their apology. How does that suggest an IBAN is needed?--] ] 02:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry, where did you do so prior to your comment on my talk page? I don't recall that happening, although I could be mistaken. That said, I am amenable to that as an option. How does that work if we are both working on an article/in a similar space? I'm thinking specifically of wildfires. | |||
| :::::] (]) 02:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Please make this stop. == | |||
| ::::::I didn't explicitly say it. After I made no more replies to you or Alex and kept to it, and my comment thus said I "quietly" did so. Since I perceive a need to answer questions, I recommend you do not continue to pose them. I don't want to engage in this conversation any longer than you do, and this will be my very last reply to you for any reason.--] ] 03:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::1. It's not an olive branch to make an edit with a antagonizing comment. | |||
| :::::::2. 4ish hours after the , you followed me to a user talk page to in a conversation you were not at all involved in. That's neither an olive branch, nor voluntary disengagement. ] (]) 03:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Given this engagement, I think an enforced IBAN is necessary. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Sure, I'm amenable to that. How do I find out the answers to the question I asked ? ] (]) 20:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Review of an article deletion == | |||
| {{user2|PennySeven}} has just has just left of messages on my talk page. They are, in my opinion, personal attacks, eg. 'Have you lost your head or what?', 'Whats wrong with you', 'You deserve to be banned from Misplaced Pages'. I would like someone to talk to him and ask him to stop. | |||
| {{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}} | |||
| == Report on Disputed Edits and Insults == | |||
| What started this all was that I left on his talk page, where I informed him that I was planning on reverting his changes to ], and why I was going to do so. I left this message as Pennyseven has a history of pushing those exact same edits on the Inflation article, but I had hoped that he had stopped. He transferred my message and his reply to the ] and then left there about me. | |||
| *{{articlelinks|Ebrahim Raisi}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Tele-1985}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Taha Danesh}} | |||
| On the page ], user ] has edited and changed the number of prisoners executed from "several" to "thousands." Based on the references added by themselves, on page 11 it states: "To date, the exact number of those killed is unknown." This reference, along with almost all sources on this matter, estimates that the exact number is unknown and instead provides a range. The exact number is uncertain, and the range spans from less than 1,000 to over 30,000. Referring to "thousands" implies a number over 2,000, which is unsupported by the source, as the interval is unclear and varies widely. | |||
| I have made multiple attempts to clarify this and discussed the issue twice on their talk page (]), but they did not respond and continued to revert my edit, changing the word "thousands" back to what it was previously. Additionally, they criticized me on ], without linking my name or notifying me. I only discovered this discussion by accident. In that discussion, they falsely accused me of several things. Since I wasn’t informed about the discussion, I had no opportunity to defend myself. They also insulted me and my edits in their edit summaries on the Raisi page, such as stating: "Your edit makes no sense." | |||
| I left on the Inflation talk page, and then removed his recent additions to the Inflation article. | |||
| As mentioned, they also falsely accused me of multiple things in the ], without linking my name or notifying me on my talk page, leaving me unable to defend myself. For example, they claimed a unrelated conspiracy theory, that I was using another IP address to edit. ] (]) 21:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| PennySeven then left on my talk page. I left him a on my talk page, thanking him for his message. | |||
| Just to note that at the same time this report was filed, I was filing a report at ] to report on Taha Danesh violating the three revert rule.] (]) 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| He then went on the article talk page, and left another , with my name featured prominently in the section headings (against guidelines I believe), accusing me of various wrong doings. | |||
| :Both of these people have been edit warring (I'm not sure whether they have violated ], but that doesn't matter) and have been attempting to communicate via edit summary. Both of you just stop this and talk about the content issue at ], where there does not seem to be any discussion of this issue. It doesn't matter what the article says while you are talking. ] (]) 21:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've fully protected the page for 24 hours to force discussion. (Note the page was previously indef semi-protected per arb enforcement, so that will need to be restored when the full protection expires). - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I will be happy to go the talk page to acheive consensus on specific wording. I'll just give an overview of the disruption and a response because there also many competency issues with Taha Danesh in addition to a content dispute about the ]. I haven't violated 3RR but Taha Danesh has so I reported them earlier. | |||
| I did not reply to his talk page posts, as I did not want to further provoke him in any way, and hoped that he would stop by himself. But I did leave a , asking for someone to please talk to him and ask him to stop putting such posts on the talk page. | |||
| The references I added to Ebrahim Raisi from says "Between July and September 1988, the Iranian authorities forcibly disappeared and extrajudicially executed thousands of imprisoned political dissidents". The existing source says "the execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988 following the Iran-Iraq War." I don't know how one could argue that "thousands" is unsourced as Taha Danesh repeatedly did in their edit summaries while "several" is unsourced and a massive understatement. We could put specific numbers but Taha Danesh objected to that on the Ruhollah Khomeini's article as shown in edits referenced lower. | |||
| Since then, even though I have not replied to him at all, he left again and then on the talk page of ]. This is what the . | |||
| Taha Danesh first of this figure without using an edit summary and reinserted the completely unsourced estimate of "several" which was grammatically wrong also. They then reverted me four further times with bizarre edit summaries where they claimed that Amnesty International and NBC news were "clearly biased and politically motivated". They also didn't seem to understand what "several" meant. These reverts are: , , & | |||
| Which brings us to the present series of posts on my talk page. (I may have left out some other posts made by Pennyseven, he's so prolific, I can't be sure.) As far as I can tell, I have not in any way provoked this last few series of posts. I'm not sure if this is just his personality, or if he's losing it, or if this is calculated to scare me away, or calculated to scare anyone from contradicting him in the future – at this point, I don't care. I would just like him to stop. | |||
| The dispute started a couple days ago on where Taha Danesh reverted my additions and falsely accused me of everything in a frankly bizarre edit summary:". This was ironic because I did explain my edit and use sources while BLP clearly doesn't apply to Ruhollah Khomeini. Even worse is that they had initially deleted the content about executions and child soldiers last month without explanation: and . There are other blatantly POV issues with these edits. Only an hour after ScottishFinnishRadish gave them the CTOP alert they continued to edit war at . ] reverted them and pointed out that the sources were clearly reliable and asked them to make their case on the talk page but Taha Danesh never did. HistoryofIran also about edit warring but Taha Danesh this warning. A few days later they started to edit war at over the estimate of executions. | |||
| I hope someone will take appropriate action. Thank you, --] (]) 15:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Does seem a bit over the top.]|<small>]]</small> 16:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I apologise for not notifying Taha Danesh about the discussion on ScottishFinnishRadish's talk page but I stand by everything I said there including that Taha Danesh was using an IP which was subsequently banned by ScottishFinnishRadish. I provided plenty of evidence. The IP address removed deletion notices on Userboxes created by Taha Danesh and also exclusively edited the same pages as Taha Danesh, including pages created by Taha Danesh. Examples include: , and . | |||
| '''''deleted content discussion pasted from ]''''' | |||
| I also acknowledge that I should've responded to Taha Danesh's comments on my talk page but the first message on the 7th was odd and seemed like it could've been written using ChatGPT or copied from elswhere. It didn't really make much sense nor seem to reflect the actual dispute. Plus the dispute on Ruhollah Khomeini had ended by the time I saw it. ] (]) 22:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :And this has to do with the current discussion how...?]|<small>]]</small> 16:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems that at the core of this is a content dispute that should be discussed on the article talk page and definitely not discussed in edit summaries. TA discussion should never take place with edit summaries. Just a note that saying that an editor is dealing with "competency issues" could be seen as a personal attack. But, any way, move the discussion from ANI to talk pages and see if this helps resolves your differences. It would also help if you could get some additional participation from other editors so this isn't a Me vs. You situation. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I proposed on the Inflation talk page to change the word erode to destroy in the article. No-one disagreed. I changed it. ] (]) 16:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)~ | |||
| :::Yes, but this is about your behavoir.]|<small>]]</small> 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I also added new content to the article. No-one disagreed. | |||
| == Dispute about a Landman edit and allegations of undiplomatic behaviour == | |||
| ::::Now, weeks later LK disagree with changing erode to destroy. He told me right from the start that he bans me from changing it. He stated he will take any disagreement from me as edit warring - right from the first disagreement. That will be edit warring - that is what he stated. ] (]) 16:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result=Editors are advised to move content disputes to article talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::::Regardless of your content disputes with LK, spamming him with dozens of one-line posts on his talk and on the inflation talk page is _not_ acceptable. --] (]) 16:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This dispute concerns {{Userlinks|Jeyne_Reyne}} | |||
| There is a fictional TV series called ] involving an oil worker. Recently, a scene where the protagonist made some claims disputing the GHG payback of wind turbines, and this clip was reposted by right-wing users, including oil executives and fossil fuel advocates. In response, the scene recieved public backlash by climate change advocates, including media attention. | |||
| ::::::Thank you for deleting my example instead of telling me how to put the link. | |||
| ::::::Yes this is about behaviour: LK´s behaviour in telling me from the first moment that he will not take any disagreement or discussion from me. He will regard it as edit warring. That is his behaviour. He also threatened me that he will take this to higher authorities if I disagree. Then he deleted all my current contributions - even examples I added to his examples. | |||
| On the page, I added a section highlighting the media attention, and the scientific veracity of the claims. Jeyne Reyne removed the edit, describing them as "ridiculous and unnecessary". Because of the conduct and other complaints pertaining to this user, I sent a message on their talk page, highlighting my disagreement and reverting the edit. They also removed another edit which highlighted criticism of the show . I acknowledge that I believe this particular removal was valid due to a lack of citations, however, I find that this user actively removed negative criticism of the show on this article. | |||
| ::::::Do you agree that I should start this discussion with you stating that if you disagree with me I will regard it as edit warring immediately and take it to higher authorities? Is that what I suppose to do? Follow LK´s example? ] (]) 16:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| My edits can be found here , . The contents of the paragraph include a description of the scene, the public response, and scientific studies on the matter, all with sufficient citations. I understand that it's possible that my contribution may not have been worded well, or placed in the wrong section. However, I strongly believe that this information is both relevant, accurate and important to be noted. | |||
| :::::::Fine, that was wrong. I admit. Do you agree that it was wrong for LK to state that I am not allowed to disagree with him? More exactly, do you agree that he can state from the beginning that ANY disagreement, right the first disagreement - one sentence - will be regarded as edit warrring and will lead to further disciplinary actions? One sentence is edit warrring? Are we allowed to tell other editors what LK told me? Do you agree with his opening statement to me?] (]) 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Afterwards, Jeyne reverted my edits again, describing it as "irrelevance which has nothing to do with reception" . I strongly disagree with the sentiment that it's irrelevant, but I am willing to compromise and have this content moved onto a different section to address their concerns. | |||
| ::::::::PennySeven found LK's message rude. That's understandable. But the spamming of LK's talk page and the ] talk page was a completely disproportionate response. Under normal circumstances, of course PennySeven would be able to discuss disagreement on substance on the talk page, but this hasn't been helpful. ](]/]) 16:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{ec}}Actually, yes, I do agree with his opening statement. {{diff|User talk:PennySeven|prev|320999587|His exact words were}}: | |||
| :::::::::I've just noticed what you have been doing on the ] page this last few weeks. I'm here to inform you first, but it's my intention to change back many of the things you have changed. You should know that many of the revisions you've made : | |||
| :::::::::# Are against consensus. Many editors have reverted similar edits by you before. | |||
| :::::::::# Violates neutral wording, which is a basic policy for Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :::::::::# Is not consistent with proper weight - it overemphasizes issues not mentioned in a standard textbook presentation on inflation. | |||
| :::::::::I'm going to ask that you do not edit war with me on this. The outcome eventually will not be much different, but it will cause much wikidrama if I have to call in the members of Wikiproject Economics to review the article. | |||
| ::::::::So, since you're claiming he said things he didn't actually say, I'm going to have to ask you to stop this discussion right now and focus on content, not editors. Thanks. --] (]) 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| I agree the response was disproportional. I did that in response to the disproportional removal of all my subsequent contributions to the Inflation article after he changed destroy back to erode. His actions in deleting additions that were previously discussed, changed and correcte and then finally added to the article, just because I was that one who added them, was disproportional and had nothing to do with the discussion about erode or destroy.] (]) 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This user also has a history of disruptive editing , and . | |||
| :Maybe you should re-read what Sarek said.]|<small>]]</small> 16:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 22:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''"I'm going to ask that you do not edit war with me on this."''' So, it is abundantly evident, fact, clear and logical that I was going to edit war with LK? Please explain that deduction to me especially with reference to the fact that I have not changed one of his reverts in the article. ] (]) 16:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Oh, so he must be wrong because he said that''. What does this have to do with it? ]|<small>]]</small> 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: *reads ]* Um, yes, actually, given your past contributions, it wasn't an unreasonable assumption.--] (]) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages is ] an equivalent of ], and the item about windmills is ultimately an out-of-format aside within its criticism that I don't feel this is needed in the article at all, and whatever blue-checks and others who aren't there to enjoy a fictional show but to use it in political discourse most regular readers aren't anywhere aware of (or want to be) is not of use here; it's like arguing that ] does not have the intelligence or strength to drop an anvil on the Roadrunner via catapult. ''Landman'' isn't expected to be a documentary, and this is simply very ] criticism that is of little to no note, including that of oil workers. You wouldn't expect a fictional series crew to get '''that''' detailed about oil workers to the point it's an occupational hazard to film the process. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 23:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::His wanton vandalizing the rest of my contributions to the article which had nothing to do with erode and destroy was the main reason for my disproportional response on his talk page and on the inflation talk page. You all ignore this very important fact. If he had simple changed destroy back to erode I would not have responded as I did. When he deleted an extra example to the item cars to which I added inventory I realized he was not editing in good faith. He removed quotes that were corrected and edited by Arthur Ruben, etc. You ignore that. I responded as I did because he deleted everything I contributed - not just destroy in place of erode.] (]) 17:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't agree with the Wile E Coyote equivalence, since it's unrealistic nature is mostly inconsequential. Other works of fiction, like South Park or the Boondocks, have had their controversies highlighted on Misplaced Pages, despite being a fictional series. South Park is fictional and uses absurd situations as humour, but it is still controversial and has recieved criticism that is of note. | |||
| :::::Please, re-read what Serak said. Your contributions were not nuetral, against consensus, and others. ]|<small>]]</small> 17:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand that Landman isn't meant to be a real show, but the statements about renewable energy which were said in the show are not inconsequential. They were shared online, as was the criticism of Landman. Many YouTube videos and news articles have been published regarding the turbine statements. ] (]) 23:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::...and PennySeven, there is never, ever any valid reason to react the way you did towards ''any'' editor whatsoever. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 17:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::This looks like purely a content dispute. Not something actionable. ] (]) 23:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, the show isn't real. But ''reactions'' to the show are and can rise to the level of notabililty easily. That said, this is a content dispute. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::How do I address content disputes? ] (]) 00:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::By discussing on the article talk page ], which I'd note is empty of discussions over anything. Never a good sign when a content dispute is brought to ANI. Edit: I see the other party did actually tell you to open a talk page discussion. I mean this isn't a great thing either, far better for them to open one and say something like 'I started a talk page discussion, please join it'. OTOH, they didn't bring the ] to ANI. If you're new to editing please use the ] and ] to ask for guidance on what to do next, rather than escalating disputes unnecessarily. ] (]) 02:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Unattributed machine translations by Loukus999 == | |||
| :::::::What is not neutral about inventory being the same type of economic item as cars? Who disagrees that inventory is a non-monetary item like a car? Do you disagree that both cars and inventories are non-monetary items?] (]) 17:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Despite claiming to be a native English speaker on their user page, ] has been using a machine translator to create multiple articles for the past year and a bit. They have been warned multiple times by multiple editors on their talk page to attribute their machine translations, which are often of poor quality. They have also been warned not to recreate deleted articles, again with the aid of a machine translator. They have never communicated with other editors on any of the issues brought up, and I know this because , and it was . | |||
| ::::::::This isn't the place to discuss the content itself. Even though you may not agree, please realize that other editors view things differently (see ]), and, though it may be admittedly hard to accept their views sometimes, you must respect them all the same. There's no reason to slander LK and call him a vandal, in any case. I'm sure LK doesn't have anything personal against you; you're welcome to take this up with him, but please be sure to maintain a civil manner. ] 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I ] prior that after 2,000+ edits to the mainspace, zero communication with other editors and repeatedly violating commonly understood policies was unacceptable, and I would take it to the noticeboard if these two things were to repeat, and so I now have done just that. Loukus999 recently created ], in a process which was so poorly done that ref tags have been left broken and there is a sentence proclaiming that "The full algorithm is available", followed by a citation to the bot / script that they presumably used. | |||
| :::::::::Yes, I agree. So, what do you do when LK not just reverts the word destroy 3 or 4 times back to the word erode, but in the same token deletes other statements agreed by other editors besides me as well as deletes two full paragraphs in the article with about 10 lines of script - especially when he has already taken it for granted that I am going to edit war with him : '''I'm going to ask that you do not edit war with me on this."'''? | |||
| Loukus999 has not been using translators / bots / scripts responsibly on the English Misplaced Pages, and has refused to communicate after ample requests and warnings from other editors. <big>]]</big> 00:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Beside changing the word destroy back to erode LK at the same time deleted all this: | |||
| :I happen to be very interested in ] and I've got to say that ] is a shockingly bad article. ] (]) 02:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|deleted content pasted from Inflation}} | |||
| ::Well, it's a direct translation of one of the ceb.wiki machine generated articles. ] (]) 04:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| "Accountants choose to implement the stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation when they value constant items in fixed nominal monetary units. Accountants´ choice of implementing the stable measuring unit assumption instead of measuring constant items´ real values in units of constant purchasing power results in the real values of these fixed constant real value non-monetary items being destroyed at a rate equal to the rate of inflation when they are never maintained during low inflation because inflation destroys the real value of money which is the monetary measuring unit of account. Constant items are treated like monetary items when their real values are never maintained as a result of the implementation of the stable measuring unit assumption as part of the traditional Historical cost accounting model. | |||
| :::Looks like the most recent creation before that is ], a translation of ] that is still unattributed. ] (]) 05:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :], it would help if you listed some articles you are concerned about so other editors don't have to go searching for them. You're likely to get a better response from editors who browse ANI if you spell everything out and provide links. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| “The Measuring Unit principle: The unit of measure in accounting shall be the base money unit of the most relevant currency. This principle also assumes the unit of measure is stable; that is, changes in its general purchasing power are not considered sufficiently important to require adjustments to the basic financial statements.” | |||
| ::To be clear, I am not highlighting an issue with one or a few of Loukus999's articles, I am highlighting an issue with ''all'' their articles. They didn't just start doing poorly done translations without attribution; that's all they've been doing.{{parabr}}I don't have to make a list either because Loukus999 already lists their "completed" and intended translation projects on their user page. Take for example, the first two articles they created on the list. ] was obviously machine translated from ], with the exact same content but accompanied by grammatical errors and awkward phrasing in English. Same thing with ], translated from ]. The problem is not only that Loukus999 doesn't attribute their translations, they also: | |||
| ::* Don't clean up their article afterwards, leaving it with grammatical mistakes, broken refs, and broken templates. | |||
| ::* Create translated articles without regard for past deletion discussions. | |||
| ::* Have not communicated with any editors despite several warnings over the past year. | |||
| ::So now there's about that are of poor quality, essentially machine translated without a second thought, and intended or otherwise, Loukus999 has shown that they do not care about site policy nor article quality by ignoring their talk page. <big>]]</big> 05:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you check ], every thread is a message, automatically or manually written, left by editors informing Loukus999 of their editing issues and problems with their articles. They've had a full year since the first message to respond or acknowledge anything, but instead they just continue their problematic editing as nobody had yet brought it up seriously. <big>]]</big> 05:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They have no edits in user talk and just one in article talk. I think they need a block for non-communication. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Because Loukus999 has been consistently creating poor quality translations despite multiple warnings, I have indefintely blocked the editor from editing article space. They can create policy compliant, properly referenced draft translations and submit them to the Articles for Creation process. Communication with their fellow editors is required, as is producing high quality, policy compliant work. ] (]) 19:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal attack by LödedDiaper == | |||
| The extremely rapid destruction of the real value of the monetary unit of account is compensated for during hyperinflation by the rejection of the stable measuring unit assumption in International Accounting Standard IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies. IAS 29, which has to be implemented during hyperinflation, requires all non-monetary items (variable items and constant items) to be measured in units of constant purchasing power." | |||
| {{atop|status=Unlöaded.|1=Block evasion reverted, talk page semi'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| I hope it's understandable, but I've not notified ] of this discussion as they've just ] to have a bit of a go at me & specifically targeted my ADHD (it's mentioned in a userbox on my page). I've not read through most of , but could an admin please take a peek for me? I'm also very aware that I may have overreacted in my original response & took it a little personally (I shouldn't have), so I will completely take that on the chin - nevertheless their response isn't ok. BTW The signature is a bit weird, it says one IP but then the autosignbot gave a different one... ] (]) 05:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You say I must just quietly accept that and accept that I cannot disagree with him since it will be called edit warring?] (]) 17:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Update - I calmed down a bit and took another look, they're attacking pretty much ''everyone'', but specifically admins who were involved in the block/TPA removal. I'm sorry if I triggered this response in any way by accidentally poking the tiger, it's not ok for someone to attack you guys like this either. I wasn't sure where to report this, but figured it should maybe be here since this is where they were originally .] (]) 05:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Don´t you think removing all the above is vandalism?] (]) 17:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I have removed the IP's post and blocked the IP. Jpgordon has semi-protected the page. ] (]) 07:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Again, this is not the forum to discuss the content being disputed. However, you could have disagreed by discussing it with him. Edit warring is different from discussion. ] 17:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{ |
{{abot}} | ||
| {{ec}}No, we don't. '''Pasting''' it here, on the other hand, '''is''' disruptive, and since I warned you previously about continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia, you have been blocked. Since your block log shows a previous 2-day block, and immediately afterward, you continued edit warring and accusing editors of off-wiki collaboration, this block is for one week. --] (]) 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *It seems that the Diaper editor dislikes me, intensely. I don't care. ] (]) 10:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : And PennySeven, would you learn how to use quotation marks? When you wrote above "I proposed on the Inflation talk page to change the word erode to destroy in the article", I was baffled for a few minutes (how the heck can one "change a word erode"? & what is a "word erode"?) until I realized you meant to write "I proposed on the Inflation talk page to change the word 'erode' to 'destroy' in the article." -- ] (]) 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::llywrch, its not really necessary to ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Uh, it wasn't my intent to belittle ''anyone''; my comments were offered in good faith. I actually suffered a comprehension breakdown when I read that sentence, which could have been avoided with a bit of punctuation. I can't fathom why anyone wouldn't use quotation marks in that context -- especially when their absence makes the writer look like a kook. (Maybe this was another instance where I should not have clicked on the "Save page" button...) -- ] (]) 20:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Me too, I get that they're angry, but I really wish they'd take their own advice and do something else. They've also made quite a few assumptions about me which are entertainingly incorrect. Nevertheless, ] is their latest attack on my talk page for posterity, which took far less effort to remove than they took to post it. Anyway, I'm off to touch grass as they've recommended, ungulates love grass. ] (]) 20:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Llywrch seemed to be belittling PennySeven on the basis of his punctuation skills, not his grammatical skills ... though both could use a bit of work. :-) ] (]) 20:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I, too, received that diatribe, {{u|Blue-Sonnet}}. Years ago, {{u|Antandrus}} wrote these words of wisdom: {{tpq|While it feels bad to be attacked by one of the persistent, nasty, obsessive trolls, it is helpful to remember that some of these people are profoundly miserable. They are really suffering; life is hell for them: often they are neither in control of their impulses, nor completely sane.}} I feel sorry for this sad person. ] (]) 20:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Completely uninvolved observer checking in. Was a block warranted in this case, as it seems to be an editor simply trying to plead his/her case? Perhaps redirecting the discussion was needed, but there did not seem to be anything other than ] and a bit of ] at play. FWiW ] (]) 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] I guess great minds think alike, I just posted on their page to offer an olive branch - it might not work, but at least I tried. ] (]) 20:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Several editors, me included, tried to redirect it. Not only did they continue to argue content in a behavior discussion, they posted several paragraphs of removed content here after I had already removed an earlier posting of several paragraphs of content discussion. The combination of missing the point and flooding ANI with irrelevant content was what caused me to do a preventative block, and the history of similar behavior was what determined the length. I'm open to further discussion if you still think there's a problem here. --] (]) 23:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Might be missing something here? the "they", especially? FWiW ] (]) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC). | |||
| :::::::That's the singular "they" -- I try not to use "he" unless I'm sure it's correct. --] (]) 04:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::My "take" is that this was a content issue and should probably have been left on the discussion page of the affected article or at most on the associated editors' talk pages. Bringing it here to ANI appeared excessive as the remedies could have been applied at an earlier stage. I know that a tedious, and drawn out defence was involved but was the editor in question skirting into the areas of civility? disruption (of the original article)? vandalism? If these issues were not the deciding factors, then a good dose of "ignore" may have been appropriate, rather than playing "wap a mole". (FWiW, last statement entirely facetious, LOL.) ] (]) 12:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::There was a content issue, but much of this is about a problem that has arisen with this editor before - a tendency to misinterpret and arguably overreact to comments. Lawrencekhoo wasn't assuming the best of faith, but the two editors have butted heads on that article before, so perhaps this is understandable. However, PennySeven then misinterpreted what was said by Lawrencekhoo, and entered into what was verging on harassment of the other editor. Indeed, I was about to warn PennySeven of the potential for harassment when it was brought here, having noticed similar responses to criticism from other editors. Given that there were constant posts by PennySeven attacking LK for over 24 hours, outside intervention may have been necessary. - ] (]) 14:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Good enough, I probably didn't sense the frustrations that were involved as it matured into a full flap. FWiW ] (]) 15:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC). | |||
| == Requesting a range block for 2800:2503:9 == | |||
| == Reversions at ] == | |||
| {{atop|1=Take two ] and call me in the morning. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| The ], or a rather weird variation thereof, has certainly been accurate for me with my Misplaced Pages interactions being filled with the sockpuppets accounts and IPs of ]. Recently Holiptholipt seems to have given up on making new accounts (his last one was, I believe, ]) and instead does it through a range of IPs. I'm being followed by him and he intervenes on every edit of mine that is on his interest. This includes low-traffic articles that just happened to be then edited by him once I did something - ] and ] are recent examples of this. There was also ] and ]. | |||
| Reading the Holiptholipt's archive, there is the same pattern clearly visible - {{tq|Same type of edits, mass changes to political orientations (mostly to european and south american parties), mobile edits only, edit warring to restore preferred version}} and {{tq|Like master, seems to use Spanish language. Technical competence from first edit, continued to edit the same articles as master and socks.}}. | |||
| {{resolved|I have received the advice requested. ] (]) 16:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| I am making an ANI because the last time I made a new thread on Sockpuppet investigations regarding the IPs of Holiptholipt, I got this: {{tq|They are switching dynamic IPs over a wide range. Not possible to block.}} Which I understand, but now I'm being followed by this ban-evading user and I'm quite at a loss. Can anything be done about it or am I doomed to deal with the person as long as they find it fit to stalk me? Thank you in advance. ] 06:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'm posting this here rather than the edit warring noticeboard as it's a wider issue also concerning an RfC. Following this ] I made this . As the RfC had been stale for a week I closed it and made the change proposed despite it only being agreed by one other editor as both of us agreed it was a fair representation of the wider consensus (where there had been several comments). ] has now reverted my edit, originally it would appear because it contradicted ] despite both being guidelines and neither having primacy. I pointed them at the RfC and they have now said they don't think it's a fair reading of consensus. I both opened and closed the RfC (as no one else was coming along to do so) and so am afraid of a conflict of interest despite closing against my preferred option. Both of us are now close to the three revert rule so would appreciate someone else to take a look at the whole situation. ] (]) 17:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. This is a /36 block with 2<sup>92</sup> ~= four thousand trillion trillion addresses, in other words, an extremely large range. Although some ranges this big nonetheless get blocked, if you were told it is not blockable, there probably would be too much collateral damage. | |||
| :Would someone please take a look at this - it could really do with an admin looking it over. I'm trying to avoid an edit war here. I sometimes wonder if the only way to get admin attention is to actually do something wrong. Help in trying to avoid problems seems rarely to be forthcoming. This isn't a go at any individual admin as I realise they're all volunteers who have other things to be doing but more a comment that the system seems to be failing in this regard. ] (]) 10:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The ] or even a partial block from your talk page (or other page where the harassment is happening) could be a better alternative.--] ] 10:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Edit filter could be a solution to my woes. Thank you, Jasper!] 17:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] and copyright unblocks == | |||
| ::It's a content dispute; you don't need an administrator action here, you need both parties to back off and outside opinions on what the consensus of the RfC was. ] is well-staffed, so I suggest that a posting there would be a good way forward. See also ]. Sincerely, <font face="New York"><span style="background-color:black; color:gray;">], ]</span></font> 14:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{u|Beeblebrox}} does not appear to appreciate that blocks for good-faith copyright violations cannot be sorted out with an apology and some ], is not doing the basic due diligence required when dealing with these unblocks, and does not respond well to attempts by others to explain. Two recent examples: | |||
| :::Although I agree it's a "content" dispute what I think is at issue here is the process not the dispute itself - and this is what I'd like some admin comment on. An RfC was held, comments received and a consensus reached. Yes the consensus for the exact wording was small but it was left open for a week without any further comment before the RfC was closed - discussion have to be closed at some point, we can't wait for ever for more comments. At this point, in my opinion, the version with the change agreed at the RfC becomes the 'stable' version. If an editor then disagrees with this new 'stable' version it's perfectly in their right to start another discussion about changing it but the 'stable' version should remain until consensus is reached to change it. As an analogy we don't allow editors to recreate an article deleted at an AfD just because they disagree with the consensus (such article would be G4'ed), we have DRV for discussing the issue. Without respecting previous decisions reached until consensus is reached to change them wikipedia would fall apart. I have no issue with discussing the issue further but I think it's a dangerous precedent to let the version from before the RfC stand just because someone disagrees with how it was closed - what happens if they hadn't come along to a month or a year later? Additionally attempts to find out to have a discussion about why they disagree on what the consensus was have so far not met with success with them just saying they disagree with no reason. Given ]'s irregular editing habits discussion could take some time and until such time as we agree on a way forward what version should remain? This is a clear process issue and not a "content" dispute. I don't want to get blocked for reverting to what I think is the "stable" version so want admin opinion on this issue. I am then quite willing to discuss the issue. ] (]) 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * ], blocked by {{u|DanCherek}} and follow-up by me on that talk page and at ] | |||
| * ] and follow-up at ] by {{u|Justlettersandnumbers}} | |||
| In neither case was the blocking admin consulted. In the latter example, the blocking admin asked him to revert his unblock; Beeblebrox declined. In the former example, I had earlier responded to the unblock request. The blocked editor was still editing on simple-wiki, so their contributions could easily be checked to see if they understood copyright; I said so, and was rebuffed (with bonus {{tq|I have been an admin a ''lot'' longer than you}}, as though length of adminship tenure grants an exception from due diligence). In both cases, the editor was soon reblocked (by {{u|Izno}}). It is also worth noting that both of these unblock requests involved AI chatbots, which ought to be an especially red flag when we're dealing with editors blocked for copyright problems. | |||
| This is extremely bad practice, and it needs to stop. -- ] (]) 07:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And yes I am aware that this probably isn't quite the right forum but there isn't an admin assistance forum. At the moment there is currently no place to ask for an admin opinion so it ended it up here. Yes there's places like ] but, IMO, editors there may not be best placed to answer questions like "would this got me blocked" as they probably don't have experience of blocking. I think there should definitely be a location to raise issues that look like they're heading towards needing admin action (e.g. blocking) before they actually do and this forums obviously mainly needs admin replies as they'd be the ones that actually would use the tools if it reached that stage - this would hopefully avoid the need for some admin actions. ] (]) 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I think Beeblebrox should make a habit of speaking to the blocking admin before unblocking. He seems to be alone in not doing this, and it is part of ] policy. ] (]) 07:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Perhaps the page needs to be protected, and perhaps one or more of those involved in the editing dispute ought to be blocked, but I do not think so, and I don't see what other administrator actions are needed at this point. I'm not going to criticise your choice of venue under the circumstances, but one does not need to be an admin to close an RfC, to give good advice or to judge consensus – such a situation would be a deplorable move to a hierarchical system. I think you are more likely to get input from knoweldgeable experienced editors by asking the members of ] that the battlegrounders who frequent this board. Regards, <font face="New York"><span style="background-color:black; color:gray;">], ]</span></font> 15:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah. Per the blocking policy ] and unblock guidelines ]. | |||
| ::Beeblebrox has said that they {{tq|do not agree with or adhere to the idea that asking the blocking admin should be a ''de facto'' part of reviewing unblock requests}}, but until the consensus has changed, unblocking users without consulting the blocking admin would be violating policy. | |||
| ::And I personally believe that consulting the blocking admin before unblocking as a requirement is a good idea, so hopefully Beeblebrox will not repeat this again. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x]</span>→∞ (]) 09:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is not a policy violation, policy states {{tq|administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter.}} Should avoid is not the same as shall not. The other is a guideline not a policy. ] (]) 01:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's not always necessary to consult the blocking admin, per the wording of the policy, but it should be done when the unblock might be controversial. Beeblebrox currently doesn't seem to have a good sense of which blocks might be controversial to lift without consultation. ] (] | ]) 02:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I credit Beeblebrox with putting their money where their mouth is and attempting to fix their perceived issues with blocking and the process, but I do think the blocking admin should in most cases be consulted(with some exceptions like but not limited to straight username blocks or where the blocking admin invites unblocking). ] (]) 12:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that Beeb's practice in this matter is both counter to policy and intuition. Why would an unblocking admin not want to ask the blocking admin something along the lines of, "Hey, is there anything I should know when considering unblocking this user?" Consulting simply means asking about the case to have more information; it does not mean that the unblocking admin must act in accordance with the blocking admin's wishes. - ] ] 13:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I realise that - I closed the RfC having, I thought at the time, gauged consensus correctly (the only other editor who commented agreed with me). My question is that if I revert back to the version agreed upon at RfC, the version I think is the "stable version" and I reported to the edit warring board am I likely to get in trouble for my actions (either by being admonished or blocked) and as such action would be done by an admin it seems reasonable to seek an admin view before it happened. If I am in the wrong and it would be considered edit warring then I'd like to know this so I don't make the change (although as I say if this is the case I have serious concerns about how wikipedia operates - so much so that I'd probably start an RfC on the RfC process). | |||
| ::Can we get that explicitly written into policy then? Because it being a consultation to see if information is missing makes perfect sense, but how the process has actually worked in practice for years (and in places such as ] requests) is not as an informational purpose, but instead to get "permission" from the blocking admin and, by their forbearance and mercy, will the action be allowed. But if the original admin disagrees, even without there being any extra information to back up and justify that stance, then it shall not be done. Because the original admin's actions are law and cannot be disputed and how dare you even try. ]]<sup>]</sup> 19:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree it should be written into policy. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In my perspective, the ] is fairly clear that the blocking admin should be ''consulted'', but it doesn't state that administrators need permission from the blocking admin to unblock. ] (]) 03:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm very busy to day and have to go but the short answer is that making a user sit there and wait for however long it takes the blocking admin to show up has never seemd like a fair or useful requirtement in a case where there is extensive discussion between the blocked user and reviewing admins. ] ] 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I also realise that my edits, in particular this , may not look the best. In hindsight I am possibly shouldn't have made it but the other users reverted my revert so quickly I hadn't even had time to explain my actions on their talk page so I redid it as they obviously couldn't have understood my reasoning. Also with hindsight I should have said in my first edit summary that I was going to leave them a message. Once it became clear that they disagreed with me even after being aware of the RfC I didn't revert again and brought it here to see if it would be considered edit warring if I continued to revert back to what, in my opinion, is the stable version. ] (]) 15:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Beeblebrox}}, if the blocking administrator is on a lengthy wikibreak or has been desysopped or has died or refuses to respond to pings, then move ahead with the unblock, noting one of those factors. That does not seem to be the case here. Please discuss unblocks with the blocking adminstrator, as this is the normal expectation among administrators with the obvious exception of you. Thank you. ] (]) 19:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :To be clear, since everyone else appears to be understanding the problem here as "Beeb doesn't consult with the blocking admins", I included that information here as relevant context, but that isn't really the main issue at hand. The main issue at hand is that Beeblebrox believes himself to be competent to administrate copyright unblocks, and is evidently not. Consultation with the blocking admin might have helped in these cases, but given Beeb's responses to having these two unblocks questioned, I suspect it would have made little difference. -- ] (]) 19:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I'm aware that admin's aren't superusers and are button pushers, but they have to decide when to push the button and so they seem the most logical people to ask when it comes to finding out exactly when that button will be pressed in cases which aren't clear cut. ] (]) 15:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is the second time the first unblock has been discussed. Is there a reason you're bringing it back here? I'm not sure two unblocks are. reasomable measure to determine whether @] is {{tq|competent to administrate copyright unblocks}}. I don't think either that or not consulting blocking admin when there was '''already''' a discussion in progress with that admin is ANI worthy. ] ] 21:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you see anything in these two unblocks and their subsequent discussions that suggests that he ''is'' competent to administrate copyright unblocks? In neither discussion has he even acknowledged that he had made any kind of mistake. -- ] (]) 21:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I do. As well as in their long history as an admin. Editors can and will disagree, it's an opinion and neither of us is objectively correct. If you truly think he isn't competent, there are channels to bring it up. Bringing two unblocks, one a repeat, to ANI isn't going to accomplish anything. ] ] 01:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You know, I feel like I have tried to meet you halfway recently, after admittedly being a little aggressive when first returning to handling unblock requests, but I'm getting the distinct impression at this point that you just don't like me no matter what. Suggesting that a slight disagreement like this indicates incompetence is a pretty nasty thing to do. ] ] 23:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't have the faintest idea what {{tq|I feel like I have tried to meet you halfway recently}} is referring to. Halfway to ''what''? -- ] (]) 05:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, how about his statement in the first unblock (the one where he ever so kindly tried to pull rank on asilvering after they disagreed with him), he stated that he would not, and did not intend to, perform due diligence ({{tq|nope, I did not do what you said would be sufficient for you personally. Neither I nor anyone else is bound by that}})? Or a little while later doubled down with {{tq|I do not feel I was required to make the checks you wanted somebody to do}}? How about the way he dismissed the amount of time and effort it takes those of us working in copyright cleanup to mop up after these mistakes ({{tq|unblocks are cheap}}) and, perhaps this is the most important part of the entire situation, has stated that he believes copyright unblocks, and accepting them, are more a matter of good faith than anything else? ({{tq|we've become a bit too unwilling to just give second chances when a user, as this one did, apologizes and commits not to repeat the behaviors that led to the block}}{{efn|I agree with this in principle, by the way - or at least, I think we have one too many admins who are far too willing to block for even the most minor instances of disruption, and then drag their heels and attack admins who unblock, or mislead them into thinking they aren't allowed to unblock without consent, or who resort to personal attacks, use rollback, and levy level4im vandalism warnings against good-faith bystanders who try to help. And as long as those admins still have tools, we need admins like Beeblebrox who are willing to stand up to them an unblock obviously good faith newbies}}). {{pb}} Copyright issues aren't a simple matter of good faith by the way. Work one CCI, and you get to learn pretty much everything about an editor. You learn what what TV shows and music they like, where they're from, what little editing quirks they have, how they like to structure their articles - they're all unique. You know what's not unique? All them want to improve Misplaced Pages. Nobody's spending over a decade of their life ], ], or ] because they <em>want</em> to hurt the encyclopedia, or because they're simply negligent and need to be reminded to keep their fingers off the Crtl+V shortcut. Copyright unblocks are rarely given until several warnings have passed- so by the time we get to one, we've already repeatedly told a user "hey, if you copy-paste content into Misplaced Pages again you will be blocked". There's really not much room for misunderstanding there. And as much as I wish with all my heart and soul that we could give these people who plagiarize easy second chances, the severity of the issue and the difficulty in cleanup means that second chance has to be earnt. If we give somebody one last chance not to spam links, or mess with ENGVAR, or write promotional garbage, it'll be pretty easy for the community to tell if they go right back to their old habits, and any damage they do those issues are trivial to fix by a newbie rollbacker. Copyright issues? No- they can take weeks to months to years to be caught again{{efn|Copypatrol has limited functionality and NPP is not suited to catch anything but the most blatant copy-pastes from Earwig-readable online and well-linked sources}} - let alone clean up! We've got like like a dozen editors active in the copyright cleanup area? To really put things in perspective, I'm the newest and I got involved in 2023. We don't have the manpower to spare to do the due diligence Beeblebrox doesn't want to. The only reason the Jisshuu issue got cleaned up so fast is because asilvering was proactive, because {{yo|MrLinkinPark333}} and I spent a few hours digging through old books, and because I went to pester Beeblebrox on his talk page to mass-undo the most recent edits. (At some point, in his mind, this morphed into {{tq| I've undone a bunch of their bad edits myself}}... which I guess is technically true? But he certainly did not show the initiative to do this himself). And instead of thanking asilvering for going to extra mile, he did the entire {{tq|meaning no offense, I have been an admin a <em>lot</em> longer than you}} thing. {{pb}} Of course, Beeblebrox could have done due dilligence, I suppose. But if that's the case, then that means that yesterday we saw a very long term admin look at a user whose average talkpage message looked something like {{Blockquote|text=Helloo🙄, The Page you are talking about is "GDP nominal" , The Page i created is "gdp per Capita nominal". For PPP it has to articles gdp PPP and gdp PPP per Capita. So?, You need to review that.}} and (in response to an earlier copyright warning, btw) {{Blockquote|text=East Africa City States Existed, You can't just delete an Article even without verifying..You are the one violating Misplaced Pages Terms }} and then believed, no questions asked, that they wrote and understood {{Blockquote|text=I apologize for the copyright violation in my contributions and understand the importance of adhering to Misplaced Pages's copyright policies. Moving forward, I will create original content, properly attribute sources, and ensure all materials comply with Misplaced Pages’s licensing requirements. I have reviewed the relevant guidelines to prevent future infractions. I kindly request reconsideration of my case and assure you of full compliance in my future contributions}} and {{Blockquote|If I happen to find valuable information in a copyrighted source, I will make sure to write it completely in my own words while still capturing the main idea and will also make sure to properly cite it to give credit where due without violating any policies}} which is far more concerning. Either way, he hasn't demonstrated that he is willing to properly administer copyright unblocks. And don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of the "you must wait until the blocking admin responds before unblocking" culture, and I think we should trust that all admins have the common sense to deal with the average spam-block or disruptive editing block without waiting 10 days and multiple pings just for the blocking admin to not oppose the unblock. And I think there's ample room in our current system to occasionally override a block, or IAR and quickly unblock. But copyright blocks are a different beast, and I'm disappointed that Beeblebrox's response to criticism has been what it was. | |||
| :::{{notelist}} | |||
| :::] (]) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would count my re-block in the second case as more-or-less coincidental, myself. I do think that consulting the blocking admin per policy is a good idea, and echo Cullen's "well, if they appear to have been ], then you should feel free to 'be bold'". ] (]) 20:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah that they were reblocked for socking has nothing at all to do with what they were previously blocked for, so it's a bit odd to see it held up here as an example of my recklessness. Unblocking, no matter who is consulted before hand, is always a risk, but when the original issue was copyvios and the reblock is for socking that was detected by a checkuser, it's hard to see how one can say the unblocking admin should have known about a completely unrelated second issue that required functionary permissions to detect. | |||
| ::The other account was rightly reblocked because they lied during the unblock process, which we had no way of knowing until they were unblocked and immediately started acting the fool, at which point they were blocked again and I pitched in cleaning up the bit of a mess they left in their wake. | |||
| ::Whatever one may think about me not consulting with the blocking admin, these two unblocks don't prove anything besides the already known fact that sometimes people lie. That's just part of what admins deal with every day if they are doing actual admin work. ] ] 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And herein lies the problem: <em>they didn't lie</em>. They did not intend to deceive - they genuinely believed that they'd figured out the issue. Copyright blocks are nearly always done against good-faith users, and while it would be lovely to distill it down to some morally simple "they continue the behaviour => they were a liar all along", its not that simple and it never has been. ] (]) 00:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::However one interprets it, they made it seem as though they understood the issue, at which point it is not unreasonable to see if that is really the case by unblocking, as it had already been discussed at length. | |||
| ::::That was my point when I originally wrote my most oft-cited essay, ] fifteen years ago, and it remains my point today. At a certain point the only way to actually know is to give them a chance. While we always hope they succeed, sometimes they have learned nothing, and we block them again. This is how the system is ''supposed to work''. | |||
| ::::Neither of these people created large problems after I unblocked them. I helped clean up after one while the other did not make a single edit in the interval between when I unblocked them and when they were found by a checkuser to be a sock. The harm here was extremely minimal and easily reverted. | |||
| ::::Unlike AN, ANI is for asking for ''consequences'', via administrative action because a user demonstrates a pattern of behavior that is harming the encyclopedia. I don't feel like that case has been made here and I don't believe I see a request for any specific sanction against me, so unless and until those things change I think I'm done here. ] ] 01:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] it's not up to you to decide whether the community thinks you're out of line. Nobody wants to sanction you, but when users turn a blind eye to the community's feedback that's usually what winds up happening. Please reconsider. ] ] 02:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] I’ll plug my essay on this matter: ]. Personally, I think it’s better to ask editors to rewrite the content they were blocked for rather than quizzing them about copyright policy. Beebs, I think you know that I welcome your efforts with improving our unblock system, and I think the first cited unblock was a reasonable Good faith unblock, even if it wasn’t perfect (I mean, me and Diannaa have unblocked editors on promises of no longer adding copyvios, and have had to reblock them— it happens). On the other hand, I think you were too hasty in reversing JLAN’s block, especially given what you were told after the first unblock. I think more conversation would’ve been better, and that while contacting JLAN for “permission” to unblock isn’t strictly required, you could have pinged him saying you were intending on unblocking. I’ll contrast this with your comment on ], which I think reflects a better approach to these sorts of blocks. I hope this is something that can be moved on from, and that you continue to look at unblocks that might slip through our systemic cracks, while also being diligent while looking into the background. ]] 02:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *No, look, don't unilaterally unblock people who copyvio. That's not okay and it ought to be obvious why. Never do it again.—] <small>]/]</small> 23:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Beeblebrox}}, ''please'' do not try to brush off the valid concerns that have been expressed here about your strange stance that discussing unblock requests with the blocking administrator is unnecessary. As you well know, this is a collaborative project and that includes collaboration among administrators. Please commit to discussing unblocks with the blocking administrator at the minimum, except in extraordinary circumstances. Two heads are better than one. It is quite disconcerting to read the things that you are saying. ] (]) 02:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::In case you missed it, last month I reported at AN regarding finding what I believe were some serious issues in how unblock requests are being handled. In one of these threads I specifically mentioned asilvering as one of three admins who had missed an obvious error by a blocking admin when reviewing a particular unblock request. I did not suggest this was malicious or deliberate or a sign of incompetence, just an error. | |||
| *::I don't think it is a coincidence that now two relatively harmless unblocks are being held up as evidence that I am incompetent to handle unblock requests. ] ] 02:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I didn't miss it and I think it's why you're maybe having trouble hearing the sensible advice being offered to you by Cullen (and echoed by lots of other people like Izno, Moneytrees, 331dot, PhilKnight, deadbeef, and Elli in their own ways). Whether or not unblocks of copyright blocks are appropriate has seen a number of different viewpoints, but I'm seeing pretty unanimous support for the idea that you've been seeing exceptions that others don't see in when to consult. I specifically highlight Cullen's words because of the clear way he lays out when consulting may not make sense. I write this to you in the spirit of ]. Best, ] (]) 02:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I don't utterly reject the very idea that soliciting comment from the blocking admin can be helpful. I have done so on many past occasions. However, in very straighforward cases where the block reason is obvious and the blocked user admits their error and pledges not to repeat it, I'm at a loss as to what special insight we expect that the blocking admin will ''always'' have, but will not share with us unless specifically asked. I can say I am willing to have a more open mind about when to seek that opinion out and when not to, but I can't accept that it is a hard-and-fast rule, because it isn't. ] ] 03:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::As asilvering noted above, the purpose of this thread was not about whether you contacted the blocking admin but rather that you unblocked two users blocked for copyright with huge red flags in their unblock requests. The first had been editing on Simple Wiki during their EnWiki block, where they were continuing to including copyrighted material in their edits. The second was an editor clearly using an LLM in their unblock request, making it unclear to anyone whether they actually understood policy and would follow it. This isn't about AGF, ROPE, or pinging the blocking admin. It's about being inadequately reviewing the evidence provided and not understanding the seriousness of copyright issues.. ] (]) 03:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::It's really petty that this already resolved situation is being brought up nearly a month later because you are still mad that I didn't do what you think I should have, but was in no way actually obligated to do. I'm an admin on en.wp, the main thing I know about other projects is that they all make their own rules that may or may not be as strict as ours. And again, this situation was resolved with minimal harm nearly a month ago. ] ] 03:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Can you please stop trying to make assumptions about other editors' emotional states with regards to this discussion? You've accused me of a retaliatory filing, which makes no sense at all (if you did indeed specifically mention me {{tq|as one of three admins who had missed an obvious error by a blocking admin}}, well, please let me know again, since it went completely over my head), and now you're saying that Significa liberdade is angry with you, when as far as I can tell she's simply trying to explain to you what the issue at hand here actually is. Whether other projects have different rules has nothing to do with whether or not an editor understands how to write without infringing copyright. | |||
| *:::::::The situation was evidently ''not'' resolved, since you've done ''another'' "AGF" unblock on copyright without checking that the editor has actually understood the situation. For all I know there have been others as well, and I'm only aware of these two. It's one thing to shrug and make this kind of unblock when we're dealing with someone with a history of simple vandalism; they'll be easy to catch again if they go back to their old ways, and will be reblocked with minimal fuss. Copyvio is much less reliably caught and is a ''tremendous'' amount of work to clean up after. -- ] (]) 04:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I'll gladly concede that that copyvios are a serious issue that should not be taken lightly, I think we all agree on that, but it wasn't actually a big deal with the post post-block edits of either of the users I unblocked. ] ] 05:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I will not, however, back down on the idea that this seems retaliatory. There's not a serious ongoing issue currently causing harm to the encyclopedia, so why are we at ANI? ] ] 05:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::What could I possibly be retaliating ''against''? The worst thing you've done to me is be condescending. (Well, and give me and others some extra work to do, I suppose, cleaning up after the first one.) We're at ANI because, as I said in my initial post, your approach to copyright {{tq|is extremely bad practice, and it needs to stop.}} I wasn't able to convince you to take copyright seriously and the problem has recurred. Right now it still looks likely to recur ''again'', so it is very much an ongoing issue, if a slow-moving one. Please, investigate copyright concerns thoroughly, or leave them for someone else. -- ] (]) 05:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::This isn't very consistent with the discussion on my talkpage where you objected to my username/promotion block for an editor that you chose to warn rather than block ; while I agree that I should have checked to see if that editor had been specifically warned (and then I unblocked as you asked), it seems to me that if you're expecting consultation over blocking someone you ''didn't'' block, you should expect to have to consult over an unblock. I realize you're trying to accomplish changes to the blocking process to be less, erm, blocky, but this seems a little hard to follow. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 03:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Unblocking someone is often, usually even, not at all equivalent to overturning the blocking admins decision. That would be the distinction as I see it. ] ] 03:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Your argument at the time was essentially that my decision to block overturned your decision ''not'' to block. While I personally do not insist on consultation regarding a change in one of my actions, it's generally a good gesture, and widely practiced. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 11:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{tq|I specifically mentioned asilvering as one of three admins who had missed an obvious error by a blocking adminI don't think it is a coincidence}} Sorry, but as a participant in that thread, where exactly did this happen? Diffs, please. You've been around long enough ]. ] (]) 03:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Fair enough, I apparently misremembered. asilvering was very upset by what I said but was not one of the admins I specifically mentioned in that case. ] ] 05:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}I confess that I am totally bewildered about why a highly experienced adminstrator is behaving in what appears to me to be a haughty and tone deaf manner. ] (]) 05:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Beebs doesn't seem to be the only one behaving in a "haughty and tone deaf manner." Everyone on this thread frankly seemed to be going in for their pound of flesh. I thought this was supposed to be a "collaborative community," not a flock of vultures circling a fresh carcass. ] (]) 08:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Like I said, I would not be inclined to block anyone at this point, or to protect the page, as you seem to realise that reverting is not going to move the matter forward. One of the ideas behind ] is it removes the warriors from the article – one way or another – so that decisions are left to uninvolved editors. To be crystal clear: If you revert back, I think you would be justly blocked; that is my advice as an administrator. I re-iterate, it would be best if you refrained from editing the page and instead find outsiders who know enough and are impartial enough to make the call. A neutrally worded request at ]/] might do the trick. Regards, <font face="New York"><span style="background-color:black; color:gray;">], ]</span></font> 16:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. ]] 16:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::+1. The level of the temperature here seems FAR higher than what should be merited by the complaint. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : I would encourage Beeblebrox to read ] thread and maybe recalibrate his approach to copyright blocks. By the tenor of that thread and this thread, I think the prevailing attitude surrounding copyright unblocks is that the threshold for an unblock is becoming way higher (and I think it's a correct one in my view). No opinion as to disallowing Beebs to accept copyright-related unblocks, but I think he needs to be more careful with them. <span>♠] ]</span>♠ 01:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal: Beeblebrox is not allowed to accept copyright-related unblock requests === | |||
| :::::::Thank you for making that clear. Personally I disagree due the points I raise above and the fact that leaving it as it is, in my opinion, effectively makes the RfC pointless (and by extension, in my opinion, nearly all RfCs) - I can see how others will disagree with that view however. That said I'll have to accept that's how admin's may interpret another revert and will raise this issue at the forum you mentioned. As for the wider point about RfC and indeed all such discussion (for example requested moves) I think we need a wider policy on what people should do if they disagree with a closure, something similar to ] maybe ] and a clear guideline that the closure should stand until the new discussion is finished. However I accept that's a separate issue and will think about raising it separately - possibly as another RfC. ] (]) 16:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| When dealing with copyright unblocks, Beeblebrox has expressed intent to test whether somebody really understands copyright, not by doing due diligence or consulting with those more experienced in copyright issues than he, but by unblocking the editor.{{efn|{{tq|"I have a long-held belief that unblocking is, in many cases, preferable to talking it out for several days or weeks, and that unblocks are cheap"}}}} This has so far resulted in the unblock of one editor where there was clear evidence that they had continued good-faith plagiarism on other English-language WMF projects,{{efn|Jisshu unblock, December 2024}} and one on the say-so of a chatbot.{{efn|Aguahrz unblock, January 2025}} He has cast aspersions and insulted both good-faith users who don't understand copyright{{efn|{{tq|1="they lied during the unblock process" }}}} and editors who bring up issues with his actions.{{efn|1={{tq|"Suggesting that a slight disagreement like this indicates incompetence is a pretty nasty thing to do"}}}}{{efn|1={{tq|"It's really petty that this already resolved situation is being brought up nearly a month later because you are still mad"}}}}{{efn|1={{tq|"I will not, however, back down on the idea that this seems retaliatory"}}}} While acknowledging that these two situations ended up being fixed relatively quickly, that was only due to the proactive behaviour of third-parties. Under normal circumstances these would be chocked up as a learning experience, but his comments make it very clear that he has not learnt anything,{{efn|1={{tq|"it wasn't actually a big deal"}}}}{{efn|1={{tq|"these two unblocks don't prove anything besides the already known fact that sometimes people lie"}}}} that he is unwilling to listen to the concerns of other editors,{{efn|1={{tq|"There's not a serious ongoing issue currently causing harm to the encyclopedia, so why are we at ANI?"}}}} and will continue to act in the same manner going forward.{{efn|1={{tq|"I think that, realistically, the bar is somewhere around 'a grasp of the general idea that you can't just copy someone else's work and repost it like it was your own work'"}}}} Therefore, I am proposing that Beeblebrox is not allowed to unblock editors blocked for copyright infringement or plagiarism. | |||
| {{notelist}} | |||
| ] (]) 08:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. I'm not a fan of holding editors responsible for the actions of others, but Beeblebrox's ideas about when copyright unblocks are needed (see the last footnote) are not great. This is the least invasive action I can think of that will limit disruption to Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 08:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''oppose''' is this the Spanish Inquisition? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *'''Premature'''. Give the man a chance to read the room and think. He will figure out that "I've upset Asilvering in the past, therefore Asilvering is wrong" is not a workable defence, and then he'll get the message. Beebs is on a crusade to improve our unblocking response, and that's a good thing; he's just got to recalibrate about ''who'' he unblocks. He will. Beebs isn't stupid, he's just bad at listening.—] <small>]/]</small> 09:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::A wise man. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 10:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hopefully you're right, S Marshall, and it wouldn't surprise me that much if everything you've said is true. The very impressive way he's making this all about whether to consult the unblocking or not isn't exactly giving me faith that he'll figure it out any time soon, but fingers crossed! {{pb}} And, I know I'm repeating myself here but for the avoidance of doubt I don't give a monkey's about consulting the blocking administrator in every case, I agree with most of the crusade and did a decent amount of legwork which enabled me to bring up examples in the previous AN thread of unblocks gone bad . @], as somebody who is also one-track minded to a fault, please listen to S Marshall, read the words I am typing, and at least try understand where I and the others in this thread are coming from, because it's not what you think. ] (]) 01:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I fully understand that the original intent of this thread was not "he didn't consult with the blocking admin" but rather "he sucks at reviewing copyvio-related unblock requests". I don't think it was me alone who changed the focus to consulting the blocking admin, the other respondents, mostly admins themselves, did that. | |||
| :::Putting that issue aside, and I mean in this in the nicest possible way, if you're going to try and get somebody sanctioned for a pattern of unacceptable behavior, you need to come locked and loaded with a ''lot'' more than what has been presented here, which realistically, is one single unblock. If you're going to call someone incompetent at anything, you should probably anticipate a strong response to such a personal and insulting accusation. | |||
| :::I'm open to criticism, but this sanction attempt was so thin on evidence that it's practically invisible. | |||
| :::Don't get me wrong, I think you're ok in general but this proposed sanction was a very premature gross overreaction. ] ] 02:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::On consulting the blocking admin, I'm 100% with you. I've been the victim of a bad block (by a sitting arb, in fact). That's how I know that the character who blocked me shouldn't ever become the gatekeeper for my unblock. I'm passionate about that on principle. | |||
| ::::I think it's a great pity that some people have made this into a thread about consulting the blocker. I don't blame you for focusing on that side of it because on that side of it you're in the right, at a fundamental, ethical level. | |||
| ::::But on unblocking copyright violating editors, your position is not exactly akin to Gibraltar.—] <small>]/]</small> 11:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''', mostly per Beeblebrox's own comment above: {{tq|Unlike AN, ANI is for asking for consequences, via administrative action because a user demonstrates a pattern of behavior that is harming the encyclopedia. I don't feel like that case has been made here and I don't believe I see a request for any specific sanction against me, so unless and until those things change I think I'm done here.}} Since that comment, he's continued to not get it, and to impugn the motives of basically everyone who disagrees with him. ] ] 12:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' premature and unnecessary. Two <s>blocks</s>unblocks, one of which was hashed out a month ago, does not prove a large issue that merits consequences. ] ] 13:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as too soon. Let's see how things turn out... - ] ] | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Several people, including myself, observed in 2024 that our requests for unblock process had become schlerotic and was suffering from undue months-long delays, largely as the result of too few administrators working CAT:RFU. More recently the situation has improved substantially, with Beeblebrox being responsible for much of the improvement, both by pointing attention to the problem (albeit not always in the same words I would use), and by himself acting on many of the pending requests. I do agree that consulting the initial blocking admin is typically appropriate and can lead to important information (for example, in one recent case I reviewed, I was puzzled at a block that appeared to be an overreaction to a single dubious edit, but I had forgotten to check the user's edit-filter log, which made the reason crystal-clear). I can also agree, based on several people's observations above, that copyvio blocks can call for a little extra caution, and that these days we now need to be scrutinizing unblock requests for insincere chatbot-generated garbage. Nonetheless, the overall pattern of improved admin responsiveness to unblock requests should continue and Beeblebrox should continue to be part of the solution. I also commend the other admins who have pitched in recently in this area; to state the obvious, the more people share the workload, the less will be the burden, stress, or risk of burnout on any one admin, and the more fair will be our unblock requests process both to the blocked users and to everyone else. ] (]) 14:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' With apologies that I didn't fully read all of the background that led to this particular thread. I agree that Cat:RFU has too few admins working at and I say this is someone who is probably never contributed, but as someone who does at least my fair share investigating copyright issues, I do know a little about the situation. While I think it's fair to assert that most copyright violations are good faith errors, it doesn't follow that most blocks for copyright violations are good faith errors. (I'm not suggesting that anyone specifically said that, but it's a possible take away.) Speaking only for my personal approach, I review a lot of potential copyright violations. I reverted and warned many violators. I don't believe I've ever personally blocked anyone for a single violation. The rare cases I block someone for copyright violations is when it has been repeated even after warnings. In my opinion if you've been warned and still do it, it is no longer good faith. That might not be malicious it might be incompetence, but it then deserves a block. I agree it is best practice to talk to the blocking administrator, and while I personally try to make sure to stay active for a period of time after blocking someone, that's not always possible, so I'm not in favor of requiring interaction with the blocking administrator. ]] 17:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - With Misplaced Pages likely to be playing defense in the coming few years, I'm sympathetic to being extra cautious when it comes to potential legal vulnerabilities, and agree with some of the procedural criticisms in the thread above, but this seems like an unnecessary escalation amid active conversation. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 17:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' his responses don't inspire confidence. He doesn't seem to care that other admins find some of his behavior in unblock requests subpar. I would expect a more robust response and an acknowledgement to do better. I often hear that admins are supposed to be held to a higher standard, and I don't believe his responses here meet that standard.]] 17:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Premature''' per S Marshall (both in the !voting and ). ] (]) 18:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Aguahrz was re-blocked for matters unrelated to copyright. One example does not suggest a wider problem requiring a bizarre type of topic ban. ] (]) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' regardless of the intent when openeing this thread, it seems pretty clear to me that the bulk of commenters are in fact upset that I often do not consult with thr blocking admin, I don't see a consensus that these two unblocks represent a pattern of causing real harm to the encyclopedia, to the extent that a sanction is required. I have already said I will try to keep a more open mind about it going forward, you can beleive that or not, but a topic ban is obviously grossly premature. ] ] 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|While acknowledging that these two situations ended up being fixed relatively quickly, that was only due to the proactive behaviour of third-parties}} is exceptionally bullshitty. | |||
| *:The admin who reblocked in the second case not "fixing my error," they discovered using checkuser that the user was a sock and blocked them. It had nothing whatsoever to do with copyvios or my decision to unblock them. | |||
| *:And in the first case, as I've mentioned, as soon as I became aware of their activities I went in and helped clean it up, as GLL is perfectly aware since they were the one who ]. ] ] 20:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I've just now noticed that the proposal is "''Proposal: Beeblebrox is not allowed to '''accept''' copyright-related unblock requests''" (emphasis added). So, I'm competent to deny such requests, just not to accept? How does that make sense? ] ] 03:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' premature, willing to accept Beeblebrox's course correction. Once upon a time, different things were thought of as cowboy adminning than they are today, and community norms change. I know that from experience. ''']'''<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> 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Unnecessary. ] (]) 23:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' -- I don't think the argument that Beebs is somehow not competent to handle copyright unblocks has merit. As has been pointed out, policy does not strictly require consultation -- it's a "should" do, and there are valid reasons (both the "hit by bus" argument and as Brad points out "our unblocking process sucks") why an administrator may choose not to consult. There's a reason, for instance, that CTOPS/AE unblocks explicitly have a different unblocking process -- if the community wanted a no-exceptions blanket policy, they would have implemented one. I'm honestly surprised by the level of hostility he's getting here. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 00:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== User:The2KKidRulez == | ||
| {{atop|1=Blocked with TPA revoked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|The2KKidRulez}} | |||
| Using personal attacks, even after being warned not to. All is listed ]. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">] ] </span> 07:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Blocked indefinitely. ] (]) 07:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have revoked talk page access from The2KKidRulez. ] (]) 10:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{vandal|Boovaloo}} has made 3 edits. After the third edit he recieved a level 2 warning. I don't see any edits after that. With a few exceptions we usually give users a chance to respond to warnings. If he continues he should get a at least a final warning, if not a level 3 warning first. Then if he continues ] would be the best spot to report.--] (]) 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::And as I post that he earns himself a final warning...---] (]) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I blocked by accident, thinking there had been another edit past the final warning, but unblocked when I saw that wasn't the case. The autoblock is still active -- I figured if they wanted to get in that badly, they could follow the instructions. --] (]) 19:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== User:Xegma == | ||
| {{atop|Xegma blocked as a sock by Spicy. ] (]) 23:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Xegma}} | |||
| It appears that this editor's account has been compromised. See their recent editing history (which is certainly odd) starting today on Jan 12th. They also closed this in a very strange manner (even with poor grammar), and they're apparently claiming to be the person who is the subject of that article. Very strange indeed. Pinging {{U|Taabii}} (the editor who nominated the article) for some input on this situation. I would suggest blocking to prevent further disruption, and until the situation is settled. <small>]</small> <sup>]</sup> 08:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I got mail from Xegma, which I already disclosed in the Deletion Discussion, I can forward the mail if anyone wants. ] (]) 08:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussion top}} | |||
| ::{{re|Taabii}} But Xegma claims to be female (as you can see on their userpage) and not male. So it makes no sense, and their e-mail could've been compromised as well. <small>]</small> <sup>]</sup> 08:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{resolved|Admin has been admonished for placing a controversial block, using the wrong block settings, and failing to notify the blockee. Next time discuss controversial blocks in advance. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I've fixed the mess caused by the AfD being closed early and inappropriately by a non-admin (close reverted and discussion reopened per ]), and by draftifying the article but then having it recreated with no history (recreation deleted, draft with all the history moved back to mainspace, redirects deleted). Haven't looked into the compromised bit and will need to sign off shortly. ] (]) 08:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| See ] for details. ] (]) 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nothing looking comprised to me. The grammar and prose-writing is consistent with their comments ] (which is why I recognised the username). {{ping|CycloneYoris}} in which edit are they {{tq|"apparently claiming to be the person who is the subject of that article"}}, out of curiosity? Might have missed a comment somewhere so just wanted to be sure. Thanks, ] (]) 08:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Would also appreciate feedback over whether this constitutes wheel warring or not as that is also a disputed point. ] (]) 18:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Daniel}} ] apparently received this information via e-mail, as they've stated at ]. <small>]</small> <sup>]</sup> 08:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not. Even if a declined block counts as an administrative action, someone has the right to revert it. (Now if somebody reverted over that, it might be a wheel war, depending on the first premise.) See ]. --] (] ]) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, just saw that. I'll reclose AfD1 as procedural close given AfD2 is now running. Taabii, a note for next time - if someone inappropriately closes an AfD like this, please take to either their user talk page or ], rather than starting a new AfD immediately. No stress on this occasion, just a little bit extra paperwork to clean up, but DRV is best practice. Cheers, ] (]) 09:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry for late reply, Yes I've mail the nominator as a personal interest of that subject, as you can see my past article creation that I've created articles about bengali actors and actresses. Then when I'm going to start that article of that subject And I have seen that someone created that article and I've reviewed it. I've added the article on my watchlist to edit and then I've seen that they nominated for it on Afd and I'm sorry that I've mentioned on the mail that "I'm that subject" that's only I've mentioned for my personal interest or nothing. The nominator also mail me in the past for reviewing their articles and I've also reviewed their article and also you can see they have requested on my talkpage to review of their article. <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:2px 5px;background:purple;font-size:95%">]</span>] 09:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@] Yes, I requested you to review my articles but I don't have any personal interest in those articles. If I would have ever in future, I'll surely follow the Guidelines to disclose. Also, You mailed me — "Hi Taabi, this is my article | |||
| ::::::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Susovan_Roy why you tag deletion for it. Please remove it. I'm that actor pls withdraw it." ] (]) 10:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{re|Xegma}} Thank you for your response, and for clarifying the situation. I guess it's now safe to say that this issue has been resolved. <small>]</small> <sup>]</sup> 10:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] How can she write "Please remove it. I'm that actor pls withdraw it." by mistake? I am damn sure that Xegma is hiding the truth. ] (]) 14:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{re|Taabii}} Perhaps. Although I do think that they at least clarified, albeit with broken English, that their account wasn't compromised (which is why I thanked them above). The issue regarding their identity, on the other hand, still remains a mystery. <small>]</small> <sup>]</sup> 19:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] Sorry for starting the new AFD, I was really unaware of that. I tried to Undo the edits of Xegma, but it looked impossible for me. ] (]) 10:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Noting that I have p-blocked @] from ] to avoid any issues there. They remain welcome to contribute elsewhere. ] ] 14:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}I am confused and concerned about what {{u|Xegma}} wrote above and admitting writing the email that {{u|Taabii}} has described. Xegma is an editor who, on her userpage and in previous conversations, has gone out of her way to describe herself as female. The user also states {{tpq|This user is not a Misplaced Pages administrator but would like to be one someday.}} But the user has apparently claimed to be ], a person who is obviously male. When I read the "explanation" {{tpq|I'm sorry that I've mentioned on the mail that "I'm that subject" that's only I've mentioned for my personal interest or nothing}}, I am even more mystified. On her userpage, Xegma claims {{tpq|This user has a native understanding of English}} and yet the things they wrote above are baffling and not indicative of native English language competence. There is an expectation that every Misplaced Pages editor will tell the truth, fully and frankly (especially if they hope to become an adminisrator someday), and I have very serious doubts about Xegma's honesty about several matters at this point. I hope for a much more detailed and thoughtful explanation of these inconsistencies. ] (]) 10:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :See also ]. ] (]) 11:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :First of all I'm apolozing for my English is not that good and my languages are Hindi and Bengali. and second I'm really sorry for my behaviour and will not happen in the future. Thanks. <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:2px 5px;background:purple;font-size:95%">]</span>] 12:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Xegma}}, since you admit that your {{tpq|English is not that good}}, then please edit your userpage for accuracy. ] (]) 19:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] and persistant ], ], and ]-failing articles == | |||
| ::Its not wheel warring. There is only one administrative action done afaict with respect to this account. ] (]) 18:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Gotcha. (still it would've been nice if they'd discussed it with me before blocking, but I see how it does not constitute wheel warring) ] (]) 18:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not technically wheel warring, but also a fairly bad block.--] (]) 18:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not Wheel warring, however I disagree with the block At least wait till (s)he edits and then discuss the name on their talk page?--''''']''''' ] 19:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been creating articles on portuguese history for a while now. They seem to be a competent writer, but their understanding of ] and ] seems to be lacking substantially. | |||
| :Sorry, maybe I'm missing something technical here... but is this really hardblocking? They are blocked with autoblock active, and with account creation blocked. IIRC that means that if they try to access the wiki with the account it will also autoblock the ip for 24 hours, and that they cannot create another user account while logged in with this account. If they come back after 24 hours autoblock as their bare IP shouldn't they be able to create an account if they wanted to? ] (]) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sort of a moot point in this case; the block was 10-11 hours ago. After being blocked for this long, much less with no explanation, I doubt they'll ever return. ] (]) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not wheel-warring, though I think the rule needs work and have brought this up in the past. It is so, but a bad block in my view, unless little cloth coverings for piano legs are on their way back. This is 2009. Nipple is not an offensive word. It just is not. I don't even think nipple was, back in the day, but certainly it is not such a word today. Even John Ashcroft probably wouldn't have a problem with it.--] (]) 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What about ]? ] (]) 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Between here and my talk page, it is apparent that there is a strong consensus that this was an overly harsh block. Although the damage is likely already done, I think it would be a good idea for some uninvolved admin to undo or at least reduce the block. That is, unless Rschen would care to acknowledge this consensus and undo it themselves... ] (]) 19:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That was an over-reaction, especially the hardblocking. Changed to a softblock; see ] for my message. --] | ] 19:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I see a softblock in this situation is "That's not how I'd do it, but I wouldn't override it" sort of thing. --] (] ]) 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Bad block all around. Toning it down to a softblock and leaving an explanatory message on the user's talk page is a step in the right direction but blocking these sorts of things on sight is a hypersensitive reaction to what ''might'' be offensive. This is precisely the sort of scenario in which engaging the editor personally is the proper way to go about things. At this point there isn't much to be done about it, however; the damage is done. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's obvious what ought to be done about, but equally obvious that nobody's got the balls to do it. The block should be reversed, the blocking admin given a serious talking to, and if (s)he persists with these kinds of blocks then (s)he should be summarily desysoped. Easy. --] ] 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'll agree with "The block should be reversed".--] (]) 20:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Too soft. Administrators who make blocks like these chase editors away, when they ought to be chased away themselves. --] ] 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Unfortunately, Malleus, I left my ] hat someplace.--] (]) 20:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Too bad. ] though. --] ] 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I unblocked, left welcome message fwiw. Hope all parties are okay with this course of action, and hopefully all is settled. Let me know if not. -- ] 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Somehow, I'm rather disappointed in rschen for blocking ]. --] (]) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::ROTFLMFAO! ] (]) 20:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks Samir. ] (]) 20:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **Uh, he should at least be told to change his name? --] (] ]) 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ***Why? Everyone else says that it is fine. ] (]) 21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Nipple 37 might be a half inch galvanized pipe fitting in bin 37. Even if it refers to an anatomical nipple, there is still nothing wrong with it. It will be disturbing to some who have body-taboos, but the ]-censored is pretty important. *shrug*- ] 21:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is what you need to understand about this. Nobody but you sees this name as even marginally offensive. If it was ] or ] you'd have something, but there is no ''context'' here that makes it offensive. ] (]) 21:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, there were people on your user talk who could see asking him to change the name. --] (] ]) 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::By that reasoning, ] is acceptable. --] (] ]) 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::And by a "no body parts" reasoning, ] is unacceptable? There's a difference between a penis and a nipple. --] (]) 21:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And a difference between a nipple and a big toe. --] (] ]) 21:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not really -- you see both of them exposed on every single beach in the world. Granted, you only see about half as many nipples as big toes...--] (]) 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>(triple edit conflict)</small>If somebody is such a dim-wit that they ''want'' to be called {{User|Penis}} all the (idiotic) power to them. It's just a piece of anatomy. ] (]) 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::]? --] (] ]) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *This admin needs to be whacked with a ]. Right on the nipples. ] (]) 21:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *] ] (]) 21:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :What I'm finding ironic here is that if they hadn't come to my talk page and made an issue of it, I probably wouldn't have noticed the block at all since I had declined to block it already. And if they hadn't rejected the arguments of everyone on my talk page and said I should report it here, I probably wouldn't have done that either. What's next my friend? Would you like to go to RFC or ArbCom with this? How far do we have to go before you will acknowledge that you made an error? ] (]) 21:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't acknowledge that I made an error because I honestly don't believe that I made one. --] (] ]) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, ok, how about "acted against consensus?" I think it should be abundantly clear that you did by now, given that there is unanimous agreement that the block was an overreaction. ] (]) 22:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There was no consensus at that point when I made the block. I still believe that the username is grossly inappropriate. Do I believe it's worth bringing it any higher? I don't have the time for that (picking my fights carefully). But I refuse to admit that I made a mistake when honestly, I don't believe I made one. --] (] ]) 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I wasn't serious about ArbCom, but it's important that you understand why so very many users object to this block, whether you agree with them or not, and that you not be so hasty to instantly hardblock such cases in the future. ] (]) 22:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You hardblocked for a username offence. Really, unless the name is "Killallniggers" (which does warrant an instant permanent block) you discuss first, and block as a last resort. (Of course, if the person goes on to edit and is a vandal you're in luck, because it's easy to block them then. ) And when you block you give a soft block, with a link to username policy, and ask them to come back with a different name. ] (]) 22:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well said. At around the same time this was reported last night there was a user with "kkk" in their name. At first there was nothing solid tying them to the ], so I held off and watched for a few minutes, and bam, they made several racist edits inserting the initials "KKK" into ] among others, and I could justify blocking them as a vandal and an inappropriate name. ] (]) 22:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Why is this so hard for Rschen7754 to understand? Is he a new or inexperienced administrator? --] ] 22:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I've been an admin since 2005. --] (] ]) 22:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Then you have no excuse for your poor judgement and response here. --] ] 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * was deleted for ] | |||
| *Lets face it, if something has 37 nipples, chances are it's a ] ] (]) 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :And still Rschen doesn't give up . I'm sorry, but this is seriously in need of a ]. As a woman, I'm actually getting quite offended that someone could find nipples so offensive. ] (]) 22:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::We all have nipples Elen, even us blokes. --] ] 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thinks...actually, I do know this. Duh! That makes it even dafter. ] (]) 22:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Perhaps the rules ought to be changed so as not to allow any body part to be used in a username. After all, there are (apparently) many who find even feet to be erotic, although I just find them to be smelly. Perhaps best to make everyone have randomly generated usernames, like User:Ahgfditr76. That way the only other editors likely to be offended are those who speak gibberish, like ... well, fill in your own name here. --] ] 23:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'll be honest...as a user, after reading this thread (and seeing the notice at the top of ] I will have a hard time accepting that this admin considers any position other than their own, and doesn't have the ability to admit they made a mistake. This makes me very nervous as nobody is perfect and even the most experienced admin will make mistakes from time to time. An admin should be held to a higher standard, and have the maturity and judgment to accept when they have made a mistake, and attempt to rectify that mistake instead of just digging the hole deeper and deeper. ] (]) 23:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::While I agree with much of what you say, I believe that we should all be held to the same standard, whether we're admins or not. The problem wikipedia has to face is that at present regular editors are held to a higher standard than administrators. But I digress. --] ] 23:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I agree with Malleus on that one.--''''']''''' ] 23:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I also agree with Malleus. This is a pretty disappointing situation as both a user and a person with nipples.--] (]) 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm going to go ahead and say what I lot of people are implying or at least thinking: Someone who as hardheaded as Rschen shouldn't be an admin. How many valuable contributors has he chased away with his overzealous blocks? How many people have left the project in part due to his rude comments and I'm always right attitude? This kind of behavior is not acceptable from an average user, let alone an admin. --] (]) 00:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **Reviewing , I see he always hardblocks everyone & never templates any of them. Some of these people shouldn't have been blocked at all, and barely any all hard block worthy. Every single one deserved messages explaining the problem. --] (]) 00:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*I have to say they are the most stubborn admin I have ever come across, and I'm staggered by their continuing denial that there's any problem on their side. ] (]) 00:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*There's an identical situation in the blocking of ]. No contribs whatever, indef hardblocked, no message informing them of the block. It seems this is not an isolated incident, and we have an admin who is out of touch with current policy. ] (]) 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * on ] and ] grounds | |||
| Hardheadedness is not an admin criteria, and isn't everyone in different ways? Sure I don't agree with the "I'm always right" attitude, but lately there are a lot of so-called "noobs" or disruptive editors driving down Rschen's skull. Remind me to bring this up when it happens again.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(] ])</sup> 00:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * on ] and ] | |||
| :... and in the meantime let's push it under the carpet. Quite typical. --] ] 01:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The user could select another user ID and try again. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just like many, if not most, blocked users already do. The problem isn't with this user, it's with this administrator. --] ] 01:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The user knew that name would be trouble. There was nothing wrong with the block, although it might have been better to wait and see what (if anything) he intended to edit. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *They've been warned about ] and . | |||
| If the user chose that name in order to stir up controversy, then he succeeded. I, for one, was looking forward to seeing what he would upload to his user page. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It's sad that we've let that user win. --] (] ]) 01:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's even more sad that you still don't 'get' what you've done wrong here. You actually physically embarrass me. ] (]) 01:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I notice there isn't anything on ] about this. It seems that some pretty serious problems have been brought up regarding this administrator; not only of this block, but of their general blocking practice. It seems he always uses hardblocks, and fails to notify the blocked users? I'm not sure what would be a good example of a problem of similar degree that an ordinary editor might have, but it seems like that editor would at least get a "formal" warning for it. Blocking is serious stuff. It's a sensitive issue and can drive people away. We need to watch this person, and when it happens, it must be determined whether or not he's aware that he screwed up. If he's in disagreement on that, further actions may need to be taken. ] (]) 01:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *] which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in ) | |||
| :<s>Is there a policy to review administrators if a concern is brought up like this. This username is obviously one example, but ThaddeusB brings up a potentially troubling series of actions by this admin. I would rather have this dealt with immediately than wait until another violation happens. I see and respect Mitch32's point, but an inability to remain civil, follow policy and procedure, and to always ] until proven that there is bad faith involved indicates to me a serious question of impartiality by the admin. I will admit that I have edited in frustration, and freely admit that I am not always civil, but I do admit when I'm wrong (] being a perfect example!) I'm starting to feel that this is not necessarily the place for this conversation as it is no longer simply about the block, but has become more about this admin's record on the name policy. But...I could be wrong on this one too!{{unsigned|Frmatt}}</s> | |||
| *Plenty of articles containing only one source ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| ===Response from the person=== | |||
| Wow, I go to class and come back and find this mess. Rather than mess with indenting, I'll try to write a summary here: | |||
| Most recently there's ], which contains two sources and the only one easily accessible never mentions any Battle of Naband and indeed mentions the Naband itself only twice in the book. I've AFDd four of their last five or so articles in a row, with three now deleted. | |||
| *I find the username ] offensive and believe it inappropriate to be used as a username on Misplaced Pages. I cannot back down on that opinion. | |||
| *That being said, it is not my intent to wheel war over it. | |||
| *Some concerns have been presented regarding my UAA blocks. Honestly, after this debacle, I'm staying away from UAA for a while. | |||
| *As far as my comment on the was-blocked user's talk page, I was fully within my rights as an editor to make those comments. Does an editor have to follow comments like that? No. Just as I can make comments on anybody's talk page. I believe Malleus Fatuorum should not have made the revert. That being said, I won't readd the comments; it prevents further fighting, and I think the user may have a clue that their username has been called into question. | |||
| *The colored box on my user talk page relates to users complaining about their pages being deleted. Occasionally there is a legitimate complaint, and I will be happy to address those. However, whenever I make a journey into ] I get messages saying "WHY DID YOU DELETE MY PAGE!@@#$#$~??" for the next few days, complete with excuses as to why their page should exist. This is an attempt to cut down on that. This is a reason why I don't go into CSD anymore. | |||
| *If anyone has other complaints regarding my adminship of nearly 4 years, please bring them to me and I will be happy to address them. I do have a midterm tomorrow and a homework assignment that I have done very little of due tomorrow, so there could be delays. I am on IRC on #wikipedia-en-roads, and I have a user talk page and have email enabled. --] (] ]) 01:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Battle of Naband is my last article of theirs I'm AFDing. ] but it doesn't appear to have gone anywhere and I don't want to ] someone for mass creating low-quality articles. They're a competent writer but I feel that a time out from article creation without oversight may be helpful for everyone here. With the inscrutible sourcing and the repeated defense of a ] article above it's pretty impossible for inexpert editors to know if what's being presented is legit or not without sources or verifiability. ] 10:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Let me ask you a very simple question. What is it about the username Nipple37 that you find offensive, as you seem to be in a minority of one on this issue? What's offensive about the number 37? --] ] 01:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *It refers to body parts that sometimes are not appropriate to be displayed. These parts also have a sexual connotation. The question about the number 37 is not constructive. --] (] ]) 01:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **I see. So you're a puritanical prude not yet out of school who intends to hardblock anyone who doesn't share your tight-assed view on life. Got it now. --] ] 01:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ***The above comment is inappropriate and personalizes a policy discussion. I recommend its retraction or redaction. It appears to be highly unhelpful and counterproductive. —] ] ] ]</b></font></span> 06:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ****Be nice to the user, as he's apparently a bit calory-challenged: His user ID, roughly translated from the vulgar Latin, means "Badly Overweight". ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 06:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I randomly checked some of the hardblocked users. Of those that had a couple edits before being blocked, about half appeared to be in good faith. This clearly demonstrates that people with questionable usernames can be good faith. It is not really surprising that people unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages might create bad names in good faith - after all on many websites one's username is rarely or never displayed anywhere. (Even ignoring that several of the names weren't clearly offensive to begin with.) By hardblocking these people you prevent them from creating a legitimate name as autoblock will prevent them from re-registering. By not informing them of the problem, they will remain ignorant of what happened, and may well assume Misplaced Pages is a place filled with tyrants and never return. If you are not willing to take 15 seconds to template a blocked username, let someone else do the blocking. --] (]) 01:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What good is templating ]? --] (] ]) 02:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why don't we deal with an actual username you hardblocked w/o explanation rather than some theortical name. ]'s only edit was this: - not the best edit in the history of the world, but clearly a good faith attempt to improve the article. I do not question that their username was inappropriate, but since you didn't bother to explain why they were blocked they will likely never edit again. Even if they figure out the block was b/c of their username, they won't be able to create a new account because of autoblock. Because you couldn't spare 15 secs to drop a template, we've likely lost this editor for good. --] (]) 02:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sadly I have to support this. They simply don't have a grasp of our policies and guidelines despite all the AfDs where they've been discussed. ] ] 10:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{ec}}Regarding the comment on their talk page, you may have been within your rights as an editor, but when you make a comment like that as the blocking admin, it can seem unduly authoritative to the user. | |||
| ::I checked this ] which is at Afd. It wasn't a battle and hasn't been named as such by any historian. A small engagement at best. The sources are problematic, very very slim. I could only find a couple of small paras in a single source that seems to come from a single verbal report. I think they should all be draftified to be checked and any future work sent to draft. I couldn't find Naband? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 12:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*Part of using the tools is dealing with individual complaints, many of them repetitive. Your red box remark amounts to "my decisions are final", which they shouldn't be, and you shouldn't be saying it. Besides which, if you don't handle CSD anymore, there should be no more need for that box. | |||
| :Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised: | |||
| :*I find lots of things offensive on Misplaced Pages, and can do nothing about them. Just because you have the tools to do something doesn't mean you're allowed to. Offense is not a reason to act. Policy is. ] (]) 01:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*1) While I understand that the Luso-Danish expedition theory is not widely accepted, similar fringe theories, such as the "]," are allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages. I suggested adjustments to the article title and additional citations during our earlier discussion, but those suggestions were not incorporated. | |||
| ::*I have rephrased the part of the box you refer to. --] (] ]) 02:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*2) I still believe the topic is notable, even though it isn't widely discussed. I maintain that there is no issue with synthesis as the article does not present conclusions that aren't directly supported by the sources. | |||
| :*3) I agree with the decision to delete the article in question, as I did not do my research properly, turns out it was not a colony or long standing controlled territory. | |||
| :*4) I have never created a hoax article (Correction: Besides "Portuguese Newfoundland). The warning I received 10 months ago was for an article I translated from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :*5) I typically do this when the sources used do not provide page numbers, and it can be difficult for others to verify specific information. | |||
| :*6) Many of the articles in question were created when I was beginning to edit on Misplaced Pages. I don’t mind improving research quality. | |||
| :*7) The article now cites four sources, and there are additional mentions of the engagement in other books, I just didn’t cite all of them. | |||
| :Additionally, I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work. I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues. A recent example would be the "]". ] (]) 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work.}} | |||
| ::I addressed this above, it's a tricky thing to strike a balance between ] and "This editor constantly makes articles that need oversight", which is why I brought this to ANI and said it'd be the last article of yours I AFD. It wasn't my intent to make you feel surveilled, though, which is why I called attention to that pattern of mine in the ANI itself. | |||
| ::{{tq|I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues.}} | |||
| ::Considering that these articles have, for the most part, been deleted, I don't think it's fair to summarize them as needing maintainence templates. Something that fails ] doesn't need a maintanence template if it's never going to pass ] and believe me, I am actually looking for sources before I nominate. It's actually why, for example | |||
| ::{{tq|A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".}} | |||
| ::I didn't AFD this one, but instead raised it on your talk page. That seemed to have ] issues but was much less cut and dry, so I reached out directly instead of AFDing it. I'm not going to maintenance-tag a page that may simply never pass ] before establishing that, because it risks wasting editors time. ] 12:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * The single-source articles probably need to go to AfD as well. There are literally no hits for a "Battle of Cape Coast", "Battle of Lucanzo", and a "Portudal–Joal Massacre" (and they are not referred to as such in the single source that ''is'' in the article). There is little doubt that these minor skirmishes occurred (so they're not hoaxes), but they don't appear to be notable either. They sound like information that should be included in a wider article about the topics involved. ] 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :To rschen7754: I have three questions, all of which are sincere: | |||
| * Based upon their comments here and at the various AfD's, I do not believe Jaozinhoanaozinho understands the problematic nature of their articles, nor do they apparently understand the ] policy. I propose and '''support''' a ban from article creation until, after gaining substantially more experience improving pre-existing articles without violating ], they gain that necessary understanding/competence. ] (]) 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* You seem to be saying that your personal definition of "offensive" should be more important than consensus. Why, specifically, do you think that your definition is superior? | |||
| * '''SUPPORT''' ban from article creation. ] ] 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* Why, specifically, did you not communicate with the user before hard-blocking him? (And the answer is not "it was offensive". That's why you blocked the user. my question is why you didn't communicate with him or her first. | |||
| * '''Support''' a ban from article creation. I checked a couple more of them over the weekend. I'm not keen to see any more of these non-articles made in that manner. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* Which outcome would be worse for the encyclopedia: you receiving a number of unfortunate comments on your talk page, or a new user abandoning the project because his article was inappropriately speedily deleted and there was no obvious way to get help? | |||
| *'''Support''' article creation ban. ] (]) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::At the point I hardblocked, there was no consensus that I could see on the matter. Consensus is a large factor in my not reblocking. | |||
| :::But why did you jump to the conclusion that the word "nipple" was offensive? That is what I cannot, cannot understand in this. I'm sorry, I suspect it's obvious to you, but "nipple" is not that offensive. Really, no: it's not. And the idea that it is so offensive that a user who has that username has to be a vandal? Is so far in left field I can't even understand it. | |||
| ::Typically users who use "Nipples" in a username are disruptive and just going to vandalize. | |||
| :::Can you provide diffs showing that people with that word in their username are particularly prone to vandalism? If not, it's just your assumption, based on your personal (and I'm sorry to say, idiosyncratic) idea that the word "nipple" is inherently horrible and could only be used in order to shock or disgust. It's simply a body part. | |||
| ::Well, what answer do you want? Is there any way to say otherwise? My question is, is the scenario that you describe likely to happen? | |||
| --] (] ]) 02:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Absolutely it can happen, and I've seen it happen a dozen times. Imagine a new user who doesn't know about the sandbox or user pages. Now imagine them building an article, saving it as he goes, but he hasn't got to the point where he's added the references. Suddenly in between his saves the article is speedily deleted. Then he goes to the closing admin's user page and finds a comment like yours. He'd probably think he had been run out of Dodge by an admin who won't lift a finger to help if he asks for it. Put yourself in a new user's position and remember that your words may seem harsher and more arrogant on the page than you mean them to be. --] (]) 02:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Repeated copyvios by Vairankodepooram20 == | |||
| ] | |||
| {{atop|1=Copyvio block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| * Well good grief! I really ''do'' think you should stay well clear of ] if you find the ''word'' "nipple" offensive. For a little perspective, check out ]. There's actually nothing that could be construed as salacious or 'offensive' there. It talks about lactation, breastfeeding, areolae - even 'male nipples'. I seriously think you massively overreacted here but what really concerns me now is your obstinacy to recognize that you may be somewhat ... unique ... in this perspective and against the clear opinion of so many others, can see no issue with using admin tools in enforcing your opinion on newb editors. Not good in an admin> I need to know that you're not going to drop the almighty banhammer again for something as trivial as this. As someone else points out, watchlist the marginal cases and wait for them to step out of line - ''then'' act - ] <sup>]</sup> 02:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Vairankodepooram20}} | |||
| **Well, there's obviously some limit to how offensive I find the word nipple if I'm typing it in right now. I don't believe it appropriate in a username however. But you miss the point - when I blocked, there was no consensus against my position. --] (] ]) 02:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] has repeatedly added copyvios to ] despite warnings (, ). (Most recent diffs: , ; can't add others since they've been revdel'd but as you can see from the vast majority of editor's text content additions have been copyrighted material. The editor is also edit-warring over tags ( and ) in addition to repeatedly adding infringing content. ] (]) 13:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***Yes there was, it just wasn't demonstrated. We can't convene a committee prior to every administrative action. That's why we have to carefully choose people to trust with tools who can make adequate judgments on their own. Your capacity to make those calls is being called into question. ] (]) 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *** {{ec}} You've not commented on the suggestions that you massively overreacted, nor have you answered my concern regarding your not doing it again. Yes, there was nothing voiced against your position ''at the time'' as nobody but you and the blockee were aware of it. This is separate to the matter of consensus, which clearly existed before you acted. IMO, you're not addressing the concerns here now in any meaningful way - ] <sup>]</sup> 02:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm arguably involved as I have edited the article, but I would support an indefinite block for copyright violations. ] (]) 13:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Um, the admin made a decision. Consensus disagreed and the admin has agreed to abide by the consensus. While I personally agree with the consensus viewpoint, I would greatly prefer that the public flogging be done via a webcam, as I just can't see the blood fly on wiki. ] (]) 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :What I'd prefer is a little bit of honesty, not administrators closing ranks over issues like this one. --] ] 02:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see any "closing of ranks". The arb made a decision he believed (and still believes) was correct. Nearly everyone else (including me) disagreed and the arb has fully cooperated with the consensus viewpoint. We are not (and cannot be) required to all agree with each other. We ARE required to not be disruptive and abide by consensus. As this admin has done just that, then there is nothing more to discuss. ] (]) 02:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I have gone ahead and blocked them to prevent more copyvios. ] (]) 13:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have seen no evidence that this administrator even recognises that his block was wrong, much less agreed not to do something similar in the future. --] ] 02:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :::{{ec}} Please (re?)read the thread. There is far more going on here than a mistake on one username. --] (]) 02:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Consensus in this particular incident. But as someone pointed out this has occurred in more than on incident which often points to a larger problem. The sarcasm doesn't aid in discussing that issue. Instead it looks like someone trying to brush the discussion under the carpet. If there is a defense for his behaviour in these cases or you agree with him hard blocking without any templating, then you should make that point without the sarcastic attempts to shut the discussion down. There seem to be concerns raised about this incident, further incidents and the tone on the talk page.--] (]) 02:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == IDHT religious POV-pushing == | |||
| ::::The admin is under NO requirement to admit he was wrong. He believes he was correct and he is perfectly entitled to do so. He IS however required to acknowledge that his viewpoint is not the consensus viewpoint and to thus abide by the established consensus from here onwards. This has been done to my satisfaction at least. ] (]) 02:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result=Umayyad-387 blocked as a sock. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 14:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::::Where has that been done? I haven't seen that. Though I may have missed it. ] (]) 02:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Umayyad-387}} | |||
| Despite (cf. also ), this users continues to edit war on several pages of early Islamic figures, such as | |||
| :::::Then you're rather too easily satisfied. --] ] 02:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * ] , | |||
| ===what now?=== | |||
| * ] , | |||
| Honestly... what more do you want? I am not going to copy and paste a statement saying that I admit my guilt, because I do not believe my decision was wrong. But I have said repeatedly that '''I will not make UAA blocks for a while, and I am leaving this user in question alone.''' If you want to see my judgment, how about looking at all the stuff I did right, for a change? --] (] ]) 02:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| : Overuse of hardblock: wrong. Hypersensitivity to usernames: wrong. Not templating: wrong. I don't want a signed confession in blood here but I'd at least like to see some sort of acknowledgement of these three basic issues here. ''All'' of them are really bad practice for an admin. Staying away from UAA is a good thing, IMO, but can you see how the rest is problematic here? In particular, I have a major issue with the redlinked talkpage. It's not okay to simply stick the template in the block message and it's ''not'' okay to block ACB for anything other than the most blatant cases. ACB is too harsh for most username probs - ] <sup>]</sup> 02:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * and now also ] | |||
| :(ec with Alison, but this adds to what she said) I'm not all that comforted, personally. If you don't understand why this was a bad block, what happens when you start making UAA blocks again? I don't even see this as a problem that's necessarily confined to UAA blocks. You could take undue offense to other things and find them just as blockable, and I'm also concerned that the not informing users of important things (like their having been blocked) would also carry into other areas. But that's just me, I don't want to speak for everyone else. ] (]) 02:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are we really having this conversation? If you don't trust my judgment, your only option is to go to ArbCom right away. You can't just give good judgment to someone. --] (] ]) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah we're really having it. I'd (we'd?) prefer to engage you in an open discussion, to determine the likelihood of this or something similar happening in the future. You don't seem too thrilled with the prospect of taking criticism to heart or subsequently easing our minds though. ] (]) 03:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::... and if it turned out that I had bad judgment, ArbCom would need to deal with it anyway. --] (] ]) 03:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Despite same guidance, they also keep insisting that ] are more reliable than modern secular scholars, and blindly accuse others who warn them for their behavior of religious (anti-Sunni) bias . | |||
| :::::There seems to be some doubt in your mind that many believe your judgement to have been poor. Repeatedly. Why is that? --] ] 03:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Umayyad-387 has also made some apparently constructive to pages about cricket players, so they're not quite ], and ideally a ] on Islam broadly construed would be the best solution. However, the ] is so strong here that I fear they would just ignore it. | |||
| (←) I personally think societal sensitivity to the topic is peculiar and backward, but I would happen to agree that selecting it as a username is probably not the best judgment. I would agree that a block (let alone a hardblock) is probably not the best response. But I also agree with ] that the ongoing flogging is not productive. Are there additional hardblocks that need to be softened, or blocks that need to be removed altogether? If not, then I don't see anything further that can be addressed ''at this noticeboard''. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 02:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd say at least 90% of Rschen's blocks should have been soft blocks and 99% templated, but the damage has already been done. These people aren't going to randomly log back on weeks later and see the message. What I want to see is 1) an agreement not to hardblock for username except in extreme circumstances and 2) an agreement to template blocked usernames. Neither of these things have been done. The current promise to "stay away for awhile" moves the problem into the future instead of solving it. --] (]) 03:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::^What Thaddeus said. Though I wouldn't mind seeing template notices for ''all'' future blocks. ] (]) 03:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your attention, <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 13:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Okay, now it sounds like you are asking us to take this issue to ArbCom instead of coming to a reasonable compromise here in open conversation. Do you really think that you are so right that ArbCom would uphold what you've done, and are you ready to run the risk that you would end up desysoped? I've looked at your contributions and for the most part you make good edits, so why are you being so stubborn on this issue? Why not take the compromise that ThaddeusB just offered, admit that you were wrong in your actions regarding usernames, and lets just move on? ] (]) 03:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd prefer Arbcom over vigilante justice. --] (] ]) 03:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Call it what you like, but the community is trying to compromise with you. You're pretty much saying you want to retain your right to hardblock people, and to block without adding template notices, and if we don't like that we'll have to take it to ArbCom. If that's the case, I'm not seeing any other choice. ] (]) 03:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I only don't template my hardblocks and block evasion blocks. I template everything else. And I've practically given up my hardblock right, since I said I wasn't doing UAA for a while, and I dunno where else you can hardblock. --] (] ]) 03:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"for a while" doesn't solve anything, see Thaddeusb's comment above. No one wants to go to ArbCom, it's a lot of typing. We'll do it if need be, but how about this compromise? Would really make it easier on everyone. ] (]) 03:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Do you really think ArbCom would take the case? (Background: I have been involved in 2 cases before. I know what it is like. ) --] (] ]) 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Happy for you, two for me also. It sounds like you're trying to use the fear that arbcom ''won't'' take the case as leverage to continue doing what you like despite the community's opinion. ] (]) 03:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::... I said I was staying away from UAA. What more do you need? You want me to resign, don't you? --] (] ]) 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Could you perhaps stay away from newbies altogether? You don't seem to understand what it means to not bite them, despite that you're okay at other areas of adminship. ] (]) 04:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I have had concerns brought to me before in the roads area, and I am working on being more friendly to them. --] (] ]) 04:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No, he said about 9 paragraphs back ''exactly'' what he wanted to see, and "resign" was ''not'' in the list. --] (]) 04:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You seem to know as well as everyone else here that ArbCom doesn't take cases this obvious, so don't hide behind them. Just admit you made a bad block, upon the realization that you are the only person here who is offended by the word "nipple", and back down. ] (]) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::... in summary, no, no, and no. I'm willing to let this go and end the discussion, but *some people* won't let it end... --] (] ]) 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If your intent is to end the discussion with the firm conviction that the way you handle newbies is appropriate... no, it's not actually acceptable for it to end that way. ] that are more important than your reaction to the word "nipple". ] (]) 04:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::"Newbies" with disruptive names and who vandalize. Yes, it's appropriate. --] (] ]) 04:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::So every single person you blocked was an incorrigible vandal? It seems others have already refuted that idea. ] (]) 04:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{ec}}x2...because you refuse to recognize that consensus is against you here, and just staying away from UAA for a while and then going back to exactly the same pattern of behavior is not going to work. --] (]) 04:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}Just in case this discussion doesn't end up getting anywhere, Rspeer (and anyone else who knows), please enlighten me, if ArbCom doesn't take "obvious" cases, then what exactly happens to those "obvious" cases? When it's so "obvious", can we simply ask a crat to de-op based on a community discussion? ] (]) 04:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I honestly don't know. I've never seen an admin hold out as an "army of one" for this long before. ] (]) 04:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The block was maybe not handled as well as it could have been, but it was appropriate. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're of course welcome to your opinion, but nearly everyone who weighed in here seems to feel otherwise, save for the blocking admin. ] (]) 05:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And I'm not sure why, because supposedly we have rules against provocative user ID's. Now, if he didn't have a proper signature, ''then'' you'd want to block him for "disruption". ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 05:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think the hardblock riled people up more than anything. It's banning the ''user'' based on his or her choice of username. ] (]) 05:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As I said, it could have been handled better. Typically a user with a provocative name is intent on provoking. It would have been interesting to see what sort of "contributions" that editor would have made and/or given them a chance to defend themselves. Or still could do, now that it's unblocked (pardon the ironic dairy-related metaphor). ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 05:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*I strongly concur with Baseball Bugs. The user name in question was ''clearly'' provocative. While many users evidently find the name unoffensive, current policy deprecates the use of borderline names where even a minority might be offended, as they unnecesarily distract from the encyclopedia-buidling project. Regarding the ''"everyone disagrees with the blocking administrator"'' comments above, it is important to remember that a local majority at this noticeboard (of perhaps five or so editors) does not override consensus policy, which the blocking admin appears to have appropriately understood (albeit with imperfect execution). Thanks to all for the good editing, —] ] ] ]</b></font></span> 05:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*Finn and Bugs miss the point: A bad username combined with poor edits (even just a few) is uncontroversially blockable. And you've blocked a vandal, for vandalizing (with a bad username as part of the evidence), rather than blocking a newbie who might have been wanting to help the project but who picked a dumb username. Saying "they can pick a new name and try again" misses the hardblocked, account creation blocked part of the block. ] (]) 07:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Yes, quite apart from the rampant edit-warring over multiple articles (which is already problematic enough eligible for a block), edit-summary in particular is very problematic, and (scroll down) shows a CIR problem. A TBAN would be logical, but like the OP, I am unconvinced it would be followed. Other ideas are welcome. ] 13:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Given the intensity of this discussion, why was the blocking of ] uncontroversial?=== | |||
| : That's an obvious sock puppet of {{noping|Iarsalanansari}}. Just look at ], which was linked above. It's a random revert on a random article that he feels very, very strongly about. Why would some new user do that? Scroll down the article history to see who made the original edit, and it's {{noping|Arslan8266}}. Now we have a suspected master. Look at Arslan8266's edits, and he tried to create ]. Does that sound familiar? It should. In the linked diff, Umayyad-387 said his name is Arslan Sultan. Guys, come on, just read the diffs that you post here, then go to ] and say what I just said. ] (]) 14:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:Maxionetwo's brother == | |||
| As an outsider coming upon this lengthy discussion, I'm baffled when I see that the blocking of an almost identical username went, so far as I can tell, completely unremarked on. I'm clearly missing something significant, and would appreciate some guidance. ] (]) 04:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{Atop|User blocked.--] (]) 17:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Sandahl, on that earlier block, provided an explanatory template. Besides that, we just didn't happen to catch it. If we had, some discussion might still have ensued, but probably not the flamefest we're seeing here.--] (]) 04:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}} That and, there's no reason to think anyone noticed the block at the time. We can't catch everything. Had people noticed it, and voiced concerns to Sandahl, hopefully s/he would have reacted very differently. Making occasional mistakes isn't a problem; how you handle them afterward is what matters more. ] (]) 04:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::(...which I now see post-edit-conflict that Sarek already mentioned, sorry). ] (]) 04:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Clarification -- ''was'' this a hardblock, as I originally stated? I know that's what it says in the block summary, but I can't tell for sure if that's what was done. All the log says is "Account creation blocked". --] (]) 04:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If the user was able to add the rename request to their talk page, it probably wasn't hard, I think. ] (]) 05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry, I'm asking about Rschen's block here, not Sandahl's. --] (]) 05:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Account creation blocked" is a hardblock, "autoblock disabled" is a softblock. ] (]) 05:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for the clarification. Night, all. --] (]) 05:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Please indef ]... either for socking or trolling is up to you. Sorry, no time for an SPI right now. (And should I really drag our august CUs down from contemplating the beatitudes, etc., for something as trivial as this...?) Cheers, ]'']''] 17:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ← To get back on track here - no, I personally don't want to see ] dragged before ArbCom and certainly not de-sysopped. Absolutely not - and this isn't anything about ''that''. He's a good admin in the main and I've seen his work before on dispute resolution (and on ] issues :) ) and have no problems there. I just want to ensure he handles usernames a little more carefully, uses templates and lays off the ACB blocks except in extreme cases. If he says, ''Yeah, I'll do that. I see where the problem may be now''", then we're done and it's over. We admins have a ton of stuff to deal with and none of us get it right all of the time. Hardblocking plus not templating is the ultimate repudiation to an editor (banhammer, then turn your back on them) and we really shouldn't be doing it. It makes us ''all'' look bad in the long run. That's all - ] <sup>]</sup> 05:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| :I'm willing to err more on the side of softblock rather than hardblock. However, I will hardblock if I see a name that is disruptive (i.e. personal attacks, isgay, *on wheels, etc.) In these instances, I don't see the point of templating, as the user knows what they are doing wrong, and the page will get trashed within a month. That all being said, I still consider the original username that started this mess to be inappropriate. It is very provocative, and most of the time I see users like that just vandalizing away if left unblocked. I still stand by my hardblock of the user (and I believe that that is what they deserve) but in the interests of resolving this discussion, were I to come across a similar username again I would probably softblock. --] (] ]) 05:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :In summary, I still don't agree, but I'll do more softblocks to pacify people. --] (] ]) 05:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: ''*sigh*'' - this is really the wrong answer. You just don't seem to find anything wrong with the generality here ('nipple' aside for a second). ] and ] pretty much mandate the use of templates, at least for those borderline cases where we're left with a confused editor who doesn't know what just happened. When in doubt, just pop a template down. How long does it take? It's a basic courtesy. The word 'nipple' is ''not'' "very provocative" - honestly - and I believe you should rethink where your threshold lies re. usernames. And when in doubt, ''don't'' hardblock. Keep that for the Grawp accounts and the WoW ones, but very little else - ] <sup>]</sup> 06:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I always leave templates for softblocks, and if it's not obvious why, I usually provide some sort of hint why the username is inappropriate. --] (] ]) 06:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, some people don't template: You going to go after the admins who blocked those users, subject them to the same sort of cabal? --] (] ]) 06:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: "going after", "cabal"?? Puh-leeze. Lookit - I'm throwing my hands up at this stage. I need to sleep - ] <sup>]</sup> 06:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No-one is saying that you cannot take action against names like FagmanButNotAsGayAsBurke. I think it's weird that you think names like "IHateWikiediaAndWillVandalizeEveryPage" or "FagmanButNotAsGayAsBurke" are the same as "Nipple37". ] (]) 08:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You missed the point - these users' talk pages are redlinked. --] (] ]) 08:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No. You missed the point. There are some names that are so offensive they deserve an instant, hard, block, with account creation disabled. There are some names that demonstrate enough bad faith that you don't need to wait for any edits before you block them. No one is asking you not to take action against usernames like those. But then there are names that are borderline. When you see a name that you think is bad faith, and you think belongs to a vandal you have a few options. i) Wait for edits. As soon as there's vandalistic edits the account is blockable, and uncontroversially so. ii) Wait for edits. If they are good faith edits welcome the user, then talk to them about their username. iii) Talk to the user, and if they don't change the name take it to RfCU. You've treated someone with a daft name (Nipple) the same as someone with a grossly offensive name (HitlerWasRight). Can't you see that's sub-optimal? You, and Bugs, say that "people with names like Nipple37 are usually vandals" - but people with names like nipple37 get locked before they make edits, so we don't know that they're vandals. I'm disappointed that you have a wide range of approaches to take to usernames but that you appear to default to "instant block, with out discussion, with no opportunity to change name, with no opportunity to return with a different name". This is incredibly bitey. And about other admins doing it: Please mention them, here or on talk page of UAA. We don't want a witchhunt, but we do want to stop biting newbies. ] (]) 09:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::90% of what you said was stated above in some form. I don't need a lecture. --] (] ]) 09:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If you have understood the point of the lecture then you have not been particularly good at getting the fact across. When you are stopped by a policeman for jaywalking but you believe it was perfectly OK to do so, you may get away with "I don't think I did anything wrong, but now I realise how important it is to you I will be more careful to observe pedestrian lights in the future." You are ''not'' going to get away with: "I did nothing wrong, but I can use my car instead, so I don't really care. I agree not to cross any roads at all in the next twelve months." ] ] 10:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I apologise for lecturing you. Do you think a name like "Nipple72" is as disruptive as, for example, "fagmanbutnotasgayasbburke", and do you think they need the same type of blocking? ] (]) 11:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == User Skibidiohiorizz123: Ban on grounds of CIS/AGF/NPA/CIVIL == | |||
| === ] === | |||
| {{Atop|User blocked. ] (she/her • ]) 21:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :The conditions we've outlined above fall under the "Suggestions for what to do instead" in that essay. Personally I also tend to hold admins to a slightly higher standard than other editors, in terms of the acceptance of responsibility and swallowing pride. That's part of what makes a good admin. Either way I'm not asking for an admission, just a promise for the future. ] (]) 07:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure that EHP fully applies here, because I believe that I am in the right. I cannot make an admission under a clear conscience because I do not believe that I am wrong. --] (] ]) 07:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I just said, and I can only speak for myself here, I'm not asking you to say you were wrong. I don't care about that. ThaddeusB laid out a specific compromise for the future. You could end all of this by just agreeing to it. I thought it was rather reasonable. ] (]) 07:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This all amounts to a difference in Misplaced Pages philosophy. You're forcing me to conform to your philosophy and methodology. (As if I *could* be forced... right now, we're just administrators talking and it's not like you have special authority or anything.) --] (] ]) 07:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Translation: ''"I'll do whatever I damn well please and you can't stop me"''. It's more than just a difference of philosophy at work here - ] <sup>]</sup> 07:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::... I looked through the UAA history and saw some things you might not approve of. --] (] ]) 07:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(after multiple EC's) It may be a difference of opinion, but not between you and me -- it's between you and the community. The offensiveness of the username is being debated, but the opinion on your general blocking practice has been fairly consistent. No one likes it too much. And I'm not an admin, FYI. ] (]) 07:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I said I would do more softblocks. What else do you want? --] (] ]) 07:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"More" isn't terribly assuring. From ThaddeusB above: 1) an agreement ''not to'' hardblock for username except in extreme circumstances, and 2) an agreement to template blocked users. ] (]) 07:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: {{ec}} Templates, please (a bare minimum of interaction), plus a little less sensitivity re. what's "very provocative", that's all. No need for apologies, no ]s required. Just a little undertaking to ease off (esp. of hardblocks) - ] <sup>]</sup> 07:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Oh, so now you're adding *that* too? --] (] ]) 07:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Adding ''what''? I've said here from the get-go that the redlinked talk page was a problem - ] <sup>]</sup> 07:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::"less sensitivity." --] (] ]) 07:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: Yes, less sensitivity. You're hardblocking usernames that shouldn't be, then turning your back on them. Don't do that stuff. Whether you think it's the worst word in the English language is neither here nor there at this juncture, it's clear that many disagree. Rather than assuming everyone else must be wrong, maybe ''just maybe'' you mightn't be, here. No? - ] <sup>]</sup> 07:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::"Nipple" in a username is inappropriate. I'm not backing down on the last sentence. --] (] ]) 07:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| (←) Rschen, as someone who shares with you the (apparently) minority viewpoint that the username could ''potentially'' be disruptive, it's clear that the consensus ''here'' is that users with usernames of this variety should not be blocked, and certainly not hard blocked. I agreed earlier that this thread was taking the shape of a flogging, but I also find it baffling that you have within your grasp the ability to resolve the matter and have chosen not to do so. It appears clear that the consensus disagrees with your opinion on the matter. Multiple administrators and editors are asking you to acknowledge that you recognize that in the hope that it will prevent future misunderstandings of this nature. I don't consider that to be unreasonable, do you? ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 07:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :What bothers me is that a) adding templates for hardblocked users is pointless, b) other users are doing the same and they haven't been contacted about it, c) in essence certain editors are attempting to force me to conform to their interpretation of policy. --] (] ]) 07:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's pretty much everyone, Rschen. When everyone forces you to conform to their interpretation of policy, it's called ]. ] (]) 07:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::And also, I always template softblocks. The fact that I will be doing more softblocks means more users will be templated. --] (] ]) 07:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: It spiraled out of control because you dug your heels in in a rather big way and ''refused'' to accept anyone (and everyone) else's opinion. This started on ] when '''you''' suggested he take it to ANI. That's why we're here. Beeblebrox had previously requested input from the UAA talk page, which is where I came in. Intransigence in the extreme - ] <sup>]</sup> 07:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I said I would softblock more users, that means templating more users. What else do you want? Do I need to copy and paste text? --] (] ]) 07:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You don't need to copy and paste text to agree to ''all'' the conditions that have been laid out. We've spelled them out nice and clear, yet you just keep saying "I'll do more softblocks". Please. ] (]) 07:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You and I disagree on what is disruptive. That is a serious problem. --] (] ]) 07:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Totally irrelevant to the compromise. Keep dragging this out buddy. Either way I'll rest somewhat in the comfort that this 65KB-and-growing incident was visible enough to invite much-needed scrutiny to your future actions. ] (]) 07:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you can quote policy to support your philosophy, then I will consider it. You have yet to do that. --] (] ]) 07:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Others have. Remember, this isn't about you and me. Besides which, consensus pretty much trumps everything else. ] What we have demonstrated here is a consensus. 66KB. ] (]) 08:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I said I would do more softblocks - let me clarify - if it's not disruptive it will be a softblock (as per the UAA instructions), and that means templating more users. Just an FYI, badgering someone on ANI doesn't exactly look good either. --] (] ]) 08:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent|:::::::::}}Would you agree to template all users that you block in the future? And please don't respond with reasons why you shouldn't need to. You should do it because we're asking you to. I think that's all we're down to. ] (]) 08:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :For username blocks... only because the ] instructions say to when I checked today, I will agree to that. Nobody bothered to point me to this. My position stands regarding "if it's not disruptive it will be a softblock" and regarding "nipple" being offensive. I still believe that I was in the right to block today's user. This is my final position, which policy fully supports. If you want to get any more out of me, it won't happen, and you will need to go to ArbCom. --] (] ]) 08:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm glad you've agreed to template all username blocks, even if it's "only because UAA tells you to". We'll all have to remember to just edit a policy next time we need you to do something. You could probably save yourself a lot of heartache in the future by accepting the fact that large masses of people should be listened to over policy. Just a suggestion. I'm too tired to remember if I should be satisfied with this outcome or not, so I'll let others decide. Toodles. ] (]) 08:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{user|Skibidiohiorizz123}} | |||
| The block in this case was appropriate, but the admin should have explained to the user why he was blocking, and should have given the user (at least for awhile) the chance to respond and/or make a new, acceptable ID. The blocker should always explain why he's blocking. If it's something horribly gross (which this isn't), a hardblock might be in order. But in this case, it would have been better to give them enough rope to hang themselves, and then there wouldn't be this lengthy discussion. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 07:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :So, you're saying that hardblocking wasnt appropriate? and that it's fine to block a vandal, but it's better to hold off on a block for a username, And that asking a new user to change their name is better than blocking them? So really your first sentence ("The block was appropriate") doesn't make much sense. ] (]) 08:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| New account that only really seems to be here to stir the pot on ].<br> | |||
| === How about just moving on? === | |||
| Strange rant about how the article isn't following "natural (sic) point of view" and repeatedly saying it's the work of liberals.<br> | |||
| This has gone further than it needs to, and to save any more issues and make good drama, let's just resolve this and move on? I mean, we have other things to do (such as ''expanding articles'' and ''Misplaced Pages maintenance'') and its bad for our health. Decisions aren't right all the time, but we can't just drown on the problem, and this has gone further than it needs.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(] ])</sup> 10:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Forum shopping demanding the article be entirely written with no good reason. | |||
| {{discussion bottom}} | |||
| <br> | |||
| Now spouting about other users being "rats" who should be "exterminated".<br> | |||
| Whether it's trolling or genuine, the behaviour demonstrates they are clearly incapable of constructively contributing to the site. ] (]) 21:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' CBAN 100%, I read this user's comments on other users being "rats" who should be "exterminated", thought to myself "wow, not very " of them"...or ''] of them'' (I'm never quite sure, depending on ]). and was about to post here myself about it but you beat me to it. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 21:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Honestly I'm surprised this user's lasted this long with a ban given that thread on CCD is such a clear sign of a serious CIS problem. ] (]) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support CBAN:''' He wants to quit Misplaced Pages? We ought to give him his wish. If he's a troll, we don't need him here. If he's not, we don't need him here. ] indeffed him, but let's seal the deal. ] 21:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{ec}} I've issued a ] block after separately coming across the "rats" comment. Beyond the pale, and given that their entire contribution history is that discussion at ], it doesn't seem they're here for any constructive purpose. ] (she/her • ]) 21:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Tendentious name changing by {{U|MŞ46}} == | |||
| == ], ], and ] == | |||
| * {{checkuser|Ali Rana}} | |||
| * {{checkuser|Yousaf.john}} | |||
| * {{checkuser|Skepticfall}} | |||
| {{U|MŞ46}} has been changing Bangladeshi placenames from ] to ] for over a month. They were warned against this on their talk page on and , but did not reply. | |||
| All three of these users are the same person, with Ali being the possible sockmaster. This information was confirmed on IRC through the CU Brandon, who will comment here in a moment to confirm this. Yousaf has been engaging in disruptive page creation, in that they are recreating several ''wikiproject'' pages for non-existant wikiprojects that were previously created by the sockpuppet of a banned user, and subsequently deleted per a ]. I don't know exactly what to make of the other two users' edits, so I would like more eyes upon the situation to better understand what is going on. Thank you for your time.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 22:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The three accounts were found during a different SPI and are {{confirmed}} . ] (]) 22:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)<small>This comment was mistakenly . I have replaced it. It was originally placed by Brandon as seen .— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 23:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Yeah, sorry that was an accident. --] (]) 12:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::Skepticfall is the banned {{User|Strider11}}. Nishkid and I got rid of him in March but he comes back everyday because the range is so big. Creates categories everywhere, etc etc, pretty easy. Always fiddles with other Pakistani people's userpages. Also because there isn't a "delete all" button, who wants to delete hundreds of stuff everyday. {{User|Paknur}} also comes back everyday, with endless cats and stubs. ''']''' ('']'') 23:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, one of his socks created the Pakistani Task Force of ]. The coords have agreed to keep it in any case. ''']''' ('']'') 23:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::YM, could you hand out some blocks then, and I can start issuing CSD tags.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 01:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::SPI filed, see ].— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 05:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| They were warned again on , and to the effect that they were using the official names (which is not in dispute). On , I made a more detailed reply, again emphasising what the common name is and that Misplaced Pages's policy is to use it. They stopped answering in English, but replied in Bengali on . In reply, I explained yet again on . | |||
| == Bad-faith AfD nomination by User:FunnyDuckIsFunny == | |||
| In the past three days, with no further communication on their part, they have changed names in 80+ articles (from to ) in violation of policy and consensus. | |||
| {{resolved|Speedy kept. --] (]) 23:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] is a bad-faith repost of ], possibly by a long-term abuser. At any rate, confirms the editor's intent to use the account for abuse only. --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 23:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| They need to be blocked to stop the disruption to Bangladesh and West Bengal-related articles. Perhaps an initial block will get them to understand policy and that repeatedly violating it has consequences. If their fluency in English is insufficient to comprehend the policy or to collaborate by communicating in English, then more drastic measures may be needed. --] (]) 23:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Up from the dead... == | |||
| * They've started moving pages as well . I've pblocked them from mainspace, perhaps they will start communicating, if possible. I haven't reverted their previous edits, but could do a mass rollback if necessary. ] 23:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Request to block Mishutup94 == | |||
| {{resolved|Users blocked in both cases. — ] ] 01:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{atop|1=Socks put back in the drawer. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I'll be brief: could someone block guy's ? Apparently his first account was named "Prvi zdrug" , and when he got banned he ''immediately'' created a new account called "Prvi zdrug uskrsnuće" ("Prvi zdrug: Resurrection" :). Creative, no? Perhaps an IP range block as well? I think its very likely he'll just create a new sock. ("Night of the Living Prvi zdrug"? ;) --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, | |||
| I am requesting administrative action against the user {{Ping|Mishutup94}} due to repeated violations of Misplaced Pages's policies, specifically harassment, vandalism, and personal attacks. | |||
| Whoops, one more thing: the ] article infobox is being constantly "vandalized" by ] for days and days. I don't know what to do with the guy... at one point I even lost my temper trying to explain how the infobox works. He keeps removing Italy and Germany as predecessor states because he thinks its "". He also apparently thinks I'm a ... :). Anywayz, I tried my best to explain everything , didn't work... --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 00:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''1.Harassment and Personal Attacks''' | |||
| == ] Third time's a charm == | |||
| :::The user’s username, Mishutup94, is clearly intended as a personal attack against me. It combines my first name, “Mishary,” with the offensive phrase “shutup.” This is a deliberate and targeted insult. | |||
| :::The username itself violates Misplaced Pages’s policy on appropriate usernames, as it is offensive and directed at another user. | |||
| :::'''2. Disruption and Vandalism''' | |||
| <small>See previous discussions at: | |||
| :::The user has been persistently disrupting the article “]” through unwarranted and malicious edits. | |||
| *] | |||
| :::The user also puts random dates for the programs, without a single source confirming this. | |||
| *]</small> | |||
| {{userlinks|Mcjakeqcool}} | |||
| :::'''3. Clear Intent to Harass''' | |||
| tl;dr version, he was blocked in July for disruptive editing for ignoring other editors and carrying on with "'his'" project. In september it was the same issue again, but this time he promised that "''I am prepared to take both advice and guidance from fellow wikipedians and I will both take notice of & execute directions given to me from fellow wikipedians''". | |||
| :::The user’s edits and behavior demonstrate a clear intent to target me personally and disrupt my contributions on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :::I attempted to address the issue by leaving a message on the user’s talk page, kindly asking them to stop their disruptive behavior. Unfortunately, the user has ignored my warnings and continues to engage in harassment and vandalism. Here is a link to the discussion on their talk page: . | |||
| Yet, we now have him fighting tooth and nail to mark every single edit that is not in article space as minor, even with multiple users telling him this is inappropriate. He has notes on his talk page back over 1 year old telling him not to mark non-minor edits as minor. He was reminded again in April and I warned him again most recently because I didn't see the previous 2 warnings on his long talk page. In addition to those 3 warnings, Elen of Roads has stepped in and tried to explain it to him. So in the face of 4 editors telling him not to do that, he has a serious case yet again of ]. Even after having this explained and linked multiple times, he incorrectly states on my talk page that ''all edits to talk pages are minor edits'' which he also states at another talk page . He then claims that "other truly minor edits" means any edit to a talk page . It was then spelled out to him in bold with an arrow by Elen of Roads , yet Mcjakeqcool continues to make these edits (you can see his contrib history). I told him to stop editing disruptively or we'd come back here for a third go, and he persisted. He told Trey geek that he ''wasn't a threat to wikipedia'' yet refuses to listen to other editors and does whatever he wants. On my talk page he proclaimed: ''I will take WHAT EVER MEANS POSSIBLE to abolish talk page comments as non-minor edits'' and then opened this discussion at ]. To me this is an extension of his previous behaviour. He will occasionally make compromises but the rest of the time Mcjakeqcool is going to do whatever he wants and disregard the policies, guidelines and community and even expect the community to change those policies and guidelines to fit him. He has created vast amounts of work for other editors with his unwillingness to listen to other editors and follow those policies and guidelines. The user is disruptive, and I'd consider the edits made after the multiple warnings from several users to be a little ]Y, and he doesn't seem to give any indication that he intends to start actually working with the community anytime soon.--] (]) 00:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Hm. After reading the last ANI thread and skimming the first, it seems that this editor is intent on being disruptive. It's one thing to propose policy/norm change, it's another to cram it down our throats for months on end. Past history - and his stated intention - shows another warning has little chance of preventing further disruption. I settled on a '''one week block'''; I'm open to arguments against (either longer or shorter, or no block at all). ] | ] 01:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure a one week block will be effective. Mcjakeqcool was blocked for 31 hours during the first ANI discussion with no change in their actions. The second discussion ended with Mcjakeqcool claiming to be willing to work with other editors and make appropriate contributions to Misplaced Pages; that has not happened. I'd also like to point out the recent discussion at ] where Mcjakeqcool is argumentative on what constitutes ]. At the moment, in my opinion, it appears Mcjakeqcool has no intentions to constructively add to Misplaced Pages. Based on their history, I have doubts Mcjakeqcool will ever do so. --] (]) 02:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would tend to agree wtih Trey. It has been one battle after another to get him to even do something that resembles good work, and even then he insists on pushing it on just about every single issue. I didn't see the PS3 discussion before.. that is just further evidence that I don't think a week or even a month would change his behaviour.--] (]) 02:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indef-block isn't a permaban, it just means we're tired of dealing with what looks hopeless from our perspective and that the ball is now firmly in bannee's court to make the move towards regaining edit privileges and convince us he deserves it. Bring on da hammer. ] (]) 02:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm frustrated by his cluelessness, to be honest. Let's stick with Tan's one-week block for now. If, after that block, there's no signs of improvement still, then indef may well be warranted. ] (]) 12:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This user’s actions are not only offensive but also disruptive to the collaborative environment of Misplaced Pages. Their behavior undermines the integrity of the affected article and creates a hostile environment for editors like myself. | |||
| Sorry I wasn't here to take part- I was getting that old fashioned thing called "a good night's sleep". I think McJ made a mistake at one point by marking a talk page comment as a minor edit, but finds it impossibly hard to admit mistakes, so he's turned it into a campaign. If you notice, he never actually takes any advice. He uses English in a really idiosyncratic way (eg describing his edits as "a commercial success" and then coming up with a really strange definition of the term ]) and he often responds to comments in the running commentary at the top of his user page, rather than reply directly. I don't want to speculate on the reason for this, but to me it suggests that our remarks to him may not be being processed in the way we expect. In which case, while the 1 week block is appreciated, it is not likely to make much difference, as he may come up with some explanation for it that is not what we intended. ] (]) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I kindly ask for administrators to review the provided evidence and take appropriate action against Mishutup94. I believe this action should include blocking the user to prevent further harassment and disruption. | |||
| Why does this sound so familiar? ] I admit this sounds elitist, but some people just don't have what it takes to productively contribute to Misplaced Pages. Despite demonstrated good faith & the best of intentions, while their edits technically aren't vandalism, they are nonsensical & require other editors (who could be doing more important things) to spend their limited time dealing with their edits. Either Mcjakeqcool agrees & cooperates with mentoring so he can more effectively edit/contribute to Misplaced Pages -- or we ban him. -- ] (]) 21:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Best regards --] (]) 00:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see the former happening. He's already rejected such an offer before he got blocked the first time. ] 23:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Please don't use a chatbot to write your ANI posts. But anyway, I've blocked the account for the blatant attack name and because it is {{confirmed}} to accounts like {{np|Gorgious…WE WANT THE ROBOT! WE WANT THE ROBOT!}}. ] (]) 00:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, my English is not good, that's why I sometimes have to use AI to formulate some sentences. ] (]) 00:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User is trying to force his POV all the time, it looks a chronic problem to me == | |||
| == Obvious sockpuppet of Jeff V. Merkey - coi, harassment == | |||
| {{resolved| 48 hour block for conduct on an Arbcom page}} | |||
| ;Current ip | |||
| *{{user13|166.70.238.46}} | |||
| ;Previous accounts | |||
| *{{user13|Jvmphoto}} | |||
| *{{user13|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey}} | |||
| I want bring to attention chronic problems that user ] has with editors, he tends to force his POV as much possible and seems to not have to have any desire to reach some type of consensus or middle ground that doesnt includes how a article should be in his opinion, here are some exemples: in a recent case that went to noticeboard, ], while the aricle user had done some mistakes of his own by mistaking draft with deletion, he also failed to communicate to user proprely and avoid the confusion on the first placce comunicating what chenges would be needed to fix the problem of the article user. | |||
| See ] and ]. | |||
| In another two recents case, this time with me, user seemed to ignore ] when i was trying to clarify that cheering culture was not unique just to ] but unique to the entire "universe" of baseball in East Asia, even with provided with various primary and secundary sources and with another article having a section reinforcing those same similarities linked to the original article, clearly noting that the overall asian culture is known by most baseball fans at this point. (just as extra note, i plan to expand the korean cheering article also cited in KBO League article, once i finsh cleanup league historic season articles that are a bit messy and add info to baseball spring training article since those seems to be more urgent right now in termos of east asiatic leagues). | |||
| Obvious sockpuppet of these two indefinitely blocked accounts. Harassing others and using Misplaced Pages as a battleground | |||
| . Jumping into the article on himself in violation of WP:COI . Since this ip has not been used by anyone else, I see no reason not to block it. --] (]) 03:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The second case was with the new change of logo of ] , of the new logo and tried to enforce his POV without even checking with cam | |||
| ::There is no arbcom ban anymore. BLP allows the subject of a bio to provide input and correct erroneous information. Nor has there been harassment of anyone. A complaint filed at the BLP noticeboard cannot be construed as such or such a venue would not exist. Any "battleground" was created by a variety of single purpose accounts, of which ] may in fact be one of them given his sudden interest in the subject of this bio for all this person knows. ] (]) 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are ] for attempting to harass another user in the real world. Community bans have as much force behind them as Arbitration Committee bans, and are equally as enforceable, especially in this instance. To suggest otherwise is laughable. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 06:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The KBO League cases are even more damning for him beacuse, for months i had been co-editing with him the main and direct articles about the league, and he always seems to trying to impóse his POV onto me and other users in sports articles, even if was necessary info or ], ] he seems to not care, he has shown over and over that not matter how much people try talk with him or ask for a consesus, he seems to not care and wont seek it. | |||
| :::IP blocked by an Arbcom clerk for misconduct on an Arbcom page. Block was unrelated to this thread. ] (]) 04:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I think that is beyond to the point for mods at least keep a eye on him, since he seems not interested in reach consensus with no other editors, even if i am always treating others with good-faith, with him, sometimes i feel i am talking with a wall instead of tallking with a fellow wiki editor. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Extraordinarily Disruptive Editing, removal of all references and multiple edits without a single Talk attempt == | |||
| :Hello, Meganinja202, | |||
| {{resolved| This is an ArbCom enforcement matter, and administrator attention is already on the articles. This thread was started as apparent forum-shopping. --]]] 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| :First, we don't have "mods" on Misplaced Pages but we do have administrators. Additionally, looking at the few links you present I see disagreements, some of which were resolved, but I don't see any POV-pushing that you claim that this editor has been doing. So, the evidence you are presenting doesn't support the claims you are making so it almost looks like you are casting aspersions. I'm sure it's frustrating that the editor hasn't responded to your message on their User talk page but that is not imposing a POV or avoiding future edit disputes in a persistent way. I think, at least for me, you have to present a better case to support the accusations you are making. I recommend you present specific diffs illustrating the problems that you claim exist. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> | |||
| I seem to be on the receiving end of some exceptionally bold reverts by a group of editors working in collusion. Here's the stub that keeps being reverted to - and here is the product of accumulated research and reliable source references. A number of editors are happy to use alternative forums to ban me and are more than happy to discuss doing me in for g-d knows what perceived sleight -- but '''none''' have yet to express any ''specific'' objection on the talk page. Have we really gotten to the stage where such well supported good faith and verifiable reliable source edits are dismissed wholesale in favor of a stub without references? An apparently related article had this section added to by me to this stage with a similar experience. I'm genuinely not aware of how my seriously concise and well supported edits could have caused offense - nor has anyone yet to specify a thing. - ] (]) 02:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry for confuse admin with modereation, in portugese language (the language, not the wiki) we tend to use both as synonyms so apologize for my confusion, also as you can see, user agressivilly tries to aggressively use the fact i am ], and prone to make mistakes sometimes, to counter my point | |||
| :Your efforts would be better directed to answering issues raised at the Talk Pages concerned, instead of this ]. ] (]) 02:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::As you said about the case, i think that he the fact he has resolved some but not alll disagreements its already a concerning problem, about difs, there has various, here are some exemples: | |||
| :: This does appear to be forum-shopping, and I am closing this thread as resolved. Administrator attention is already on the related articles. --]]] 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::* for ] argument of similar cheering culture, | |||
| ::*it happened , where this time, i had linked other pages as way to provide sourcering and more information about the theme in question, but he still ignores it and uses my ] as way to force removal, when he could fix the typos and correcting, like most of users on wiki tend to do when other users does grammatic mustakes, ] | |||
| ::* User ignores team official sources assuming that it was not a official team announcement ], also ignores that ], doubles down calling it "this fake converted blurry image", whlie i plan to update the image with a better version, since he says it was probematic in some screens (likely because of the low resulion), ]. | |||
| ::i will provide more as soon, i manage to list most info i have as fast possible, iam trying to write in the best way possible to avoid ESL mistakes, i listed the related cases first beacuse user had tried to use it agnaist me ] (]) 10:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin etiquette == | |||
| :The official Instagram post of the Doosan Bears literally said that someone LEAKED the new logo too early, and they confirmed that the official re-branding will take place at the beginning of this week, so wait for official announcement and official SVG files and not some crappy screenshots which you converted to fake SVG files with some AI tool. Just because they post some teasers of the new logo it doesn't mean we need to instantly change everything with low-quality images, so check your facts first. Try to zoom your fake "svg" image to the max. resolution and see how blurry it is - because it's a fake vector image. And other nonsense are just a content dispute so open up a talk page and take it there, you didn't provide any reasons why should the lead section at ] include information about other Asian competitions when the sentence is clearly referring only to KBO League and its cheering culture, bat flips etc. | |||
| {{resolved|IP blocked 31h.}} | |||
| :Furthermore, it's funny that you have a problem if your edits get reverted - not only you added a fully unsourced paragraph to the FA status article, you even made tons of styling and grammar mistakes ("americans" with lower case, Spring Training with upper case when it should be lower, you added duplicate wording ("to play often each other often"), you bolded some words which is clearly not supported by ], you added a comma where you should have added a full-stop etc. etc.), so maybe you should stop editing against the manual of style rules everywhere? ] (]) 09:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This morning I blocked {{IPVandal|69.171.160.63}} for vandalism and personal attacks. My talk page has just been (IMHO) vandalised by {{IPVandal|69.171.160.55}}. The edit summary was "''wow took 5 seconds to circumvent that block''". This IP has already had a final warning for vandalism today. Am I now too "involved" to block 69.171.160.55, or should I leave that for another admin to act on? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| == User:Adillia == | |||
| :No, you're not too involved. Block evasion is pretty clear cut. Block away. -- ] (]) 06:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|Aidillia}} | |||
| ::Thanks Gogo Dodo. IP already blocked 31hrs by another admin. (remembering to sign this time lol) ] (]) 06:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I've been avoiding that user ever since we were blocked for edit warring on ] but they keep going at every edits I made, specifically the recent ones on the files I uploaded like ] and ], where the file are uploaded in ] and abided ] but they keep messing up. I'm still at lost and not sure what's their problem with my edits. Additional: I will also hold accountability if I did ]. | |||
| == Rjanag == | |||
| Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. ] ] 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I recommend that {{admin|Rjanag}} be disciplined for grossly uncivil behavior towards ]. I have no connection to either editor personally, but I simply must protest Rjanag's shocking behavior at the ] AfD. | |||
| :I've many proof that shows you're the one who start the problem. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| By way of orientation, Rjanag initiated ] for The Shells, appealed the keep decision ] and then ]. This was quick but within his rights; the unacceptable part was his ensuing conduct towards Epeefleche, the article's main defender. Rjanag's words constantly dripped sarcasm as he labeled Epeefleche "Mr. Truth" , questioned his adulthood and insulted his intelligence . These attacks occured not on talk pages (though Epeefleeche nobly tried to direct them there to save the AfD drama ), but in the middle of AfD debates, and even when Rjanag followed Epeefleche to the talk pages of third parties. | |||
| ::] you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::] i upload as per their official social media. But rather used a poster version, and in the end i revert it. Same like what u did to me on ]. I don't know what is this user problem, first upload the incorrect poster than re-upload again with the correct poster which i already uploaded, then need a bot to resize it. (So unnecessary) <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I reverted that because it was too early to say that the poster is indeed the main one at that time when it was labeled as . You know that we rely more on ] ] ] rather on official website or social media accounts as they are ], so I don't know why you were offended by a revert. ] ] 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] and ]. I have other ] in real life. ] ] 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you're that busy, please stop reverting my edits/uploads without any clear explanation. Just like what you did on ]. You will just engaged in ]. I've also seen you revert on ]; someone reverted it to the correct one (which I uploaded), but you still revert to your preferred version without leaving an edit summary. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 08:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have partially blocked both of you from editing filespace for 72 hours for edit warring. I think an IBAN might be needed here. ] (]/]) 03:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Support''' an indefinite two-way interaction ban between D.18th and Aidillia. They've also been edit warring at ]. Also look at the move log there, which is ridiculous. These people need to stop fighting with each other. ] ] 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === User:D.18th === | |||
| Epefleeche pointed out Rjanag's behavior and asked him to refrain multiple times | |||
| {{atop|1=Withdrawn. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| to no avail. I noticed the incivility, as did ] , ] ] and ] on several occasions . When User:HWV258 observed things might have become personal for Rjanag , Rjanag spit bile his way as well . | |||
| {{Userlinks|D.18th}} | |||
| <s>This user keeps coming to wherever i made an edit. And this user also ignore ].</s> <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Doubtless Rjanag has done much good in his prolific career. But this behavior goes beyond a little ]. It is unacceptable in any editor, no less an administrator. Gross incivility like this is poison to the Misplaced Pages project and demoralizes valuable, content-heavy editors like Epeefleche (). Rjanag did not abuse his admin powers ''per se'', so I do not believe they should be revoked. But he should be sternly reprimanded at the least, and perhaps blocked for some time to cool his head. - ] (]) 06:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The blocking policy states that ] should not be used, as they tend to have the opposite effect. And I would say that Rjanag's behaviour — while definitely not very polite — is nowhere near disruptive enough to justify any sort of block, at least not in my view. I've seen many other editors get away with being far less civil than that. ] (]) 07:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::After Epeefleche conduct which he did not want, Rjanag should have respected that request and stayed away from Epeefleche's talk page. If there were issues with Epeefleche's conduct (<s>not saying that there were in this case</s> such as sockpuppetry) there are alternative venues (like this one) to raise them. ] (]) 07:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC) <small>Comment amended upon further investigation ] (])</small> | |||
| ::Frankly, there are a lot of editors that don't come out of that AfD looking particularly good. However, as <s>Mjroots</s> Master&Expert says, we don't use cooldown blocks - there's nothing that we need to prevent by blocking anyone at the moment. <b>]</b> 07:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Our rules can be interpreted in many ways, however there's no denying that Rjanag's attitude to dealing with other Wikipedians is too one-eyed, abrupt, and condescending. Attitudes such as his will lead to editors giving up in disgust. I've dealt with many editors, and many situations and know that there is no reason for the behaviour (as described above) that I witnessed. It does WP a great disservice to proffer someone with such behavioural issues as an administrator. Looking at the number of articles he's deleted, and the number of users he's blocked reminds me of the old saying: "the only people who should have power, are those that don't want it". The fact that behavioural problems are combined with power is more than doubly worrying in this case. ] 09:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: To be honest, given your spectacularly unhelpful contributions to both AFDs, I'd suggest that it would be better for someone uninvolved to be pushing that agenda. <b>]</b> 11:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see what his number of blockings or deletions have to do with this case. For example, an admin who is active at ] may have a massive block count, but that does not mean he's going about the place blocking every newbie he sees. Let's keep the discussion focused on this instead of dragging up other unrelated things shall we? ≈ ] ] ] 13:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *FWIW, Rjanag was properly notified, but doesn't usually come online until another few hours from now. ''']''' (]) 16:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I didn't see an effort to discuss the concerns with Rjanag on his talk page. A collegial note from a third party can go a long way in resolving disputes without the need for public flogging/ humiliation or brute force (admin tool use). :) ] (]) 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : His talk page? Multiple editors told Rjanag multiple times at the two AfDs that his behavior in that matter was absolutely abhorrent and amounted to nothing more than a personal vendetta against Epeefleeche so Rjanag could get his “win” in that matter. The message wasn’t going to suddenly sink in because it was conveyed to him on his talk page rather than the AfDs. What was exceedingly clear is that anyone who opposed Rjanag on that matter was the instant recipient of his special style of personal love. He should simply be striped of his admin privileges (yes, it’s a ''privilege'' afforded ''by'' the community with the ''consent'' of the community) and if he wants to be an admin again, he can throw his hat in the ring and look for supporting votes. We all know what the outcome of ''that'' would be given this several-week-long display out of the guy. There were plenty of reasonable-minded editors dealing with Rjanag on the AfDs and they all can discern the difference between a fair-minded admin properly carrying out his admin duties in order to make Misplaced Pages a better product, and that of a rogue admin who has no business in the world having those powers because he inflames things everywhere he goes. ] (]) 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <s>:This user is the most number one who often comes in on my talk page first. But when I came to their talk page, i got restored or, worse, got reverted as vandalism.</s> <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ]: Disruptive ] == | |||
| :{{re|Aidilla}} You have failed to notify {{User|D.18th}} of this discussion, as the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires. I know they already reported you above, but they may not be aware of your one in return. You will need to show clear diffs supporting the allegations that you've made; expecting us to act on this report with no such evidence is likely going to result in ]. Regards, ]. (] | ]). 04:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], you can't remove a post from ANI once it has been responded to by another editor. If you want to rescind your complaint then strike it by using code, <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will show up as <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{done}}, thanks! <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| === Resumption === | |||
| I've unarchived this because they're resumed edit warring with each other at ]/]. Repeating my comment from above to give it more attention: '''I propose that D.18th and Aidillia are ]'''. ] ] 05:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :], I think you should notify both editors of your action on ANI, especially as this discussion might have an impact on them. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Done. ] ] 05:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Both files were created by Aidillia and I don't know why they need to do that. I uploaded a new version at <code>Study Group poster.png</code> but then I was reverted without a valid reason then Aidillia uploaded a redundant file so they'll have an ].{{pb}}Another file they keep messing up is ], I don't know why they uploaded the preferred size they like when the ones I uploaded is clearly meets ], I reverted it then they reverted again to their preferred size. The way they behave is showing ]. ] ] 08:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh again? ]? I left you a valid reason in the file! or maybe you don't want to understand it! As I already did some research, maybe it's considered as the main poster, as the main trailer is already out; (because there are no ] that say it's the main poster) that's why I reverted it back after that. But I want to create a new file instead of renaming it. You're the one who ignore my ] again and again over a small thing. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 08:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::"''I don't know why they uploaded the preferred size they like when the ones I uploaded is clearly meets ], I reverted it then they reverted again to their preferred size. The way they behave is showing WP:IDHT.''" | |||
| ::That situation is the situation that u did to me before! | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::I also meets WP:IMAGERES! But u keep reverting my edits!? What is your PROBLEM? <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 10:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you that interested in being engaged in ] over a ridiculous thing? You've been here for many years, but why are you wasting your time warring over ridiculous things? Please stop making it complicated. Just ignore it but why are you fight it until the end? I've been blocked by you twice. What's your problem? <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 10:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please also stop your behaviour, ], like what u did to someone on ]. Stop uploading for your prefered version! It's so unnecessary. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 10:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''support''', but also a p-block from file space might be needed since both seem to be using it as a trophy case. | |||
| :] ] 13:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support two-way IBAN''' for now. As a bystander, this situation has devolved into a prolonged ], possibly including ], with increasingly absurd interactions between both parties beyond just edit warring on filespace, including nominating each other's "creations" for deletion which seems like a retaliatory behaviour. Furthermore, I fail to understand the obsession with being the first to create and/or update an article or file or draft as both parties exhibited in their contributions when neither constitutes ownership or a noteworthy achievement on Misplaced Pages. If a two-way IBAN is ineffective, this effectively constitutes ] and possibly ] hence I believe that a block should be enforced against the first party to violate the ban. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> ] <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 13:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Support''' and p-block from file space. I think the p-block is the more important part of this. — ] ] 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*: The problems aren't limited to file space. See ]. ] ] 19:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Jwa05002 and User:RowanElder Making Ableist Comments On WP:Killing of Jordan Neely Talk Page, Threats In Lead == | |||
| {{resolved|67.160.100.233 blocked for 1 week for causing disruption and harassing David Shankbone. ] (]) 13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| This anonymous editor was for personal attacks, and seems to have some sort of ] fascination with the ] article. Along those lines, in what I can only determine is an effort to disrupt the related deletion discussion, he sockpuppet allegations this evening at that discussion. He originally raised other sockpuppet allegations at ] and that was not the proper forum. Even after being told the same with regard to the deletion discussion, he making the allegations there, without any apparent relevance to the actual discussion. His argument to be that ] is too slow. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 10:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>The user in question has been . ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 10:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :Nice, but I'm telling the truth. "After some investigation, it's my opinion that ] (,) who created this article, has also edited under (at least) the following usernames: | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :See also () on Wikinews. | |||
| :This biography of Shankbone is straightforwardly a ''quid pro quo'' for Shankbone's help in promoting ]() across en.wp. Reed ("Lyltry"): "Shankbone is a gawd").] (]) 10:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Owch! Is that a reference to ] that David Shankbone penned? - ] <sup>]</sup> 10:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] is that way. Allegations of sockpuppetry do not belong in AfDs. They contribute nothing to the debate. ] (]) 12:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, please present your case at SPI, and not anywhere else, and make sure it includes more than just "it's obvious"... some specific diffs showing a pattern of similar behaviour and interests for starters. Most of those IDs are old enough that CU won't tell you anything. For the record I checked anyway and I'm not seeing any connection between Huckandraz and Babyrock (the only two checkable ones). I invite review by other CUs of course, as I may have erred or misinterpreted the data. ++]: ]/] 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This occurred on the ], on the talk page section of ] @] decided they could say I couldn't ask for civility in a discussion after it became what I found uncivil. This discussion was already ended. They made comments that I couldn't ask for civility because apparently my userpage was uncivil. They then proceeded to say it was fine because I wasn't acting in bad faith but rather just being Autistic and incompetent because they saw I mentioned I was Autistic on my page and then linked to the competence required article. {{rpa}} and then went on a rant about how Misplaced Pages shouldn't allow "severely mentally ill people edit" and how it's sad that Misplaced Pages has devolved to it. RowanElder then proceeded to say it's fine and the admins would instead give me special help. I shouldn't need to say more really. ] (]) 06:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *After analyzing the edits of 67.160.100.233, all I see is disruption, disruption, and disruption. sort of edits are unacceptable, IMO. The IP not only accused David Shankbone of "sockpuppetry", but also accused Benjiboi of trying to "cover up" sockpuppetry. The IP is being disruptive, and harassing David Shankbone. I will block the IP for 1 week. ] (]) 13:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh forgot to @] ] (]) 06:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) {{rpa}} | |||
| *After my block, was the response of the IP. ] (]) 13:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Akechi - typically, linking to specific ] rather than talk page sections is the best thing to do when making an ANI report; that is, linking {{diff|Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely|prev|1269116979}} and {{diff|Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely|prev|1269119175}}, which I assume are the comments you're referring to. Procedural niceties aside, I think you have a right to be upset - the comment by Jwa05002 seems to reflect a very ugly attitude toward mental illness, and RowanElder's remarks are incredibly patronizing - I don't think the comment in which {{they|RowanElder}} say {{tq|I hope Misplaced Pages can perhaps follow best practices from special education experts to deal with ways they may try to participate with disruptive incompetence. It's certainly not a personal attack to try to get people help, even when they take it as such and even react violently against the help as if it were an attack.}}{{diff|Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely|prev|1269120723}} could have been more perfectly calculated to infuriate its target if that were {{their|RowanElder}} intention, and when {{they|RowanElder}} commented {{tq|...you're probably deliberately victimizing people who share your struggle. It's sad to see, but again, I'm assuming good faith and I'm sympathetic rather than insulting here}}{{diff|Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely|prev|1269139598}} it does not at all come across like someone who is AGFing. I hope the community will agree that the conduct of these two users is not acceptable and make that clear to them. ] <small>(he/him · ] · ])</small> 07:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Copyvios by User:Aziz090 == | |||
| *:Who would have more relevant expertise than special education experts, here? Honestly? In dealing with good faith but disruptive contributions to something a lot like classwork? | |||
| *:Please assume good faith for me as well, here. ] (]) 07:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::You cannot substitute your personal experience for ], nor can you analyze other editors, and especially you cannot resort to ] such as {{tq|disruptive incompetence}}. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I am definitely confused about this. | |||
| *:::First, I have seen and been told "competence is required" many times and I generally assumed good faith constructive criticism and policy enforcement there rather than that the person invoking "competence is required" was making a personal attack. I have had a lot of trouble understanding what is regarded as incivility and not in this community. | |||
| *:::Second, it seems prima facie that editors do analyze one another frequently, for instance I was just analyzed and will be further analyzed in this incident notice discussion so long as it continues, so I am confused what you mean here. ] (]) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::As a disabled person who currently works in special education, there are ''many'' reasons we wouldn't want "special education experts" (or their suggestions) dispatched to deal with a Certain Kind of Contributor. For one, it's a bit patronizing as described above--why do certain editors have to be dealt with under certain different people or rules? It's also worth noting that a lot of special education professionals, even ones who believe they're doing good things, often adopt practices that can be hurtful or problematic--this is all anecdotal, of course, but a number of my coworkers will miss very obvious potential causes of student distress just because they don't get distressed by the same thing, and at least one of my other coworkers was directly ableist to another of my coworkers behind her back without even realizing that's what she was doing. If there's anyone who can speak to best practices about interaction it's probably people with the disability in question (i.e. the ] stance), but to be honest, in practice, Misplaced Pages's existing guidelines and policies regarding user interaction and editing do a pretty good job of setting the ground rules and describing what you need to do to edit collaboratively in a productive way. - ] (]) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::My comments did not communicate my intent well to this community, and I have apologized for that. I recognize these concerns, and if I had written longer comments, adding these concerns would have been among my first extensions of what I wrote. I was disruptively incompetent when it came to speaking to the sensitivities in this community. ] (]) 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :(0) The discussion had seemed inconclusive to me rather than ended. My prior experience as an editor has been mostly on pages where weeks can go between talk messages easily, so if this was a mistake it was a newcomer's mistake of not understanding the different tempo on this page. | |||
| :(1) I did not say @] could not ask for civility; I did find it ironic that they would ask for civility given that their userpage at that time seemed quite uncivil. I do think this indicates incompetence at judging civility and incivility and I, possibly erroneously, did not think it would be an aspersion or personal attack to say so on the basis of the immediate and policy-relevant (disruptive editing policy, explained by "competence is required") evidence. There is a "competence is required" principle and I have seen it invoked without violating the "no personal attacks" policy, though I'll be first to admit I don't understand the lines there very well. | |||
| :(2) I did not endorse or "go along with" @]'s characterization of @] as schizophrenic: I passed over it in silence trying "not to take the bait" of what could have easily become personal attacks (not that I thought @] was making a personal attack there, more like personally despairing of the challenge of finding consensus about reality with self-identified schizophrenics and autistics). I flatly disagreed with @] that "this is what Misplaced Pages has become." | |||
| :(3) I do endorse a general principle that when mental illness compromises an editor's competence, they should not edit Misplaced Pages in the domains in which they are thereby incompetent. I do believe "competence is required" and I don't know why mental illness would possibly be an exception. (I can't imagine what fun I might have had editing in the archaeoastronomy area recently if Misplaced Pages did allow that exception!) | |||
| :(4) I do hope that the admins and arbs and the community as a whole will figure out good, humane best practices for dealing with mentally ill editors on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd like everyone to everyone to note point 4, I think we should note the "humane best practices for dealing with mentally ill editors on Misplaced Pages" part. ] (]) 07:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Should Misplaced Pages deal inhumanely with the mental ill? What is going on here? I am extremely lost. ] (]) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''You cannot diagnose other people as mentally ill''. That is a direct personal attack and can result in you being sanctioned. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, of course: I did not call anyone mentally ill much less diagnose anyone. I pointed out that an editor self-identified as autistic without intending that to be an attack. And I won't even do that again, since "assuming good faith" is not extending to "assuming that references to mental illness are not necessarily attacks." Probably correctly, in retrospect for me! But the "assume good faith" policy has been something I've myself been incompetent to understand in its community-consensus application so far on Misplaced Pages, and so I was disruptively incompetent and I've both apologized for that and said I would avoid doing it again. ] (]) 19:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The user in question has described themselves as schizophrenic in previous posts. Schizophrenia by definition is a mental illness. | |||
| :::::] ] (]) 20:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No I didn't you are thinking of another user I will not name. ] (]) 23:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{edit conflict}} (but I did the work, so I'm posting it) {{Non-admin comment|admin}} OP, you should provide diffs. You did link to the conversation, but every specific instance of untowardness you mention should be cited directly, as a courtesy to the admins' time. But I read the whole conversation and don't like it, so I did some legwork for you. {{tq|They then proceeded to say it was fine because I wasn't acting in bad faith but rather just being Autistic}}. This edit was amended. {{tq|Jwa proceeded to come in and say I was a schizophrenic}}. {{tq|RowanElder then proceeded to say it's fine and the admins would instead give me special help}}. | |||
| :I view assuming an autistic person's edits to be a result of incompetence to not actually be ], but I defer. I don't know that this warrants being at ANI or if it's just bad behavior, but the schizophrenia thing certainly deserves an apology from both of them. I'm not involved. Just providing diffs. POST EDIT CONFLICT: I also don't buy Rowan's argument that they weren't going along with the schizophrenia thing. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 07:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{resolved|Blocked by Fisher Queen}} | |||
| ::"You don't buy it"? Where is the assumption of good faith here? ] (]) 07:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{user|Aziz090}} seems destined to only add copyvio material to Misplaced Pages (usually in the course of creating articles on Malaysian films). A quick glance of his talk page should suffice, but the contribution list speaks for itself. It's usually copies from other sites regarding the movie's plot and reviews, as well as uploading non-free images related to the movie. He has been warned repeatedly, and eventually blocked for 24 hours. Upon his block expiring, he just continued introducing the same content. I'm afraid this is an editor who just doesn't get it (as is clear from his ). I think at some point we have to say enough is enough, and move to an indef block. Also, earlier some editors spent some time going through his contributions to get rid of the copyright violations, but since he's been at it again, I could use some help going through his more recent contributions. ] (]) 13:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did not generically assume "an autistic person's edits to be a result of incompetence" but specifically suggested that their social judgment about particular incivility was incompetent in this case. I would never do the former, and frankly it is an aspersion to suggest I did. ] (]) 07:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Though situations in which should be construed as them saying 'Okay, I quit' and marking the page with db-g7 instead of giving them a vandalism warning. ] (]) 16:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are you saying I or other Autistic people for that matter can't pass social judgement? ] (]) 07:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree. When we have very questionable new articles, and the author blanks, we should generally consider a G7 speedy delete (although in rare cases the new article might have enough redeemable qualities that it could be turned into something that could be kept in Misplaced Pages, and the blanking should be undone to some extent). It looks like this happened a few times wtih Aziz090 (and has happened sometimes with other new editors), but ultimately it doesn't excuse the constant copyvios (despite repeated warnings and being blocked for such behaviour). Anyway, not much more to be said or done while he's on his new block. We'll just need to monitor the situation when the block expires. ] (]) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No. I thought you had already made a poor social judgment and I was looking for a good faith explanation that would not be a personal attack. I thought that, if you are really up front about your autism like on your userpage, then you would not feel being called autistic would be an insult. I would never have speculated about it if you were not already identified and I thought it was a misjudgment before I read your userpage. ] (]) 08:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You obviously have never met an Autistic person because calling someone out their disability and going "but don't worry though your just Autistic so you didn't do it in bad faith or anything". You don't think that sounds patronising or rude, you just didn't like my social judgement and saw my disability as a way to excuse yourself. ] (]) 08:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"You obviously have never met an Autistic person" is wildly uncivil, ungrounded, personal attack. I am really lost here. ] (]) 08:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry I didn't give diffs I'm kinda new to this stuff. Thank you for putting in the effort as well. ] (]) 07:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *], you are revealing a lot of personal information here about other editors that might need to be revision deleted. Please do not do that in the future. There are a lot of BLP violations in this discussion so far and assumptions about "mental illness" as well that are distressing to see from other editors. But, Akechi, I also notice that you are spending all of your talk on your User page and talk pages like ] instead of editing to improve articles. Your own User page states {{tq|I'd rather not edit Misplaced Pages and rather just discuss disputes, move requests and talk about usage of sources or claims of bias, I'm not very good at source editing}} which is not a good sign for an editor on this project. Jwa05002 is also spending all of their time on ] so maybe you both could use a partial block from this talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == IP address trolling FEMA articles == | |||
| *:I wouldn't mind that actually, also please do remove the mentions of me saying who the user who had schizophrenia was, I realise now that it's not my place to talk about. ] (]) 07:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am also looking to get into editing articles, though I do not have the time to be a full time editor. ] (]) 07:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Those comments by @] and @] are beyond the pale. Stating that mental illness or neurodivergence is a ] issue should never be tolerated, particularly given it's highly likely that a lot of our community are neurodiverse or mentally ill. Blocks should follow for both editors. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's also surreal to see the comments about autism in this discussion, you do know, I hope, that we have probably hundreds of active editors on this project that are autistic or are on the spectrum. It's not rare to be an autistic editor on Misplaced Pages. Not everyone chooses to put that fact on their User page but that doesn't erase their presence. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given that the editors seem a lot more interested in arguing on talk pages, I'd suggest there's some ] going on. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I made exactly this point that there are a lot on Misplaced Pages in one of my comments about a likely unintended consequence of @]'s incivility on their userpage, which, I quote, included "I really hope that upsets some of the weirder users of this site." ] (]) 07:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The full quote is "I Autistic and pansexual (I really hope that upsets some of the weirder users of this site.).". And clearly being Autistic upset a couple of people. ] (]) 07:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And no the lack of am is not a typo. ] (]) 07:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please assume good faith! Autism did not upset me and nor did pansexuality. But "I hope I upset people who do not share my values" cannot possibly be civil discourse. ] (]) 07:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's not my values it's my existence, being Autistic or Pansexual isn't values, it's just how I am. ] (]) 07:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::At ] you wrote: "{{tq|I'm going to assume good faith and cite that user page: that this user is most likely a self-described autistic acting incompetently rather than in bad faith. Unfortunately, competence is required, see ]}}". I don't see any other interpretation for that than an act with malice directed towards a neurodiverse editor because of their neurodivergence. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::How about this: I was baffled by the level of incivility and I thought this would be an honorable way out of a bad look for Akechi, since I don't stigmatize the social blindness of the autistic? It was a horrible, horrible mistake but I thought that ''because'' autism is so well accepted here, including by myself, that this would be a place I could make a narrow recommendation: "hey, this matter of incivility is a social misjudgment of a kind that probably does have a good faith explanation." ] (]) 08:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You are assuming I can't make social judgements, that seems uncivil to me. I have just same right to make social judgements as you do. ] (]) 08:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I was not assuming that you could not. I saw what I thought was a terrible misjudgment that @] was struggling to see in any good faith way and suggesting a way to recover good faith, but without excusing the brazen incivility I thought I saw. ] (]) 08:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did not say mental illness is in itself a WP:CIR issue. I said that, at times, particular mental illness will imply particular WP:CIR issues. What in the world is going on? ] (]) 07:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jwa heavily implied and you didn't call him out. ] (]) 07:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've quoted exactly what you said above just now. You don't have much wiggle room there. '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, autism is specifically correlated with social blindnesses. It's definitionally constitutive. That means that specifically for judgments of tone, like the one Akeshi was implicitly making, autism seemed relevant – and ''exculpatory''! ] (]) 08:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's not social blindnesses it's a sometimes struggle to pick up on social cues (Autistic people display a range of symptoms and some differ), also cool you do think I can't make social judgements. ] (]) 08:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your ill-founded judgments aren't doing you any favours here. You should be offering an unreserved apology to Akechi and then having the good sense to shut up before someone starts a block discussion. '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Clearly, it is not doing me favors and I am deeply deeply confused. I wouldn't know what to apologize for, at this point. ] (]) 08:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::For starters, for implying that an autistic editor was somehow less competent than other editors. I'm going to assume good faith that that may not have been your intent, but it's ''absolutely'' the way literally everybody else has taken it. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thank you: I apologize completely for saying what I did in such a way that it was taken by everyone else as saying that an autistic editor was somehow less competent than other editors because they were autistic. ] (]) 08:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::(I repeated a variant of this apology below, more personally to @], and Akechi graciously accepted the apology there. Thanks again @].) ] (]) 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It seems to me that we are dealing with the intersection of two issues here. The content issue is that Jordan Neely was misbehaving severely on a subway car, and the intervention of Daniel Penny lead, quite sadly, to his death. Since Penny was acquitted, ] policy forbids Misplaced Pages editors from describing Penny as a "bad person" or implying guilt. The second issue is how editors should interact during content disputes with other editors who self-describe on their user page as autistic and having ADHD and being pansexual and an agent of chaos. Personally, I do not care about "pansexual" in the slightest because I could not care less what editors do or don't in bed or on the sofa (couch). Autistic editors and editors with ADHD are perfectly welcome to edit Misplaced Pages as long as they comply with our policies and behavioral guidelines, just as every other editor is expected to do. If I happened to state "I am not autistic" on my user page (which I don't), then I would not expect any harsher treatment for misconduct than another editor who claims to be autistic. Since all editors should be treated the same within reason, I do not see the benefit of these declarations. They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment, but editors are perfectly free to make such declarations as long as they understand that other editors are likely to read them and draw inferences, stated openly or not. As for the inherent declaration in their username that the editor is {{tpq|The Agent Of Chaos}}, I find that far more troubling than the other self-declarations. The most generous interpretation is that the editor is trying too hard to be ironic and amusing, like the new hipster pizzeria in my home town that actually makes great innovative pizzas. But combined with the other self-declarations, I am confronted with legitimate questions about what this editor's goals and intentions actually are here, and I should remind the editor that actual agents of chaos get blocked pretty promptly on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| An IP address in the range of 203.171.192.0/20 ({{vandal|203.171.199.156}}, {{vandal|203.171.196.230}}, {{vandal|203.171.199.85}}) keeps skipping his block to push the infamous FEMA death <s>] ] ] ] ] ]</s> camp theories. I've taken the liberty of reverting of any of his contributions about it as the application of the block implies they are unwanted, but there is still the problem of IP hopping. The IP range is a mobile network, so the collateral will be low; it's generally inadvisable to edit from mobile or using a mobile connection. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 14:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::Do you really think that me calling myself an Agent Of Chaos is a serious thing and not just a reference. ] (]) 08:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I first noticed editors from this range making strange posts at ] but they have clearly progressed. Here they while making a legal threat in the edit summary. After to check for collateral I've issued a rangeblock of 203.171.192.0/20, anon-only, for two weeks. Other admins may modify this as they think best. ] (]) 18:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Like it's my name, I know there is an editor that has The Liar at the end of their username do we assume they are one. ] (]) 08:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm just stating my mental disabilities dude why is this a problem, are you gonna get mad at my userbox that says the same thing. ] (]) 08:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{u|Akechi The Agent Of Chaos}}, I think that you have dug a hole for yourself, and instead of climbing out, you are digging ever deeper. In the simplest terms, this is a project to build an encyclopedia. Why should anyone reading this thread be reassured that you share that goal? ] (]) 08:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::What does that have anything to do with this discussion other than you trying excuse others of wrongdoings. ] (]) 08:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@], the behaviour of all involved parties in under the microscope when you make reports here. '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Fair, I am getting into article editing, also how old is my account, what like a few months old, this is getting to ] stuff. This sounds like an excuse but I am trying to be a helpful member of the community and I'm kinda scared that I will mess things up with source editing. ] (]) 08:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::I'm going to stop talking now. ] (]) 08:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::For the admins' consideration, this reply is (I hope) partly because of me . So it sounds like they're willing to take advice. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 08:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::If you want to be helpful, start ] or review the ] looking for vandalism that needs reverting (make sure you set the filters appropriately) or anything that directly assists with the quality of articles. If you don't do at least something to help with building the project, it won't take long for others to decide that you are ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Thanks to Closhund's suggestions I actually started copy editing, it's not that scary anymore. I think I was just overwhelmed with editing massive cyclopedia. ] (]) 08:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::This is an interesting point - I posted a userbox saying I have ADHD, along with liking videogames and cats, as I see it as a part of me that I absolutely hated for decades until I was diagnosed recently. I posted it as a way to perhaps ask for a little patience, as I might be more prone to long posts or changing my edits after having another thought or idea (impulse control is an issue with ADHD). In my case, I intended it as an explanation, ''not'' an excuse. I still really and expect to be treated the same as anyone else. | |||
| *::Nevertheless, I angered someone earlier, who weaponised my ADHD and used it to claim I was incompetent and shouldn't be here. Quite a few admins were singled out in those posts, but they specifically focused on my ADHD for an inordinate amount of time. They were also cut and pasted into other people's Talk pages. | |||
| *::Whilst I'm well aware this was a malicious user and am ''not'' ashamed of my ADHD, nor will I hide it (I've done that for far too long), I'm now thinking I should remove those boxes - this is the internet, you can't tell what other people are thinking and it's easy to misunderstand others. | |||
| *::Neurodivergence is a relatively-new condition (compared to depression, anxiety etc. it's only really been accepted in the past few decades), so there are a lot of misunderstandings and stigma attached to it. The prevalence of self-diagnosis and misinformation on social media doesn't help, as there are those who do want attention and/or use it as an excuse. | |||
| *::I'm not sure what I'm going to do to be honest. I might remove the userboxes since they're apparently doing more harm than good. I've got to work now, but I'll decide later & just wanted to put this view forward. ] (]) 08:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::BTW Apologies if this is now off-topic, the thread was moving really fast! ] (]) 08:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], userboxes are a personal decision you have to make. Just know that many editors don't make use of userboxes and could very well share interests and conditions with those editors who do post them. It's self-identification and that can change over time. I think the one thing you can't control is how editors who encounter a self-identification will perceive you. That fact has caused some editors to simply blank their User pages so they don't have to worry about how bits of data about themselves could lead to other editors' judging them. But other individuals want to put all of their cards on the table. It's your call and just know, you can change your mind about it any time you want. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] Exactly right - I was aware of the negative perception, but someone who's looking for a reason to dislike another person will usually pick up on stuff like that first since it's an easy target. My workplace has been incredibly supportive so I've been letting my guard down, but that's not really a good idea online. Plus the userboxes were all shiny & colourful so I headed straight for them without thinking! | |||
| :::::I don't know if I'll keep the ADHD box since it may be doing more harm than good but the cat one will stay for now, since my furry demonic familiar demands it. ] (]) 14:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::With due respect, Cullen, I very strongly disagree with you when you say {{tq|"They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment"}}. This in and of itself can be considered ableist in a way and arguably a failure to AGF. Since neurodivergent people are quite literally ''defined'' by their neurotypes, this is no more or less self-identifying than, for example, gender orientation declarations; both are useful for editors wishing to meet, work with, and, importantly, take advice from editors who share identities and thus can relate. I second what Liz says below. | |||
| :::I have no comment on this particular situation otherwise as an apology appears to have been made. ] ] 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you don't mind, I've apologized and I meant it, and I'm trying to understand what I could have done differently at a finer grain than "never engage about any issue of mental health with respect to competence on Misplaced Pages again," which will be my safety-first default from here until I do get better understanding. | |||
| ::::This reply confused me, and if I can ask without being seen to be hunting for chinks in armor or trying to litigate after the issue is resolved or anything like that, @], was this meant to be a disagreement that {{tq|They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment}}, i.e., a disagreement that that particular form of ableist prejudice exists? Or is it a disagreement with the prejudice, and thus an implicit attribution of the prejudice to @]? The latter did not seem like the most natural good faith reading of @]'s comment, but the former doesn't make sense to me together with {{tq|This in and of itself can be considered ableist in a way}} since it doesn't seem sensible that recognizing the fact of ableist prejudice would be in itself ableist (it seems the opposite, that recognizing such prejudices exist is often part of fighting such prejudices). | |||
| ::::I've been incompetent at judging what people would interpret of my posts so far, and if I'm being incompetent in this interpretation in this reply in some blameworthy way I'll happily apologize for this as well, but I'm genuinely lost and would appreciate some more light on this if it's not a pain to provide it. ] (]) 15:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To my understanding, Cullen328 seemed to be stating (without referring to specific evidence, so it's unclear what their supporting evidence for this is) that editors who see someone have a userbox that refers to their disability assume the disabled editor is looking for special treatment. I think Jasper Deng's response was suggesting the following: people who assume disabled editors are looking for special treatment because they disclosed their disability are not assuming good faith of those disabled editors and might be doing something ableist by making that assumption. For a lot of people, sharing that they're disabled is no different than sharing that they're gay or a woman, and most people would not look at someone disclosing one of ''those'' and also think the editor is looking for preferential treatment. My understanding might be wrong, but it's what I'm getting from this interaction. Does that make sense? - ] (]) 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I do think that makes sense, insofar as I do definitely understand how the belief "they are claims to preferential treatment" would be judged to be ableist, but it doesn't address my confusion. This was what I meant by "the latter" of the two interpretive alternatives in my comment just before this. My confusion was about why @] would have said that together with {{tq|I very strongly disagree with you}} when I didn't see @] necessarily endorsing the belief "they are claims to preferential treatment" in their original comment, just the belief "they are often perceived as claims for preferential treatment," which would not itself imply @] has or agrees with that perception. ] (]) 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] To be entirely fair, the phrase "Agent of Chaos" is fairly common in various forms of media and seems more likely to be a reference to something (], or , or , etc.) than an indicator that the user is acting in bad faith. ] (]) 04:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|CambrianCrab}}, I readily agree that the "agent of chaos" concept is used in certain genres of fiction. But we are not writing a work of fiction here. We are writing an encyclopedia and anyone who actually behaves like a agent of chaos gets blocked promptly and indefinitely. So, I do not think that it is unreasonable to express concern about an editor choosing to portray themself that way. ] (]) 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Would you like me to change my name if it concerns you that much ] (]) 06:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I get like username policy and names shouldn't imply intent to troll and stuff but if we actually enforced that tons of people would have to change their usernames, once again I know a user that has The Liar at the end of their name but they aren't one. I feel like the most reasonable assumption is that my username is either a joke or a reference, as it is both. I feel like it's not assuming of good faith to think I'm an actual agent of chaos just because my username says I am. ] (]) 06:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mental illness can create a competency issue in pretty much any aspect of life. For example, a person can be found too mentally ill to stand trial in a court. I’m not sure why wikipedia should be an exception. | |||
| ::It’s unfortunate and sad for sure, but it’s simply a fact that some people are too mentally ill to be objective, reasonable, and yes even competent. | |||
| ::Obviously there are varying degrees of mental illness, and some are able to control it better than others. But there should definitely be a threshold where reasonable can say “this person is too mentally ill to edit” ] (]) 18:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that's not a judgement any complete stranger can make over the internet, including on Misplaced Pages. You could definitely call attention to disputed content or problematic conduct without making the assumption that it's connected to the disability of someone you do not know personally based on what you think you know about a specific editor, their disability, or how the latter affects the former. People can definitely come to consensuses that users cannot edit constructively without needing to declare that it's ''because they have a specific disability''. Connecting the two like that is very likely to instead come across as (and/or ''be'') a personal attack. - ] (]) 22:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I apologize completely and unreservedly for saying what I did in such a way that it was taken by you (and everyone else who has said something here so far, but especially by you because your feelings were the ones hurt) as saying that you were less competent than other editors because you were autistic. | |||
| == Persistant POV pushing and vandalism by ] == | |||
| :That seems important to say before any finer-grained points. I am sorry for that, completely and unreservedly. ] (]) 08:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you, I accept your apology ] (]) 08:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The bottom line is that '''every single editor''' is expected to fully follow our behavioral guidelines, no matter what they believe about their own mental health or what diagnoses that professionals have made. I was feeling quite depressed about ten day ago for reasons that have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages, and I have been climbing out of it without letting it affect my editing, because my Misplaced Pages editing gives me solace. If any editor is confident that they can edit productively despite a mental health challenge, then go for it. If your specific challenge impedes useful collaborative editing,then take a break until you feel better. ] (]) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I will keep that in mind ] (]) 08:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Once Jwa receives this I won't get involved. ] (]) 08:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thanks for that grace. ] (]) 08:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It's good to see a proper apology here. I must admit that I'm so used to seeing non-apology apologies that that is what I was expecting. ] (]) 09:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I've meant it from the beginning that I didn't intend to use @]'s autism as a disqualification of them. I considered the incivility disqualifying and I considered their comments about civility to show additional disqualifying incompetence of social judgment, and then I intended to highlight their self-identified autism as a possible way of reconciling the incivility and incompetence with good faith to cool and stop the uncivil running conflict with @] (who I thought was also responsible for incivility and making poor judgment calls, such as moving from the specific/local frustration about incompetence and incivility (actually blameworthy) to general/global frustration with neurodivergence (not blameworthy)). | |||
| *::::This I now see was naive and strongly against community norms, in particular viewed as unacceptably patronizing and ableist in itself, and so I'm not going to do that again here and I do find it easy to make a complete and genuine apology for having broken those norms. | |||
| *::::In my friendships and collaborations with autistic people in offline life, I will continue to do what has made my friendships and collaborations with them work so far. This sometimes does include very direct conversation about when to step away from fights when someone is missing social cues, but in my context it is rarely blamably patronizing or ableist to do so since there's an already strong expectation of respect for neurodivergence (and in the rare cases it is blamably patronizing or ableist, I also listen to that and stop as quickly as possible, like I am here). One of my main takeaways here is that on Misplaced Pages, the general patterns of unwanted but de facto incivility mean that there is not strong expectation that people do already respect the neurodivergent, in fact the reverse: a pretty strong expectation that communication that could be disrespect for the neurodivergent is disrespect for the neurodivergent. That seems true (that too many people don't respect neurodivergence) and important, and insofar as I wasn't already seeing it, it was because I was tripping over the "assume good faith" policy trying not to assume others were prejudiced against the neurodivergent and/or disrespecting the neurodivergent (since that seemed like it would be assuming bad faith). | |||
| *::::I don't yet understand how to reconcile "assume good faith" and "proactively defend people from systemic prejudices" very well. Off of Misplaced Pages I just don't assume good faith! It's something I think a lot of contemporary American political discourse has been choking on, and I think it'll be worth my time to continue thinking about it with this additional information from this experience. ] (]) 16:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :While I can't comment on @] as I've not interacted with them, I will note that I already reported @] concerning (in part) some of these issues about a month ago. People wanting to judge any misbehavior, with full context, may want to read ] where I engaged with them on it, as well as ], which has specific diffs (all of this was when my username was LaughingManiac). | |||
| {{userlinks|Slick112}} which is a SPA has been persistently engaged in vandalism, and pushing POV edits in the {{article|Raj Rajaratnam}} page, , , and the ] pages. | |||
| :For full disclosure, since I was fairly heavily involved at ] and promised to disengage to avoid ], I'll attempt to refrain from getting too deep into this particular discussion. It also bears mentioning that I ended up retracting the report myself, as can be seen above. Part of it was based on my own experience as a mentally ill person and expectations concerning how the topic be handled, and I found that Jwa05002 made a valid point that personal experience cannot dictate neutral Misplaced Pages editing, something which seemed supported by ], specifically the last sentence. So, I closed the report (with the - ] - mutual understanding that there would be no more ] on Jwa05002's part), and disengaged. | |||
| :I can say that my personal view of this subject is that there were problematic undertones both in how Jordan Neely's mental illness had been weaponized by Penny's defense, as well as in how it was being discussed on the talk page. I found Jwa05002's own mentions and utilization of the topic very offensive, to me personally, which is (in part) why I disengaged, since because I was personally affected in this case, I felt it would be difficult for me to participate neutrally. On a semi-related point, I do feel that Misplaced Pages in general would benefit from stricter guidelines concerning "personal experiences" beyond merely dismissing them, given that the manner in which some of the content in cases like these is treated, as well as the overt and rampant generalizations or prejudiced discourse against already vulnerable populations, may well discourage marginalized editors from contributing. But, this is ultimately a different topic that would be better suited for ]. | |||
| :I will also mention, however, that it'd be rather disappointing in my view if (which to me reads like a personal attack, never even mind that the notion that "severely mentally ill people" shouldn't be allowed to participate on Misplaced Pages is deeply troubling to me) is allowed to stand. | |||
| :{{underline|EDIT: For ''fuller'' disclosure, I will note that I was pinged to this discussion by Akechi mentioning me, in diffs ] I'm unsure whether this counts as ]? Hopefully not - my intent here is merely to provide context concerning a dispute in which I was originally involved in, which seems relevant, if not identical, to this one in my eyes.}} ] (]) 17:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I know little about the Jordan Neely case, and have not investigated it in particular, but have to give a few words about Misplaced Pages editing by people who are mentally ill or neurodivergent. I have a mental illess (I don't know if it's severe enough for {{u|Jwa05002}}, but I lost about half my working life because of it), and, largely through that, I know plenty of people with autism, ADHD and schizophrenia. I don't choose to display my mental status on my user page, but reveal it when relevant. I just checked and a have made nearly 49,000 edits since 2007. I don't think anyone has spotted my mental condition in all that time, because I take reponsibility for my editing and do not edit when I'm not up to it. If all the people with a mental illess or neurodivergence left Misplaced Pages it would be a much poorer place, and might not even exist. Some people with those conditions are very good editors, and some are not so good, just like "normal" people. I hope we can accept such people just as we can accept people of different genders, nationalities, sexual preferences etc. ] (]) 18:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are absolutely varying degrees of mental illness and it wasn’t my intention to imply anyone who suffers from a mental illness should not edit Misplaced Pages pages. | |||
| ::in this case, my comment was directed at one specific editor. | |||
| ::its unfortunate for sure, but some people simply aren’t capable of being objective and reasonable enough to edit pages. | |||
| ::this admin page is full of examples of users being blocked from editing because they simply aren’t able to handle the responsibility that comes with it. ] (]) 18:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Have I displayed any of that because you've kinda been urging me to stop being on the talk page for a while because of my extreme bias, which I genuinely don't know what you are talking about. This just seems like you found a more reasonable way to try and get me to stop editing. ] (]) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], rather than defending your comments on the article's talk page you should be offering an unreserved apology to Akechi. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I went back and looked through that entire discussion (about schizophrenia) and I see that there were 2 different editors besides me during the conversation. | |||
| ::::so I do apologize for conflating the two of you (Akechi and whoever the other editor was) | |||
| ::::I honestly did not realize Akechi was not the editor who volunteered they had a schizophrenia diagnosis. That’s for sure my mistake. Akechi, I apologize for implying you’d been diagnosed with a mental illness. ] (]) 03:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Cool, do you also wanna apologise for the comments you made about severely mentally ill people, as well as just assuming I was because of my Autism. You could also just apologise generally to the user with schizophrenia they should see it, because honestly it's kind of disgusting to imply someone isn't competent because of their disabilities. ] (]) 05:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don’t. I stand by my statement that “severely mentally ill” people shouldn’t make edits to Misplaced Pages articles. | |||
| ::::::Schizophrenia is a “severe mental illness” (don’t take my word for it, check out the Misplaced Pages article about it). That’s tragic and sad for sure, but still in my opinion, people suffering from that type of severe mental illness aren’t competent to edit Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 05:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That is not you're decision to make and mental illnesses can vary in condition, we judge people's actions not how they were born. ] (]) 06:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Jwa05002, I know many people with schizophrenia who would be perfectly capable of writing Misplaced Pages articles. We block/ban people because of what they do on Misplaced Pages, not because of whether they happen to have a broken leg, cancer or schizophrenia. ] (]) 08:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, just in case anyone finds it meaningful I'll reaffirm my commitment to these principles as well. I specifically avoided "severe enough" language because I don't think any "overall amount" would be relevant. I spoke about impacts on specific, relevant domains. Someone can be dealing with crippling catatonic panic attacks or having outright hallucinations offline and also still be participating in Misplaced Pages constructively and valuably when they're up for it. All my evidence is that both have in fact happened in real cases, constructively and for the best. My primary principle here was that editors should not contribute where they are disruptively incompetent for any reason, with mental illness simply not a special reason (and similarly for forms of neurodivergence I don't actually like to conflate with flat "mental illness", such as many forms of autism spectrum conditions). ] (]) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Block proposal - Jwa05002 === | |||
| I propose an indef CBAN for Jwa05002 as consequence of their statements at ] where they wrote <blockquote>Agreed. @Akechi The Agent of Chaos self admittedly (in these discussions) suffers from schizophrenia. I have the deepest sympathy for anybody with mental health issues, but that doesn’t mean severely mentally ill people should be editing Misplaced Pages articles. It’s exactly as you stated, competence is required. But….i guess this is what Misplaced Pages has devolved into. It’s sad really"</blockquote> and then at ] where they just wrote <blockquote>I don’t. I stand by my statement that “severely mentally ill” people shouldn’t make edits to Misplaced Pages articles. | |||
| Schizophrenia is a “severe mental illness” (don’t take my word for it, check out the Misplaced Pages article about it). That’s tragic and sad for sure, but still in my opinion, people suffering from that type of severe mental illness aren’t competent to edit Misplaced Pages articles.</blockquote> | |||
| All of the ], bar one which was an edit they shouldn't have been making per ], are at ] and ] and it therefore appears that the editor is ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure if I can place any votes because of my involvement but @] has in my opinion been trying to scare some user away from comment on ], including me where they said (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#c-Jwa05002-20250101224800-Akechi_The_Agent_Of_Chaos-20241230034200) | |||
| Warnings for him to desist , , , have all had no effect. He has also engaged in vandalism of my talk page too . Therefore please consider blocking this disruptive SPA account. ] (]) 14:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :"Based on this comment and many others I’ve seen you make here, you are far too personally biased (for whatever reason) to be making edits to this Misplaced Pages article. You are simply unable to be objective about it. Misplaced Pages should not exist as a forum for editors to grind their personal axes." in what could be seen as an attempt to scare me away from things. I don't know what Jwa was talking about because if you look at my comments on the talk page it was mostly trying to explain ] to people. The personal bias I can only assume was my disagreeing with them on the move request, as that is all I can think of. ] (]) 11:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Couldn't this have been taken to ]? Or has this been resolved already, ]] ] 18:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whoops, I misread it. Well, I'd say give him a firm last warning for edit warring, then block if he violates again, ]] ] 18:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Extended confirmed gaming by Sairamb1407== | |||
| == Violation of 1RR - request for Block == | |||
| {{Noping|Sairamb1407}} has made and many non substantial edits to other articles and have gamed their way into the extended confirmed user group. in order to edit the EC protected ] , consider revoking their ECR until they make 500 legitimate edits. - ] (]) 09:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{resolved|No action currently needed.--] (]) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I note that this editor made their 502nd edit to an extended confirmed protected article. ] (]) 09:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| user ] reverted article, on a 1RR restricted article: ] | |||
| ::I have revoked their EC permission. ] (]) 09:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Their talk page is full of warnings saying they may be blocked without further warning if they do some vandalism again. That user has only been here for a month... Just FYI. ] (]) 10:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == IP legal threat == | |||
| :http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kosovo&action=history | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = BLOCKED | |||
| | result = Both IPs are blocked. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC) {{nac}} | |||
| :(cur) (prev) 20:24, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,508 bytes) (undo) | |||
| }} | |||
| :(cur) (prev) 13:39, 21 October 2009 Dbachmann (talk | contribs) (105,200 bytes) (restoring stable lead paragraph. do not expand this. go to history of Kosovo to discuss details.) (undo) | |||
| :(cur) (prev) 11:27, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,508 bytes) (after Roman times, Dardania ceased to be an distinct regional entity) (undo) | |||
| :(cur) (prev) 10:10, 21 October 2009 Hajenso (talk | contribs) (105,494 bytes) (edit refs from "Kosova" to "Kosovo" when referring to the present state) (undo) | |||
| :(cur) (prev) 07:18, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,493 bytes) (undo) | |||
| :(cur) (prev) 07:08, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,576 bytes) (Undid revision 321148871 by Lontech (talk)) (undo) | |||
| IP 95.180.241.18 made a legal threat and is trying to justify it after I warned them twice about it, disregarding policy. See and . IP 95.180.245.225 is also related. ] (]) 13:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :95.180.241.18, you are quite entitled to take legal action, but you have to choose between that and discussing the issue on Misplaced Pages. You can't do both, per ]. ] (]) 13:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The other IP also continued the tirade and I would like to clarify that it is a BLP violation as well. Would it be possible to revoke their talk page access temporarily? See and . ] (]) 13:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User trolling and tracking me == | |||
| He was warned a couple of times. thanks--<span style="background:#27408B">] ] </span> 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|status=OP blocked|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Not sure that I should have, but I reverted his edit when I saw this. If enough editors are pushing one specific paragraph, he shouldn't do this. <span style="background-color:Green;"> ] ] </span></span> 16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello: | |||
| ::...And ] reverted your revert, calling your revert "POV-pushing". -- ''']'''] 19:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I want to let all of the admins to know that ] exploits my weakness in non-editing and talking in the | |||
| English Misplaced Pages, as well as my relatively not so good English and my relaying on Google Translate to write in English, to have advantage over me and to get me a with him. | |||
| Admins do you SEE THE TIME OF REVERTS HERE OR NOT and THE 1RR restricted article--<span style="background:#27408B">] ] </span> 20:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Lontech, Hxseek is currently blocked. If you call for a block one more time before he edits again, I will consider that disruptive editing and block '''you''' accordingly. --] (]) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| All of his knowledge about me in the wiki space is from tracking and stalking me and his behaviors to me are in the limits of an ]. | |||
| == Block review of ] == | |||
| I hope that you can help me to get rid of him and to end my one way interaction ban. ] (]) 14:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * {{user|Interpride}} was blocked with a explaining they were blocked, apparently, for making promotional edits ... and maybe their | |||
| username. If they had made their edits under another username I don't think we would have few issues with edits and certainly wouldn't have blocked. Could someone have a look and see if we can't be a little more welcoming here? ] 16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :If you're currently under a one-way iBan then coming to AN/I to complain about the editor you aren't supposed to interact with using zero evidence they've done anything at all is probably a bad choice. ] (]) 14:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bad faith ''bad block''. I can't see that they were even warned. If they had been contacted with a request to consider ] and they continued to edit in this manner, that would be grounds for a block. But this? No. ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::]: What is AN/I? ] (]) 14:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::: |
::Also: There is no interaction with the user. And I think that the one-way Internet ban, isn't valid in this page. ] (]) 14:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::This page, where you have posted your complaint, is AN/I. ] (]) 15:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *As זור987 has regrettably declared and demonstrated on multiple occasions now that they are not able to read and write English without the help of a translation tool, and that the output even then is sometimes less-than-intelligible, I think we should consider a CIR block at this time. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I asked the blocking admin for explanation but have not seen a response yet, I have also notified them of this thread. Being outside the situation could you point out which of their edit was actually blockable, or even disputed? They seemed to be adding extra details that are unneeded but that in and of itself shows a lack of experience on Misplaced Pages - not an effort to cause harm. ] 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *זור987, I don't understand your complaint. You have presented no evidence that Dorian Gray Wild has done anything wrong. Your complaint appears to be a baseless personal attack.--] (]) 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When you start adding 'sunshine and puppies' edits like , you're no longer being encyclopedial, you're being promotional. ] (]) 17:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *987 does not appear to be aware what the noticeboard they are posting on is, which is worrying. They have also raised (another) complaint about a user they currently have a one-way IBAN against who has not even edited in two weeks. In the last month this user has made 17 edits. 11 relate to Dorian Gray Wild and their accusations/attempts to have the IBAN removed. I am honestly confused as to their motives, but the trend of their editing before and since their IBAN makes me lean towards CIR here. ] (]) 15:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This block appears entirely appropriate. Aside from the generally promotional editing, the user was also adding copyvio text, with an often heavily promotional tone, cut and pasted from the organization's own website. Note that this edit corresponds to this link and this edit corresponds to this link and this edit corresponds to this link . ] (]) 17:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support CIR Block''' Based on the discussion above I think a CIR block is, sadly, appropriate. ] (]) 15:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *. All the information Dorian gave in that discussion, is from tracking me, either anonymously in the Hebrew Misplaced Pages or from his user at the English Misplaced Pages and other Wikipedias. ] (]) 15:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Can you please stop refactoring your comment? It's very frustrating. ] (]) 15:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Please read the above comments and decide whether you wish to respond to them. This is not round two of that same discussion you link, with the same evidence. ] (]) 15:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I think, based on the discussion so far, the best we can hope is that an admin will act quickly to block זור987. ] (]) 15:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:You're doing yourself a disservice. ] (]) 15:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::This is the complicated user interface of the English Misplaced Pages that caused the bolding of my comment. And Misplaced Pages now also very very slow. ] (]) 15:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{tq|complicated user interface of the English Misplaced Pages}} and {{tq|Misplaced Pages now also very very slow}} are not valid excuses for what you are doing. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I was referring to the discussion that you linked to. ] (]) 15:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Blocked per the emerging consensus on our part and the doubling down on their part. I've also tried to briefly explain our language/competence requirements to them in Hebrew on their user talk page. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Belligerent / combative behaviour, accusation of racism, and antisemitism by User:Raoni86 == | |||
| :You're not going to persuade many people that this type of account should not be blocked. It's a problem when people's first edits are about the organisation where they work (rather than blatant spamming, these are COI edits) and they get blocked, sometimes hardblocked. But blatant advertising will always be blocked very quickly and you're unlikely to change people's minds about it. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{atop | |||
| *Seems like a reasonable block - organization name + promo edits normally translates to a hard block, and there's at least one edit that reads somewhat promotional. Nonetheless, it would be optimal if the user was contacted beforehand, since this is not blatant spamming. ] (]) 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| | status = BLOCKED | |||
| **That's my point I guess. Instead of telling this user their name needed to change and their editing smacked of promotionalism we blocked them with no dialog whatsoever. That seems counter-intuitive to dealing with newbies and actually a bit hostile even if intended to curb promotional-like editing. Where's the civility? Where's the effort to explain why the edits were flawed before the indefinite block? ] 18:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| | result = Blocked for ] ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC) {{nac}} | |||
| It was a good block. One should be expected to only go so far with regards to not biting newcomers. I highly doubt that this person (assuming this is not a ], which is likely the case anyways) was interested in anything else except staking ownership to the page and turn the page into a mirror of its website, which is not what we're here for. | |||
| }} | |||
| With that said, I haven't looked at all the contribs to check for copyvios or blatant spamming, but a softblock was warranted at the very least. ] 18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Good block. This is exactly what I would have posted to ]. Sorry Benjiboi, I understand why you'd be unhappy about this kind of block but a username that indicates representation/affiliation with the article subject, combined with edits like justify the block and are in total compliance with our ] and ]. -- ''']'''] 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Noleander == | |||
| A thread regarding ] has only just been archived. However, new evidence has now emerged that should be brought to this board. | |||
| Earlier this month, Noleander created an article in this form which contains material under the heading ''Michael Medved'' that is plagiarised from the Neo-Nazi ] site . Noleander claims and that he didn't know the material originated with Stormfront and says he plagiarised it from an equally anti-Semitic article at ] . He still claims that the material was not a copyvio ] despite the fact that not only were the same quotes used as in the articles at Stormfront and Radio Islam but also the same linking phrase "Medved continued" etc. also are used.--] (]) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes, I wrote that article, and yes, I cut-and-pasted some text from the RadioIslam web site. I was trying to get some quotes from ] from a magazine article he wrote. As I put the text into the article ], I failed to proof-read, and failed to remove text that was between the Medved quotes. That was a mistake, and I profusely apologize. I have no idea who originally assembled Medved's quotes in that manner: RadioIslam? Stormfront? There is probably no way of ever knowing. In any case, it is appropriate to include a few quotes from Medved's article ... that is not a copyright violation. As for using RadioIslam as a place to find material? Yes, it is a rabid site, but it does contain material that is often not found elsewhere. I did make a mistake, and I apologize. However, I must point out that I believe this ANI (and the other ANI accusing me of antisemitism) is misguided. They are attempts to ensure that certain material is not included in this encyclopedia (particulary the ] article). Accusations of minor CopyViolations and Antisemitism are distractions intended, I believe, to distract from the real issue at hand. My perception is that Misplaced Pages is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship. Looking at the history of some articles, there appears to be a concerted effort to ensure that some notable material never appears in this encyclopedia. ANIs like this one are one tactic (and it works rather well, I must say :-) Im willing to engage in a discussion on whether that article belongs in this encyclopedia. In fact, I have been positively (and cheefully :-) engaged in that discussion in the AfD for that article. That is where the focus needs to stay. --] (]) 17:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::*] Anti-Semitism is never a good idea, and these 2 articles REEK of it...] (]) 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::*They are both up at AfD, let your conscience do the talking. -- ] (]) 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Thanks Avi, actually I voted delete in both instances. Anti-Semitism with a pretty new name is still nauseating...] (]) 18:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*Disclosure: I'm involved in that I voted to keep the relevant article at AfD. I don't necessarily think this ANI report was made in bad faith as Noleander does, but I understand his reaction, as this is the latest in a barrage of accusations, and the consensus has been that most that occurred prior to this were unfounded. He's only human. Overall I've actually been struck by Noleander's exceptional level-headededness in the face of rabid bad-faith assumptions (of the type that can be seen above). He's in fact been much more level-headed than I've been throughout this ordeal. One need only read through ] to see that (if one has the patience; it's pretty long). Since the copyvios have been corrected, Noleander has apologized, and the article is at AfD, I think the matter is settled for now as far as ANI goes. ] (]) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::*At this point, I agree we should not be discussing ]. However, we should exercise our options as participants in this project to accept or reject the article, completely independent of the original author, who may have had the best interests of all at heart. This is a referendum on the article, its content, its structure, its focus, and how it represents the project as a whole. My own opinions can be seen on the AfD page, as can those of many others, on both sides, which is why I suggest we all let our conscience do our talking. -- ] (]) 18:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I really must disagree with Avi in this situation. I think this thread should specifically focus on ]. I won't deny that his comments betray an educated and articulate human being. However, these same comments show someone who is incredibly anti-Jewish. I don't think this is assuming bad faith in the least. Would anyone stand for a similar article that was solely created to angrily decry the involvement of Muslims in organized crime in India? Or the petty crime committed by aboriginals in Australia? No, it would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Noleander has explicitly stated that his objective here is to provide negative information about Jews in order to counteract Jewish bias on Misplaced Pages. To that end he has largely provided copyrighted information from Stormfront and radio Islam.- ] | ] 21:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No, Im not anti-jewish, or anti-palestinian, or anti-this, or anti-that. I simply view WP as a very valuable asset for people around the world. I also think it has several "blind spots" where it is missing important material, due to political correctness. I first noticed this in regards to the articles on the Mormon church: there was no mention of they way blacks were treated by that church from 1850 to 1970. I decided to jump in and try to add some material there, and after two years of back-and-forth with some ''very'' tenacious editors, I think those articles are now balanced. It stikes me that the topic ] is under-represented in this encyclopedia. So I jumped in, wrote an article, and put it in the ] category: not trying to hide anything. The canard "Jews Control Hollywood" is notable, but is missing from this encyclopedia. The issue, again, is not an editor, or the editor's motivation: it is absence of notable information in this encyclopedia. Every minute we spend talking about editors motivation, is a minute we are not improving the articles. Hmmmmmm ... or is that the goal of these ANIs? --] (]) 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, that actually is the point of ANI. Article content is generally discussed in other places. To Moshe, I'd ask him to please provide diffs for the accusations he's made about Noleander's spoken intentions. ] (]) 22:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I cant speak for Avi, but he may be refering to my post above, where I said ''"My perception is that Misplaced Pages is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship."'' --] (]) 22:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Scroll up a bit and also look at many of his comments here- ] and here ].- ] | ] 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::"I simply view WP as a very valuable asset for people around the world." Do you really think this helps us move towards a resolutuion? Is there any reason why an anti-Semite or a racist or homophobe or sexist would ''not'' believe this? "I..." (this is me speaking, I just figured I do the Sandra Bernhardt routine first) "...I come here only because of my love for humanity." The problem is that in a few days you put up at least two articles that cut and pasted material directly from a neo-Nazi website and from an anti-Semitic Islamic (no, the two are by no means identical!) radio website, to create articles that - without any kind of scholarly analysis of framing, strung together anti-Semitic canards. If you care so much about Misplaced Pages, why didn't you create an article on gays controlling Broadway? Or on Jews controlling Wall Street? Or on the way that accusing someone of being a homophobe is a way of silencing them? Or how accusing someone of being a racist is a way of silincing them? You see, it is the ''highly selecteive'' nature of your choices that raises concerned. You view WP as an asset for people around the world? Well, okay, then why don't you work on an article on embryology? Or on urban renewal projects? Or dadaism? I mean, there are so many articles you could work on if you are motivated just by your passion for helping people, right? Why these? Now here is something strange - a number of times I called attention to the need fo ranalysis and framing, how historians and sociologists for example analyze anti-Semitic canards to reveal something about anti-Semites or about that period in time. You wrote back something like you are not an expert in sociology or history. Well, then, here is another question: why write articles on topics in which you have no expertise? I mean, we all agree Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, right? But shouldn't we edit articles on topics we know something about? Why do you specifically pic topics on which you are ignorant and then use Misplaced Pages to spread um, well, your "knowledge" about these topics? Why? | |||
| :::In fact, here you are lying about your motives. On the AfD pages you have stated that your concern is that accusations of anti-Semitism are a form of censorship and your motive is to publicize this. Well, dude, that is a violation of ] and you already admitted to it. And of course, only an anti-Semite complains that accusations of anti-Semitism are meant to censor. Look at it this way: if someone accused of anti-Semitism ''is'' an anti-Semite, surely you would agree that there is nothing wrong with accusing them of anti-Semitism, right? And if someone is not an anti-Semite, well, all they have to do is say so right? If someone is not an anti-Semite, it is always very easy for that person (or countless others) to say "No, I am not anti semitic" and to go on talking. I know of no case in which anyone ever accused of anti-Semitism was somehow prevented from speaking. Of course, if many people are convinced that someone is an anti-Semite, they are under no obligation to listen, are they? Well, Noleander, do you thinkg that people's hands should be cufed and their ers fordibly turned to the loud-speakers so that they have no choice but to listen? You also brought up "self-hating Jews" and provided two examples. I know people who will not go to hear Noam Chomsky speak. But I have neve heard him complain that he was somehow "silenced." Can you clarif your agenda, I mean, besides wanting to sprinkle the world with sugar and make everyone happy? I mean, something specific and to the point? | |||
| If your problem is that some topics are "censored" at Misplaced Pages, creating articles to soapbox is not the solution. Do you think that every AfD is an attempt to censor? Do you think Misplaced Pages should allow anti-Semitic articles? I am sure you have a lot more to say in response but I'd appreciate yes/no answers to at least these two questions. ] | ] 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] again == | |||
| ''Prior discussion: ]'' | |||
| Following up, ] has been editing to add unsourced material to firearms articles. A few users found it disruptive but in my view, since nobody is putting a source out there (and I'm not going to be able to say if it's totally ridiculous as they claim), it's bad but I wasn't going to do much beyond for his edit removing a source. Well, I feel like ] has been harassing him on his talk page (with , and ). I told Koalorka ] but if someone else can reduce the drama, I'd appreciate it. -- ] (]) 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :What?! Why am I the focus of an ANI again!?! This is absolutely frivolous. I made exactly ONE interaction with Macgyver. This is harassment. ] (]) 21:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==] and the ] article== | |||
| Continuing on the ] regarding ], it appears as though the widespread predictions at the ] that the article for ] would become a harassment coatrack were prescient. ] has taken up the ball now, a (since removed, and it must be said: non-notable) photograph of a goat urinating to the article. He has to attempt to add non-notable male anatomy photographs to the article, as well. Other of his edits pick up a common used against ], while appears to be highly questionable. I've ] to him why several of his recent edits are problematic, and of his edits have been ''prima facie'' harassment (but still appear to fail ] and ], and apparently open the door to goals). However subtle, these edits and his apparent motive appear highly problematic, especially for a ]. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 18:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>I have ] of this discussion. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 18:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :As I explained on my talk page, all of my contributions to that article involve inclusion of CC licensed images that were contributed by the subject. These images were voluntarily uploaded to Commons by the subject. If the subject feels that these images are embarassing, he certainly has the right to request their deletion as their author. I hardly see how editing an article to include contributions by its subject could be construed as harassment. As I also stated, the subjects numerous contributions of free photographs of male anatomy could be included in the article, but undoubtably shouldn't without discussion first. Lastly, I initiated a discussion in talk regarding inclusion in the article the subject's contributions in the area of gay pornography. The article is arguably non-neutral with regard to coverage of the subject's intrests and contributions in this area. But rather than boldly including this in the article, I initiated discussion in talk. ]'s characterations of my edits, and presumption of what my "goals" are, are a woeful example of not assuming ]. ] (]) 18:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I mentioned to you earlier, ''adding a '''non-notable''' photograph of a '''urinating goat''' to the biography of a living person'' '''regardless''' of your explanation, stretches any possible assumption of good faith '''past''' its breaking point. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whether or not you feel the image is notable, it is an example representative of his work and contributions to the project. It would be prefectly legitimate to include any of his contributions in the article, though arguably some would be more controversial than others. Images from Commons don't need sourcing because they're automatically sourced on the description page. That's the purpose of Commons. If you question the attributability of Commons, then you question the project's ability to comply with GFDL and Creative Commons licenses. ] (]) 19:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is a difference between attribution and actual ]. Given the variety and significant quantity of his work, decisions made by you or me to include certains pieces of his work give rise to the potential for a sort of editorial ] potentially lacking in ], as was the case with one of the images you intended to insert and the other images you indicated you would like to insert. This is highly problematic, especially for a ], and especially given the amplitude of '''not''' ] contributions that could be pulled from here and Commons. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What dialect of bafflegab is that? ] (]) 22:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's a unique dialect utilized primarily when trying to craft a response to a ] question. It boils down to: ] is not a ]. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 22:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I should know better than to wade into this, but your repeated use of the phrase "non-notable photograph" makes me wonder if you think it means something. ] (]) 19:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sure. If it were a notable photograph that he had taken, which had been printed in or covered by reliable sources, perhaps its inclusion would be reasonable. As a non-notable photograph, the only motivation for its editorial selection would be on the part of ]... I'm sure there are a lot of reasons for why somebody would think a urinating goat would be appropriate to include in a biography of a living person. I just can't think of any. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::J, someone seems to have reformatted several comments here, so I'm not sure if you were replying to me, but you seem to be saying that only images printed in or covered by RS can be included in ]? Is that really what you are suggesting, or did I misunderstand? ] (]) 19:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Photographs ''of'' the subject are one thing. Photographs taken ''by'' the subject are another thing altogether, and, just to start with, there needs to be relevance to the subject ''greater'' than him simply having taken the photograph. I ''personally'' interpret ] and ] as being problematic in the instance of this biography: ] wanted to discuss ]'s Misplaced Pages contributions '''in''' the article. I think that's where secondary, reliable coverage becomes important... Along those lines, I'm not yet convinced using a different standard for photographs contributed to Wikimedia, as opposed to text contributed to Misplaced Pages, is going to work for this biography, given the actions undertaken by ] and likely to be undertaken by others. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 19:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There is no doubt that David took the image of a goat or of ](or any of the literally thousands of images he has contributed). I don't understand why you would think RS is relevant here. Is this something to do with the mysterious "non-notable photograph" you alluded to earlier? DO you think a third-party needs to affirm that David took the photograghs? ] (]) 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::See my response to ] below, which also covers the questions you raised. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(to Chuthya, to avoid confusion) Oh for christ's sake who do you think you're kidding? AGF is not a shield for the patently obvious tactic here of picking the most famously controversial/salacious images from his commons collection and jamming them into the article to make a ]. This has nothing to do with sourcing or attribution, so drop that false argument, please. On another note, this is another reason why marginal BLPs shouldn't be created. ] (]) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Unless the photos are relevant to the article content as sourced to reliable independent coverage, it's not clear why they would warrant inclusion. As far as examples of the subjects work, why not use ones that relevant to the content? ] (]) 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Blocked for 24 hours for ] and ] violations. ''']''' (]) 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm concerned about this block. Looking at the article I see there is an entire gallery section of "example" photographs. Who gets to decide which ones should be included? If the subject of that BLP has contributed photographs on a range of subjects, shouldn't that be reflected? Otherwise I would think the gallery is itself improper (as may be the case). | |||
| :I think continued discussion would have been preferable to a block. As long as that editor was willing to work through dispute resolution and abide by consensus, blocking someone whose position is controversial seems problematic to me. It very well may be the case that they are trying to make a point, but we are expected to assume good faith. ] (]) 19:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I've said before, I don't see how one can assume good faith when an editor is attempting to add a photograph of the rear end of a goat to the biography of a living person. Assuming good faith is one thing; ignoring the obvious ] (at best) is another. That being said, I'm not convinced, as you highlight, that the gallery can survive ] and therefore ], and this may be a heretofore undiscussed issue that needs to be addressed (as I mention above in reply to ]). ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Interesting - it seems to be your point that the WP page of an artist should only contain art/photography OF the artist, not BY the artist. One wonders why you are not at ], removing the imagery of "The Treachery Of Images" and "The Human Condition", after all, they apparently hold no relevance to the article. Or perhaps ], where no image of the artist appears, but only "Madonna and Child II", an image which shows these religious figures floating in human urine, after all, surely it is stretching past the boundary of good faith to assume that image is there for any purpose other than to discredit the artist. Or perhaps you'd care to explain to people why some artist's page should have their work exhibited, but that you are fighting tooth and nail for another artist's page NOT to have their work exhibited? ] (]) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think you're misunderstanding my position: ] has a vast body of work with individually notable pieces which have themselves received significant reliable secondary coverage. If I may, ] is no ], and the image could not have been selected because of its notability within the "portfolio" of ]. Rather, it appears to have been selected editorially to make a ], as ] and others have noted above. Likewise, his intention to include photographs of male anatomy appears geared to include otherwise tangential salacious content in a biography of a living person (as ] noted above), even though said photographs are representative of a very small portion of what ] has uploaded. All of this to say that I don't believe I've created a double standard: if any of ]'s images, individually, receive reliable secondary coverage, they should be included in his article. If not, any given editor selecting which to include here can become a significant editorial neutrality issue, as was proven here, and I think that's why we should look closely to ] and ] to figure out how to deal with this sort of situation. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Bullying, personal opinion influencing editing of page == | |||
| I would appreciate a review of the discussion page, Transformers reference, of the F-15 Eagle page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:F-15_Eagle). One or two users are engaging in insulting and bullying behavior by blocking legitimate, valid, and relevant information from being added to this page. They are applying some kind of standard that does not apply to similar or identical information that exists for other aircraft of similar type (F-14 and F-22, for example). Then, they are threatening me with blocking. | |||
| As an example of the attitude of one of the "editors" in question, I point to his own page (http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dave1185), where he says those who have the audacity to use this as a means to have an issue addressed are, in his opinion, "real jerks." Quite a display of childish behavior. Well, I'm not going to back down from this bullying from a bully without a leg to stand on. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==AIV Backlog== | |||
| {{resolved|1=Backlog cleared. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| You know the drill. Help is appreciated :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :...and as quick as that, the backlog is gone. A question for the admins, could there be a bot that alerts the AN or ANI boards when there is a backlog, kinda like DYK does? It would allow the bot to put these edits here and not a user and clear out backlogs ALOT faster. Just an idea. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 19:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::I believe there is an ongoing discussion on this at one of the pumps. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 19:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is such a bot on IRC, in the #wikipedia-en-alerts channel. IIRC, it reports several backlogs including CSD, Unblocks, UAA, AIV, and a few others. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==] Backlog== | |||
| In the spirit of reporting backlogs here, could someone check out the backlog at ]? Thanks, <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 19:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == What, if anything, should be done? == | |||
| I received this message from an editor on Spanish Misplaced Pages: | |||
| :Hello. | |||
| :In Spain there has been a scandal about a wiki with content pro-Nazi. | |||
| :The user is responsible called "Auslli" which seems, is the same as here called ]. | |||
| :My English is not very good. I leave what I have written to an administrator (PeterSymonds). | |||
| :It's a shame that people like that are asministradores a wiki (however small like "Llionpedia"). | |||
| :Links: | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :Saludos.--] (]) 19:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Should any action be taken in response to this message? — ] {{toolbar|separator=dot|] | ] }} 19:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I would strongly suggest that as per ] action should only be taken if there are specific documented cases of nazi POV by that user here on en-Wiki. --] (]) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] backlog == | |||
| {{Template:resolved|Minutes after posting this, it got cleared out. -- ''']'''] 20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| I might as well pile on here, ] looks to be backlogged, with quite a few reports waiting for resolution. -- ''']'''] 19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible reincarnation of banned user == | |||
| The account {{user|Bobaboba2009}} appeared today on my talk page claiming "I'm back". The account has been blocked, but before 24 hours are up and the IP autoblock is removed, a checkuser needs to be performed and the underlying IP blocked for a year for belonging to a banned user. The last known IP address of this banned user was {{IPuser|72.177.68.38}}. If it is similar, then it is a positive match.—] (]) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Eco-Friendly Dentistry and claims of copyright == | |||
| On the article ], the user {{user|Oradental}} has been adding promotional text , . Today, the user confirmed a COI on his talk page ; but also claimed to be representing the copyright holder of the term "Eco-friendly dentistry" in the United States. | |||
| I've reverted the user's edits as they are promotional concerning the claim to copyright by ORA Dental Studio. My reasoning is partly related to the promotional claim - but also because the use cited in the article pre-dates the copyright claim. The uspto.gov shows a filing date of the term on February 9, 2009; while the existing cite in the article references from 2007. | |||
| However, I would appreciate having others review this article and the added content. I was considering using an RfC, but decided to move it here due to the potential copyright concerns. If I should use a different venue, please advise, and I'll move this immediately. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 20:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I've blocked the contributor for the username/promotional combination. is a company name, and the contributor is using the account to promote the company. That said, it isn't a question of the term "Eco-friendly dentistry" being copyrighted, but trademarked, which is a different matter. I don't actually know if the US and Canada have any international agreements to honor trademarks. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're right ... the trademark was what I found on the uspto website. I just used the term copyright because there was also an issue with the user posting copyrighted text involving that trademark (copied from their own website), and should have corrected my terminology - sorry about any confusion that may have caused. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 20:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It didn't cause confusion for long. :) But I thought to point it out for others viewing this listing. I've clarified the text a bit to identify the source of the term, and I've left them instructions for contacting our legal department if they feel this represents trademark infringement. I don't know of a clear policy on this one. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Is it possible to 'trademark' two common words in such a way that it is illegal for anyone other than the trademark holder to write them in sequence? If it is, I'd like to trademark the phrase 'blocked vandal.' You all have my permission to use the term, as long as you deposit ten US cents in my PayPal account. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 22:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Annoying new vandalism == | |||
| Twice in a row, a user on ] (dynamic IP assignment; IP ranges I have found belong to the ISP are 116.14.0.0/15, 121.6.0.0/15, 220.255.0.0/16, 219.74.0.0 - 219.75.127.255, 119.74.0.0/16; and there are probably mroe) has added a string of text essentially attacking me onto {{la|Kamen Rider Ryuki}} ( and ). I cannot tell who this person is. All I know is that it's showing up in Google (I've put in a request to remove the text). I don't know which would be a more useful (in the long run) method of preventing this vandalism from continuing. Whether to disallow the text from being added via an abuse filter or to semiprotect the page. The subject of the article (a Japanese television show), has been off the air for seven years. However, if the text is going to be the same each time, then the string of text can be blocked via the edit filter if the vandalism moves onto other pages (that I don't have watchlisted). I can't predict the actions, but I'd rather be safe and block the text rather than access to the articles.—] (]) 20:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Also it might be helpful to selectively delete the two diffs that I have pointed out so the text is not available to non-admin users and thereby disallow an undo of my latest revert.—] (]) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Please review my block == | |||
| Please see . If the community decides, any admin may change my action without further discussion with me. - Altenmann ] 20:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmm, certainly the editor has been warned frequently, and doesn't seem to have modified his behavior, but going straight to an indef block is too harsh in my book. The editor had a clean block log prior to this, so it isn't clear to me that there was any imminent disruption. I'll look a bit more and see if my opinion changes. ] ] ] 21:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure I'm even seeing the frequent warnings - user isn't in the habit of blanking his userpage, and all I'm seeing is a dialogue about some of his edits that looks like a continuation of a debate on an article talkpage. I'm also not sure (because there are no template warnings) where the bad edits are taking place. Is there a site of current disruption? Failing something dramatic elsewhere, I would have thought a stern warning from an unconnected admin would have been a preferable first step. But do point out what I've missed. --] (]) 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I brought up a ] against ] because that user was engaging in behavior that I thought to be reminiscent of the previous ] sockpuppet ]. Later developments in that investigation showed that ] had indeed edited with that IP. Therefore, that IP was blocked. | |||
| After an extremely angry email to me and some gradually calming-down discourse at ], I believe that the IP should actually be unblocked. From what the IP tells me, it seems that | |||
| * The IP belongs to a university residence | |||
| * A journalism class at the university brings up the use of "mother" vs. "pregnant woman" on Misplaced Pages every year, hence the periodic debate over that issue (new classes of journalism students taking that class) which led to my suspicions of sockpuppetry | |||
| * Other students at that residence were editing articles on cooking right before the block, and would like to be able to continue to contribute. | |||
| and I find this reasonably well substantiated by the . | |||
| @] wrote a draft of his father ], a musician, which I declined for not meeting the general notability guidelines. The ] 14 years ago (a suspiciously similar username, ''Raoniz'' contributed to that discussion). | |||
| I'm afraid that I made a mess of things by actually finding a situation in which similar behavior + same IP ≠ sockpuppet. I now find myself reasonably convinced that they are not a sockpuppet and should be unblocked. ] (]) 20:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Heh, I would agree with you that it is probably reasonable to unblock, but not that you made a mess of things. One of the advantages of creating an account is not being immediately associated with everyone else that ever was at that address. It was a risk that didn't pay off. That doesn't mean it was a bad risk, just that it didn't pay off.- ] 21:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the IP is used by a banned user then a block is entirely appropriate. Anyone who shares that IP who is not the banned user can create an account elsewhere (like the uni library) and then edit without further restriction. ] 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Anti-semitism: | |||
| == Editing talkpage comments == | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| Accusations of racism: | |||
| What am I supposed to do with this guy? I propose a move on ] , ] disagrees. Naturally his next step is to try and sabotage the whole thing by altering the move proposal . imho this last deliberate and malicious disruption should certainly be taken with the context of User:Imbris' past behavior in mind. Especially the fact that he has decided to vandalize other people's posts ''while on probation.'' --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 21:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| Threats to sockpuppet: | |||
| ::First of all there is no ''probation'', even if I am currently under 1RR. I did not revert. The request that Mr. DIREKTOR made is significantly different from his 2008 attempt. The introduction and the closing argument are off-topic, written to slant the evidences and in full disregard toward ]. Direktor turned the discussion on my person, and not on the evidence, accusing me of ultra-nationalism and other POV. Placing those tags were the only way to gain Mr. DIREKTORs attention to his not neutral reques, both in the introduction of the request and in the "conclusions" made by Mr. DIREKTOR. -- ] (]) 21:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| <s>DIREKTOR, can you point to the vandalising posts incident please. --] (]) 21:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)</s> Scrub that, I can't see for looking. Imbris, that is just childish - and yes it does count as refactoring another user's talk page comments, which is out of bounds. --] (]) 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Belligerent / combative behaviour: | |||
| ::I did not revert Mr. DIREKTORs deletion of those tags. The request for move provocked me, but I have addressed the matter at the right place. I sincerely appologize if I did not follow the rules. I did not know that it counts as refactoring, on several occassions on ] my talk page contributions were marked by those tags, and I did not know it is not allowed. Is there any chances for this to be a first-aid and not CPR. -- ] (]) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| Disparaging another editor's contributions: | |||
| :::Wow, thanks for not edit-warring against me writing my own post. Heh, he most certainly '''knows full well''' that what he's doing is against Wiki policy - he's no newbie. User:Imbris has been reported maybe a dozen times - he knows how to "work the system". The move was simply getting "too many" '''Support''' votes so he did his best to alter the text of the move rationale. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 22:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| Homophobia | |||
| ::::I did not know that in such cases when the requestor of the move in his "rationale" writes NPOV, that you cannot mark that sentence with the tag. I know that now. This should not warrant a block. I hope :) I did not say that I am a newbie, but tryed to appologize to the community for the mishap. | |||
| * | |||
| ::::Anyone can see that your rationale is completely against policy and guidelines of the RM. | |||
| ::::] (]) 22:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Needs a NOTHERE block | |||
| I support (yet another) block of Imbris. He simply is not taking the hint. Maybe a months-long block this time? ] (]) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 15:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :A CU between Raoni86 and Raoniz is probably wise - the Raoniz account seems to have been inactive for a good many years but if they're threatening to sock then it's probably wise to catch the obvious sleeping sock accounts early. ] (]) 15:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This is simply sad, to see. Crotchety Old Man ]ed me. He had never before edited on ] nor monarchism for that matter. Crotchety Old Man insisted I should appologize to him and GoodDay because of refactoring, which I complied. Even if GoodDay went ahed with the discussion (a sign of support) and even if GoodDay expanded the discussion in a completely different direction. Strange to see that Crotchety Old Man had not warned Notpietru when he changed the title of a section for several times. -- ] (]) 22:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I expect they've forgotten the login, since the last edit was almost 15 years ago. -- ] (]) 15:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the block, @]. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 15:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not me, guv. All credit to Pickersgill-Cunliffe. -- ] (]) 15:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In that case, thanks @]! <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 16:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Spammer/scammer on LinkedIn == | |||
| ::] did not ] Imbris. He was involved at the talkpage in question and noticed User:Imbris' edit first. Anyway, lets not squabble over irrelevant nonsense. The link is here, what else is there to talk about. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=] exist, details at eleven. Nothing requiring immediate administative attention here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| There is a spammer or scammer on LinkedIn named "Md Moshiur Rahman" claiming to get people's information on Misplaced Pages and asking to get paid. Please investigate and ping me with any updates. ] (]) 15:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Can you provide us a link to this account?] (]) 15:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Crotchety Old Man did ''']''', the editor in question had not ever previously edited on the ], nor any other monarch for that matter, and now we see his edit and a ''support'' vote in the biased rationale move request by Mr. DIREKTOR. -- ] (]) 22:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you search the username Bearian left, plus "wikipedia linkedin", you will find it. ] </span>]] 16:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{np|Md Moshiur Rahman}} does exist but has no contributions, including no deleted contributions. --] (]) 16:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Search engines adapt to the user (including search history, geolocation, device used, browser used, search engine used, etc.). Two people can type in the same thing, but Google will show them completely different results. I for one am unable to find the user Yamla linked when I type "Md Moshiur Rahman wikipedia LinkedIn" (without quotation marks) in Google. A link would be helpful. ] (]) 16:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-can-i-get-listed-wikipedia-md-moshiur-rahman-c0tgc/ ] (solidly non-human), ], ] 18:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Whoops, forgot to ping {{u|Bearian}} ] (solidly non-human), ], ] 18:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for sharing. My instincts are pretty good, no? ] (]) 18:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Better link https://www.linkedin.com/in/moshiur-rahman862/ ] (solidly non-human), ], ] 18:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm missing the scamming part. Here's a LinkedIn article he wrote about getting an article on Misplaced Pages: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-can-i-get-listed-wikipedia-md-moshiur-rahman-c0tgc/ . Doesn't look bad to me. — ] ] 19:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That link seems to provide good advice, except possibly "Choose a neutral username that does not directly identify you or your organisation to avoid potential conflicts of interest". The choice of user name does not eliminate conflicts of interest. I can't read the other links because I'm not on LinkedIn, and don't wish to be. Bearian should know better than to ask people to evaluate things without providing evidence, and to ask people to ping him when there are watchlists and subscriptions that can show any updates. ] (]) 19:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The first link I gave is not bad but the second link is a bit worse. His about includes "I create Misplaced Pages pages that help professionals, entrepreneurs, and brands enhance their online presence. As a skilled Misplaced Pages Editor and Page Creator, I specialise in Misplaced Pages writing, editing, management, and consulting." ] (solidly non-human), ], ] 20:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The only thing I could think of as scamming would be that he claims to be a content creator on Misplaced Pages when he actually has zero edits (if we assume that Yamla found the right user). That's a false claim of expertise. He might be asking for money for a service that he doesn't actually provide. | |||
| ::However, can Misplaced Pages even do something against things that are published/claimed on LinkedIn? ] (]) 20:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :On LinkedIn, he says he started working January 2025 for Panel PR, which is https://www.linkedin.com/company/panel-pr/ . If that is correct, there shouldn't be a long history of editing. — ] ] 19:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I think that there have been individuals trying to charge for help getting people positive Misplaced Pages articles since the project became widely known and publicized around 2005-2006. We've even had arbitration cases involving paid editing. I don't see how this instance is an urgent or intractable problem especially since this user account isn't currently active. We have had a policy for UPEs for years, let's just let that guide any action to be taken should this editor start editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| Since this editor hasn't made any onwiki declarations, the whole above thread is a case of ], which many people who posted should have known. Please delete and revdel, and post such concerns privately to ArbCom or other dedicated channels. ] (]) 09:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Newly-registered editor making legal threats and harassment == | |||
| :For the sake of peace, I have requested that GoodDay do not contact me ever, on any and all matters. He and Mr. DIREKTOR discussed like GoodDay supports the ''Tomislav II of Croatia'' title, while it is evident from the talk page of that article that GoodDay never supported such title (never before), to miracleously turn his position. -- ] (]) 22:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result=Disruptive editor given block for edit-warring. There might be a return trip to ANI if legal threats resume. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::Due to Peter II's reign, I support changing the article title to the Duke's real name. Again, why am I being 'barred' from your userpage? ] (]) 22:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Editor has been making legal threats regarding victims' images at ], demanding their removal, and is now demanding that I tell them why such images are allowed "without permission". –] (]) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ----- | |||
| : |
:I think it might be the photos they want removing, but I'm not sure? They've removed the two info boxes as well as the photos. ] (]) 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :: I have reverted the removal of the infoboxes and left them a note. ] (]) 20:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :::They should definitely knock it off with the legal threats but, yeah, did the same thing as {{noping|PhilKnight}}. ] (]) 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Now blocked for 24 hours for edit warring by JBW. ] (]) 20:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Me (DragonofBatley) == | |||
| How can the following accusations of Mr. DIREKTOR be characterized? | |||
| * has this accusation: "The statement Imbris makes is the worst kind of Ustaše ultranationalist propaganda" | |||
| It may seem odd but I'm going to appoint myself to here to save {{Ping|KJP1}} the trouble. It is suggested I be put under a restricted amount of editing for new articles and using Articles for Creation. I have agreed to do so but there is cause to refer it here. I have accepted the offers to fix my ways and work on it but it appears it needs an ANI report and involvement so I will do so now. The other editors can put their cases forward. I will only say to please look at the bad and the good edits I have made to the site and not just the negatives. ] (]) 22:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This is not just contrary to ] but is plain defamation and harrasment. | |||
| :Notifying other editors from the wider discussions {{Ping|PamD}}, {{Ping|Noswall59}}, {{Ping|Rupples}}, {{Ping|Crouch, Swale}}, {{Ping|KeithD}}, {{Ping|SchroCat}}, {{Ping|Tryptofish}}, {{Ping|Cremastra}} and {{Ping|Voice of Clam}}. If I missed anyone else sorry ] (]) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: ]. ] ] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of ], ], ] and now redirected ] and ]. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. ] (]) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes and I made some questionable choices of responses for which I am taking back as both inappropriate and immature. I am on the spectrum and do sometimes have moments of taking things personally if i feel attacked or something similar. I regret those actions and offered a fresh start to wipe slate clean and better myself but it seems it was at least now pointless as KJP1 is insisting ANI get involved. I am actually a very professional person and willing to learn. I had a bad day and went to cool off. I came back after a short time and willing to work out my issues but again. It is not really worth trying to if ANI is the new way forward. ] (]) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also this discussion: ]. ] (]/]) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on. | |||
| :I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. ] is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, ''then'' we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions. | |||
| :I'd also like to personally recommend to DragonofBatley to ] and then move them to mainspace him/herself. I find this approach helps me clear my head and write the article in stages, rather than write it all at once in one edit – when I do the latter, I tend to leave loose ends. | |||
| :Happy editing, <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --] (]) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing ] (]) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@]: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? ] (]/]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? ] (]) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You may use your talk page for whatever you like. You can also create a subpage, such as ]. It seems like you have a large group of people who want to help you and who find value in your contributions here, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to continue to provide feedback to you. ] (]/]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've reviewed the threads that Schazjmd and I shared. I think given Dragon's communication style, the block/ban thing was probably hyperbole. Regarding CCI, where were issues raised regarding copyright concerns in Dragon's edits? ] (]/]) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. ] (]) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. ] (]) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. ''']''' (]) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There is no socking. The only time I may edit off my account is for minor corrections made to certain articles. I made one anon edit months ago to a page I believe it was Derbyshire or Yorkshire which mispelt I believe it was a church or a nearby settlement had a letter missing. But apart from that. This is my main account and I have no issues with editors making sure I am not causing a nuisance to articles not that I intend to do so. ] (]) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::These are good points. | |||
| :::However, I don't think you meant CCI, since as far as I can tell, copyright has not been a problem. I think a CCI''-like'' thing may be in order. ], anyone? <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course ] is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? ] (]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]/]) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break ] and ]. ] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add ] (]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ec}} The reason I mentioned CCI is because multiple editors who have been closely involved in the edits said on KJP1's talk page (linked above) that some sort of CCI might be needed. I'm simply basing it on that. If they actually meant an informal CCI-like process for verifiability, then it's that. --] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think it's the latter. @]: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. ] (]/]) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Okay I will do my best. Ill try to write any notable text seperate from a source as best as I can. If the CCI issue is one of the ongoing problems. ] (]) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I made a number of suggestions about page creation restrictions in the discussion thread but as noted in reply their problems aren't limited to article creation (and I'd expect to see a shift to other problems with editing existing articles) and as noted above the AFC suggestion might overburden AFC. Maybe keeping the suggestion about only creating articles on civil parishes would be a good idea in other words going along with what Cremastra has suggested namely using userspace drafts instead of AFC or creating straight away. ''']''' (]) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah, I agree to that. @] if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to ] but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? ] (]) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::] is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in ]. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely ]. ''']''' (]) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Okay, I will do. So far we have I believe Dawley Hamlets, Great Dawley, Lawley and Overdale, Ketley, Oakengates, Wrockwardine, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench, Donnington, Madeley, Ironbridge Gorge and Wellington (which a few more articles could be added or made like for its church, notable suburbs etc) of course if they pass the AfC ] (]) 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :DragonofBatley, to me, the biggest concern is the repeated instances noted in those discussions where the text you added wasn't supported by the sources that you cited. That's a big deal. How do you plan to address that problem? ] ] 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. ] (]) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That doesn't address my question at all. Editors pointed out multiple instances where you wrote something then cited a source that didn't support what you wrote. How do you plan to address that problem? ] ] 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Plagiarism is not the issue. Could you please explain where to find Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and what it means to you? ] (]/]) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@]: while you're taking a breather as @] suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? ] (]/]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::], ], ] (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example ] and ]. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for ] and the ]. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. ] (]) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? ] (]/]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near ]. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the ] commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings ] (]) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Er, definitely don't use Domesday as your reference for anything on Misplaced Pages, that's quite solidly original research. Old poems etc are also not secondary research - that would still be primary research. Secondary research is stuff by academics and so on about the subject. -- ] (]) 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *DragonofBatley has agreed to a ] to publish all drafts through AfC, up to five at a time, enforceable by partial or site blocks. Does that restriction resolve the concerns raised here and in other discussions? ] (]/]) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --] (]) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? ] (]) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. ] (]/]) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. ''']''' (]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. ] (]/]) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --] (]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::It strikes me as low, given that the only other editor of whom I'm aware of with a similar restriction is capped at 20. -- ] (]) 00:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{outdent|0}} Most of the concerns raised in the discussions seem to be related to articles created by Dragon, rather than additions to existing articles, but I think the editors familiar with Dragon will clarify if that's wrong. I'm open to lowering the number. ] (]/]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Many of the editors who have been involved in the prior discussions have not yet had an opportunity to respond here. Let's give it sufficient time. --] (]) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Okay. I did answer your question on the policy. I hope it gives some understanding of my knowledge. If i need more researching into it. I will ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I asked a second question. Could you please answer that one as well? ] (]/]) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *@]: Are you willing to accept the proposal that you only be allowed to publish articles through AFC and that you can only have five active AFC nominations at any given time, and that if you violate either of those two restrictions, you may be blocked? ] (]/]) 04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah, I agree to this. I have already completed one article for AfC for ]. Hopefully this proves I am willing to accept using AfC and submitted one at any given time. ] (]) 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I’ve looked at a number of articles created by Dragon and they fail even the most basic sourcing requirements or standards. Unreliable sources and fabricated information from sources are the main issue there, and I don’t want to see '''any''' new articles being created until the 400+ old ones have been cleaned up. I would like to see a complete ban on creating any new articles, whether in user space, main space or at drafts until it can be proven that Dragon has the basic competence required to source properly - and the best place for that is cleaning up some of the crap he’s already produced. We have a good pathway of restricting the activity of editors guilty of serial copyright infringements, and this is a very similar set of problems that should face the same pathway of editing restrictions and activity management before we put too much of a burden on AfC or have too much other dross added to main space. - ] (]) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. ] (]/]) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{ec}} {{u|KJP1}} has made an offer on the talk page about a way forward, but I’ll let them repeat and clarify here here. - ] (]) 05:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I do not see any Serial Copyright Infringements on my articles nor do I practice such things. I will not bombard replies but all I will say is maybe check out my new article created through AfC and see that I actually rushed nothing and sourced properly. Here you ]. I will go back to my as you call them "crap" articles and fix what I can fix in due time. ] (]) 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the ]erifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? ] (]/]) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{ec}} Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - ] (]) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. ] (]) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] article clearly indicate that it is common knowledge and not some ultra-nationalist propaganda. DIREKTOR should read the paragraph '''"'''the fact that the Croatian Parliament had never sanctioned the decision of the National Council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to unite with Serbia and Montenegro in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (1 December 1918), subsequently (3 October 1929) proclaimed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia;'''"'''. | |||
| *:::I worry about AfC. Yes, Dragon's ] was approved by an AfC reviewer ... who themself copied in, unacknowledged, text from ] and failed to make the references work. They also removed the wrong one of two "References" sections, leaving Refs after Ext links, and put the church into the wrong category (Grade II listed churches.., instead of grade II* ...). Yes, I know those of us who don't offer to take on the work of AfC should be careful about criticising those who do, but this is a bit disappointing. | |||
| *:::And also includes linked centuries, an Easter Egg link in the "See also", and some pretty clunky prose, before we get on to any issues of verifiability. ]] 09:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == IP apparently unable to hear messages about ENGVAR/DATE AT/RETAIN == | |||
| DIREKTOR ''feels'' that every person claiming what is written above is a ultra-nationalist Ustaše supporter and revisionist. | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked for a year. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{iprange|2601:47:4B01:4B30:0:0:0:0/64}}<br>Starting in late 2023 this IP editor has been changing spellings and dates formats between English variants. They come back ever month or, two make the same or similar edits, get reverted, and repeat. They've been warned multiple times, but either can not see the messages or will not. They must be somewhat aware as they come back to make the same edits after being repeatedly reverted. As the same person has been on the range for over a year making the same problematic edits could a 3–6 month block be put it place, at least until they find a talk page. Anything shorter could be missed due to their infrequent editing. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 02:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've left notices at the last to IP talk pages. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 02:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Please make him stop the crusade against fellow users, who did their best not to interffer with the articles of Mr. DIREKTOR's choice. | |||
| ::I blocked the /64 for a year. Nearly all their edits have been reverted and I checked that a lot of the IP's changes were as described above. They have only edited articles and have never used a talk page. ] (]) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks Johnuniq. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 02:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Cross wiki disruptive editing by an IP user after they were blocked here == | |||
| ] (]) 22:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=zh.wiki is thataway. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I'm not interested in seeing anybody blocked over this topic. ] (]) 22:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This user: 108.185.166.91 made disruptive edit on chinese wikipedia after being blocked here. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Please report on the Chinese Misplaced Pages. The English Misplaced Pages admins cannot do anything about cross-wiki affairs. If you feel a global ban is warranted, please see ] {{nacmt}} ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :More of the same dramatics from you. You '''must''' be Misplaced Pages's foremost martyr. ] (]) 22:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's ] (thanks for fixing the link above since I've written this comment :) ), not global bans, a ban is something that happens only by community consensus, a block prevents disruptive editing and can be the technical way to implement a ban (but not all blocks are), see ]. You can request a global block (note that for user accounts it's called a "global lock") for an IP at ]. :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not true. I have idle standed the harrasment by Mr. DIREKTOR and this is the first time I have reported him. -- ] (]) 22:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Chinese ANI is btw! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Stalking from @Iruka13 == | |||
| :::It can be characterized as "commenting on content, not the contributor". --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 22:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Iruka13}} | |||
| This is a continuation of various discussions happening on the Talk page of the user ]. | |||
| I have been feeling harassed and stalked by this user for months now, figuring it was only me. Except, as is evidenced from that user's talk page, it ISN'T only me. As well as ], @] has laid out their own harassment. Bear in mind both of our posts come AFTER the user was already banned for a week by @] for incivility to a different person entirely. I don't believe it's only us. | |||
| ::::No it cannot be characterized like that. -- ] (]) 22:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| As laid out: one of my photos was tagged by @] for deletion around 4 months ago. So fine. Except when asking why, or if the user had read any of the supporting material, I was met by threats to delete work I'd done on the site - plus varying degrees of condescension and bullying. This was largely on the talk page of a now deleted file. Since then, the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons. The reason I say this is stalking is that these images aren't new. If there was a genuine issue, they could have *all* been tagged four months ago. Instead it's a drip-drip-drip. As an example, was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data. | |||
| :::::Allow me to intervine with the following piece of logic. Direktor, your comment was out of line. Please don't assume that a person is pushing a specific agenda. Imbris, your soapboxing is out of line. I don't see a pattern of abuse, just one comment. Obviously this is a touchy subject, but still. As punishment, I smack both of you with wet fish. Now go be productive. <span style="background-color:Green;"> ] ] </span></span> 23:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream of harassment. They never engage civilly, never explain, never offer any reasoning. Again, from the other comments on the user's Talk page, this practice of stalking, bullying, and condescension is seemingly not a one-off. I don't understand how there can be so much drama on a single six-week period of one person's Talk page. Especially when, apparently, the user has already been banned from Commons for similar destructive behaviour. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| {{minnow}} | |||
| :Just dropping a link to my discussion with Iruka . My block was less about whether they were technically correct, but their complete unwillingness and inability to edit in a collaborative environment despite a multitude of warnings. I have not followed up with further sanctions as at least one admin disagreed, and I haven't had the on wiki time to moderate this. My POV there and here is that being right isn't sufficient, and Iruka13 has to learn to play well with others if he's going to edit here. I am not sure whether this is a language barrier, but they've been told a number of times that their conduct is problematic. ] ] 03:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{minnow}} | |||
| ::I'm also going to add from what I've seen at the deletion discussions (they've not targeted any of mine; I exclusively deal in copyleft media on Commons) that Iruka13 is frequently and obviously meritless in their nominations. A huge portion of them are very obviously spurious in a way that's comparable to ] and ], where the amount of energy required to nominate them is immensely lower than the amount required to refute them. I'm genuinely baffled that they've been getting away with this. If they were basically always correct and just being – pardon my French – an insufferable jackass about it, that would be one thing. It's another thing entirely, though, to take a birdshot approach to deletion noms knowing there will be zero repurcussions for whichever spuriously nominated ones survive the discussion because ]. It's literally just a technique aimed at exhausting the other party, and this bizarre edge case they're creating has made me think that we might actually need some sort of limit on the number of noms possible in a given time period. <b>]</b> ] 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Can you provide the redlink to the "talk page of a deleted file" where you said that the harassment "largely" occurred? Administrators can view the content of a deleted page. :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd love to - but I don't know how to find a page that was deleted so long ago. I think it would have been around October 2024? Is there a way I can search this out? ] (]) 03:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am reproducing the comment from ] here:{{tq2|Do you even know what is ] and what is not? Where in ] is this distinction mentioned? Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote and ]? And ], ok? — Ирука<sup>13</sup> 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes! That's the comment. The "demolish everything you wrote" bit. | |||
| ::::The same user has now been following me around for months. This is exactly the reason other users like @] feel unsafe. How is this allowed to go on? ] (]) 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That conduct probably would have merited a temporary block in November, but I'm not going to block him based on that now without more evidence that it's part of a pattern. Regarding {{tq|the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons}}, could you please provide diffs (perhaps to talk page notices that you got) of spurious deletion nominations? ] (]/]) 03:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's the process of one after the other, after the other. | |||
| ::::::If there were genuine issues with images, why didn't Iruka tag them all back then? Instead, it's been a drip-drip-drip all the way up until today. This is why I feel harassed. The tagging isn't on new images. | |||
| ::::::As an example, was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data. | |||
| ::::::If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream. ] (]) 03:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My understanding is that stuff like that lead to Star Missicipi's 1 week block on the 10th of December. Has there been any conduct made you feel uncomfortable since their block expired, beyond nominating your images for deletion (indicating they might be watching which images you make) and them being deleted? :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Jinx voorts, beat me too it! Had an edit conflict there (but forgot to add {{ec}})! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hi. Yes. was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data. | |||
| ::::::If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream. | |||
| ::::::Basically, why would they suddenly decide to look at an image that had been up for months, on a whim? ] (]) 03:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::My guess would be that the user was looking through your file creations (which is not sanctionable conduct by itself) as they had found you to be, in their opinion, a creator of fair use files that may not meet our guidelines for free-use content and was seeing if there were any others to tag for deletion. If you don't agree with decision of the admin who chose to accept the CSD nom and delete the file, you can submit an appeal to ]. I'm not entirely sure what you want to be done here? Has there been any re-occurance of subpar communication like the above since the 17th of December? ] <sup>]]</sup> 04:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::But that's exactly my point. All those files were already on Misplaced Pages at that previous time. If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged in one go. | |||
| ::::::::Instead, it's tag a file, wait 2-3 weeks, tag another, wait 2-3 weeks, tag another. And repeat. | |||
| ::::::::But why would anyone keep returning to those old images, from a single user, over and over and over? | |||
| ::::::::That's why I feel harassed. Especially because - as with the image linked above - I don't believe there's an issue. | |||
| ::::::::Plus, as pointed out by @], tahere have been more than 150 image deletion nominations in the last two weeks alone. ] (]) 04:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Three* but nonetheless correct. <b>]</b> ] 04:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)e | |||
| ::::{{U|Voorts}}, you just beat me to it--thanks. But let me add that Peterson doesn't look good either. What Iruka was responding to was this, " There's no point in people drive-bying these pages with that "needs image" tag if, when somebody tries to do something about it, a person *with zero knowledge of the subject matter* doesn't bother to do any reading before rejecting. This whole process is ridiculous." ] (]) 03:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I've undeleted that file talk page so non-admin watchers can see the whole exchange in context. ] ] 03:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm reading over a bunch of material, including their talk page. It's clear to me (and I think ] agrees) that many of their deletion nominations are correct. On the other hand, the way in which they go about things is deemed problematic by plenty of others, and I wonder if ], ], ], and ] have any additional insight. ] (]) 03:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yeah, that matched my understanding, including them being usually (but by no means always) right on the merits but problematic in how they went about it. I don't really have the energy to spent more time analyzing this than I already have - the other admins watching this page can do what needs to be done and I don't think any further comments from me would be helpful. ] ] 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] & @]: If I am going to take action, I need to see a post-block pattern of conduct. Please provide some form of evidence, such as diffs. ] (]/]) 03:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::My most recent issues relate to the file I linked above - . This was tagged last week and deleted today. | |||
| ::Again, if the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's the fifth or sixth(?) that's been tagged and deleted since that first one. Each a week or three apart. | |||
| ::Of course I feel stalked. None of these images are new. They could've all been tagged at the time. | |||
| ::Instead, it's drip-drip-drip. | |||
| ::On that one linked above, why would Iruka suddenly decide to look at an image that had been up for months on a whim? Unless it's because they're stalking. It's the same behaviour described by @] ] (]) 04:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The instructions at the top of this page state: {{tq|Be brief and include ''']''' demonstrating the problem}} (emphasis in original). I am not going to block someone without evidence. ] (]/]) 04:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There's no way I could possibly fulfil what you ask. | |||
| ::::The point is that instead of tagging multiple files for deletion in one go, the same user has tagged image files of mine one after the other. Tag for deletion, wait 2-3 weeks, tag, wait 2-3 weeks, tag. | |||
| ::::I can't see the files *because they've been deleted*. What am I supposed to link you to? | |||
| ::::Even if all the deletions were correct - and I'm not convinced that's true - how is this a legitimate way to act? | |||
| ::::The harassment is that all these files were live when the first tag was made. Instead of highlighting any issues at the time, Iruka has been following me around the site for months. I'm not the only person saying this. ] (]) 04:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Looking at your talk page history, you received two deletion notifications on 12 November 2024 (one for an image that you uploaded that same date, and one for an image that you uploaded a few weeks prior), one on 22 November 2024 for the image you uploaded 12 November, one on 3 December 2024 for an image you uploaded in October, and one on 6 January for an image you uploaded in October.{{pb}}The 22 November nomination makes sense in context because it was originally nominated for lacking an adequate license per F4 on 12 November, which was remedied, and then Iruka came back ten days later to nominate it for lacking contextual significance. That leaves the nominations on 3 December and 6 January. Two nominations one month apart is not adequate evidence of stalking, in my opinion. ] (]/]) 04:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I also note your responses to two of those notifications (both for files that were deleted): | |||
| ::::::* ] | |||
| ::::::* ] | |||
| :::::: ] (]/]) 04:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::OK @] & @]- I think I have been able to find some sort of timeline to illustrate what I'm saying. | |||
| :::::::On 12 Nov, ] was nominated for deletion. I'd uploaded in the days before, so OK. Fair enough. I'm still not convinced by the merits of this deletion in regards to the point of the page and the image - but OK. | |||
| :::::::On 22 Nov, ] was nominated. | |||
| :::::::On 3 Dec ] was nominated. | |||
| :::::::On 6 Jan ] was nominated. This is the most dubious of all. | |||
| :::::::These four images were all there at the time of the first nomination. If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged at once. | |||
| :::::::Instead, it's four over two months - which comes directly after the message: | |||
| :::::::> Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote | |||
| :::::::Which is exactly what's happening. Spaced out, spurious nominations. | |||
| :::::::Why would a user suddenly return to look at a different user's work, weeks apart, unless they're stalking? | |||
| :::::::And, if it was only me, then maybe I'd put it down to paranoia. Except the user's Talk page has at least one other user saying a very similar thing. | |||
| :::::::I can't see the comments you've linked to btw - but believe it or not, when someone says | |||
| :::::::> Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote | |||
| :::::::and then starts doing it, it does tend to lead to incivility. ] (]) 04:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Just to add, by the user's own admission in 2023, they have | |||
| ::::::::> 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects | |||
| ::::::::Link: ] | |||
| ::::::::That's in *their own words*. ] (]) 05:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{tq|If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged at once.}} There's no rule that requires an editor to go through another editor's contributions and decide whether to nominate them for deletion all at once. There are also innocent explanations, such as not wanting to overwhelm someone with a dozen nominations all at once or not having the time.{{pb}}Regarding Netherzone's claim of stalking, Iruka's "]" appears to be a place where they keep notes on files they intend to renominate for deletion at a later date.{{pb}}I am also well aware of the history of Iruka's blocks, but blocks can't be used to punish people for sins of the past. I see no evidence of stalking here and I won't be taking action. ] (]/]) 05:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::OK, so when another old file gets tagged with little justification in 2-3 weeks, can I message you again? What about 2-3 weeks after that? | |||
| :::::::::I don't even know how I'm supposed to appeal / counteract the tag-tag-tag behaviour. I can't see any justification for the deletion of today's file and it's not as if Iruka ever gives any reason. ] (]) 05:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{outdent|6}} Iruka has provided reasons consistent with policies, guidelines, and practice. For example, ] was tagged with <nowiki>{{di-fails NFCC|date=6 January 2025|1=yes|8=yes}}</nowiki>. I've reviewed the fair use rationale that you provided and I believe that the file was properly deleted. ] (]/]) 05:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Does 170 image deletion noms since Christmas count as "a pattern of conduct"? Because I see this as effectively a ] where it's functionally impossible for most editors to meaningfully evaluate the merits of each one. Since non-free media has to meet a substantially higher standard for 'Keep' than for 'Delete', this means that 'Keep' voters need to take substantially more time per nom than the 'Delete' ones, and creating such a glut of noms severely and unfairly tips the balance in favor of a 'Delete' vote on average. <b>]</b> ] 04:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please provide diffs. ] (]/]) 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Appreciate the ask, because this made me realize that I was incorrect about the original figure. It's actually 210 since Christmas, or a bit over 10 per day. and then Ctrl+F "up for deletion" and "tagging for deletion". 170 noms; 40 CSDs. I want to clarify I've been absent from this since the original block, but this has to be absurd to keep up with for anyone at the discussions trying to argue to in good faith to preserve these images. <b>]</b> ] 04:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::How many were declined by patrolling admins? How many were no permission tags where permissions were then added? An admin cannot block someone without evidence and I'm not going to dig through Iruka's contributions to look for it. ] (]/]) 04:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ultimately I haven't been keeping up with the situation on a per-nom basis, and by nature of them consistently putting up over 1000 edits a month, I'm not going to be going through them except for macro-scale patterns. I was brought here for my perspective, and this is it: that Iruka is abusing the system by making an unprecedented amount of noms with little regard for merit (the noms I witnessed were immediately pre-block, thus as you said not qualifying here for post-block behavior) in order to make dubious noms on average more successful solely because they can't have as much individual time dedicated to them. It's a very obvious tactic, and I'm equal parts perplexed that there's no protection against this and yet unsurprised because there's likely never been anyone this unnaturally zealous to warrant it. I don't intend to go beyond what I was brought here to do for right now. <b>]</b> ] 04:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|It's a very obvious tactic, I'm equal parts perplexed that there's no protection against this and yet unsurprised because there's likely never been anyone this unnaturally zealous to warrant it.}} Please do comment on other editors' motives without evidence. ] (]/]) 04:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Between more than one experienced editor accusing Iruka of stalking them, their "let someone else sort it out" attitude toward obvious, consequential mistakes they make, their argumentative behavior, their gross power-tripping attitude ("Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote and I will be right?" (also note the wikilawyering going on in that comment)), their ridiculous noms (including arguments like "just use a 3D model bro" or "a free alternative can reasonably exist because you can just get a basketball backboard and break it for an image bro" or "just offer to pay them money to put it under a free license it bro"; all pre-block, so I'm not bothering to dig it up), the absurd frequency of noms they create, and their indefinite block on Commons, all I'll say is that I assume good faith until an editor flushes that down the toilet. With that, I'm done here unless someone has a specific question for me. <b>]</b> ] 04:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::"I have 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects." | |||
| :::::::::Kinda sounds like maybe this user does harass people, considering that's what they wrote *on their own page*. | |||
| :::::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Iruka13/Archives/2023#c-Iruka13-20230927154300-Marchjuly-20230927005100 ] (]) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:अधिवक्ता संतोष, legal threat == | |||
| == Legal threat by ANI vandal == | |||
| {{userlinks|अधिवक्ता संतोष}} See ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 06:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This vandal edit by ] which Alansohn has just reverted, features a distinct legal threat. Anyone up for blocking ? --] (]) 23:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I obviously don't condone the legal threat, and an admin would be well within their right to block. But the complaint was about real vandalism (a claim that a prominent actor had entered politics "due to a failed acting career") that had remained up for a month—I can understand why someone would be frustrated. I have removed the claim and would not recommend any further action. ] (]) 06:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::From their latest remark on the article talk page, it sounds like you removed the sentence that set them off, ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, as I said above {{tq|I have removed the claim}}. There are related conversations happening on the talk page as well as ]. ] (]) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:45, 14 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
| 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
There is consensus that DarwIn (talk · contribs) is subject to an indefinite topic ban from gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people, broadly construed, and an indefinite one-way interaction ban with Skyshifter (talk · contribs), broadly construed. A majority of editors have concluded that, based on DarwIn's conduct and lack of contrition, his word is insufficient to prevent further disruption. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
- @Skyshifter You stated that DarwIn is a "a known transphobic", are there any other such instances at pt.wiki, other than two AfD nominations on 28 December 2024? Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2025 (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)
- Prior to 28 December 2024, did he do anything like this? Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope, not one incident that I can remember of. Eduardo G. 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- And regarding my comment above this, after I read the events a bit more: DarwIn didn't use "quotes" in an attempt to judge whether the child is transgender or not. He just used quotes because "trans" is a shortened version of transgender, and thus quotes were appropriate. Eduardo G. 22:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Prior to 28 December 2024, did he do anything like this? Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2025 (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)
- @TarnishedPath Perhaps? @Dronebogus suggested @Skyshifter take it to metawiki for UCOC violations, but she's understandably noticeboard fatigued. I think there's a good case for it as the UCOC says
- expected behavior includes
Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves. People may use specific terms to describe themselves. As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people, where linguistically or technically feasible.
- misgendering a 9-year old across multiple wikis would do that - Unnacceptable behavior / harassment (3.1) includes
Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence, appearance, ethnicity, race, religion (or lack thereof), culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, sex, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, or other characteristics. In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression constitute insults collectively, even if individual statements would not.
- This includes the repeated misgendering as well as insults against the girl's motherHounding: following a person across the project(s) and repeatedly critiquing their work mainly with the intent to upset or discourage them.
- the behavior on ptwiki then being followed by unilateral deletions on commons and this whole debacle on enwiki fits the bill
- Unnacceptable behavior / Abuse of power, privilege, or influence (3.2) includes
Abuse of seniority and connections: Using one's position and reputation to intimidate others. We expect people with significant experience and connections in the movement to behave with special care because hostile comments from them may carry an unintended backlash. People with community authority have a particular privilege to be viewed as reliable and should not abuse this to attack others who disagree with them.
- the block placed on Skyshifter for calling blatant transphobia transphobia certainly fits the bill
- expected behavior includes
- Leaving this all here in case Skyshifter wants to take it to metawiki at some point. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would address section 3.2, power imbalance does not seem to be much at play here. Looking at Skyshifter's pt.wiki block log during their time as admin (June 2020 - January 2024), they were blocked five times for various reasons. Looking at Skyshifter's pt.wiki user group , they were once temporarily desysopped for the biggest wheel warring in pt.wiki history, and once permanently desysopped. Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath Perhaps? @Dronebogus suggested @Skyshifter take it to metawiki for UCOC violations, but she's understandably noticeboard fatigued. I think there's a good case for it as the UCOC says
- 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)
- Support per the diffs provided and the editor's attitude in this thread. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support both the topic ban and one-way interaction ban for Darwin, and frankly an indefinite ban would not be out of place. Between the diffs (like calling trans daughter
troglodyte
behavior and stalking another user across multiple projects) and the editor's behavior in this thread (misgendering a living person, doubling down, accusing users who point out this inappropriate behavior of being thought police, and trying to misuse administration to sanction a user for calling out this incivility), Darwin has not demonstrated the necessary willingness to abide by the Movement Charter (which requires that projects create asafe environment that fosters diversity, inclusion, equity, and cooperation
) or the Universal Code of Conduct (which obligates users to respect peoplewho identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns
). As such, I lack confidence that only a topic ban or interaction ban would prevent misbehavior, though I believe they would be better at preventing misbehavior than doing nothing. There is no place for prejudices like queerphobia on Misplaced Pages or any Wikimedia project because prejudicial behaviors like racism, sexism, queerphobia, etc. violate the Charter and Code of Conduct. Users who would downplay Darwin's egregious incivility and abuse of seniority for means of intimidation, who would try to play off the existence of entire categories of human as mere opinion or shrug off written defenses of the rights of users who face massive prejudice as dismissible essaying, should reread and recommit to the Charter and Code of Conduct. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- Universal Code of Conduct is in force in English Misplaced Pages, but section 2.1 applies only to fellow contributors. BLP is more relevant for those outside Misplaced Pages. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think harassment or personal attack has been proven since they target content for ideological reasons. I don't think BLP or GENDERID has been violated since they did not introduce it to mainspace. I look into whether they are pursuing battleground behaviour, and I found they are not, as they dropped the stick at 16:07, 29 December 2024, albeit begrudgingly. I found no policy grounds left to impose sanctions. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- BLP and GENDERID are not restricted to just mainspace. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not read BLPTALK, you are right, BLP applies at DYK nomination and ANI. I find them violating BLP when they stated "thrusting that identity on the child" at DYK nomination despite a medical record to the contrary, but I do not find them violating BLP at ANI, albeit begrudgingly. The statement at DYK nomination deserved a warning, but since they dropped the stick, no more preventative blocks needed. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know if that's necessarily the case though. Their last edit on en.wp is complaining that somebody left them a CTOP message which they then deleted from their user talk page. I don't think that a strategy of lying low until the pressure clears at AN/I should allow editors who have made and then doubled down on such inflammatory statements as DarwIn did entirely off the hook. And, frankly, if DarwIn has been so firm that they will steer clear of WP:GENSEX then it's not like a community ban on participation there will be anything other than a note that the community supports their avowal of non-participation there. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is clear that they hold grudge, but they are merely on the defensive there, and user talk page is not a wall of shame. I do think it is desirable that editors lie low due to ANI, we always want to see things de-escalate. A topic ban would be much broader than their pledge to abide by GENDERID without debate, as GENSEX's scope is "gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people". Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know if that's necessarily the case though. Their last edit on en.wp is complaining that somebody left them a CTOP message which they then deleted from their user talk page. I don't think that a strategy of lying low until the pressure clears at AN/I should allow editors who have made and then doubled down on such inflammatory statements as DarwIn did entirely off the hook. And, frankly, if DarwIn has been so firm that they will steer clear of WP:GENSEX then it's not like a community ban on participation there will be anything other than a note that the community supports their avowal of non-participation there. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not read BLPTALK, you are right, BLP applies at DYK nomination and ANI. I find them violating BLP when they stated "thrusting that identity on the child" at DYK nomination despite a medical record to the contrary, but I do not find them violating BLP at ANI, albeit begrudgingly. The statement at DYK nomination deserved a warning, but since they dropped the stick, no more preventative blocks needed. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Darwin agreed to drop the stick a day prior, and then continued editing anyways up until an hour after this topic was created.
- (here) they say "I'll not revert this again if removed. Others can evaluate it and decide for themselves." (Revision as of 19:18, 28 December 2024)
- They then immediately went back on this in their next edit and added it back despite it being removed (here) (Revision as of 12:34, 29 December 2024) The ANI was made an hour later where they again said they would drop the stick an hour after that.
- They have already promised to drop the stick and then didn't. Relm (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- They followed their word "I'll not revert this", this as in their paragraph. It was a step in the direction of dropping the stick, and this ANI thread was not even posted yet. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @RelmC You are mixing up things, what I said I would not revert again was the removal of the comment, which I didn't. Darwin 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The only edit between you dropping the stick and continuing to edit war was Skyshifter removing your comment. (here)
- You then responded by reverting all the way to the original edit you made by re-inserting your reverted edit from a day prior before the conversation. (here)
- You going back and re-adding this (here) after the discussion is clearly edit warring. Relm (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @RelmC What is the problem with that specific edit at all, apart from apparently making the sentence too long or being incorrectly formated (which was fixed afterwards)? Darwin 00:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- In an attempt to avoid spiralling this response chain into something unproductive, I'll put it like this:
- Whether the inclusion of the detail 'four years old' should be included or not is largely irrelevant to the conduct. I will address them separately.
- For the merit of adding it, I think the first questions are "why is this detail relevant?" and "why is it being added if it isn't?" The reality is that it is not relevant unless it is trying to subvert the legitimacy of the claim. This answers the second question and shows that it is indicative of WP:TEND editing. Your arguments on the page and here have been pointed out by several others of being indicative of this and a WP:RGW attitude to the topic. As the one adding the detail, the impetus to answer the question of relevancy is on you. When you gave your answer on the talk page in that comment it was that you were skeptical to the subject's autonomy in making that choice and felt adding 'four year old' as a detail was sufficient to voice this skepticism in wikivoice.
- For the conduct, you were repeatedly and by multiple editors reverted and dissented to. Then despite this you put the original edit back into its place even after saying you would leave it there and let others comment. To me this is clearly edit warring and WP:REHASH. Relm (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @RelmC What is the problem with that specific edit at all, apart from apparently making the sentence too long or being incorrectly formated (which was fixed afterwards)? Darwin 00:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- BLP and GENDERID are not restricted to just mainspace. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dronebogus, and as Darwin has agreed to step away.Halbared (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Even if Darwin has agreed not to edit in the discussed areas, this is extremely concerning (NPA). In addition, I feel that the user log created by any sanctions will be much more actionable should any further problems arise. There have been sanctions for far less, and I'm honestly as to confused why this is being opposed. JarJarInks (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- JarJarInks, Darwin's earlier comments on that particular thread, while not particularly civil, are perhaps summed up by this comment of his. He also is stating a desire to drop the damn stick. There's no point in placing the CTOP notice when Darwin has been the subject of a thread a third the length of To Kill a Mockingbird, Darwin understandably thought the same. Please go away, you came here to harass me for no reason, so you couldn't be more unwelcome in this place is hardly a personal attack on its own, let alone with the context I explained above. JayCubby 23:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dronebogus and Halbared. DarwIn has already agreed to WP:DROPTHESTICK and I see he has. There is no need to drag this on longer than it should be. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 22:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know what anybody is trying to achieve with a topic ban, DarwIn stated
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,
their true dispute here is quite narrow, they don't think a four year old can become trans, which I disagree with and which is inconsistent with MOS:GENDERID, but that's all. Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- No, he repeatedly insulted a living person, claiming she somehow turned her daughter trans, attributing this to sources which never said that (and in fact highlighted how bullshit that was), following an editor around to keep insisting that. Sources also note this person was the subject of harassment and claims she turned her daughter trans. This was not just attacks on 2 living people (claiming one forced a trans identity on her child and the other is "too young" to be trans), and lies about sources, and cross-wiki hounding, but plain and simple bigotry. If this wasn't an experienced editor, he'd be indeffed by now, and it's disappointing but not shocking some don't seem to see a problem with this.
- Also, he's still on the same bigoted shtick on ptwiki. Here he is yesterday saying other editors have an "agenda" and insisting that the trans kid is probably going to regret transitioning. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- First, watch your language, especially on your previous vote. Second, that diff is from the Portuguese Wiki, and as said before, what goes on the PT Wiki stays on the PT Wiki, in which the EN Wiki has no business in. I'm not intending to harm you in any way, but the sad reality is that we have no business in what goes on in other wikis. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 00:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Respectfully, if someone says something on English wiki, and then goes to another wiki and discusses their conduct on English wiki, they can not claim 'home base' and act like it is irrelevant - especially if their words elsewhere casts significant doubt on their explanation for their conduct. Relm (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- First, watch your language, especially on your previous vote. Second, that diff is from the Portuguese Wiki, and as said before, what goes on the PT Wiki stays on the PT Wiki, in which the EN Wiki has no business in. I'm not intending to harm you in any way, but the sad reality is that we have no business in what goes on in other wikis. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 00:15, 14 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) -- Open thread below. BarntToust 15:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Topic ban for Lardlegwarmers
TOPIC BAN IMPOSED By the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, Lardlegwarmers is topic-banned from the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
- Oppose - Seems unnecessary and retaliatory. I say that even considering Hob Gadling a friend of mine. PackMecEng (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support The user is basically a WP:SPA who looking at their editing history, their basically sole purpose to edit Misplaced Pages is to aggressively POVPUSH about lableak on talkpages, a topic they can't even edit the main page of because they don't have ECP. They're not the only offender, but they are major one. Their contributions are only raising the heat and frankly do not improve the topic area. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is not a SPA. I’ve been editing on Misplaced Pages for a month or two, focusing some of my attention on the lab leak hypothesis because the article itself would benefit from a more balanced presentation of the topic, especially the broader social and political implications of the theory, based on reliable sources. For example, the article's suggestion that the lab leak hypothesis foments racism is simply not verified. Politicians and extremists have taken advantage of the hypothesis for their own reasons, but it's otherwise a viable scientific hypothesis. (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57782955) I've been on the talk page helping to sift through a lot of the original research and the sources (a lot of them) that don't actually say what people are alleging they say. Also, I have been trying to find some kind of consensus for filling in the conspicuous gaps where there ought to be information about notable non-scientific events like coverage of the notable U.S. Congress committee that focused on the lab leak idea and made major headlines in the media--and it's completely omitted from the article. I've worked to clean up the articles where they use journalistic sources to verify biomedical information. And I'm dealing with helping to sort out this chronic name-calling where there should be civil dialogue. In a separate topic, I've been working on fixing an obvious BLP violation where the article talk page consensus might be showing a bit of resistance to the site's policy itself. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support pro-fringe single purpose accounts are bad for the project. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - What exactly is the reason to do this here? If jps wishes to file a vague ANI complaint against LLW (a new editor), there is a legitimate process for that which would look a lot less like witness intimidation. - Palpable (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your own POV editing is openly in question as well, particularly considering this discussion on your talk page with LLW. Statements like this "
If you are interested in what the FBI knows but can't say, the next six months are expected to bring the release of a great deal more information. Stock up on popcorn I guess. If you want to improve the lab leak article, I don't know what to tell you. As you've noticed there are some deeply rotten things going on and the admins seem afraid to step in
" very heavily indicates your own POV inclinations regarding scientific topics. Silverseren 20:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC) - Note to closer: Palpable is another lableak POVPUSHING SPA. They only made about 70 edits between their account creation in 2006 and 2022, when their editing shifted to be basically solely arguing about lableak on talkpages for over 2 years at this point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you'd find it's a little more complicated than that, but it is not relevant to this discussion. Also, witness intimidation. - Palpable (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Witness intimidation" 😂 so are we now a court of law? His honor, Jimbo Wales is our Chief Justice? The duck test tells us you are an SPA that has a POV to push. BarntToust 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BOOMERANG is not witness intimidation, nor is this a court. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you'd find it's a little more complicated than that, but it is not relevant to this discussion. Also, witness intimidation. - Palpable (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm happy to discuss my background and motivations over email with an admin who has a record of neutrality regarding FTN. - Palpable (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is at ANI, so it should be discussed at ANI. "I'll only discuss it in secret" is not how things are played here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Noted, thanks. - Palpable (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is at ANI, so it should be discussed at ANI. "I'll only discuss it in secret" is not how things are played here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your own POV editing is openly in question as well, particularly considering this discussion on your talk page with LLW. Statements like this "
- Support They have openly stated, as I linked above, their purposes of pushing information that the scientific community is "trying to cover up". Their POV pushing is blatant and reinforced by them being an SPA in this topic area. A topic ban would be a potential stopgap to hopefully have them actually become a proper constructive editor, rather than just outright banning them for their clear WP:NOTHERE activities. So, if anything, a topic ban is much more merciful than the alternative. Silverseren 20:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Silverseren is heavily involved in the underlying dispute. I have never said that there is "information that the scientific community is 'trying to cover up', just that there was never a thorough investigation and the debate is ongoing or inconclusive (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57782955) (https://www.wissenschaftstehtauf.ch/Inside_the_Virus-Hunting_Nonprofit_at_the_Center_of_the_Lab-Leak_Controversy_Vanity_Fair.pdf), that we ought to remove or attribute the sources we use whose authors have a direct relationship with the facility that the theory implicates (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/ "Shi herself and the WIV itself have an obvious conflict of interest") and that we won't be including in the article any of the less prestigious, primary sources (e.g., https://www.jpands.org/vol29no1/orient.pdf) nor the non-peer reviewed sources (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VC/VC00/20230711/116185/HHRG-118-VC00-20230711-SD005.pdf - a U.S. defense laboratory that sequenced the virus and https://www.scienceopen.com/document/read?vid=23853f40-72f5-443a-8f87-89af7fce1a92 - a Bayesian analysis) in support of a lab leak scenario. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Support tban from COVID articles. The editor has boomeranged themselves, it seems. SPA consumate. BarntToust 15:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I support in the first place a topic ban from Covid-19 broadly construed, but will also support a tban from COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory in case that narrower ban gets more traction here. Bishonen | tålk 10:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC).
- @jps, Misplaced Pages being "mainstream" in this context just means that we use the most prestigious source material available to verify our claims. It doesn't tell us to suppress verifiable information just because it would "challenge the status quo" in society. By the way, I am not saying that my account exists "to challenge the status quo". I'm just correcting what might be a misrepresentation on your part as to what that document prescribes for us. I have always used high-quality sources in any of my edits to the main-space articles and used the talk pages to express my concerns about unverified claims. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I fail to see how this addresses Hob Gadling's chronic and intractable behavioral issues. SmolBrane (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support – weak support for TBAN from COVID-19 overall, strong support for COVID-19 Origins, broadly construed (to include Gain of Function research, Fauci, WIV, etc) - This editor has repeatedly cast ASPERSIONS , has stated several times over that they intend to edit in a POV way to 'correct the biases that are in favor of the democratic party' , has shown a very poor understanding of policy (e.g. trying to advocate for a POVFORK , saying a discussion shouldn't be closed because no one could truly understand how complicated it is ) and a poor ability to assess the content of sources where they have a clear bias, repeatedly hitting others over the head with that failure to understand (e.g. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT/WP:BLUDGEON ). I think they could probably benefit from editing a less contentious area of Misplaced Pages. (and yes I have participated in some of these discussions involving LLW) — Shibbolethink 21:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Shibbolethink is heavily involved in the dispute and misinterprets as bludgeoning my consistent opposition to their prolific use of faulty citations. The examples of citations they provided here are a perfect case study in what I had assumed was a good faith misunderstanding but am now convinced must be intentional mis-attribution. None of the links they provided substantiate anything they’re saying. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support – COVID-19 broadly construed. I originally suggested trouts. But Lardlegwarmer’s responses in this section have convinced me that this user has problems with NPOV, DUE, and RS that continue even on AN/I. Perhaps six months editing elsewhere will be of value. And yes, I have been involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consensus on a ban proposal is not supposed to include editors that are involved in the underlying dispute. Why are these accounts casting votes?Lardlegwarmers (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Says who? Everyone can comment here. MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- They can comment but the authority to ban comes from a “consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute” so I’m assuming that means they don’t get a vote(?) Wp:cban Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, I think six of the !votes are from editors who have posted to a Covid article, including two of the three opposes. I don't know about the other pages you listed as I've never heard of most of them. I am involved in one of the seven pages you listed in your filing. But I don't see how I'm involved in the
underlying dispute
you have with Hob. The closer can take this all into account. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, I think six of the !votes are from editors who have posted to a Covid article, including two of the three opposes. I don't know about the other pages you listed as I've never heard of most of them. I am involved in one of the seven pages you listed in your filing. But I don't see how I'm involved in the
- They can comment but the authority to ban comes from a “consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute” so I’m assuming that means they don’t get a vote(?) Wp:cban Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lardlegwarmers may be right. Palpable's Oppose !vote, in particular, reflects involvement in the Covid lab leak dispute and should be disregarded. Newimpartial (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- The criteria of having simply posted to a COVID article does not serve as a threshold for being in a dispute with lard leg warmers. If a vote is to be disregarded for its caster's fulfillment of being involved in a dispute with lard's POV-pushing, then a talk page discussion, diffs should be linked for certain proof. BarntToust 15:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Echoing @BarntToust's statement. I understand how it can be seen as problematic (also why I'm not voting), but that's not the standard. Furthermore, if it was, that would equally disqualify @Objective3000 and @Silver seren. (It shouldn't, just to be clear, but just making sure that's documented if we're going down this road.) Just10A (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Says who? Everyone can comment here. MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consensus on a ban proposal is not supposed to include editors that are involved in the underlying dispute. Why are these accounts casting votes?Lardlegwarmers (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Covid-19 T-ban. Their behaviour here smacks of "Them vs. everybody". Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand your sentiment, but what am I expected to do when all these editors are directly invoking my name and mischaracterizing my behavior and using sanction-gaming to push me out of a contentious discussion? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Surprised the CIVILPOV-pushing edit requests flooding my COVID watchlist this past month didn't result in a tban earlier. JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well it would have spoiled all the fun, since a CIVILPOV guy is apparently fair game to use as target practice for ad hominems in the talk page Lardlegwarmers (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support given the behavior in this area of editing. And before you reply, Lardle, I suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON. You don't need to comment on every !vote here.
Proposals re Hob Gadling and civility
Hob Gadling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There are concerns about WP:CIVIL regarding this editor's behaviour. Should a trout be in order? A block? Or an editing restriction when addressing other users? The community will decide.
BarntToust 15:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Support 1 month block – Hob needs an ultimatum, and the behaviour, even though they're right much of the time, is unacceptable per WP:BRINE.BarntToust 15:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- This feels WP:PUNITIVE. jps (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
| extended discussion |
|---|
|
- Oppose block I don't think this is a sanctionable level of incivility. I'd be ok with sending them a trout. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose block Hob is a long term contributor most often engaged in the thankless task of keeping fringe nuttery from overtaking a range of obscure articles. I don't see a history of problematic incivility that would warrant a block. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support block as per BarntToust. Over the years I've seen the editor be rude and borderline bully, if not outright. It doesn't reflect well on Wiki.Halbared (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- A 1 month block is not likely to change long-term behavior, and would only amount to punishment. That's why we don't do temporary blocks in cases like this. Rather, something is needed that will force Hob to adjust their behavior if they want to continue to edit. An indef block would do it, but seems over the top. One alternative would be an wp:editing restriction. What about:
Hob Gadling is prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities, including but not limited to other editors' reasoning skills, their ability to evaluate evidence, and their capacity to identify nonsense. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months on WP:AN.
- Of course Hob would be free to point out that a source is not RS, that something is not supported by a source, that this or that position is WP:FRINGE, or anything else related to the editorial process, but they would be prohibited from commenting on other editors' ability to come to such conclusions for themselves.
| some of the diffs above to which this would apply |
|---|
- I think this would solve a lot of the civility problems we see in the diffs. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should we apply the same strict civility standards to all of your edits? Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
| extended discussion |
|---|
|
- Oh I deal with the same problems Hob does, believe me. Many around here do. WP:CIR is a thing, and yes, I personally believe it should be enforced much more vigorously. But no, I generally don't comment on other editors' intellectual capabilities in discussions. Most editors do not. If you want to discuss this further, please do so at my user talk. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- And those words, editors, are the summary of the conclusion drawn at the above "extended discussion" CT. BarntToust 20:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh I deal with the same problems Hob does, believe me. Many around here do. WP:CIR is a thing, and yes, I personally believe it should be enforced much more vigorously. But no, I generally don't comment on other editors' intellectual capabilities in discussions. Most editors do not. If you want to discuss this further, please do so at my user talk. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose block Obviously punitive. We don't do that. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose block per my comment above. Bishonen | tålk 19:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC).
- Support editing restriction per Apaugasma's suggestion above. BarntToust 19:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose any sanctions on Hob Gadling - I'm not seeing any clear sanctionable misbehavior here. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Punitive. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Just not seeing it as sanctionable. As an aside, the four (count them four) collapses in this filing are an example of why I prefer AE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per Pppery, O3000 etc. Tired of efforts to sanction good editors based on concepts of civility which are overly formalistic and don't duly assign weight to context (in my opinion, of course). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose- I also see no obvious justification for a block. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 14 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)
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
RESOLVED Wigglebuy 579579 was pblocked, and following discussion has been unblocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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)
- I have unblocked following discussion with the user. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is a good conclusion to the issue. The unblock discussion is at User talk:Wigglebuy579579#Unblock request for the unintentional damage caused by me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have unblocked following discussion with the user. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 12 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: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)
- "However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules."
- 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)
- Let me help you out here, Ravenswing. I suspect he's saying it's "very unfair" because it seems to him like it's not fair! jp×g🗯️ 14:04, 13 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)
- Going through their contributions, I see about a week ago there was a period of 30 minutes where they did seven AfDs -- not what I would call a paragon of thoroughness. But fifty in a half-hour is absolutely absurd regardless of when it happened -- I take more time than that to line up a shot when I throw a tissue into the trash can at the other end of the room. jp×g🗯️ 14:07, 13 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)
- Mass AfDs routinely get shot down reflexively, on the (somewhat threadbare) grounds that they should all be reviewed on their individual merits, and not lumped in a group. Something of a Catch-22 there. In any event, the answer for an inadequately sourced article is not to jump through extraordinary hoops to find what isn't there. The answer is that the article cannot be sustained -- but can be recreated without prejudice should such sourcing surface down the road -- even when it's an article on a figure skater. Ravenswing 00:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right, good point. But it still makes sense for cases where the rationale is mostly the same. Maybe not 100 articles in one but 5-10. This should help keep it at a more manageable level. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but in recent years, a significant number of editors haven't: sufficient to sabotage most attempts to do so. Ravenswing 13:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right, good point. But it still makes sense for cases where the rationale is mostly the same. Maybe not 100 articles in one but 5-10. This should help keep it at a more manageable level. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mass AfDs routinely get shot down reflexively, on the (somewhat threadbare) grounds that they should all be reviewed on their individual merits, and not lumped in a group. Something of a Catch-22 there. In any event, the answer for an inadequately sourced article is not to jump through extraordinary hoops to find what isn't there. The answer is that the article cannot be sustained -- but can be recreated without prejudice should such sourcing surface down the road -- even when it's an article on a figure skater. Ravenswing 00:03, 12 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)
- Personally, I would feel I had done a slipshod job if I made a nomination for an article with some passing-mention search results, and I did not address these in the nomination statement, or at the very least indicate that I had made the search. jp×g🗯️ 14:10, 13 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)
- At this point, I'm seriously starting to think Moscow Connection needs topic banned from AfD in general, if not the entire subject matter of these articles. MC has demonstrated an inability to edit collaboratively without resorting to personal attacks and demands. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am regrettably willing to support either of those sanctions against MC at this point. They’ve been warned multiple times about the possibility of a WP: BOOMERANG, and those warnings were not heeded. While I really want to assume good faith here, their behavior resembles WP: HOUNDING, following Bgsu from nomination to nomination and casting a copious amount of aspersions on this ANI thread. Even if some of the Keep votes provide legitimate sources, the act of following a user across many discussions and refbombing them (in at least one case, as described in the discussion below) is not acceptable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this point, I'm seriously starting to think Moscow Connection needs topic banned from AfD in general, if not the entire subject matter of these articles. MC has demonstrated an inability to edit collaboratively without resorting to personal attacks and demands. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:40, 11 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)- MC, you are rapidly digging a hole you will not be able to get out of. This incessant demands and aggressive comments are wearing thin, and if you do not stop you are likely to face WP:BOOMERANG sanctions yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HandThatFeeds: Okay, okay, sorry! By the way, I didn't even have this page on my watchlist and was just waiting for the outcome. (I came here yesterday, and there were no new replies. So I thought that was all, everyone was just waiting for an admin closure. I, personally, had said everything I wanted, I didn't even have anything to add.)
P.S. I just came here now because Bgsu98 have edited some of my Russian figure skater articles just now. (I'm not attacking him, he hasn't ever nominated even one article of mine for AfD. Maybe because I'm trying to add a source or two to them.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HandThatFeeds: Okay, okay, sorry! By the way, I didn't even have this page on my watchlist and was just waiting for the outcome. (I came here yesterday, and there were no new replies. So I thought that was all, everyone was just waiting for an admin closure. I, personally, had said everything I wanted, I didn't even have anything to add.)
- MC, you are rapidly digging a hole you will not be able to get out of. This incessant demands and aggressive comments are wearing thin, and if you do not stop you are likely to face WP:BOOMERANG sanctions yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this would be reasonable. jp×g🗯️ 14:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BeanieFan11 I second this proposal. Shrug02 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can see how Bgsu's nomination volume can be a problem, and support his voluntary limitations and promise to provide more thorough deletion rationales. At the same time, given the kinds of sources MC has produced as "evidence" of GNG at, e.g., Ievleva, I think his perception of our notability requirements is wildly out of line with the community's. As @Ravenswing pointed out in that AfD, MC basically repeatedly refdumped a bunch of interviews and couple-sentence mentions despite being informed of their ineligibility in contributing toward GNG, so if those are the kinds of sources they are bringing up now to demonstrate "nonexistent BEFORE searches" I am quite skeptical that the problem is as actionable as they claim. That, coupled with their broad disapproval (unawareness?) of our current NSPORT guidelines, makes me concerned about the notability of their own creations—are they also basing those articles on interviews and routine transactional blurbs? JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've started to wonder the same thing: that if MC is either utterly unaware of relevant notability standards or (as I suspect is the case) utterly defiant of them, are they another Lugnuts or Dolovis, and their article creations full of NN subjects? Ultimately, I don't give a damn whether MC (or anyone else) likes or approves of Misplaced Pages's standards, but they have to comply with them all the same.
In any event, I oppose any sanction or limitation on Bgsu. I am not sure when people got the idea that filing bulk AfDs was against policy, but they are very greatly mistaken if they do think that. ANI is not the proper venue for a community discussion on changing that policy, and I recommend the Village Pump. Ravenswing 23:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I came across this article today: Gleb Lutfullin. This was the state of the article MC left before another user (and regular contributor to FS articles) added some of the tables. There is also this one: Vladislav Dikidzhi. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello. I've just noticed you edits to my articles and added some reliable sources.
Sorry that I left the articles like that, but I'm not too interested in figure skating lately, I just saw the 2025 Russian Championships results and wanted to create some stubs for some new "figure skating stars". (Back in the days, other users, ones who know how to format all the tables, would come and do everything. Just a blink of an eye, and there's a lengthy article — competitive highlights, music, everything. But now I can't see anyone. Maybe they are upset by the changes to NSKATE and stopped working on Wiki.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC) - I have added simply terrific sources everywhere. (Everyone has a full-fledged biography on a big media site.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I simply searched "Глеб Лутфуллин 2004" on Google.com. and this came out on the first page. You posted here instead of simply googling.
P.S. I know that this article is not my proudest moment. But I don't really edit figure skating articles lately and I have never been active much in this topic. Not on the English Misplaced Pages, anyway. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- There is no such thing as 'your' articles, see WP:OWN. GiantSnowman 10:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also that source is very dubious. Look at their about page. Notice that they have a Guinness World Records Certificate image there? It's not got the official Guinness world records logo and there are errors in how the numbers are notated on it. Which suggests this newspaper has a fake Guinness world record cert on their about page. So, yeah, not very reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as 'your' articles, see WP:OWN. GiantSnowman 10:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello. I've just noticed you edits to my articles and added some reliable sources.
- I came across this article today: Gleb Lutfullin. This was the state of the article MC left before another user (and regular contributor to FS articles) added some of the tables. There is also this one: Vladislav Dikidzhi. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello! First of all, I must explain that I only came to that nomination because Berchanhimez asked me to find some examples of Bgsu98 not doing any WP:BEFORE research. So I went to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating and looked at the current nominations. I am very sorry if I "dumped" a lot of "bad" sources on that AfD page, but I simply wanted to show everything that I had found. And I believe that it is advisable that Bgsu98 does something like this in his future nominations. Like: "Look what I have found on Google. This, this. this. I believe it's not enough and the skater is not notable. Now let's discuss."
P.S. At first, I wanted to find some of his old nominations of some really big names, but I didn't know how to find them. So that's what I did, I came to the current ones. (I looked at some figure skating championships articles, but there were no red links. It seems that, after an article gets deleted, he or someone else deletes all the links to it.)
P.P.S. I should probably be advised to retire from this discussion. Cause I'm being attacked already. And it looks like some people are already advising me to go away. So I'm going away. I'm still hoping something good will come of this. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- I think this is good of you. You’ve provided your examples, and it’s now up to others to decide whether they are examples of violations of BEFORE or not. Thank you for refocusing your comments on specific examples rather than the back and forth that was going on.
- I tend to agree that BEFORE should not be a private thing. If someone does a BEFORE and finds nothing, stating such is good. But if they find borderline or a bunch of insignificant coverage, then providing at least examples of that in the nomination with a short explanation as to why they do not consider them valid goes to show they actually did a BEFORE.
- I don’t think a voluntary restriction on number of AfDs is enough to assuage the fact that the nomination statements are short and don’t address the sources that should be found during a BEFORE. But hopefully a limit of two per day will result in better nomination statements that address more borderline sources.
- At this point it doesn’t seem there’s any appetite for sanctions, and I think MC has been explained why many of the sources they have found don’t qualify for GNG. So maybe a closure with no action overall, and hopefully going forward less nominations at a time will result in more discussion in those nominations so that issues over why the sources found aren’t adequate can occur on each individual nomination. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've started to wonder the same thing: that if MC is either utterly unaware of relevant notability standards or (as I suspect is the case) utterly defiant of them, are they another Lugnuts or Dolovis, and their article creations full of NN subjects? Ultimately, I don't give a damn whether MC (or anyone else) likes or approves of Misplaced Pages's standards, but they have to comply with them all the same.
- Is this another one of those things where between the people who spend dozens of hours a week on enforcing policies and making up new policies and arguing about how to modify policies look down our noses at the people who "merely" write/edit articles when they are confused that the rules they laboriously followed for years have been randomly changed without even their knowledge, let alone their consensus? jp×g🗯️ 14:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it's more like a dispute between someone sending a bunch of articles to AfD because they lacked proper sourcing, and a fan of those articles throwing everything they can at the wall to try and "save" those articles, while smearing the person who sent them to AfD. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Never mind what I said uptopic, JPxG: policies and guidelines change, from time to time. Always have, always will, and neither yours, mine nor anyone else's personal approval are a precondition of ratifying them. It is incumbent upon editors to stay abreast of such changes if they're engaged in ongoing article creation, but at any rate, they're not exempted from them. Leaving aside that the GNG and SIGCOV have been around for many years now, the changes in NSPORTS are a few years old themselves.
In any event, you surely can't be advocating that the most productive way to handle being in this situation is to kick, scream, and rail against the injustice of it all, as opposed to "Gosh, sorry, I didn't know. I'll go read those guidelines now, and conform hereafter." Ravenswing 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JPxG: That's a good observation! :-)
But what I wanted to do here on ANI is to stop just one particularly active editor who mass-nominates articles for deletion without doing a WP:BEFORE search. His actions are bot-like, and his AfD nominations usually receive one or two bot-like "delete" votes. We may as well just delete all the articles that are now outside of WP:NSKATE. It will be more fair than imitating an AfD process.
P.S. I do appreciate the people who work on AfD and put their time in reviewing the nominations. I see that some of Bgsu98's nominations do end in a "keep" thanks to those hard-working people. But there are many more that would have been kept if a proper web search was done.
P.S. I really can't participate in this ANI thread anymore, cause I have tried to comment on some AfD nominations and what I've got are just accusations of disrupting/sabotaging the process. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:45, 14 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)
- IP is still continuing to add unsourced content to articles after final warning. See here, and here where the added content again isn't in the pre-existing source, the ref doesn't mention Pixar. Waxworker (talk) 23:08, 12 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)
An IP who gave me a fake 4im warning
Issues addressed. Signature can be handled on their Talk. No longer a matter for ANI Star Mississippi 14:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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
DECLINE It is clear based on the input here and at their Talk before the discussion was carried over, that no consensus to unblock is going to emerge at this time. It is recommended that Drbogdan take on the feedback provided before future unblocks are requested Star Mississippi 15:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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
Wolverine X-eye is indefinitely blocked by community consensus, i.e., WP:CBANned. (This is a case "where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours".) If there are concerns about the validity of any GAs or reviews, feel free to start a follow-up discussion at WT:GAN or elsewhere. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. The Morrison Man (talk) 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)
- I think it is understandable that you would be curt with an IP who is only here to act as the peanut gallery to comment on the video you were in. But that said, the way you dismissed someone's concerns regarding text–source integrity is still inexcusable. If someone deletes text from an article stating The cited paper, "Sensory ability in the narwhal tooth organ system", does not reflect the claim that "male narwhals may exchange information". I cannot find this claim in any other citation then it is never appropriate to reinstate text that another user says is not supported by the source unless you can verify that the text is actually supported by the source. You told her read the other sources that support this statement and when she asked Can you indicate to me the source which claims information is transferred? you responded Please focus on other pages. I'm working on this particular entry, and your modifications are not helpful. And to answer your question, just look at the citation after the statement.
- This user went through the trouble of checking all the sources, even purchasing one of the books so she could check it herself, and you just dismissed her telling her to read a source (that she already had) that you yourself had not read. I will give you credit for eventually checking the sources and realizing that User:HGModernism was correct and the source didn't support the text, but your behavior towards her was still aggravating and inappropriate. Photos of Japan (talk) 17:27, 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)
- if i may,
Elmidae did comment on your high number of edits during the narwhal talk page discussion, although in passing. TangoFett agreed with The Morrison Man on your talk page. either way, it is good practice to listen to and be considerate your fellow editors regardless of whether it's one or one hundred of them.
additionally, one can go through the four peer reviews and five FACs within 6 months to find more convincing evidence of what TMM is describing.- FAC 1: "I believe this nomination should receive a support by now... You guys are all unwilling to complete your reviews."
- PR 2: (after 5 days - PRs are not time-sensitive) "By the time this peer review is 20 years old, I would like to reopen it for FAC, therefore I ask you to begin reviewing."
- FAC 3: (tim riley explains on 3 july that he is having hand surgery shortly) "@Tim riley: well?" on 10 july; "@RoySmith: You can't oppose on that. I request another spot check. @FAC coordinators"; "If only people would do a proper source review. This nomination archived too soon."
- PR 4: "No one is willing to undertake a source review as it has been more than ten days. I'm going to close this peer review and give myself a decade before I submit this article for FAC consideration once more."
- FAC 5: (after UC had given multiple extensive reviews for previous nominations) "I don't know why you're not giving this article any chance at all. Please do a full review, then vote... I would appreciate more kindness and consideration from you."; (re Airship) "...I see no need for having you here. To be honest, you are simply loitering and taking up unnecessary space."; "I tried communicating with UC but it seems like they don't want to."
- i have chosen some representative quotes, but i suggest clicking through and reading/skimming each "article milestone" on Talk:Narwhal for the full context. in my own analysis, i see an editor who clearly wants to improve articles, and has done so many times, but simply will not get the point when constructive criticism is levied at their projects. Mike Christie already said this at FAC #5, but UndercoverClassicist is one of the most diligent and helpful reviewers at FAC - i have never seen him lose his patience like this, and that says something to me. from FAC 1 to FAC 5, Wolverine has displayed little of the kindness, consideration, or patience which he has demanded from reviewers. wikipedia is a volunteer project, and that extends to our content review processes, which are especially vulnerable to reviewer burnout from this exact type of attitude. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 16:55, 12 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)
- I would prefer not to get involved in an ANI discussion, but here we are. I will add my statement of also having noticed Wolverine XI's less than mature behavior at the List of pholidotans merge, and the time they- without making significant improvements- nominated Fishing cat for Good Article three times in a row before it passed (and without really addressing the comments of the two reviewers who failed it).
- Unfortunately, I feel it necessary to point out that Wolverine's frequent username changes make looking into their past activity difficult. But since his first(?) time here at AN () his fast editing and unwillingness to learn has been a problem, and unfortunately Wolverine is currently on his last chance. It's been a year since he was unblocked and he still hasn't learned, and I no longer have much hope that he will. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - Without a comment to the conduct of Wolverine X-eye, I want to make the note that List of pholidotans was at both in a merge discussion and FLC at the same time. The nomination for FLC stalled while the merge discussion happened. The list was ultimately promoted. ~ Matthewrb 16:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know my behavior on the List of Pholidota was wrong and I apologize for it. I just got heated after what I felt was uncivil comments directed towards me by Elmidae. I could have responded better, I agree. Regarding fishing cat I did what I could with that article and have already responded elsewhere. Content building can be stressful, so comments that are made may not accurately depict your actual intent. Not saying that's the case here. I was also new to the GAN process, and thus made some mistakes. Perhaps maybe a break from GAN is the way here. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The new-to-this excuse does not fly anymore; you've been trying to get articles to GA for over a year now. And you keep saying you'll do this or that but never actually do it. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've stopped taking on numerous reviews and really haven't been reviewing that much as of late and I don't expect that to change anytime soon. And I said I "was" new, notice that is in the past tense. I will take it slow with the GAN process and avoid making repeated GANs like fishing cat. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even at the time of submitting fishing cat for GAN, you weren't exactly new to the process. This was three months after you did your first GAN (sei whale), and in that time you also completed them for four other articles (Megaherbivore, Indian rhinoceros, brown bear and snowy albatross). The Morrison Man (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Under a previous username, User:Dancing Dollar, they brought snow leopard to GA a year and a half ago. He hasn't been new for months. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Completely forgot about that one. OK, so I may not have been new in terms of nominating, but I was in terms of failing, as fishing cat was my first GAN fail and I really didn't know how to react to that. I also didn't have a great understanding of spot checks, citation style and other such stuff that makes a good review. I really only knew how to do a prose, image, and earwig check. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Under a previous username, User:Dancing Dollar, they brought snow leopard to GA a year and a half ago. He hasn't been new for months. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even at the time of submitting fishing cat for GAN, you weren't exactly new to the process. This was three months after you did your first GAN (sei whale), and in that time you also completed them for four other articles (Megaherbivore, Indian rhinoceros, brown bear and snowy albatross). The Morrison Man (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've stopped taking on numerous reviews and really haven't been reviewing that much as of late and I don't expect that to change anytime soon. And I said I "was" new, notice that is in the past tense. I will take it slow with the GAN process and avoid making repeated GANs like fishing cat. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The new-to-this excuse does not fly anymore; you've been trying to get articles to GA for over a year now. And you keep saying you'll do this or that but never actually do it. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wolverine is the new username of "20 upper", a user who has previously beeen indefinitely been blocked for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing nearly 2 years ago now. They aren't a "newbie" by any stretch, and they should know better. They need to be firmly told to knock if off regarding rapid fire editing and disruptive repeated GA nominations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Indefinite block
For continued disruptive editing and WP:CIR issues after his "last chance unblock" (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive357#Unblock/unban_request_for_20_upper, "20 upper" is the old username for Wolverine) I propose that Wolverine X-Eye be indefinitely blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support - While this is highly problematic behavior, I really don’t think an indefinite block would be the best outcome of this (I’ve had several good interactions with them in the past), although an indefinite topic ban from the GA process (reviewing, nominating, etc.) is warranted, and maybe that could also be discussed. I initially opposed this, but after the last-chance unblock was brought up I'm weakly supporting. EF 18:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wolverine was told in 2023 that:
this is a last-chance unblock - any further misconduct will result in an indefinite block.
and yet he's completely failed to mature or improve in any way. He's just as abraisive and incompetent as his was back then. Enough is enough. Sometimes you've got to put the boot down. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- I didn't see that they are on a last-chance block, I've changed my vote accordingly. EF 18:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll admit that I was uncivil in those incidents mentioned above and I apologize. I'll take a ban at GAN process. I've mostly remained civil throughout the first year I came back, but there were some incidents were I was unwittingly uncivil. I request one-last chance. I promise you I had no intentions of insulting anyone. I took on more GA reviews than I could at GAN and that was my fault. I only wanted to improve articles. Please take this in consideration. I've not violated any content policy like I did the first time out. I know my behavior in GAN is bad, but I promise you that's not how most of my interactions are. Thank you, Wolverine X-eye (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you had one last chance you would be indefinitely blocked. What you are requesting is two last chances. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, this will be my last response: I'm sorry. I didn't mean any harm. People make mistakes. It was not my intention to be uncivil. I know I've made mistakes during my GA-run like not being able to finish reviews, making multiple nominations and not responding well in the Fennec fox GAN. I think a ban from the GAN process is the best option here, because I do try to improve Misplaced Pages articles. When the Morrison Man warned me about my editing style, I thought he only meant the edits I made to the pages he linked above. I guess I was wrong. I really tried my best to be as productive as I can. I really did. But huh, if this is how the community wants things to end then let it be. I guess this is my last edit. I want to thank everyone who has been good to me. Your kindness made this experience somewhat more pleasant. One last request: please blank my page but do not delete it and add all my current talk page messages to archive 3. Time to scramble my password then. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you had one last chance you would be indefinitely blocked. What you are requesting is two last chances. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wolverine was told in 2023 that:
- Support per nom. At some point, second chances run out. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support – reluctantly, as I have engaged with this user on multiple occasions mostly at GAN and FAC, in the hope that they would improve. But it has to end now, it is hurting the project. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. this user has consistently done this with disregard for their actions. a second chance is futile, as this would definitely not be the second. Calamacow75 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. I also want to point out an element that few people have noted : even if Wolverine still had the potential to better themselves as an editor, the comments he had towards Dxneo, doing justice himself, accusing a fellow editor of being a creep trying to acquire personal informations from a minor, despite the other user stating themselves that they were adult, and seemingly out of spite after being accused of not having done any review of the Sleeping Beauty GA review he had taken and seemingly refusing to close it, forcing Dxneo to do it thoroughly himself. Of this affair, a few conclusions can be taken :
- Wolverine actually hinders the GA review process by placating low standards, trying to reroll every couple of weeks articles he wants to get to GA in the hope of attracting reviewers with a layman knowledge of the subject and low standards of appreciation, which creates substandard messes such as the megaherbivore article, that he credits himself for despite barely writing anything ;
- Wolverine takes up reviews that he will never actually review, creating cold cases that other people will have to close by themselves. Since the review system is seemingly based on how many reviews a person has reviewed themselves, this is a clear sign that Wolverine try to abuse the system ;
- Even more worryingly, Wolverine clearly strongarms people that disagree with them. I've been a victim of this clear bad behaviour when opposing his GA nomination of Fennec fox, I was called out for my, I quote, "inexperience", despite them now claiming inexperience as a defense point. If it don't really impact me much, in the case of others, however, being menaced of being reported for an actual crime (in fact, a simple off-topic discussion between two able-bodied consenting adults), for a perceived slight, consequences may have been much dire ;
- And, as a corollary, I still don't think the Fennec fox article is in a GA state currently, and I think we should seriously think about demoting the substandards articles promoted by Wolverine - Narwhal, Megaherbivore come also to mind - or at least organising a thorough peer review with experienced editors.
- Larrayal (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. As Larrayal points out, Wolverine actively hinders the GA review process and I agree with we should consider demoting the articles promoted by them. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
despite the other user stating themselves that they were adult
for the record, the other user appears to have stated they were 13. - The Bushranger One ping only- I'm honestly confused by that conversation, even upon rereading. It seems Dxneo says they are 23, and Dissainkabi says they are 13. But later Dxneo says Dissainkabi is one year older than them, and it seems Dissainkabi's sister took their phone and was replying on their behalf at the start. Regardless, I think it's inappropriate for Wolverine to be "reviewing" a user talkpage and condemning a friendly conversation for not following WP:NOTFORUM. Photos of Japan (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was odd - but agreed, they aren't the WikiPolice and shouldn't act like it. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm honestly confused by that conversation, even upon rereading. It seems Dxneo says they are 23, and Dissainkabi says they are 13. But later Dxneo says Dissainkabi is one year older than them, and it seems Dissainkabi's sister took their phone and was replying on their behalf at the start. Regardless, I think it's inappropriate for Wolverine to be "reviewing" a user talkpage and condemning a friendly conversation for not following WP:NOTFORUM. Photos of Japan (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, enough chances already. Bishonen | tålk 22:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC).
- Support Per nomination. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Throughout their activity this past year or so Wolverine has been asked repeatedly to adjust their editing style and behavior, only to ignore any sort of push back and try to force their way into obtaining the GA status often simply through spamming the nomination back to back without putting in the work. While it would of course have been preferable for him to learn from the repeated critiques and become a productive editor, it is clear that he refuses to change his ways, making up excuses whenever he gets close to facing consequences (even now). Coupled with his other behavior and previous alt accounts factoring into this, an indefinite block seems to be the last option.Armin Reindl (talk) 09:59, 12 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)
- I don't think I promoted anything though. I didn't say it was good or bad, I was trying to be neutral. KirillMarasin (talk) 15:28, 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)
- It's short for "Reliable Sources". You can learn about it at WP:RS @KirillMarasin. Nakonana (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, I've already read it. KirillMarasin (talk) 15:24, 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 tested the treatments on myself before writing. KirillMarasin (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Anecdotal evidence does not belong in an encyclopedia. Only scientific evidence qualifies as a reliable source that can be quoted. Nakonana (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Original research is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:20, 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)
- The editor has been directed to WP:MEDRS in the past, before the most recent spate of unsourced or promotionally-sourced edits, so it does not seem to have had any positive effect. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tested the treatments on myself before writing. KirillMarasin (talk) 15:17, 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)
- WP:NQP, WP:CIR. I can assume good faith, as this editor presumably grew up in a culture where widespread homophobia is normalized (referring, of course, to 4chan), but these edits are repulsive. I would expect that an editor of 15 years would be aware of policies like WP:RS, let alone WP:FRINGE. Editors who like to tweak numbers and facts without citations can wreak a lot more disruption than just inserting insane nonsense on controversial articles, which is easily spotted and reversed. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 15:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tested the treatments on myself before writing. And why do you use strong language on my edits instead of trying to stay neutral? KirillMarasin (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NOTNEUTRAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages does not publish original research. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 17:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wow. It's understandable that a newbie might believe that such obvious original research might be acceptable, but for someone with KM's tenure here to present "
I tested the treatments on myself
" as a justification for adding something to any article, let alone one subject to WP:MEDRS, is extremely concerning. CodeTalker (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tested the treatments on myself before writing. And why do you use strong language on my edits instead of trying to stay neutral? KirillMarasin (talk) 15:21, 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)
- I'm sorry for posting low-quality content here. I will adhere to the rules in the future. KirillMarasin (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find that impossible to believe, given your tenure here and apparent refusal to follow rules you clearly should know. At this point I can only assume you are trolling. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think an indefinite block for WP:CIR is an appropriate remedy. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find that impossible to believe, given your tenure here and apparent refusal to follow rules you clearly should know. At this point I can only assume you are trolling. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having looked through this, all I can say is wow. Even leaving aside the obvious problems already listed above, and responding to concerns with
Have you tried this on yourself before making a comment? If not, then I don't have time to argue with you.
, there's the odd fact that the editor was away for a time and then came back here to do this, inserting what are or are indistinguishable from promotional links, and generally taking a hard turn from most previous editing, making me wonder if the account is WP:COMPROMISED. Suggesting an indefinite block because either it's that or it's very elaborate trolling. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- No technical indication the account is compromised, but that doesn't conclusively prove it isn't. --Yamla (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- While they've been relatively inactive for years, the only year since first becoming active that they have made no edits at all is 2022. They have been making psychiatry-related edits since at least 2018 (see e.g. this addition of a treatment claim based on their admittedly original research) and their most recent music edit (previously their primary editing interest) was in 2023. I guess it could be a compromised account but I think it's probably not Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked KirillMarasin for persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. By "poorly sourced", I mean shockingly bad sources. This editor's history is strange. The editor was moderately active in the video game topic area 12 to 14 years ago and then effectively disappeared. After their return in December, their sole focus has been spreading nonsense about sexuality and "conversion therapy". At this point, they are not competent to build the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've seen people offer established accounts for sale, maybe that's what happened here? Schazjmd (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find it more likely this is someone who fell into the "redpill" community and decided to come back to Misplaced Pages to WP:RGW. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- They have been somewhat active on ruwiki and actually got a warning over homophobia on their talk page in July 2023. See: ru:Обсуждение участника:KirillMarasin#Недопустимость гомофобии. Nakonana (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I feel it unlikely anyone paid for this account, why would someone pay for an account then say such clueless stuff? There's also the fact the 2018 stuff seem similar enough. I don't know if the Russian editing could be a factor in why they're so confused. Are sourcing standards weaker or is the OR not outright forbidden on the Russian wikipedia? I'd hope no wikipedia allows Reddit let alone 4chan, the same with OR, for medical information but I could imagine some allowing at least Reddit along with some forms of OR for gaming related stuff. (I mean we don't consider simple plot summaries from OR.) In any case, I'm fairly sure this isn't the first editor we've had who was sort of okay while editing some stuff but who's editing fell apart when it was something they particularly cared about. Nil Einne (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- The contribution that got him the warning on ruwiki was not about adding content, but about removing content (regarding child adoption by gay couples) accompanied by a discriminatory comment towards LGBTQ+ people in the edit summary (translation of the comment: "removing disgusting content").
- Generally speaking, they only have 196 edits on ruwiki versus 3,351 on enwiki, so I wouldn't expect that differences in sourcing standards on ruwiki could have any notable effect on his editing on enwiki.
- I only brought up ruwiki to point out that he has been active there, while he seemed to have "disappeared" on enwiki. Meaning, the account might not be compromised, i.e. it's not an account that suddenly returned from wiki-retirement, but an account that probably was consistently active throughout the years, even if at low activity level, and the LGBTQ+ issue also doesn't seem to be an out-of-character new development. Nakonana (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I feel it unlikely anyone paid for this account, why would someone pay for an account then say such clueless stuff? There's also the fact the 2018 stuff seem similar enough. I don't know if the Russian editing could be a factor in why they're so confused. Are sourcing standards weaker or is the OR not outright forbidden on the Russian wikipedia? I'd hope no wikipedia allows Reddit let alone 4chan, the same with OR, for medical information but I could imagine some allowing at least Reddit along with some forms of OR for gaming related stuff. (I mean we don't consider simple plot summaries from OR.) In any case, I'm fairly sure this isn't the first editor we've had who was sort of okay while editing some stuff but who's editing fell apart when it was something they particularly cared about. Nil Einne (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've seen people offer established accounts for sale, maybe that's what happened here? Schazjmd (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Community ban for KirillMarasin
For seeming WP:CIR and WP:PROMO issues, I proposed that KirillMarasin be community banned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Also support a GENSEX TBAN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I propose a community ban on all editing, appealable no sooner than six months from now. I also propose a WP:TOPICBAN on WP:GENSEX and on sexual health matters, broadly construed. That topic ban would be appealable no sooner than six months and 500 constructive article edits after the community ban was lifted. Comment: There are significant problems with this user's editing. These are deeply concerning given the length of time this account has been active. Claiming 4chan is a reasonable source to use, claiming personal experience is a reasonable source, etc. Before any unban, I'd expect to see a convincing argument from KirillMarasin that they understand what was wrong with their edits and with the sourcing of their edits. Frankly, this doesn't cover all the bases. There are other serious concerns here. But... it would be a start. --Yamla (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as per Hemiauchenia's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom, using Reddit and 4chan as sources in this topic area is totally unacceptable, and then claiming they've tried it is unbelievable, honestly, I think we're being trolled here. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Even now, I see no indication that he understands what the problems really are. I'm not sure about the question of trolling. It certainly had crossed my mind but, given that he appears to be Belarusian, it might be that he is merely be reproducing lies taught to him as facts in school. If so, I feel at least some sympathy for him but that doesn't change the outcome here. He has had enough warnings. You can't be citing Reddit and 4chan, especially for medical or medical adjacent subjects, and expect to remain an editor in good standing. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note I have indefinitely blocked this editor. The community ban discussion should proceed. Cullen328 (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a community ban from en.wp with a requirement of a GENSEX tban if subsequently lifted. This is either incompetence, trolling or both. Simonm223 (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose but endorse the block. At this point, the only difference between a community ban and the current block is how the editor can appeal. A block would be reviewed by an uninvolved admin, while a ban would be reviewed by the community. I support bans when I feel that the appeal shouldn't be reviewed by a single admin, but this case is pretty garden-variety and I see no need to involve the community in a review of any appeals. See the table at WP:BANBLOCKDIFF — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, this case is not "pretty garden-variety", it is absolutely appalling that an editor is using social media platforms as sources in this topic area, and dubiously claiming they have tried it on themselves. I am uncomfortable with a single admin reviewing any appeal, the community should have a say in this matter. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it is appalling. By "garden-variety", I meant the issue is simple to analyze and an unblock review would have clear criteria to be successful. I think of community bans when I see problem editors who admins have failed to block for some reason, or editors who have caused widespread disruption affecting many users and pages. On the other hand, if you are concerned about having a single admin review the appeal, then a community ban is quite appropriate. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, this case is not "pretty garden-variety", it is absolutely appalling that an editor is using social media platforms as sources in this topic area, and dubiously claiming they have tried it on themselves. I am uncomfortable with a single admin reviewing any appeal, the community should have a say in this matter. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Behavior is completely beyond the pail of acceptability. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support I sort of agree with rsjaffe that this seems simple enough that I'm not afraid of leaving it for an admin to handle the unblock. I mean when an editor twice tells us they tested something on themselves, it's a clear sign the editor's understanding of even the basics of how we create Misplaced Pages even after a long time and 3000+ are so poor it's going to take a for them to get back. And that's being very generous and assuming they just didn't recognise the RS acronym rather than not even being aware of the term 'reliable source'. Which even being that generous they still didn't understand the concept putting aside OR given 4chan etc. However unlike rsjaffe I don't see a harm in a cban and given that this discussion was started before the indef, I feel it's fine to continue it as noted by the admin. Nil Einne (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support (and I endorse Culln328's block as an administrator). To have returned after many years of absence solely to push conversion therapy pseudoscience using the least reliable sourcing imaginable clearly violates so many policies and guidelines that unblocking should require the confidence of the community. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support CBAN (and endorse indef) - promotion of fringe ideas and POVpushing like this has no place on wikipedia. The WP:CIR issues are the cherry on top. — Shibbolethink 06:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Having read more of the discussion in the previous section, I agree, reluctantly, that a CBAN is the only way forward here. — The Anome (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Promoting conversion therapy, along with the RU wiki issues, tells me this person needs to be kept away from our community until they've had a substantial amount of growth. This isn't something any admin should be able to revoke on their own, the community needs to be involved before this person comes back. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:36, 13 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)
- Hello, User:Rejoy2003,
- You'd probably get more of a response if you provided diffs of edits of this "long history of disruptive COI editing" you are concerned about. I don't see the one edit you listed as egregious, anyone could proably find a source for a politician's promotion since they are public figures. It doesn't seem "controversial" or "peacock" to me. Liz 05:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Liz, we both know that per WP:COI we shouldn't edit articles we have conflict of interest. Be it in good or bad faith, I believe generally editors should avoid editing. They should leave that to third party editors like us. He could had make a request to have any material added to his father's article.
- As far as his editing history goes, he first started editing in 2022 see here . If you see his edits thereafter all of them are unsourced and most likely come under WP:OR. He then edited again in 2023 see , by this time he was already warned. But he still tries to ignore the warning and continues with his editing. His last edit was in 2024 .
- I wouldn't had a problem if he did this additions to some other article other than his father's. Knowing the COI rules, I think he should be blocked. We never know when his editing behaviour might be a much problem for us in the near future. Especially considering the article's low value for editorial oversight. Rejoy(talk) 11:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd say that's enough repeat violations that Armandogoa should be pblocked from the article, and only allowed to suggest edits on the Talk page. It's not enough for a site block. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive Sumeshmeo
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Sumeshmeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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)
- I have blocked Sumeshmeo indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 08:42, 12 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)
Edit to add: it has been brought to my attention that posting on this board comes with the expectation that I am seeking a ban/punishment. I am not. I am simply seeking an end tothe behavior I described below.
I posted here because the graphic at the guide to dispute resolution suggests that conduct policy violations can only be posted here, or arbitration (unless it is edit warring). Further the WP:DRN states it is for content disputes only.
Thank you, and my apologies for any confusion my venue selection has caused. Delectopierre (talk) 00:17, 12 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)
- @Phil Bridger Can you help me understand what it is that I need conveyed to me?
- I did not chose to be this sensitive. Frankly it is because of things that happened to me as a child.
- It is not an enjoyable way to live my life, and I am actively working to improve my mental health on a daily basis. That said, it is who I am right now. I know this about myself, which is why when this all began I said to myself What can I work on related to this article, where I won't have to interact with Jasper? That's when they followed me to the teahouse. Delectopierre (talk) 18:17, 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)
get back to editing
- I attempted to do so, by no longer focusing my efforts the article, but rather discussion of future policy/guidance. Jasper followed me there and repeated language that I specifically asked them not to, and accused me of canvassing, among other things.
- And to be clear, as I stated above, I am not the only editor who repeatedly asked Jasper to stop bludgeoning
So you continue. Very collaborative of you. "Vote my vote, or be harassed."
Delectopierre (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- Just want to add one more thing:
While Jasper Deng dislikes being harrangued on his talk page
is posting one warning on a talk page haranguing? Whether Jasper's behavior is a policy violation or not, in good faith I believe it to be, so I posted on his talk page. I'm genuinely asking: I thought that's what I'm supposed to do to try to resolve disputes, but is your guidance that it's haranguing to do so? Delectopierre (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just want to add one more thing:
- These kinds of interactions are not uncommon here (this is the internet, after all) and I suggest you two adopt a voluntary IBan policy and give each other a wide berth. I wouldn't be surprised if every editor on this project has other editors that get under their skin and most of us handle it by choosing not to interact with them. Yes, a therapist would advise against pure avoidance but this project functions, in great part, because our editors avoid others who get on their last nerve. I know that this isn't the slap down punishment that you seem to be seeking but if every editor quit because another editor cast aspersions, we wouldn't have any editors left. Civility is a goal to aspire to but it's not always embodied on this project.
- I have invited Jasper Deng to participate here and I'm hoping we can get to the point where you two can simply disengage with each other. Liz 19:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- thank you for your reply. I am not seeking a slap down, or punishment. I would like the behaviors to stop.
- could you clarify what you mean that civility is a goal to aspire to? my reading of the policies is that civilly is a policy, not a goal. If that’s not the case, then I’ll need to reevaluate my participation. Delectopierre (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am involved here as a participant in the naming discussion. Also this disagreement among editors has spilled over to my talk page. Civility is not always a black or white matter and there are many shades of gray, as reading all of WP:Civility shows. A relevant passage is
Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences, some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright. Other editors may seem oversensitive when their views are challenged.
I think that dynamic is at play here between these two editors. The disagreements concern the current wildfire catastrophe in the Los Angeles area and it is obvious that the emotions of many Californians and wildfire editors are raw, myself included. Some of us are better at masking that than others. I think that it would be wise for these two editors to steer clear of each other, and for all editors working on this literally hot topic area to check themselves and to avoid bludgeoning, being pedantic and being snide with one another. In my view, formal complaints alleging incivility are best limited to instances when the incivility is obvious to uninvolved editors. Cullen328 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- Thanks for chiming in. A few things:
In my view, formal complaints alleging incivility
- I'm unsure of how else to get the behavior to stop, and I am unsure of what rises to the level of a post here or not. Are there guidelines/examples I can look at?
- This is the second time now that I have experienced -- what to me appeared to be a black and white policy violation -- only to be told essentially 'oh that doesn't rise to the level.' I think I'm intelligent enough to understand policies, and it is only behavioral policy that I have experienced to have some secret code that I can't seem understand. Other policy seems to be applied directly by the letter of the policy. I don't know what else to do. Like I said, I know I am a sensitive person, but shouldn't there be a place on wikipedia for sensitive people too? It's helpful for me to know what the rules are, and I thought I did.
limited to instances when the incivility is obvious to uninvolved editors
- Just to give you insight into my thought process: I first posted in teahouse about a policy conversation so that I could edit without interacting with Jasper. I tried to put myself in an area where I wouldn't need to interact with them. They followed me there.
- Next, when an experienced editor appeared to agree with me that Jasper was bludgeoning, I felt that was a policy violation. But I did not make a post and decided to let it go, so long as the debate continued to evolve unimpeded.
- I saw what appeared to be bludgeoning/tendentious editing again, after both an experienced editor and I told Jasper to cut it out on the talk page and in the teahouse. I see now that it wasn't great judgement of mine to re-invovle myself by warning Jasper, and I will try to think better about that in the future -- and not edit so late at night when I'm tired.
- However it was only after that experienced editor also told them to cut it out, AND I saw what -- to me -- appeared to be bludgeoning/tendentious editing, that I tried to warn them on their talk page. They of course didn't reply on their talk page, but deleted my post, and posted on my talk page instead saying that it was improper of me to post on their talk page. I saw that as Jasper trying to intimidate me on my own talk page. Essentially saying 'you don't have rights' or 'the policies don't apply to me, newb.' But isn't the process that when an editor is having difficulty with someone, they are meant to post on that editors talk page to discuss it? By deleting my post and saying they will get me banned if I post on their talk page again, that because I'm new I don't have to right to do so, I felt they were trying to intimidate me, and I experienced that as cyberbullying. (To be clear: I am not making an objective judgement, nor am I pointing to a WP Policy, as to my knowledge, there is no policy that specifically discusses cyberbullying. Just stating my experience.)
- But it was my experience, it seemed to be against policy, and I wanted the behavior to stop.
- I am unsure of how else to get this type of behavior to stop, especially after they followed me to the teahouse and I told them stop, but they said essentially 'nah I'm gonna keep doing it.'
- Where can I go to discuss wildfires that they won't follow me? This is an important topic to me, along with millions of others. I believe you live in CA - I do too.
- All that said, at any point Jasper could also have stopped. And apologized. But that is not what occurred.
- Lastly I'll say this:
The disagreements concern the current wildfire catastrophe
- Yes, that is how it started. But I do not have concerns about rules being applied incorrectly when it comes to content. I see a lively discussion. I may not agree with the majority there - that's fine! Good, even. But that doesn't mean I'm okay with other editors controlling the process, nor acting uncivilly towards me.
- My apologies for the verbosity. I think it would be helpful, if anyone experienced is willing, to let me know where in my thought process I went astray in addition to the place I already pointed out that I could have exercised better judgement. It would also be helpful if anyone experienced could point me to a way to get this type of behavior to stop, as well as somewhere I can see what type of behavior violates policy and and should be posted here, and what type of behavior does not.
- Delectopierre (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- A suggestion, which I hope is taken as well-intentioned and constructive: if your posts on other fora are as long-winded as the above that may frustrate other editors. Suggest aiming for greater conciseness. Simonm223 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes I understand and mentioned that myself. I am confused about where I can get help stopping upsetting behavior, and because of the reception I got, am unsure of what to do other than offer my thought process so that I can better understand what I can do better in the future. Delectopierre (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
This is the second time now that I have experienced -- what to me appeared to be a black and white policy violation -- only to be told essentially 'oh that doesn't rise to the level
- As the person who was brought here less than two weeks ago for what was the first instance, I may not be the best person to reply but I wanted to give advice on this
Like I said, I know I am a sensitive person, but shouldn't there be a place on wikipedia for sensitive people too?
- It is easy to get emotionally involved in articles and get down the rabbit hole of being too wrapped up in policies. I understand your stance in this instance and understand Jaspers as well, but sometimes it is easier just to disengage with editors rather than being 'right' or getting the last word. And it is also sometimes advisable to take a WP:wikibreak if you feel you are too involved or it is affecting your mental health (It is one of the templates on that page, as is feeling discouraged). Literally no one would fault you for that. Best of luck to you.
- Awshort (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- A suggestion, which I hope is taken as well-intentioned and constructive: if your posts on other fora are as long-winded as the above that may frustrate other editors. Suggest aiming for greater conciseness. Simonm223 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for chiming in. A few things:
- I am involved here as a participant in the naming discussion. Also this disagreement among editors has spilled over to my talk page. Civility is not always a black or white matter and there are many shades of gray, as reading all of WP:Civility shows. A relevant passage is
- tl;dr: my experience with Jasper is part of a clear pattern of behavior.
- As I mentioned, I posted here because I wanted the behavior to stop, so I do not do any sort of deep dive on Jasper's page or behavior. However I saw this comment by @EF5, and I wanted to look at it. It wasn't in the archive on Jasper's talk page (or at least I couldn't find it there, not sure if I searched correctly). So I took a look at his talk page history. It quickly became clear that some of the things I experienced from Jasper are clearly part of a larger pattern of behavior. I didn't want to spend too long on this, so there may be more behavior there, and to be clear, this is only from looking at the edit history on his talk page:
- 1. He has (judging by other's comments on Jaspers talk page) a pattern of behavior that upsets others. After this occurs, other editors will leave a message on his talk page, and he will not only not engage in a conversation with them, he will remove the comment (rather than allowing it to get archived) with either an antagonistic or very generic edit summary.
- 2. Jasper has a pattern -- again based on his comments -- of taking personal offense to people he has disagreements with leaving messages on his talk page to try to discuss the issue. In some instances, it appears as though this has been followed by immediate messages on their talk pages, indicating (to me) that it is only his talk page where issues cannot be discussed.
- 3. In these instances, some of Jasper's edit summaries have the effect of silencing other wikipedians who, in good faith, attempted to discuss issues with him on his talk page. As we all know, one cannot respond to an edit summary in the same venue, leading the editor with two options:
- a. Take the time to compile their original comments, diffs, Jasper's edit summaries, etc. and finding a new venue for the discussion, where Jasper may or may not participate.
- b. Make a new post on Jasper's talk page, despite him telling them not to, which gives Jasper ammunition tat the other editor did something wrong.
- 3. In these instances, some of Jasper's edit summaries have the effect of silencing other wikipedians who, in good faith, attempted to discuss issues with him on his talk page. As we all know, one cannot respond to an edit summary in the same venue, leading the editor with two options:
- 4. Whether on purpose, or as an unintended consequence of this behavior, this has created an appearance -- on the surface -- that Jasper doesn't cause any problems with other editors on wikipedia. Based on the following quotes, and from my experience, this is not the case.
- 2. @Elijahandskip
I request that you link that discussion, especially since you are bashing me over the head with it and yet you have failed to actually provide a link to this discussion
diff- Jasper's edit summary in removing that comment
Request for discussion: proof was provided at AN3, please keep discussion centralized. You really ought to look at your *own* conduct before you cast aspersions.
- Jasper's edit summary in removing that comment
but I do not appreciate being called a disruptive editor, ESPECIALLY not in a closing message meant to be neutrally worded
linkBut, this feels like a biased closure occurred, and after all the recent heat at AN/I about neutrally worded things (and no canvassing), this might warrant a message an AN/I
link
- 3. @Kelisi
First of all, I think it is probably improper of you to issue a warning as an administrator with regard to a dispute in which you yourself are involved, and furthermore to threaten to block the user with whom you disagree. That ought to be done by a third party.
I am so sorry that you are not interested. The thing is, though, that you must be. I think you reverted the above just because you wanted to evade those first two points more than anything.
I am also not too sure that you are not violating WP:SOAP — but perhaps that's debatable. You have furthermore done nothing to make me think better of referring the matter of your behaviour to another administrator.
diff
- 5. @United States Man
Per WP:TR; I feel as though you should WP:ASG and be careful not to misinterpret situations with which you aren't involved
diff
- 6. @CapeVerdeWave
I have enjoyed contributing here and do not wish to lose the privilege of doing so
diff- Jasper's edit summary in removing that from his page
you clearly didn’t read my edit notice which says to keep discussion on your talk page
- Jasper's edit summary in removing that from his page
- I am unsure of where to go from here, or what to do about this. It is upsetting to me to see someone who has more privileges than an average wikipedian behave this way. Frankly, based on the reception I got to my post, I'm not even sure if I should be adding this to my post, but again: I cannot find any sort of documentation about where to put these findings otherwise. If there is a better venue/forum, please let me know.
- Also, this is in no way comprehensive, and based solely on Jasper's edit summaries/diffs from his talk page. It appears as though this behavior goes back a long time, but I have not done a deep dive to see whether it is just his talk page/edit summaries, or other behavior, too.
- Tagging those who have participated/are involved in the conversation so far, as I'm unsure if they will be notified of my comment: @Simonm223 @Alex_21 @Awshort @Cullen328 @Liz @Phil Bridger @Elmidae @Jasper Deng Delectopierre (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let. It. Go. Both of your behaviours have been suboptimal, but below the threshold for anyone to do anything about it in an official capacity. Very bluntly now: if you are truly unable to stop obsessing about this, then yes, Misplaced Pages is the wrong venue for you to participate in. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The only things I'm going to say are:
- Delectopierre is incorrect that I'm casting an aspersion because their talk page comment included a boldened, underlined, and all caps "third". Even here they both bolden and all caps "potentially". This is as WP:SHOUTING as it gets. Their overall tone is, as I said on Cullen's talk page, incredibly aggressive and condescending.
- As stated on Delectopierre's talk page, I already voluntarily disengaged from interactions with them after Alex rightly called me out for the now-hatted back and forth.
- However that does not enjoin me from replying to one other oppose out of the two or three others that were received in the intervening time frame and,
- Therefore, Delectopierre's comment on my talk page and bringing this here is unnecessary escalation, particularly the former, and,
- Consequently, I do not take back the comment I left Delectopierre on their talk page; as many would agree here, it takes two to disengage and that comment on my talk page was a gross slap in the face in view of my own attempt to disengage.
- I remain committed to that disengagement but not to the effect of recusing myself from the consensus forming process on the talk page. I don't own the discussion but it doesn't mean I can't still participate and comment in it.
- I also still am frustrated with Delectopierre for attempting to apply policies and guidelines they do not actually have a proficient understanding of in a way such that they imply or claim otherwise, such as WP:OWN and WP:BLUDGEON, or even WP:SHOUTING as demonstrated right here. That's no longer my problem as long as they do not do something like that talk page comment again.
- I apologize for the back and forth with Alex; however, I do not apologize to Delectopierre since they did not respect my own decision to not engage with them and continue to be condescending in this thread.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I apologize for how my comment on your talk page came across. That was not my intention. I thought I was following the suggested protocol. Delectopierre (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have more to say but for now I will accept that apology. Whether I'll give my own is going to have to wait. At this point I'll leave that part up to other editors.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I apologize for how my comment on your talk page came across. That was not my intention. I thought I was following the suggested protocol. Delectopierre (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I knew it would come here eventually, so here's a discussion I always thought stood out on their talk page: October 2024 (#Reversion): A user came to their talk page with concerns about a bad revert, and to that they responded with "That's not my problem. You should look at the totality of your edit". "That's not my problem" is an incredibly uncivil way to respond to a genuine question, period. EF 01:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @EF5: Kindly, and bluntly, your participation here is not helpful. The topic at hand is the conflict between myself and Delectopierre. --Jasper Deng (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Anyone can comment on an ANI report, and I'm giving what I think is an appropriate example of uncivil behavior. Someone uninvolved can remove my above comment if they think it's irrelevant to the discussion. EF 01:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the inability or unwillingness of either party to voluntarily Misplaced Pages:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, perhaps a two way interaction ban is necessary. Cullen328 (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I offered to and did, except I thought they should know I accepted their apology. How does that suggest an IBAN is needed?--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, where did you do so prior to your comment on my talk page? I don't recall that happening, although I could be mistaken. That said, I am amenable to that as an option. How does that work if we are both working on an article/in a similar space? I'm thinking specifically of wildfires.
- I offered to and did, except I thought they should know I accepted their apology. How does that suggest an IBAN is needed?--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the inability or unwillingness of either party to voluntarily Misplaced Pages:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, perhaps a two way interaction ban is necessary. Cullen328 (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Anyone can comment on an ANI report, and I'm giving what I think is an appropriate example of uncivil behavior. Someone uninvolved can remove my above comment if they think it's irrelevant to the discussion. EF 01:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delectopierre (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't explicitly say it. After my "olive branch" edit I made no more replies to you or Alex and kept to it, and my comment thus said I "quietly" did so. Since I perceive a need to answer questions, I recommend you do not continue to pose them. I don't want to engage in this conversation any longer than you do, and this will be my very last reply to you for any reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1. It's not an olive branch to make an edit with a antagonizing comment.
- 2. 4ish hours after the edit you claim was an olive branch to silently disengage, you followed me to a user talk page to chide me in a conversation you were not at all involved in. That's neither an olive branch, nor voluntary disengagement. Delectopierre (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given this engagement, I think an enforced IBAN is necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I'm amenable to that. How do I find out the answers to the question I asked above? Delectopierre (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given this engagement, I think an enforced IBAN is necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't explicitly say it. After my "olive branch" edit I made no more replies to you or Alex and kept to it, and my comment thus said I "quietly" did so. Since I perceive a need to answer questions, I recommend you do not continue to pose them. I don't want to engage in this conversation any longer than you do, and this will be my very last reply to you for any reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delectopierre (talk) 02:56, 12 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.Report on Disputed Edits and Insults
- Ebrahim Raisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tele-1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Taha Danesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
On the page Ebrahim Raisi, user Tele-1985 has edited and changed the number of prisoners executed from "several" to "thousands." Based on the references added by themselves, on page 11 it states: "To date, the exact number of those killed is unknown." This reference, along with almost all sources on this matter, estimates that the exact number is unknown and instead provides a range. The exact number is uncertain, and the range spans from less than 1,000 to over 30,000. Referring to "thousands" implies a number over 2,000, which is unsupported by the source, as the interval is unclear and varies widely.
I have made multiple attempts to clarify this and discussed the issue twice on their talk page (User talk:Tele-1985#Concerns Regarding Neutrality and Reliable Sourcing - Raisi), but they did not respond and continued to revert my edit, changing the word "thousands" back to what it was previously. Additionally, they criticized me on User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Taha Danesh, without linking my name or notifying me. I only discovered this discussion by accident. In that discussion, they falsely accused me of several things. Since I wasn’t informed about the discussion, I had no opportunity to defend myself. They also insulted me and my edits in their edit summaries on the Raisi page, such as stating: "Your edit makes no sense."
As mentioned, they also falsely accused me of multiple things in the User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Taha Danesh, without linking my name or notifying me on my talk page, leaving me unable to defend myself. For example, they claimed a unrelated conspiracy theory, that I was using another IP address to edit. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Just to note that at the same time this report was filed, I was filing a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to report on Taha Danesh violating the three revert rule.Tele-1985 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both of these people have been edit warring (I'm not sure whether they have violated WP:3RR, but that doesn't matter) and have been attempting to communicate via edit summary. Both of you just stop this and talk about the content issue at Talk:Ebrahim Raisi, where there does not seem to be any discussion of this issue. It doesn't matter what the article says while you are talking. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've fully protected the page for 24 hours to force discussion. (Note the page was previously indef semi-protected per arb enforcement, so that will need to be restored when the full protection expires). - The Bushranger One ping only 22:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I will be happy to go the talk page to acheive consensus on specific wording. I'll just give an overview of the disruption and a response because there also many competency issues with Taha Danesh in addition to a content dispute about the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners. I haven't violated 3RR but Taha Danesh has so I reported them earlier.
The references I added to Ebrahim Raisi from Amnesty International says "Between July and September 1988, the Iranian authorities forcibly disappeared and extrajudicially executed thousands of imprisoned political dissidents". The existing NBC News source says "the execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988 following the Iran-Iraq War." I don't know how one could argue that "thousands" is unsourced as Taha Danesh repeatedly did in their edit summaries while "several" is unsourced and a massive understatement. We could put specific numbers but Taha Danesh objected to that on the Ruhollah Khomeini's article as shown in edits referenced lower.
Taha Danesh first reverted my correction of this figure without using an edit summary and reinserted the completely unsourced estimate of "several" which was grammatically wrong also. They then reverted me four further times with bizarre edit summaries where they claimed that Amnesty International and NBC news were "clearly biased and politically motivated". They also didn't seem to understand what "several" meant. These reverts are: 1, 2, 3 &4
The dispute started a couple days ago on Ruhollah Khomeini where Taha Danesh reverted my additions and falsely accused me of everything in a frankly bizarre edit summary:"Rv unexplained changes with ideological or political or personal previews or poor or unsourced statements and BLP issue or vandalism". This was ironic because I did explain my edit and use sources while BLP clearly doesn't apply to Ruhollah Khomeini. Even worse is that they had initially deleted the content about executions and child soldiers last month without explanation: and . There are other blatantly POV issues with these edits. Only an hour after ScottishFinnishRadish gave them the CTOP alert they continued to edit war at Ruhollah Khomeini. User:HistoryofIran reverted them and pointed out that the sources were clearly reliable and asked them to make their case on the talk page but Taha Danesh never did. HistoryofIran also warned them about edit warring but Taha Danesh quickly deleted this warning. A few days later they started to edit war at Ebrahim Raisi over the estimate of executions.
I apologise for not notifying Taha Danesh about the discussion on ScottishFinnishRadish's talk page but I stand by everything I said there including that Taha Danesh was using an IP which was subsequently banned by ScottishFinnishRadish. I provided plenty of evidence. The IP address 93.71.57.57 removed deletion notices on Userboxes created by Taha Danesh and also exclusively edited the same pages as Taha Danesh, including pages created by Taha Danesh. Examples include: Eitaa Messenger, Bale Messenger and Rubika.
I also acknowledge that I should've responded to Taha Danesh's comments on my talk page but the first message on the 7th was odd and seemed like it could've been written using ChatGPT or copied from elswhere. It didn't really make much sense nor seem to reflect the actual dispute. Plus the dispute on Ruhollah Khomeini had ended by the time I saw it. Tele-1985 (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems that at the core of this is a content dispute that should be discussed on the article talk page and definitely not discussed in edit summaries. TA discussion should never take place with edit summaries. Just a note that saying that an editor is dealing with "competency issues" could be seen as a personal attack. But, any way, move the discussion from ANI to talk pages and see if this helps resolves your differences. It would also help if you could get some additional participation from other editors so this isn't a Me vs. You situation. Liz 04:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Dispute about a Landman edit and allegations of undiplomatic behaviour
Editors are advised to move content disputes to article talk page. Liz 04:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This dispute concerns Jeyne_Reyne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There is a fictional TV series called Landman (TV series) involving an oil worker. Recently, a scene where the protagonist made some claims disputing the GHG payback of wind turbines, and this clip was reposted by right-wing users, including oil executives and fossil fuel advocates. In response, the scene recieved public backlash by climate change advocates, including media attention.
On the page, I added a section highlighting the media attention, and the scientific veracity of the claims. Jeyne Reyne removed the edit, describing them as "ridiculous and unnecessary". Because of the conduct and other complaints pertaining to this user, I sent a message on their talk page, highlighting my disagreement and reverting the edit. They also removed another edit which highlighted criticism of the show . I acknowledge that I believe this particular removal was valid due to a lack of citations, however, I find that this user actively removed negative criticism of the show on this article.
My edits can be found here , . The contents of the paragraph include a description of the scene, the public response, and scientific studies on the matter, all with sufficient citations. I understand that it's possible that my contribution may not have been worded well, or placed in the wrong section. However, I strongly believe that this information is both relevant, accurate and important to be noted.
Afterwards, Jeyne reverted my edits again, describing it as "irrelevance which has nothing to do with reception" . I strongly disagree with the sentiment that it's irrelevant, but I am willing to compromise and have this content moved onto a different section to address their concerns.
This user also has a history of disruptive editing , and .
NinjaWeeb (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT an equivalent of CinemaSins, and the item about windmills is ultimately an out-of-format aside within its criticism that I don't feel this is needed in the article at all, and whatever blue-checks and others who aren't there to enjoy a fictional show but to use it in political discourse most regular readers aren't anywhere aware of (or want to be) is not of use here; it's like arguing that Wile E. Coyote does not have the intelligence or strength to drop an anvil on the Roadrunner via catapult. Landman isn't expected to be a documentary, and this is simply very WP:MILL criticism that is of little to no note, including that of oil workers. You wouldn't expect a fictional series crew to get that detailed about oil workers to the point it's an occupational hazard to film the process. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the Wile E Coyote equivalence, since it's unrealistic nature is mostly inconsequential. Other works of fiction, like South Park or the Boondocks, have had their controversies highlighted on Misplaced Pages, despite being a fictional series. South Park is fictional and uses absurd situations as humour, but it is still controversial and has recieved criticism that is of note.
- I understand that Landman isn't meant to be a real show, but the statements about renewable energy which were said in the show are not inconsequential. They were shared online, as was the criticism of Landman. Many YouTube videos and news articles have been published regarding the turbine statements. NinjaWeeb (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This looks like purely a content dispute. Not something actionable. Simonm223 (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the show isn't real. But reactions to the show are and can rise to the level of notabililty easily. That said, this is a content dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- How do I address content disputes? NinjaWeeb (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- By discussing on the article talk page Talk:Landman (TV series), which I'd note is empty of discussions over anything. Never a good sign when a content dispute is brought to ANI. Edit: I see the other party did actually tell you to open a talk page discussion. I mean this isn't a great thing either, far better for them to open one and say something like 'I started a talk page discussion, please join it'. OTOH, they didn't bring the WP:content dispute to ANI. If you're new to editing please use the WP:Teahouse and WP:Help Desk to ask for guidance on what to do next, rather than escalating disputes unnecessarily. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- How do I address content disputes? NinjaWeeb (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Unattributed machine translations by Loukus999
Despite claiming to be a native English speaker on their user page, Loukus999 has been using a machine translator to create multiple articles for the past year and a bit. They have been warned multiple times by multiple editors on their talk page to attribute their machine translations, which are often of poor quality. They have also been warned not to recreate deleted articles, again with the aid of a machine translator. They have never communicated with other editors on any of the issues brought up, and I know this because they have only ever made one edit to a talk page, and it was a poorly written request / complaint.
I warned Loukus999 prior that after 2,000+ edits to the mainspace, zero communication with other editors and repeatedly violating commonly understood policies was unacceptable, and I would take it to the noticeboard if these two things were to repeat, and so I now have done just that. Loukus999 recently created John Muir Memorial County Park, in a process which was so poorly done that ref tags have been left broken and there is a sentence proclaiming that "The full algorithm is available", followed by a citation to the bot / script that they presumably used.
Loukus999 has not been using translators / bots / scripts responsibly on the English Misplaced Pages, and has refused to communicate after ample requests and warnings from other editors. Yue🌙 00:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I happen to be very interested in John Muir and I've got to say that John Muir Memorial County Park is a shockingly bad article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it's a direct translation of one of the ceb.wiki machine generated articles. CMD (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like the most recent creation before that is Temple of Nabu (Palmyra), a translation of it:Tempio di Nebo that is still unattributed. CMD (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it's a direct translation of one of the ceb.wiki machine generated articles. CMD (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Yue, it would help if you listed some articles you are concerned about so other editors don't have to go searching for them. You're likely to get a better response from editors who browse ANI if you spell everything out and provide links. Liz 04:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I am not highlighting an issue with one or a few of Loukus999's articles, I am highlighting an issue with all their articles. They didn't just start doing poorly done translations without attribution; that's all they've been doing.I don't have to make a list either because Loukus999 already lists their "completed" and intended translation projects on their user page. Take for example, the first two articles they created on the list. Chiapanec people was obviously machine translated from es:Pueblo chiapaneca, with the exact same content but accompanied by grammatical errors and awkward phrasing in English. Same thing with Chimbu people, translated from ru:Чимбу. The problem is not only that Loukus999 doesn't attribute their translations, they also:
- Don't clean up their article afterwards, leaving it with grammatical mistakes, broken refs, and broken templates.
- Create translated articles without regard for past deletion discussions.
- Have not communicated with any editors despite several warnings over the past year.
- So now there's about 80 live articles in the mainspace that are of poor quality, essentially machine translated without a second thought, and intended or otherwise, Loukus999 has shown that they do not care about site policy nor article quality by ignoring their talk page. Yue🌙 05:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you check Loukus999's talk page, every thread is a message, automatically or manually written, left by editors informing Loukus999 of their editing issues and problems with their articles. They've had a full year since the first message to respond or acknowledge anything, but instead they just continue their problematic editing as nobody had yet brought it up seriously. Yue🌙 05:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- They have no edits in user talk and just one in article talk. I think they need a block for non-communication. --jpgordon 16:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you check Loukus999's talk page, every thread is a message, automatically or manually written, left by editors informing Loukus999 of their editing issues and problems with their articles. They've had a full year since the first message to respond or acknowledge anything, but instead they just continue their problematic editing as nobody had yet brought it up seriously. Yue🌙 05:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I am not highlighting an issue with one or a few of Loukus999's articles, I am highlighting an issue with all their articles. They didn't just start doing poorly done translations without attribution; that's all they've been doing.I don't have to make a list either because Loukus999 already lists their "completed" and intended translation projects on their user page. Take for example, the first two articles they created on the list. Chiapanec people was obviously machine translated from es:Pueblo chiapaneca, with the exact same content but accompanied by grammatical errors and awkward phrasing in English. Same thing with Chimbu people, translated from ru:Чимбу. The problem is not only that Loukus999 doesn't attribute their translations, they also:
- Because Loukus999 has been consistently creating poor quality translations despite multiple warnings, I have indefintely blocked the editor from editing article space. They can create policy compliant, properly referenced draft translations and submit them to the Articles for Creation process. Communication with their fellow editors is required, as is producing high quality, policy compliant work. Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Personal attack by LödedDiaper
UNLÖADED. Block evasion reverted, talk page semi'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I hope it's understandable, but I've not notified User:LödedDiaper of this discussion as they've just loutsocked to have a bit of a go at me & specifically targeted my ADHD (it's mentioned in a userbox on my page). I've not read through most of this tirade, but could an admin please take a peek for me? I'm also very aware that I may have overreacted in my original response & took it a little personally (I shouldn't have), so I will completely take that on the chin - nevertheless their response isn't ok. BTW The signature is a bit weird, it says one IP but then the autosignbot gave a different one... Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Update - I calmed down a bit and took another look, they're attacking pretty much everyone, but specifically admins who were involved in the block/TPA removal. I'm sorry if I triggered this response in any way by accidentally poking the tiger, it's not ok for someone to attack you guys like this either. I wasn't sure where to report this, but figured it should maybe be here since this is where they were originally blocked.Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have removed the IP's post and blocked the IP. Jpgordon has semi-protected the page. PhilKnight (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems that the Diaper editor dislikes me, intensely. I don't care. Cullen328 (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Me too, I get that they're angry, but I really wish they'd take their own advice and do something else. They've also made quite a few assumptions about me which are entertainingly incorrect. Nevertheless, is their latest attack on my talk page for posterity, which took far less effort to remove than they took to post it. Anyway, I'm off to touch grass as they've recommended, ungulates love grass. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I, too, received that diatribe, Blue-Sonnet. Years ago, Antandrus wrote these words of wisdom:
While it feels bad to be attacked by one of the persistent, nasty, obsessive trolls, it is helpful to remember that some of these people are profoundly miserable. They are really suffering; life is hell for them: often they are neither in control of their impulses, nor completely sane.
I feel sorry for this sad person. Cullen328 (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- @Cullen328 I guess great minds think alike, I just posted on their page to offer an olive branch - it might not work, but at least I tried. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I, too, received that diatribe, Blue-Sonnet. Years ago, Antandrus wrote these words of wisdom:
- Me too, I get that they're angry, but I really wish they'd take their own advice and do something else. They've also made quite a few assumptions about me which are entertainingly incorrect. Nevertheless, is their latest attack on my talk page for posterity, which took far less effort to remove than they took to post it. Anyway, I'm off to touch grass as they've recommended, ungulates love grass. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Requesting a range block for 2800:2503:9
Take two WP:EFR and call me in the morning. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The dead internet theory, or a rather weird variation thereof, has certainly been accurate for me with my Misplaced Pages interactions being filled with the sockpuppets accounts and IPs of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Holiptholipt/Archive. Recently Holiptholipt seems to have given up on making new accounts (his last one was, I believe, User:Real anticapitalist) and instead does it through a range of IPs. I'm being followed by him and he intervenes on every edit of mine that is on his interest. This includes low-traffic articles that just happened to be then edited by him once I did something - Ukrainian Choice and CEDA are recent examples of this. There was also SOR Party and Chance Political Party.
Reading the Holiptholipt's archive, there is the same pattern clearly visible - Same type of edits, mass changes to political orientations (mostly to european and south american parties), mobile edits only, edit warring to restore preferred version
and Like master, seems to use Spanish language. Technical competence from first edit, continued to edit the same articles as master and socks.
.
I am making an ANI because the last time I made a new thread on Sockpuppet investigations regarding the IPs of Holiptholipt, I got this: They are switching dynamic IPs over a wide range. Not possible to block.
Which I understand, but now I'm being followed by this ban-evading user and I'm quite at a loss. Can anything be done about it or am I doomed to deal with the person as long as they find it fit to stalk me? Thank you in advance. Brat Forelli🦊 06:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- See mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6. This is a /36 block with 2 ~= four thousand trillion trillion addresses, in other words, an extremely large range. Although some ranges this big nonetheless get blocked, if you were told it is not blockable, there probably would be too much collateral damage.
- The edit filter or even a partial block from your talk page (or other page where the harassment is happening) could be a better alternative.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edit filter could be a solution to my woes. Thank you, Jasper!Brat Forelli🦊 17:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Beeblebrox and copyright unblocks
Beeblebrox does not appear to appreciate that blocks for good-faith copyright violations cannot be sorted out with an apology and some WP:AGF, is not doing the basic due diligence required when dealing with these unblocks, and does not respond well to attempts by others to explain. Two recent examples:
- User talk:Jisshu#3rd Unblock request, blocked by DanCherek and follow-up by me on that talk page and at User talk:asilvering#I sure didn't
- User talk:Aguahrz#Unblock and follow-up at User talk:Beeblebrox#Please undo by Justlettersandnumbers
In neither case was the blocking admin consulted. In the latter example, the blocking admin asked him to revert his unblock; Beeblebrox declined. In the former example, I had earlier responded to the unblock request. The blocked editor was still editing on simple-wiki, so their contributions could easily be checked to see if they understood copyright; I said so, and was rebuffed (with bonus I have been an admin a lot longer than you
, as though length of adminship tenure grants an exception from due diligence). In both cases, the editor was soon reblocked (by Izno). It is also worth noting that both of these unblock requests involved AI chatbots, which ought to be an especially red flag when we're dealing with editors blocked for copyright problems.
This is extremely bad practice, and it needs to stop. -- asilvering (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think Beeblebrox should make a habit of speaking to the blocking admin before unblocking. He seems to be alone in not doing this, and it is part of WP:ADMIN policy. PhilKnight (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. Per the blocking policy Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Unblock requests and unblock guidelines Misplaced Pages:Appealing a block#Direct appeal.
- Beeblebrox has said that they
do not agree with or adhere to the idea that asking the blocking admin should be a de facto part of reviewing unblock requests
, but until the consensus has changed, unblocking users without consulting the blocking admin would be violating policy. - And I personally believe that consulting the blocking admin before unblocking as a requirement is a good idea, so hopefully Beeblebrox will not repeat this again. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not a policy violation, policy states
administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter.
Should avoid is not the same as shall not. The other is a guideline not a policy. PackMecEng (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) - It's not always necessary to consult the blocking admin, per the wording of the policy, but it should be done when the unblock might be controversial. Beeblebrox currently doesn't seem to have a good sense of which blocks might be controversial to lift without consultation. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not a policy violation, policy states
- I credit Beeblebrox with putting their money where their mouth is and attempting to fix their perceived issues with blocking and the process, but I do think the blocking admin should in most cases be consulted(with some exceptions like but not limited to straight username blocks or where the blocking admin invites unblocking). 331dot (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that Beeb's practice in this matter is both counter to policy and intuition. Why would an unblocking admin not want to ask the blocking admin something along the lines of, "Hey, is there anything I should know when considering unblocking this user?" Consulting simply means asking about the case to have more information; it does not mean that the unblocking admin must act in accordance with the blocking admin's wishes. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can we get that explicitly written into policy then? Because it being a consultation to see if information is missing makes perfect sense, but how the process has actually worked in practice for years (and in places such as WP:REFUND requests) is not as an informational purpose, but instead to get "permission" from the blocking admin and, by their forbearance and mercy, will the action be allowed. But if the original admin disagrees, even without there being any extra information to back up and justify that stance, then it shall not be done. Because the original admin's actions are law and cannot be disputed and how dare you even try. Silverseren 19:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree it should be written into policy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- In my perspective, the unblock policy is fairly clear that the blocking admin should be consulted, but it doesn't state that administrators need permission from the blocking admin to unblock. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree it should be written into policy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can we get that explicitly written into policy then? Because it being a consultation to see if information is missing makes perfect sense, but how the process has actually worked in practice for years (and in places such as WP:REFUND requests) is not as an informational purpose, but instead to get "permission" from the blocking admin and, by their forbearance and mercy, will the action be allowed. But if the original admin disagrees, even without there being any extra information to back up and justify that stance, then it shall not be done. Because the original admin's actions are law and cannot be disputed and how dare you even try. Silverseren 19:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm very busy to day and have to go but the short answer is that making a user sit there and wait for however long it takes the blocking admin to show up has never seemd like a fair or useful requirtement in a case where there is extensive discussion between the blocked user and reviewing admins. Beeblebrox 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox, if the blocking administrator is on a lengthy wikibreak or has been desysopped or has died or refuses to respond to pings, then move ahead with the unblock, noting one of those factors. That does not seem to be the case here. Please discuss unblocks with the blocking adminstrator, as this is the normal expectation among administrators with the obvious exception of you. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, since everyone else appears to be understanding the problem here as "Beeb doesn't consult with the blocking admins", I included that information here as relevant context, but that isn't really the main issue at hand. The main issue at hand is that Beeblebrox believes himself to be competent to administrate copyright unblocks, and is evidently not. Consultation with the blocking admin might have helped in these cases, but given Beeb's responses to having these two unblocks questioned, I suspect it would have made little difference. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is the second time the first unblock has been discussed. Is there a reason you're bringing it back here? I'm not sure two unblocks are. reasomable measure to determine whether @Beeblebrox is
competent to administrate copyright unblocks
. I don't think either that or not consulting blocking admin when there was already a discussion in progress with that admin is ANI worthy. Star Mississippi 21:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- Do you see anything in these two unblocks and their subsequent discussions that suggests that he is competent to administrate copyright unblocks? In neither discussion has he even acknowledged that he had made any kind of mistake. -- asilvering (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. As well as in their long history as an admin. Editors can and will disagree, it's an opinion and neither of us is objectively correct. If you truly think he isn't competent, there are channels to bring it up. Bringing two unblocks, one a repeat, to ANI isn't going to accomplish anything. Star Mississippi 01:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- You know, I feel like I have tried to meet you halfway recently, after admittedly being a little aggressive when first returning to handling unblock requests, but I'm getting the distinct impression at this point that you just don't like me no matter what. Suggesting that a slight disagreement like this indicates incompetence is a pretty nasty thing to do. Beeblebrox 23:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have the faintest idea what
I feel like I have tried to meet you halfway recently
is referring to. Halfway to what? -- asilvering (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have the faintest idea what
- Okay, how about his statement in the first unblock (the one where he ever so kindly tried to pull rank on asilvering after they disagreed with him), he stated that he would not, and did not intend to, perform due diligence (
nope, I did not do what you said would be sufficient for you personally. Neither I nor anyone else is bound by that
)? Or a little while later doubled down withI do not feel I was required to make the checks you wanted somebody to do
? How about the way he dismissed the amount of time and effort it takes those of us working in copyright cleanup to mop up after these mistakes (unblocks are cheap
) and, perhaps this is the most important part of the entire situation, has stated that he believes copyright unblocks, and accepting them, are more a matter of good faith than anything else? (we've become a bit too unwilling to just give second chances when a user, as this one did, apologizes and commits not to repeat the behaviors that led to the block
). Copyright issues aren't a simple matter of good faith by the way. Work one CCI, and you get to learn pretty much everything about an editor. You learn what what TV shows and music they like, where they're from, what little editing quirks they have, how they like to structure their articles - they're all unique. You know what's not unique? All them want to improve Misplaced Pages. Nobody's spending over a decade of their life hunting down old Albanian history books, finding the most niche tech stories, or updating every page related to a university in Florida because they want to hurt the encyclopedia, or because they're simply negligent and need to be reminded to keep their fingers off the Crtl+V shortcut. Copyright unblocks are rarely given until several warnings have passed- so by the time we get to one, we've already repeatedly told a user "hey, if you copy-paste content into Misplaced Pages again you will be blocked". There's really not much room for misunderstanding there. And as much as I wish with all my heart and soul that we could give these people who plagiarize easy second chances, the severity of the issue and the difficulty in cleanup means that second chance has to be earnt. If we give somebody one last chance not to spam links, or mess with ENGVAR, or write promotional garbage, it'll be pretty easy for the community to tell if they go right back to their old habits, and any damage they do those issues are trivial to fix by a newbie rollbacker. Copyright issues? No- they can take weeks to months to years to be caught again - let alone clean up! We've got like like a dozen editors active in the copyright cleanup area? To really put things in perspective, I'm the newest and I got involved in 2023. We don't have the manpower to spare to do the due diligence Beeblebrox doesn't want to. The only reason the Jisshuu issue got cleaned up so fast is because asilvering was proactive, because @MrLinkinPark333: and I spent a few hours digging through old books, and because I went to pester Beeblebrox on his talk page to mass-undo the most recent edits. (At some point, in his mind, this morphed intoI've undone a bunch of their bad edits myself
... which I guess is technically true? But he certainly did not show the initiative to do this himself). And instead of thanking asilvering for going to extra mile, he did the entiremeaning no offense, I have been an admin a lot longer than you
thing. Of course, Beeblebrox could have done due dilligence, I suppose. But if that's the case, then that means that yesterday we saw a very long term admin look at a user whose average talkpage message looked something like
and (in response to an earlier copyright warning, btw)Helloo🙄, The Page you are talking about is "GDP nominal" , The Page i created is "gdp per Capita nominal". For PPP it has to articles gdp PPP and gdp PPP per Capita. So?, You need to review that.
and then believed, no questions asked, that they wrote and understoodEast Africa City States Existed, You can't just delete an Article even without verifying..You are the one violating Misplaced Pages Terms
andI apologize for the copyright violation in my contributions and understand the importance of adhering to Misplaced Pages's copyright policies. Moving forward, I will create original content, properly attribute sources, and ensure all materials comply with Misplaced Pages’s licensing requirements. I have reviewed the relevant guidelines to prevent future infractions. I kindly request reconsideration of my case and assure you of full compliance in my future contributions
which is far more concerning. Either way, he hasn't demonstrated that he is willing to properly administer copyright unblocks. And don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of the "you must wait until the blocking admin responds before unblocking" culture, and I think we should trust that all admins have the common sense to deal with the average spam-block or disruptive editing block without waiting 10 days and multiple pings just for the blocking admin to not oppose the unblock. And I think there's ample room in our current system to occasionally override a block, or IAR and quickly unblock. But copyright blocks are a different beast, and I'm disappointed that Beeblebrox's response to criticism has been what it was.If I happen to find valuable information in a copyrighted source, I will make sure to write it completely in my own words while still capturing the main idea and will also make sure to properly cite it to give credit where due without violating any policies
- Do you see anything in these two unblocks and their subsequent discussions that suggests that he is competent to administrate copyright unblocks? In neither discussion has he even acknowledged that he had made any kind of mistake. -- asilvering (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is the second time the first unblock has been discussed. Is there a reason you're bringing it back here? I'm not sure two unblocks are. reasomable measure to determine whether @Beeblebrox is
- I agree with this in principle, by the way - or at least, I think we have one too many admins who are far too willing to block for even the most minor instances of disruption, and then drag their heels and attack admins who unblock, or mislead them into thinking they aren't allowed to unblock without consent, or who resort to personal attacks, use rollback, and levy level4im vandalism warnings against good-faith bystanders who try to help. And as long as those admins still have tools, we need admins like Beeblebrox who are willing to stand up to them an unblock obviously good faith newbies
- Copypatrol has limited functionality and NPP is not suited to catch anything but the most blatant copy-pastes from Earwig-readable online and well-linked sources
- I would count my re-block in the second case as more-or-less coincidental, myself. I do think that consulting the blocking admin per policy is a good idea, and echo Cullen's "well, if they appear to have been hit by a bus, then you should feel free to 'be bold'". Izno (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah that they were reblocked for socking has nothing at all to do with what they were previously blocked for, so it's a bit odd to see it held up here as an example of my recklessness. Unblocking, no matter who is consulted before hand, is always a risk, but when the original issue was copyvios and the reblock is for socking that was detected by a checkuser, it's hard to see how one can say the unblocking admin should have known about a completely unrelated second issue that required functionary permissions to detect.
- The other account was rightly reblocked because they lied during the unblock process, which we had no way of knowing until they were unblocked and immediately started acting the fool, at which point they were blocked again and I pitched in cleaning up the bit of a mess they left in their wake.
- Whatever one may think about me not consulting with the blocking admin, these two unblocks don't prove anything besides the already known fact that sometimes people lie. That's just part of what admins deal with every day if they are doing actual admin work. Beeblebrox 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- And herein lies the problem: they didn't lie. They did not intend to deceive - they genuinely believed that they'd figured out the issue. Copyright blocks are nearly always done against good-faith users, and while it would be lovely to distill it down to some morally simple "they continue the behaviour => they were a liar all along", its not that simple and it never has been. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- However one interprets it, they made it seem as though they understood the issue, at which point it is not unreasonable to see if that is really the case by unblocking, as it had already been discussed at length.
- That was my point when I originally wrote my most oft-cited essay, Give 'em enough rope fifteen years ago, and it remains my point today. At a certain point the only way to actually know is to give them a chance. While we always hope they succeed, sometimes they have learned nothing, and we block them again. This is how the system is supposed to work.
- Neither of these people created large problems after I unblocked them. I helped clean up after one while the other did not make a single edit in the interval between when I unblocked them and when they were found by a checkuser to be a sock. The harm here was extremely minimal and easily reverted.
- Unlike AN, ANI is for asking for consequences, via administrative action because a user demonstrates a pattern of behavior that is harming the encyclopedia. I don't feel like that case has been made here and I don't believe I see a request for any specific sanction against me, so unless and until those things change I think I'm done here. Beeblebrox 01:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox it's not up to you to decide whether the community thinks you're out of line. Nobody wants to sanction you, but when users turn a blind eye to the community's feedback that's usually what winds up happening. Please reconsider. Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox I’ll plug my essay on this matter: User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks. Personally, I think it’s better to ask editors to rewrite the content they were blocked for rather than quizzing them about copyright policy. Beebs, I think you know that I welcome your efforts with improving our unblock system, and I think the first cited unblock was a reasonable Good faith unblock, even if it wasn’t perfect (I mean, me and Diannaa have unblocked editors on promises of no longer adding copyvios, and have had to reblock them— it happens). On the other hand, I think you were too hasty in reversing JLAN’s block, especially given what you were told after the first unblock. I think more conversation would’ve been better, and that while contacting JLAN for “permission” to unblock isn’t strictly required, you could have pinged him saying you were intending on unblocking. I’ll contrast this with your comment on user talk:PavKls, which I think reflects a better approach to these sorts of blocks. I hope this is something that can be moved on from, and that you continue to look at unblocks that might slip through our systemic cracks, while also being diligent while looking into the background. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- And herein lies the problem: they didn't lie. They did not intend to deceive - they genuinely believed that they'd figured out the issue. Copyright blocks are nearly always done against good-faith users, and while it would be lovely to distill it down to some morally simple "they continue the behaviour => they were a liar all along", its not that simple and it never has been. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, look, don't unilaterally unblock people who copyvio. That's not okay and it ought to be obvious why. Never do it again.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox, please do not try to brush off the valid concerns that have been expressed here about your strange stance that discussing unblock requests with the blocking administrator is unnecessary. As you well know, this is a collaborative project and that includes collaboration among administrators. Please commit to discussing unblocks with the blocking administrator at the minimum, except in extraordinary circumstances. Two heads are better than one. It is quite disconcerting to read the things that you are saying. Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- In case you missed it, last month I reported at AN regarding finding what I believe were some serious issues in how unblock requests are being handled. In one of these threads I specifically mentioned asilvering as one of three admins who had missed an obvious error by a blocking admin when reviewing a particular unblock request. I did not suggest this was malicious or deliberate or a sign of incompetence, just an error.
- I don't think it is a coincidence that now two relatively harmless unblocks are being held up as evidence that I am incompetent to handle unblock requests. Beeblebrox 02:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't miss it and I think it's why you're maybe having trouble hearing the sensible advice being offered to you by Cullen (and echoed by lots of other people like Izno, Moneytrees, 331dot, PhilKnight, deadbeef, and Elli in their own ways). Whether or not unblocks of copyright blocks are appropriate has seen a number of different viewpoints, but I'm seeing pretty unanimous support for the idea that you've been seeing exceptions that others don't see in when to consult. I specifically highlight Cullen's words because of the clear way he lays out when consulting may not make sense. I write this to you in the spirit of Friends don't let friends get sanctioned. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't utterly reject the very idea that soliciting comment from the blocking admin can be helpful. I have done so on many past occasions. However, in very straighforward cases where the block reason is obvious and the blocked user admits their error and pledges not to repeat it, I'm at a loss as to what special insight we expect that the blocking admin will always have, but will not share with us unless specifically asked. I can say I am willing to have a more open mind about when to seek that opinion out and when not to, but I can't accept that it is a hard-and-fast rule, because it isn't. Beeblebrox 03:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- As asilvering noted above, the purpose of this thread was not about whether you contacted the blocking admin but rather that you unblocked two users blocked for copyright with huge red flags in their unblock requests. The first had been editing on Simple Wiki during their EnWiki block, where they were continuing to including copyrighted material in their edits. The second was an editor clearly using an LLM in their unblock request, making it unclear to anyone whether they actually understood policy and would follow it. This isn't about AGF, ROPE, or pinging the blocking admin. It's about being inadequately reviewing the evidence provided and not understanding the seriousness of copyright issues.. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's really petty that this already resolved situation is being brought up nearly a month later because you are still mad that I didn't do what you think I should have, but was in no way actually obligated to do. I'm an admin on en.wp, the main thing I know about other projects is that they all make their own rules that may or may not be as strict as ours. And again, this situation was resolved with minimal harm nearly a month ago. Beeblebrox 03:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you please stop trying to make assumptions about other editors' emotional states with regards to this discussion? You've accused me of a retaliatory filing, which makes no sense at all (if you did indeed specifically mention me
as one of three admins who had missed an obvious error by a blocking admin
, well, please let me know again, since it went completely over my head), and now you're saying that Significa liberdade is angry with you, when as far as I can tell she's simply trying to explain to you what the issue at hand here actually is. Whether other projects have different rules has nothing to do with whether or not an editor understands how to write without infringing copyright. - The situation was evidently not resolved, since you've done another "AGF" unblock on copyright without checking that the editor has actually understood the situation. For all I know there have been others as well, and I'm only aware of these two. It's one thing to shrug and make this kind of unblock when we're dealing with someone with a history of simple vandalism; they'll be easy to catch again if they go back to their old ways, and will be reblocked with minimal fuss. Copyvio is much less reliably caught and is a tremendous amount of work to clean up after. -- asilvering (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll gladly concede that that copyvios are a serious issue that should not be taken lightly, I think we all agree on that, but it wasn't actually a big deal with the post post-block edits of either of the users I unblocked. Beeblebrox 05:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will not, however, back down on the idea that this seems retaliatory. There's not a serious ongoing issue currently causing harm to the encyclopedia, so why are we at ANI? Beeblebrox 05:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- What could I possibly be retaliating against? The worst thing you've done to me is be condescending. (Well, and give me and others some extra work to do, I suppose, cleaning up after the first one.) We're at ANI because, as I said in my initial post, your approach to copyright
is extremely bad practice, and it needs to stop.
I wasn't able to convince you to take copyright seriously and the problem has recurred. Right now it still looks likely to recur again, so it is very much an ongoing issue, if a slow-moving one. Please, investigate copyright concerns thoroughly, or leave them for someone else. -- asilvering (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- What could I possibly be retaliating against? The worst thing you've done to me is be condescending. (Well, and give me and others some extra work to do, I suppose, cleaning up after the first one.) We're at ANI because, as I said in my initial post, your approach to copyright
- I will not, however, back down on the idea that this seems retaliatory. There's not a serious ongoing issue currently causing harm to the encyclopedia, so why are we at ANI? Beeblebrox 05:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll gladly concede that that copyvios are a serious issue that should not be taken lightly, I think we all agree on that, but it wasn't actually a big deal with the post post-block edits of either of the users I unblocked. Beeblebrox 05:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you please stop trying to make assumptions about other editors' emotional states with regards to this discussion? You've accused me of a retaliatory filing, which makes no sense at all (if you did indeed specifically mention me
- It's really petty that this already resolved situation is being brought up nearly a month later because you are still mad that I didn't do what you think I should have, but was in no way actually obligated to do. I'm an admin on en.wp, the main thing I know about other projects is that they all make their own rules that may or may not be as strict as ours. And again, this situation was resolved with minimal harm nearly a month ago. Beeblebrox 03:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- As asilvering noted above, the purpose of this thread was not about whether you contacted the blocking admin but rather that you unblocked two users blocked for copyright with huge red flags in their unblock requests. The first had been editing on Simple Wiki during their EnWiki block, where they were continuing to including copyrighted material in their edits. The second was an editor clearly using an LLM in their unblock request, making it unclear to anyone whether they actually understood policy and would follow it. This isn't about AGF, ROPE, or pinging the blocking admin. It's about being inadequately reviewing the evidence provided and not understanding the seriousness of copyright issues.. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't utterly reject the very idea that soliciting comment from the blocking admin can be helpful. I have done so on many past occasions. However, in very straighforward cases where the block reason is obvious and the blocked user admits their error and pledges not to repeat it, I'm at a loss as to what special insight we expect that the blocking admin will always have, but will not share with us unless specifically asked. I can say I am willing to have a more open mind about when to seek that opinion out and when not to, but I can't accept that it is a hard-and-fast rule, because it isn't. Beeblebrox 03:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't very consistent with the discussion on my talkpage where you objected to my username/promotion block for an editor that you chose to warn rather than block ; while I agree that I should have checked to see if that editor had been specifically warned (and then I unblocked as you asked), it seems to me that if you're expecting consultation over blocking someone you didn't block, you should expect to have to consult over an unblock. I realize you're trying to accomplish changes to the blocking process to be less, erm, blocky, but this seems a little hard to follow. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unblocking someone is often, usually even, not at all equivalent to overturning the blocking admins decision. That would be the distinction as I see it. Beeblebrox 03:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your argument at the time was essentially that my decision to block overturned your decision not to block. While I personally do not insist on consultation regarding a change in one of my actions, it's generally a good gesture, and widely practiced. Acroterion (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unblocking someone is often, usually even, not at all equivalent to overturning the blocking admins decision. That would be the distinction as I see it. Beeblebrox 03:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I specifically mentioned asilvering as one of three admins who had missed an obvious error by a blocking adminI don't think it is a coincidence
Sorry, but as a participant in that thread, where exactly did this happen? Diffs, please. You've been around long enough to know the rules about this. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- Fair enough, I apparently misremembered. asilvering was very upset by what I said but was not one of the admins I specifically mentioned in that case. Beeblebrox 05:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't miss it and I think it's why you're maybe having trouble hearing the sensible advice being offered to you by Cullen (and echoed by lots of other people like Izno, Moneytrees, 331dot, PhilKnight, deadbeef, and Elli in their own ways). Whether or not unblocks of copyright blocks are appropriate has seen a number of different viewpoints, but I'm seeing pretty unanimous support for the idea that you've been seeing exceptions that others don't see in when to consult. I specifically highlight Cullen's words because of the clear way he lays out when consulting may not make sense. I write this to you in the spirit of Friends don't let friends get sanctioned. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox, please do not try to brush off the valid concerns that have been expressed here about your strange stance that discussing unblock requests with the blocking administrator is unnecessary. As you well know, this is a collaborative project and that includes collaboration among administrators. Please commit to discussing unblocks with the blocking administrator at the minimum, except in extraordinary circumstances. Two heads are better than one. It is quite disconcerting to read the things that you are saying. Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I confess that I am totally bewildered about why a highly experienced adminstrator is behaving in what appears to me to be a haughty and tone deaf manner. Cullen328 (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Beebs doesn't seem to be the only one behaving in a "haughty and tone deaf manner." Everyone on this thread frankly seemed to be going in for their pound of flesh. I thought this was supposed to be a "collaborative community," not a flock of vultures circling a fresh carcass. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. Intothatdarkness 16:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- +1. The level of the temperature here seems FAR higher than what should be merited by the complaint. ⇒SWATJester 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. Intothatdarkness 16:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would encourage Beeblebrox to read this thread and maybe recalibrate his approach to copyright blocks. By the tenor of that thread and this thread, I think the prevailing attitude surrounding copyright unblocks is that the threshold for an unblock is becoming way higher (and I think it's a correct one in my view). No opinion as to disallowing Beebs to accept copyright-related unblocks, but I think he needs to be more careful with them. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Beeblebrox is not allowed to accept copyright-related unblock requests
When dealing with copyright unblocks, Beeblebrox has expressed intent to test whether somebody really understands copyright, not by doing due diligence or consulting with those more experienced in copyright issues than he, but by unblocking the editor. This has so far resulted in the unblock of one editor where there was clear evidence that they had continued good-faith plagiarism on other English-language WMF projects, and one on the say-so of a chatbot. He has cast aspersions and insulted both good-faith users who don't understand copyright and editors who bring up issues with his actions. While acknowledging that these two situations ended up being fixed relatively quickly, that was only due to the proactive behaviour of third-parties. Under normal circumstances these would be chocked up as a learning experience, but his comments make it very clear that he has not learnt anything, that he is unwilling to listen to the concerns of other editors, and will continue to act in the same manner going forward. Therefore, I am proposing that Beeblebrox is not allowed to unblock editors blocked for copyright infringement or plagiarism.
-
"I have a long-held belief that unblocking is, in many cases, preferable to talking it out for several days or weeks, and that unblocks are cheap"
- Jisshu unblock, December 2024
- Aguahrz unblock, January 2025
-
"they lied during the unblock process"
-
"Suggesting that a slight disagreement like this indicates incompetence is a pretty nasty thing to do"
-
"It's really petty that this already resolved situation is being brought up nearly a month later because you are still mad"
-
"I will not, however, back down on the idea that this seems retaliatory"
-
"it wasn't actually a big deal"
-
"these two unblocks don't prove anything besides the already known fact that sometimes people lie"
-
"There's not a serious ongoing issue currently causing harm to the encyclopedia, so why are we at ANI?"
-
"I think that, realistically, the bar is somewhere around 'a grasp of the general idea that you can't just copy someone else's work and repost it like it was your own work'"
GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. I'm not a fan of holding editors responsible for the actions of others, but Beeblebrox's ideas about when copyright unblocks are needed (see the last footnote) are not great. This is the least invasive action I can think of that will limit disruption to Misplaced Pages articles. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- oppose is this the Spanish Inquisition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Premature. Give the man a chance to read the room and think. He will figure out that "I've upset Asilvering in the past, therefore Asilvering is wrong" is not a workable defence, and then he'll get the message. Beebs is on a crusade to improve our unblocking response, and that's a good thing; he's just got to recalibrate about who he unblocks. He will. Beebs isn't stupid, he's just bad at listening.—S Marshall T/C 09:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- A wise man. scope_creep 10:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hopefully you're right, S Marshall, and it wouldn't surprise me that much if everything you've said is true. The very impressive way he's making this all about whether to consult the unblocking or not isn't exactly giving me faith that he'll figure it out any time soon, but fingers crossed! And, I know I'm repeating myself here but for the avoidance of doubt I don't give a monkey's about consulting the blocking administrator in every case, I agree with most of the crusade and did a decent amount of legwork which enabled me to bring up examples in the previous AN thread of unblocks gone bad . @Beeblebrox, as somebody who is also one-track minded to a fault, please listen to S Marshall, read the words I am typing, and at least try understand where I and the others in this thread are coming from, because it's not what you think. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fully understand that the original intent of this thread was not "he didn't consult with the blocking admin" but rather "he sucks at reviewing copyvio-related unblock requests". I don't think it was me alone who changed the focus to consulting the blocking admin, the other respondents, mostly admins themselves, did that.
- Putting that issue aside, and I mean in this in the nicest possible way, if you're going to try and get somebody sanctioned for a pattern of unacceptable behavior, you need to come locked and loaded with a lot more than what has been presented here, which realistically, is one single unblock. If you're going to call someone incompetent at anything, you should probably anticipate a strong response to such a personal and insulting accusation.
- I'm open to criticism, but this sanction attempt was so thin on evidence that it's practically invisible.
- Don't get me wrong, I think you're ok in general but this proposed sanction was a very premature gross overreaction. Beeblebrox 02:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- On consulting the blocking admin, I'm 100% with you. I've been the victim of a bad block (by a sitting arb, in fact). That's how I know that the character who blocked me shouldn't ever become the gatekeeper for my unblock. I'm passionate about that on principle.
- I think it's a great pity that some people have made this into a thread about consulting the blocker. I don't blame you for focusing on that side of it because on that side of it you're in the right, at a fundamental, ethical level.
- But on unblocking copyright violating editors, your position is not exactly akin to Gibraltar.—S Marshall T/C 11:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, mostly per Beeblebrox's own comment above:
Unlike AN, ANI is for asking for consequences, via administrative action because a user demonstrates a pattern of behavior that is harming the encyclopedia. I don't feel like that case has been made here and I don't believe I see a request for any specific sanction against me, so unless and until those things change I think I'm done here.
Since that comment, he's continued to not get it, and to impugn the motives of basically everyone who disagrees with him. Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) - Oppose premature and unnecessary. Two
blocksunblocks, one of which was hashed out a month ago, does not prove a large issue that merits consequences. Star Mississippi 13:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) - Oppose as too soon. Let's see how things turn out... - UtherSRG (talk)
- Oppose. Several people, including myself, observed in 2024 that our requests for unblock process had become schlerotic and was suffering from undue months-long delays, largely as the result of too few administrators working CAT:RFU. More recently the situation has improved substantially, with Beeblebrox being responsible for much of the improvement, both by pointing attention to the problem (albeit not always in the same words I would use), and by himself acting on many of the pending requests. I do agree that consulting the initial blocking admin is typically appropriate and can lead to important information (for example, in one recent case I reviewed, I was puzzled at a block that appeared to be an overreaction to a single dubious edit, but I had forgotten to check the user's edit-filter log, which made the reason crystal-clear). I can also agree, based on several people's observations above, that copyvio blocks can call for a little extra caution, and that these days we now need to be scrutinizing unblock requests for insincere chatbot-generated garbage. Nonetheless, the overall pattern of improved admin responsiveness to unblock requests should continue and Beeblebrox should continue to be part of the solution. I also commend the other admins who have pitched in recently in this area; to state the obvious, the more people share the workload, the less will be the burden, stress, or risk of burnout on any one admin, and the more fair will be our unblock requests process both to the blocked users and to everyone else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose With apologies that I didn't fully read all of the background that led to this particular thread. I agree that Cat:RFU has too few admins working at and I say this is someone who is probably never contributed, but as someone who does at least my fair share investigating copyright issues, I do know a little about the situation. While I think it's fair to assert that most copyright violations are good faith errors, it doesn't follow that most blocks for copyright violations are good faith errors. (I'm not suggesting that anyone specifically said that, but it's a possible take away.) Speaking only for my personal approach, I review a lot of potential copyright violations. I reverted and warned many violators. I don't believe I've ever personally blocked anyone for a single violation. The rare cases I block someone for copyright violations is when it has been repeated even after warnings. In my opinion if you've been warned and still do it, it is no longer good faith. That might not be malicious it might be incompetence, but it then deserves a block. I agree it is best practice to talk to the blocking administrator, and while I personally try to make sure to stay active for a period of time after blocking someone, that's not always possible, so I'm not in favor of requiring interaction with the blocking administrator. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - With Misplaced Pages likely to be playing defense in the coming few years, I'm sympathetic to being extra cautious when it comes to potential legal vulnerabilities, and agree with some of the procedural criticisms in the thread above, but this seems like an unnecessary escalation amid active conversation. — Rhododendrites \\ 17:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support his responses don't inspire confidence. He doesn't seem to care that other admins find some of his behavior in unblock requests subpar. I would expect a more robust response and an acknowledgement to do better. I often hear that admins are supposed to be held to a higher standard, and I don't believe his responses here meet that standard. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Premature per S Marshall (both in the !voting and the excellent comment above). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Aguahrz was re-blocked for matters unrelated to copyright. One example does not suggest a wider problem requiring a bizarre type of topic ban. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose regardless of the intent when openeing this thread, it seems pretty clear to me that the bulk of commenters are in fact upset that I often do not consult with thr blocking admin, I don't see a consensus that these two unblocks represent a pattern of causing real harm to the encyclopedia, to the extent that a sanction is required. I have already said I will try to keep a more open mind about it going forward, you can beleive that or not, but a topic ban is obviously grossly premature. Beeblebrox 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
While acknowledging that these two situations ended up being fixed relatively quickly, that was only due to the proactive behaviour of third-parties
is exceptionally bullshitty.- The admin who reblocked in the second case not "fixing my error," they discovered using checkuser that the user was a sock and blocked them. It had nothing whatsoever to do with copyvios or my decision to unblock them.
- And in the first case, as I've mentioned, as soon as I became aware of their activities I went in and helped clean it up, as GLL is perfectly aware since they were the one who asked me to do so. Beeblebrox 20:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've just now noticed that the proposal is "Proposal: Beeblebrox is not allowed to accept copyright-related unblock requests" (emphasis added). So, I'm competent to deny such requests, just not to accept? How does that make sense? Beeblebrox 03:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose premature, willing to accept Beeblebrox's course correction. Once upon a time, different things were thought of as cowboy adminning than they are today, and community norms change. I know that from experience. Andre🚐 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - Unnecessary. FOARP (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I don't think the argument that Beebs is somehow not competent to handle copyright unblocks has merit. As has been pointed out, policy does not strictly require consultation -- it's a "should" do, and there are valid reasons (both the "hit by bus" argument and as Brad points out "our unblocking process sucks") why an administrator may choose not to consult. There's a reason, for instance, that CTOPS/AE unblocks explicitly have a different unblocking process -- if the community wanted a no-exceptions blanket policy, they would have implemented one. I'm honestly surprised by the level of hostility he's getting here. ⇒SWATJester 00:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
User:The2KKidRulez
Blocked with TPA revoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The2KKidRulez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Using personal attacks, even after being warned not to. All is listed here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have revoked talk page access from The2KKidRulez. Cullen328 (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Xegma
Xegma blocked as a sock by Spicy. Daniel (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Xegma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It appears that this editor's account has been compromised. See their recent editing history (which is certainly odd) starting today on Jan 12th. They also closed this AfD in a very strange manner (even with poor grammar), and they're apparently claiming to be the person who is the subject of that article. Very strange indeed. Pinging Taabii (the editor who nominated the article) for some input on this situation. I would suggest blocking to prevent further disruption, and until the situation is settled. CycloneYoris 08:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CycloneYoris I got mail from Xegma, which I already disclosed in the Deletion Discussion, I can forward the mail if anyone wants. Taabii (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Taabii: But Xegma claims to be female (as you can see on their userpage) and not male. So it makes no sense, and their e-mail could've been compromised as well. CycloneYoris 08:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've fixed the mess caused by the AfD being closed early and inappropriately by a non-admin (close reverted and discussion reopened per WP:NACD), and by draftifying the article but then having it recreated with no history (recreation deleted, draft with all the history moved back to mainspace, redirects deleted). Haven't looked into the compromised bit and will need to sign off shortly. Daniel (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing looking comprised to me. The grammar and prose-writing is consistent with their comments here (which is why I recognised the username). @CycloneYoris: in which edit are they
"apparently claiming to be the person who is the subject of that article"
, out of curiosity? Might have missed a comment somewhere so just wanted to be sure. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- @Daniel: Taabii apparently received this information via e-mail, as they've stated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Susovan Roy (2nd nomination). CycloneYoris 08:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, just saw that. I'll reclose AfD1 as procedural close given AfD2 is now running. Taabii, a note for next time - if someone inappropriately closes an AfD like this, please take to either their user talk page or Deletion Review, rather than starting a new AfD immediately. No stress on this occasion, just a little bit extra paperwork to clean up, but DRV is best practice. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for late reply, Yes I've mail the nominator as a personal interest of that subject, as you can see my past article creation that I've created articles about bengali actors and actresses. Then when I'm going to start that article of that subject And I have seen that someone created that article and I've reviewed it. I've added the article on my watchlist to edit and then I've seen that they nominated for it on Afd and I'm sorry that I've mentioned on the mail that "I'm that subject" that's only I've mentioned for my personal interest or nothing. The nominator also mail me in the past for reviewing their articles and I've also reviewed their article and also you can see they have requested on my talkpage to review of their article. Xegma(talk) 09:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Xegma Yes, I requested you to review my articles but I don't have any personal interest in those articles. If I would have ever in future, I'll surely follow the Guidelines to disclose. Also, You mailed me — "Hi Taabi, this is my article
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Susovan_Roy why you tag deletion for it. Please remove it. I'm that actor pls withdraw it." Taabii (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Xegma: Thank you for your response, and for clarifying the situation. I guess it's now safe to say that this issue has been resolved. CycloneYoris 10:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CycloneYoris How can she write "Please remove it. I'm that actor pls withdraw it." by mistake? I am damn sure that Xegma is hiding the truth. Taabii (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Taabii: Perhaps. Although I do think that they at least clarified, albeit with broken English, that their account wasn't compromised (which is why I thanked them above). The issue regarding their identity, on the other hand, still remains a mystery. CycloneYoris 19:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CycloneYoris How can she write "Please remove it. I'm that actor pls withdraw it." by mistake? I am damn sure that Xegma is hiding the truth. Taabii (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Daniel Sorry for starting the new AFD, I was really unaware of that. I tried to Undo the edits of Xegma, but it looked impossible for me. Taabii (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for late reply, Yes I've mail the nominator as a personal interest of that subject, as you can see my past article creation that I've created articles about bengali actors and actresses. Then when I'm going to start that article of that subject And I have seen that someone created that article and I've reviewed it. I've added the article on my watchlist to edit and then I've seen that they nominated for it on Afd and I'm sorry that I've mentioned on the mail that "I'm that subject" that's only I've mentioned for my personal interest or nothing. The nominator also mail me in the past for reviewing their articles and I've also reviewed their article and also you can see they have requested on my talkpage to review of their article. Xegma(talk) 09:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, just saw that. I'll reclose AfD1 as procedural close given AfD2 is now running. Taabii, a note for next time - if someone inappropriately closes an AfD like this, please take to either their user talk page or Deletion Review, rather than starting a new AfD immediately. No stress on this occasion, just a little bit extra paperwork to clean up, but DRV is best practice. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Daniel: Taabii apparently received this information via e-mail, as they've stated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Susovan Roy (2nd nomination). CycloneYoris 08:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing looking comprised to me. The grammar and prose-writing is consistent with their comments here (which is why I recognised the username). @CycloneYoris: in which edit are they
- Noting that I have p-blocked @Xegma from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Susovan Roy (2nd nomination) to avoid any issues there. They remain welcome to contribute elsewhere. Star Mississippi 14:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
This user is not a Misplaced Pages administrator but would like to be one someday.But the user has apparently claimed to be Susovan Roy, a person who is obviously male. When I read the "explanation"
I'm sorry that I've mentioned on the mail that "I'm that subject" that's only I've mentioned for my personal interest or nothing, I am even more mystified. On her userpage, Xegma claims
This user has a native understanding of Englishand yet the things they wrote above are baffling and not indicative of native English language competence. There is an expectation that every Misplaced Pages editor will tell the truth, fully and frankly (especially if they hope to become an adminisrator someday), and I have very serious doubts about Xegma's honesty about several matters at this point. I hope for a much more detailed and thoughtful explanation of these inconsistencies. Cullen328 (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blogs19/Archive. Spicy (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- First of all I'm apolozing for my English is not that good and my languages are Hindi and Bengali. and second I'm really sorry for my behaviour and will not happen in the future. Thanks. Xegma(talk) 12:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Xegma, since you admit that your
English is not that good
, then please edit your userpage for accuracy. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Xegma, since you admit that your
User:Jaozinhoanaozinho and persistant WP:SYNTH, WP:PROFRINGE, and WP:GNG-failing articles
User:Jaozinhoanaozinho has been creating articles on portuguese history for a while now. They seem to be a competent writer, but their understanding of WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH seems to be lacking substantially.
- Danish expedition to North America was deleted for WP:PROFRINGE
- Da Serra–American conflict on WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH grounds
- They've been warned about creating hoax articles and continued doing so.
- Warned for copyright issues which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in Potato Revolt)
- Plenty of articles containing only one source Siege of Campar, Battle of Cape Coast (1562), Battle of Lucanzo (1590), Portudal–Joal Massacre, Battle of the Gambia River (1570), Battle of Mugenga
Most recently there's Battle of Naband, which contains two sources and the only one easily accessible never mentions any Battle of Naband and indeed mentions the Naband itself only twice in the book. I've AFDd four of their last five or so articles in a row, with three now deleted.
Battle of Naband is my last article of theirs I'm AFDing. I tried bringing this up with them but it doesn't appear to have gone anywhere and I don't want to WP:WIKIHOUND someone for mass creating low-quality articles. They're a competent writer but I feel that a time out from article creation without oversight may be helpful for everyone here. With the inscrutible sourcing and the repeated defense of a WP:PROFRINGE article above it's pretty impossible for inexpert editors to know if what's being presented is legit or not without sources or verifiability. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly I have to support this. They simply don't have a grasp of our policies and guidelines despite all the AfDs where they've been discussed. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I checked this Battle of Naband which is at Afd. It wasn't a battle and hasn't been named as such by any historian. A small engagement at best. The sources are problematic, very very slim. I could only find a couple of small paras in a single source that seems to come from a single verbal report. I think they should all be draftified to be checked and any future work sent to draft. I couldn't find Naband? scope_creep 12:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised:
- 1) While I understand that the Luso-Danish expedition theory is not widely accepted, similar fringe theories, such as the "Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia," are allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages. I suggested adjustments to the article title and additional citations during our earlier discussion, but those suggestions were not incorporated.
- 2) I still believe the topic is notable, even though it isn't widely discussed. I maintain that there is no issue with synthesis as the article does not present conclusions that aren't directly supported by the sources.
- 3) I agree with the decision to delete the article in question, as I did not do my research properly, turns out it was not a colony or long standing controlled territory.
- 4) I have never created a hoax article (Correction: Besides "Portuguese Newfoundland). The warning I received 10 months ago was for an article I translated from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages.
- 5) I typically do this when the sources used do not provide page numbers, and it can be difficult for others to verify specific information.
- 6) Many of the articles in question were created when I was beginning to edit on Misplaced Pages. I don’t mind improving research quality.
- 7) The article now cites four sources, and there are additional mentions of the engagement in other books, I just didn’t cite all of them.
- Additionally, I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work. I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues. A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts". Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work.
- I addressed this above, it's a tricky thing to strike a balance between WP:WIKIHOUNDING and "This editor constantly makes articles that need oversight", which is why I brought this to ANI and said it'd be the last article of yours I AFD. It wasn't my intent to make you feel surveilled, though, which is why I called attention to that pattern of mine in the ANI itself.
I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues.
- Considering that these articles have, for the most part, been deleted, I don't think it's fair to summarize them as needing maintainence templates. Something that fails WP:GNG doesn't need a maintanence template if it's never going to pass WP:GNG and believe me, I am actually looking for sources before I nominate. It's actually why, for example
A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".
- I didn't AFD this one, but instead raised it on your talk page. That seemed to have WP:SYNTH issues but was much less cut and dry, so I reached out directly instead of AFDing it. I'm not going to maintenance-tag a page that may simply never pass WP:GNG before establishing that, because it risks wasting editors time. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- The single-source articles probably need to go to AfD as well. There are literally no hits for a "Battle of Cape Coast", "Battle of Lucanzo", and a "Portudal–Joal Massacre" (and they are not referred to as such in the single source that is in the article). There is little doubt that these minor skirmishes occurred (so they're not hoaxes), but they don't appear to be notable either. They sound like information that should be included in a wider article about the topics involved. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based upon their comments here and at the various AfD's, I do not believe Jaozinhoanaozinho understands the problematic nature of their articles, nor do they apparently understand the original research policy. I propose and support a ban from article creation until, after gaining substantially more experience improving pre-existing articles without violating WP:OR, they gain that necessary understanding/competence. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- SUPPORT ban from article creation. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a ban from article creation. I checked a couple more of them over the weekend. I'm not keen to see any more of these non-articles made in that manner. scope_creep 09:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support article creation ban. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Repeated copyvios by Vairankodepooram20
Copyvio block. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Vairankodepooram20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vairankodepooram20 has repeatedly added copyvios to Vairankode Bhagavathy Temple despite warnings (, ). (Most recent diffs: , ; can't add others since they've been revdel'd but as you can see from the page history the vast majority of editor's text content additions have been copyrighted material. The editor is also edit-warring over tags (including the revdel tag and others) in addition to repeatedly adding infringing content. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm arguably involved as I have edited the article, but I would support an indefinite block for copyright violations. PhilKnight (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and blocked them to prevent more copyvios. PhilKnight (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
IDHT religious POV-pushing
Umayyad-387 blocked as a sock. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Umayyad-387 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Despite extensive guidance and warnings (cf. also ), this users continues to edit war on several pages of early Islamic figures, such as
- Abu Bakr ,
- Umar ,
- Aqil ibn Abi Talib
- and now also Mu'awiya I
Despite same guidance, they also keep insisting that hadith are more reliable than modern secular scholars, and blindly accuse others who warn them for their behavior of religious (anti-Sunni) bias .
Umayyad-387 has also made some apparently constructive edits to pages about cricket players, so they're not quite WP:NOTHERE, and ideally a topic ban on Islam broadly construed would be the best solution. However, the WP:IDHT is so strong here that I fear they would just ignore it.
Thanks for your attention, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, quite apart from the rampant edit-warring over multiple articles (which is already problematic enough eligible for a block), this edit-summary in particular is very problematic, and this addition (scroll down) shows a CIR problem. A TBAN would be logical, but like the OP, I am unconvinced it would be followed. Other ideas are welcome. Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's an obvious sock puppet of Iarsalanansari. Just look at Special:Diff/1268864747, which was linked above. It's a random revert on a random article that he feels very, very strongly about. Why would some new user do that? Scroll down the article history to see who made the original edit, and it's Arslan8266. Now we have a suspected master. Look at Arslan8266's edits, and he tried to create Draft:Arslan Sultan. Does that sound familiar? It should. In the linked diff, Umayyad-387 said his name is Arslan Sultan. Guys, come on, just read the diffs that you post here, then go to WP:SPI and say what I just said. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Maxionetwo's brother
User blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please indef User:Maxionetwo's brother... either for socking or trolling is up to you. Sorry, no time for an SPI right now. (And should I really drag our august CUs down from contemplating the beatitudes, etc., for something as trivial as this...?) Cheers, SerialNumber54129 17:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.User Skibidiohiorizz123: Ban on grounds of CIS/AGF/NPA/CIVIL
User blocked. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk · contribs)
New account that only really seems to be here to stir the pot on Talk:Climate Change Denial.
Strange rant about how the article isn't following "natural (sic) point of view" and repeatedly saying it's the work of liberals.
Forum shopping demanding the article be entirely written with no good reason.
Now spouting about other users being "rats" who should be "exterminated".
Whether it's trolling or genuine, the behaviour demonstrates they are clearly incapable of constructively contributing to the site. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support CBAN 100%, I read this user's comments on other users being "rats" who should be "exterminated", thought to myself "wow, not very "catholic of them"...or extremely catholic of them (I'm never quite sure, depending on the historical era). and was about to post here myself about it but you beat me to it. — Shibbolethink 21:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly I'm surprised this user's lasted this long with a ban given that thread on CCD is such a clear sign of a serious CIS problem. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support CBAN: He wants to quit Misplaced Pages? We ought to give him his wish. If he's a troll, we don't need him here. If he's not, we don't need him here. GorillaWarfare indeffed him, but let's seal the deal. Ravenswing 21:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I've issued a WP:NOTHERE block after separately coming across the "rats" comment. Beyond the pale, and given that their entire contribution history is that discussion at Talk:Climate change denial, it doesn't seem they're here for any constructive purpose. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Tendentious name changing by MŞ46
MŞ46 has been changing Bangladeshi placenames from WP:COMMONNAME to WP:OFFICIALNAME for over a month. They were warned against this on their talk page on 7 and 13 December, but did not reply.
They were warned again on 15 December, and replied to the effect that they were using the official names (which is not in dispute). On 16 December, I made a more detailed reply, again emphasising what the common name is and that Misplaced Pages's policy is to use it. They stopped answering in English, but replied in Bengali on 25 December. In reply, I explained yet again on 29 December.
In the past three days, with no further communication on their part, they have changed names in 80+ articles (from North 24 Parganas district to Schools in Cumilla) in violation of policy and consensus.
They need to be blocked to stop the disruption to Bangladesh and West Bengal-related articles. Perhaps an initial block will get them to understand policy and that repeatedly violating it has consequences. If their fluency in English is insufficient to comprehend the policy or to collaborate by communicating in English, then more drastic measures may be needed. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- They've started moving pages as well . I've pblocked them from mainspace, perhaps they will start communicating, if possible. I haven't reverted their previous edits, but could do a mass rollback if necessary. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Request to block Mishutup94
Socks put back in the drawer. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
I am requesting administrative action against the user @Mishutup94: due to repeated violations of Misplaced Pages's policies, specifically harassment, vandalism, and personal attacks.
- 1.Harassment and Personal Attacks
- The user’s username, Mishutup94, is clearly intended as a personal attack against me. It combines my first name, “Mishary,” with the offensive phrase “shutup.” This is a deliberate and targeted insult.
- The username itself violates Misplaced Pages’s policy on appropriate usernames, as it is offensive and directed at another user.
- 2. Disruption and Vandalism
- The user has been persistently disrupting the article “List of programs broadcast by Spacetoon” through unwarranted and malicious edits.
- The user also puts random dates for the programs, without a single source confirming this.
- 3. Clear Intent to Harass
- The user’s edits and behavior demonstrate a clear intent to target me personally and disrupt my contributions on Misplaced Pages.
This user’s actions are not only offensive but also disruptive to the collaborative environment of Misplaced Pages. Their behavior undermines the integrity of the affected article and creates a hostile environment for editors like myself.
I kindly ask for administrators to review the provided evidence and take appropriate action against Mishutup94. I believe this action should include blocking the user to prevent further harassment and disruption.
Best regards --Mishary94 (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't use a chatbot to write your ANI posts. But anyway, I've blocked the account for the blatant attack name and because it is
Confirmed to accounts like Gorgious…WE WANT THE ROBOT! WE WANT THE ROBOT!. Spicy (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, my English is not good, that's why I sometimes have to use AI to formulate some sentences. Mishary94 (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
User is trying to force his POV all the time, it looks a chronic problem to me
I want bring to attention chronic problems that user User:Snowflake91 has with editors, he tends to force his POV as much possible and seems to not have to have any desire to reach some type of consensus or middle ground that doesnt includes how a article should be in his opinion, here are some exemples: in a recent case that went to noticeboard, the user has forgot to explain properly to another editor why he sent a page to draft instead of help user to improve his page, while the aricle user had done some mistakes of his own by mistaking draft with deletion, he also failed to communicate to user proprely and avoid the confusion on the first placce comunicating what chenges would be needed to fix the problem of the article user.
In another two recents case, this time with me, user seemed to ignore WP:COMMONSENSE when i was trying to clarify that cheering culture was not unique just to KBO League but unique to the entire "universe" of baseball in East Asia, even with provided with various primary and secundary sources and with another article having a section reinforcing those same similarities linked to the original article, clearly noting that the overall asian culture is known by most baseball fans at this point. (just as extra note, i plan to expand the korean cheering article also cited in KBO League article, once i finsh cleanup league historic season articles that are a bit messy and add info to baseball spring training article since those seems to be more urgent right now in termos of east asiatic leagues).
The second case was with the new change of logo of Doosan Bears , user ignored i had linked the post to the official announcement of the new logo and tried to enforce his POV without even checking with cam
The KBO League cases are even more damning for him beacuse, for months i had been co-editing with him the main and direct articles about the league, and he always seems to trying to impóse his POV onto me and other users in sports articles, even if was necessary info or when i and other users try seek to avoid future edit disputes with him, unless it affects directly him he seems to not care, he has shown over and over that not matter how much people try talk with him or ask for a consesus, he seems to not care and wont seek it.
I think that is beyond to the point for mods at least keep a eye on him, since he seems not interested in reach consensus with no other editors, even if i am always treating others with good-faith, with him, sometimes i feel i am talking with a wall instead of tallking with a fellow wiki editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganinja202 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, Meganinja202,
- First, we don't have "mods" on Misplaced Pages but we do have administrators. Additionally, looking at the few links you present I see disagreements, some of which were resolved, but I don't see any POV-pushing that you claim that this editor has been doing. So, the evidence you are presenting doesn't support the claims you are making so it almost looks like you are casting aspersions. I'm sure it's frustrating that the editor hasn't responded to your message on their User talk page but that is not imposing a POV or avoiding future edit disputes in a persistent way. I think, at least for me, you have to present a better case to support the accusations you are making. I recommend you present specific diffs illustrating the problems that you claim exist. Liz
- Sorry for confuse admin with modereation, in portugese language (the language, not the wiki) we tend to use both as synonyms so apologize for my confusion, also as you can see, user agressivilly tries to aggressively use the fact i am ESL, and prone to make mistakes sometimes, to counter my point
- As you said about the case, i think that he the fact he has resolved some but not alll disagreements its already a concerning problem, about difs, there has various, here are some exemples:
- User ignores sources pointing out for Misplaced Pages:COMMONSENSE argument of similar cheering culture,
- it happened also on another page, where this time, i had linked other pages as way to provide sourcering and more information about the theme in question, but he still ignores it and uses my ESL as way to force removal, when he could fix the typos and correcting, like most of users on wiki tend to do when other users does grammatic mustakes, folllowing the collaborative spirit of the wiki
- User ignores team official sources assuming that it was not a official team announcement without even check up linked sources that show the oficial announcement with the actuall logo as despied in the image, also ignores that wiki has rules requiring fair copyrighted media to have low-resolution, doubles down calling it "this fake converted blurry image", whlie i plan to update the image with a better version, since he says it was probematic in some screens (likely because of the low resulion), he also ended being VERY agressive about it as if he has no idea about the low-resolution rule..
- i will provide more as soon, i manage to list most info i have as fast possible, iam trying to write in the best way possible to avoid ESL mistakes, i listed the related cases first beacuse user had tried to use it agnaist me Meganinja202 (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The official Instagram post of the Doosan Bears literally said that someone LEAKED the new logo too early, and they confirmed that the official re-branding will take place at the beginning of this week, so wait for official announcement and official SVG files and not some crappy screenshots which you converted to fake SVG files with some AI tool. Just because they post some teasers of the new logo it doesn't mean we need to instantly change everything with low-quality images, so check your facts first. Try to zoom your fake "svg" image to the max. resolution and see how blurry it is - because it's a fake vector image. And other nonsense are just a content dispute so open up a talk page and take it there, you didn't provide any reasons why should the lead section at KBO League include information about other Asian competitions when the sentence is clearly referring only to KBO League and its cheering culture, bat flips etc.
- Furthermore, it's funny that you have a problem if your edits like this get reverted - not only you added a fully unsourced paragraph to the FA status article, you even made tons of styling and grammar mistakes ("americans" with lower case, Spring Training with upper case when it should be lower, you added duplicate wording ("to play often each other often"), you bolded some words which is clearly not supported by WP:BOLDING, you added a comma where you should have added a full-stop etc. etc.), so maybe you should stop editing against the manual of style rules everywhere? Snowflake91 (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Adillia
Aidillia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I've been avoiding that user ever since we were blocked for edit warring on File:Love Scout poster.png but they keep going at every edits I made, specifically the recent ones on the files I uploaded like File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png and File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png, where the file are uploaded in WP:GOODFAITH and abided WP:IMAGERES but they keep messing up. I'm still at lost and not sure what's their problem with my edits. Additional: I will also hold accountability if I did bad faith.
Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've many proof that shows you're the one who start the problem. Aidillia 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. Aidillia 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png i upload as per their official social media. But rather used a poster version, and in the end i revert it. Same like what u did to me on File:Love Your Enemy poster.png. I don't know what is this user problem, first upload the incorrect poster than re-upload again with the correct poster which i already uploaded, then need a bot to resize it. (So unnecessary) Aidillia 03:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I reverted that because it was too early to say that the poster is indeed the main one at that time when it was labeled as a character poster by Korean reliable sources. You know that we rely more on independent secondary reliable sources rather on official website or social media accounts as they are primary sources, so I don't know why you were offended by a revert. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. Aidillia 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is a volunteer service and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I have other WP:OBLIGATION in real life. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you're that busy, please stop reverting my edits/uploads without any clear explanation. Just like what you did on File:Love Scout poster.png. You will just engaged in WP:EDITWAR. I've also seen you revert on File:Light Shop poster.png; someone reverted it to the correct one (which I uploaded), but you still revert to your preferred version without leaving an edit summary. Aidillia 08:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is a volunteer service and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I have other WP:OBLIGATION in real life. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. Aidillia 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. Aidillia 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have partially blocked both of you from editing filespace for 72 hours for edit warring. I think an IBAN might be needed here. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support an indefinite two-way interaction ban between D.18th and Aidillia. They've also been edit warring at Close Your Eyes (group). Also look at the move log there, which is ridiculous. These people need to stop fighting with each other. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
User:D.18th
Withdrawn. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
D.18th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user keeps coming to wherever i made an edit. And this user also ignore WP:GOODFAITH. Aidillia 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:This user is the most number one who often comes in on my talk page first. But when I came to their talk page, i got restored or, worse, got reverted as vandalism. Aidillia 03:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aidilla: You have failed to notify D.18th (talk · contribs) of this discussion, as the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires. I know they already reported you above, but they may not be aware of your one in return. You will need to show clear diffs supporting the allegations that you've made; expecting us to act on this report with no such evidence is likely going to result in this not ending well for you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Aidillia, you can't remove a post from ANI once it has been responded to by another editor. If you want to rescind your complaint then strike it by using code, <s>Comment</s> which will show up as
Comment. Liz 05:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Done, thanks! Aidillia 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Aidillia, you can't remove a post from ANI once it has been responded to by another editor. If you want to rescind your complaint then strike it by using code, <s>Comment</s> which will show up as
Resumption
I've unarchived this because they're resumed edit warring with each other at File:Study_Group_(TV_series)_poster.png/File:Study_Group poster.png. Repeating my comment from above to give it more attention: I propose that D.18th and Aidillia are banned from interacting with each other. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
_poster.png){kind=link}
- * Pppery *, I think you should notify both editors of your action on ANI, especially as this discussion might have an impact on them. Liz 05:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both files were created by Aidillia and I don't know why they need to do that. I uploaded a new version at
Study Group poster.pngbut then I was reverted without a valid reason then Aidillia uploaded a redundant file so they'll have an WP:OWNERSHIP.Another file they keep messing up is File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png, I don't know why they uploaded the preferred size they like when the ones I uploaded is clearly meets WP:IMAGERES, I reverted it then they reverted again to their preferred size. The way they behave is showing WP:IDHT. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 08:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- Oh again? WP:OWNERSHIP? I left you a valid reason in the file! or maybe you don't want to understand it! As I already did some research, maybe it's considered as the main poster, as the main trailer is already out; (because there are no reliable sources that say it's the main poster) that's why I reverted it back after that. But I want to create a new file instead of renaming it. You're the one who ignore my WP:GOODFAITH again and again over a small thing. Aidillia 08:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- "I don't know why they uploaded the preferred size they like when the ones I uploaded is clearly meets WP:IMAGERES, I reverted it then they reverted again to their preferred size. The way they behave is showing WP:IDHT."
- That situation is the situation that u did to me before!
- I also meets WP:IMAGERES! But u keep reverting my edits!? What is your PROBLEM? Aidillia 10:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you that interested in being engaged in WP:EDITWAR over a ridiculous thing? You've been here for many years, but why are you wasting your time warring over ridiculous things? Please stop making it complicated. Just ignore it but why are you fight it until the end? I've been blocked by you twice. What's your problem? Aidillia 10:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please also stop your behaviour, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, like what u did to someone on File:Light Shop poster.png. Stop uploading for your prefered version! It's so unnecessary. Aidillia 10:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- support, but also a p-block from file space might be needed since both seem to be using it as a trophy case.
- Star Mississippi 13:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support two-way IBAN for now. As a bystander, this situation has devolved into a prolonged WP:BATTLEGROUND, possibly including WP:HOUNDING, with increasingly absurd interactions between both parties beyond just edit warring on filespace, including nominating each other's "creations" for deletion which seems like a retaliatory behaviour. Furthermore, I fail to understand the obsession with being the first to create and/or update an article or file or draft as both parties exhibited in their contributions when neither constitutes ownership or a noteworthy achievement on Misplaced Pages. If a two-way IBAN is ineffective, this effectively constitutes WP:DISRUPTIVE and possibly WP:NOTHERE hence I believe that a block should be enforced against the first party to violate the ban. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support and p-block from file space. I think the p-block is the more important part of this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problems aren't limited to file space. See Close Your Eyes (group). * Pppery * it has begun... 19:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support and p-block from file space. I think the p-block is the more important part of this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Jwa05002 and User:RowanElder Making Ableist Comments On WP:Killing of Jordan Neely Talk Page, Threats In Lead
This occurred on the Killing of Jordan Neely, on the talk page section of Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Threats in the lead. @RowanElder decided they could say I couldn't ask for civility in a discussion after it became what I found uncivil. This discussion was already ended. They made comments that I couldn't ask for civility because apparently my userpage was uncivil. They then proceeded to say it was fine because I wasn't acting in bad faith but rather just being Autistic and incompetent because they saw I mentioned I was Autistic on my page and then linked to the competence required article. (Personal attack removed) and then went on a rant about how Misplaced Pages shouldn't allow "severely mentally ill people edit" and how it's sad that Misplaced Pages has devolved to it. RowanElder then proceeded to say it's fine and the admins would instead give me special help. I shouldn't need to say more really. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh forgot to @Jwa05002 Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) (Personal attack removed)
- Akechi - typically, linking to specific WP:DIFFS rather than talk page sections is the best thing to do when making an ANI report; that is, linking and , which I assume are the comments you're referring to. Procedural niceties aside, I think you have a right to be upset - the comment by Jwa05002 seems to reflect a very ugly attitude toward mental illness, and RowanElder's remarks are incredibly patronizing - I don't think the comment in which they say
I hope Misplaced Pages can perhaps follow best practices from special education experts to deal with ways they may try to participate with disruptive incompetence. It's certainly not a personal attack to try to get people help, even when they take it as such and even react violently against the help as if it were an attack.
could have been more perfectly calculated to infuriate its target if that were their intention, and when they commented...you're probably deliberately victimizing people who share your struggle. It's sad to see, but again, I'm assuming good faith and I'm sympathetic rather than insulting here
it does not at all come across like someone who is AGFing. I hope the community will agree that the conduct of these two users is not acceptable and make that clear to them. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 07:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- Who would have more relevant expertise than special education experts, here? Honestly? In dealing with good faith but disruptive contributions to something a lot like classwork?
- Please assume good faith for me as well, here. RowanElder (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- You cannot substitute your personal experience for reliable sources, nor can you analyze other editors, and especially you cannot resort to personal attacks such as
disruptive incompetence
. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- I am definitely confused about this.
- First, I have seen and been told "competence is required" many times and I generally assumed good faith constructive criticism and policy enforcement there rather than that the person invoking "competence is required" was making a personal attack. I have had a lot of trouble understanding what is regarded as incivility and not in this community.
- Second, it seems prima facie that editors do analyze one another frequently, for instance I was just analyzed and will be further analyzed in this incident notice discussion so long as it continues, so I am confused what you mean here. RowanElder (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a disabled person who currently works in special education, there are many reasons we wouldn't want "special education experts" (or their suggestions) dispatched to deal with a Certain Kind of Contributor. For one, it's a bit patronizing as described above--why do certain editors have to be dealt with under certain different people or rules? It's also worth noting that a lot of special education professionals, even ones who believe they're doing good things, often adopt practices that can be hurtful or problematic--this is all anecdotal, of course, but a number of my coworkers will miss very obvious potential causes of student distress just because they don't get distressed by the same thing, and at least one of my other coworkers was directly ableist to another of my coworkers behind her back without even realizing that's what she was doing. If there's anyone who can speak to best practices about interaction it's probably people with the disability in question (i.e. the Nothing about us without us stance), but to be honest, in practice, Misplaced Pages's existing guidelines and policies regarding user interaction and editing do a pretty good job of setting the ground rules and describing what you need to do to edit collaboratively in a productive way. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- My comments did not communicate my intent well to this community, and I have apologized for that. I recognize these concerns, and if I had written longer comments, adding these concerns would have been among my first extensions of what I wrote. I was disruptively incompetent when it came to speaking to the sensitivities in this community. RowanElder (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- You cannot substitute your personal experience for reliable sources, nor can you analyze other editors, and especially you cannot resort to personal attacks such as
- (0) The discussion had seemed inconclusive to me rather than ended. My prior experience as an editor has been mostly on pages where weeks can go between talk messages easily, so if this was a mistake it was a newcomer's mistake of not understanding the different tempo on this page.
- (1) I did not say @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos could not ask for civility; I did find it ironic that they would ask for civility given that their userpage at that time seemed quite uncivil. I do think this indicates incompetence at judging civility and incivility and I, possibly erroneously, did not think it would be an aspersion or personal attack to say so on the basis of the immediate and policy-relevant (disruptive editing policy, explained by "competence is required") evidence. There is a "competence is required" principle and I have seen it invoked without violating the "no personal attacks" policy, though I'll be first to admit I don't understand the lines there very well.
- (2) I did not endorse or "go along with" @Jwa05002's characterization of @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos as schizophrenic: I passed over it in silence trying "not to take the bait" of what could have easily become personal attacks (not that I thought @Jwa05002 was making a personal attack there, more like personally despairing of the challenge of finding consensus about reality with self-identified schizophrenics and autistics). I flatly disagreed with @Jwa05002 that "this is what Misplaced Pages has become."
- (3) I do endorse a general principle that when mental illness compromises an editor's competence, they should not edit Misplaced Pages in the domains in which they are thereby incompetent. I do believe "competence is required" and I don't know why mental illness would possibly be an exception. (I can't imagine what fun I might have had editing in the archaeoastronomy area recently if Misplaced Pages did allow that exception!)
- (4) I do hope that the admins and arbs and the community as a whole will figure out good, humane best practices for dealing with mentally ill editors on Misplaced Pages. RowanElder (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like everyone to everyone to note point 4, I think we should note the "humane best practices for dealing with mentally ill editors on Misplaced Pages" part. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should Misplaced Pages deal inhumanely with the mental ill? What is going on here? I am extremely lost. RowanElder (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- You cannot diagnose other people as mentally ill. That is a direct personal attack and can result in you being sanctioned. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, of course: I did not call anyone mentally ill much less diagnose anyone. I pointed out that an editor self-identified as autistic without intending that to be an attack. And I won't even do that again, since "assuming good faith" is not extending to "assuming that references to mental illness are not necessarily attacks." Probably correctly, in retrospect for me! But the "assume good faith" policy has been something I've myself been incompetent to understand in its community-consensus application so far on Misplaced Pages, and so I was disruptively incompetent and I've both apologized for that and said I would avoid doing it again. RowanElder (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The user in question has described themselves as schizophrenic in previous posts. Schizophrenia by definition is a mental illness.
- Schizophrenia Jwa05002 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- No I didn't you are thinking of another user I will not name. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- You cannot diagnose other people as mentally ill. That is a direct personal attack and can result in you being sanctioned. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should Misplaced Pages deal inhumanely with the mental ill? What is going on here? I am extremely lost. RowanElder (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like everyone to everyone to note point 4, I think we should note the "humane best practices for dealing with mentally ill editors on Misplaced Pages" part. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (but I did the work, so I'm posting it) (Non-administrator comment) OP, you should provide diffs. You did link to the conversation, but every specific instance of untowardness you mention should be cited directly, as a courtesy to the admins' time. But I read the whole conversation and don't like it, so I did some legwork for you.
They then proceeded to say it was fine because I wasn't acting in bad faith but rather just being Autistic
. This edit was amended.Jwa proceeded to come in and say I was a schizophrenic
.RowanElder then proceeded to say it's fine and the admins would instead give me special help
.
- I view assuming an autistic person's edits to be a result of incompetence to not actually be WP:AGF, but I defer. I don't know that this warrants being at ANI or if it's just bad behavior, but the schizophrenia thing certainly deserves an apology from both of them. I'm not involved. Just providing diffs. POST EDIT CONFLICT: I also don't buy Rowan's argument that they weren't going along with the schizophrenia thing. closhund/talk/ 07:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- "You don't buy it"? Where is the assumption of good faith here? RowanElder (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not generically assume "an autistic person's edits to be a result of incompetence" but specifically suggested that their social judgment about particular incivility was incompetent in this case. I would never do the former, and frankly it is an aspersion to suggest I did. RowanElder (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you saying I or other Autistic people for that matter can't pass social judgement? Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- No. I thought you had already made a poor social judgment and I was looking for a good faith explanation that would not be a personal attack. I thought that, if you are really up front about your autism like on your userpage, then you would not feel being called autistic would be an insult. I would never have speculated about it if you were not already identified and I thought it was a misjudgment before I read your userpage. RowanElder (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- You obviously have never met an Autistic person because calling someone out their disability and going "but don't worry though your just Autistic so you didn't do it in bad faith or anything". You don't think that sounds patronising or rude, you just didn't like my social judgement and saw my disability as a way to excuse yourself. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- "You obviously have never met an Autistic person" is wildly uncivil, ungrounded, personal attack. I am really lost here. RowanElder (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- You obviously have never met an Autistic person because calling someone out their disability and going "but don't worry though your just Autistic so you didn't do it in bad faith or anything". You don't think that sounds patronising or rude, you just didn't like my social judgement and saw my disability as a way to excuse yourself. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- No. I thought you had already made a poor social judgment and I was looking for a good faith explanation that would not be a personal attack. I thought that, if you are really up front about your autism like on your userpage, then you would not feel being called autistic would be an insult. I would never have speculated about it if you were not already identified and I thought it was a misjudgment before I read your userpage. RowanElder (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you saying I or other Autistic people for that matter can't pass social judgement? Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't give diffs I'm kinda new to this stuff. Thank you for putting in the effort as well. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, you are revealing a lot of personal information here about other editors that might need to be revision deleted. Please do not do that in the future. There are a lot of BLP violations in this discussion so far and assumptions about "mental illness" as well that are distressing to see from other editors. But, Akechi, I also notice that you are spending all of your talk on your User page and talk pages like Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely instead of editing to improve articles. Your own User page states
I'd rather not edit Misplaced Pages and rather just discuss disputes, move requests and talk about usage of sources or claims of bias, I'm not very good at source editing
which is not a good sign for an editor on this project. Jwa05002 is also spending all of their time on Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely so maybe you both could use a partial block from this talk page. Liz 07:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- I wouldn't mind that actually, also please do remove the mentions of me saying who the user who had schizophrenia was, I realise now that it's not my place to talk about. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am also looking to get into editing articles, though I do not have the time to be a full time editor. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind that actually, also please do remove the mentions of me saying who the user who had schizophrenia was, I realise now that it's not my place to talk about. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those comments by @RowanElder and @Jwa05002 are beyond the pale. Stating that mental illness or neurodivergence is a WP:CIR issue should never be tolerated, particularly given it's highly likely that a lot of our community are neurodiverse or mentally ill. Blocks should follow for both editors. TarnishedPath 07:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's also surreal to see the comments about autism in this discussion, you do know, I hope, that we have probably hundreds of active editors on this project that are autistic or are on the spectrum. It's not rare to be an autistic editor on Misplaced Pages. Not everyone chooses to put that fact on their User page but that doesn't erase their presence. Liz 07:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that the editors seem a lot more interested in arguing on talk pages, I'd suggest there's some WP:NOTHERE going on. TarnishedPath 07:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I made exactly this point that there are a lot on Misplaced Pages in one of my comments about a likely unintended consequence of @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos's incivility on their userpage, which, I quote, included "I really hope that upsets some of the weirder users of this site." RowanElder (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The full quote is "I Autistic and pansexual (I really hope that upsets some of the weirder users of this site.).". And clearly being Autistic upset a couple of people. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- And no the lack of am is not a typo. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith! Autism did not upset me and nor did pansexuality. But "I hope I upset people who do not share my values" cannot possibly be civil discourse. RowanElder (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not my values it's my existence, being Autistic or Pansexual isn't values, it's just how I am. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- At Special:Diff/1269116979 you wrote: "
I'm going to assume good faith and cite that user page: that this user is most likely a self-described autistic acting incompetently rather than in bad faith. Unfortunately, competence is required, see Misplaced Pages:Competence is required
". I don't see any other interpretation for that than an act with malice directed towards a neurodiverse editor because of their neurodivergence. TarnishedPath 07:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- How about this: I was baffled by the level of incivility and I thought this would be an honorable way out of a bad look for Akechi, since I don't stigmatize the social blindness of the autistic? It was a horrible, horrible mistake but I thought that because autism is so well accepted here, including by myself, that this would be a place I could make a narrow recommendation: "hey, this matter of incivility is a social misjudgment of a kind that probably does have a good faith explanation." RowanElder (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are assuming I can't make social judgements, that seems uncivil to me. I have just same right to make social judgements as you do. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was not assuming that you could not. I saw what I thought was a terrible misjudgment that @Jwa05002 was struggling to see in any good faith way and suggesting a way to recover good faith, but without excusing the brazen incivility I thought I saw. RowanElder (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are assuming I can't make social judgements, that seems uncivil to me. I have just same right to make social judgements as you do. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- How about this: I was baffled by the level of incivility and I thought this would be an honorable way out of a bad look for Akechi, since I don't stigmatize the social blindness of the autistic? It was a horrible, horrible mistake but I thought that because autism is so well accepted here, including by myself, that this would be a place I could make a narrow recommendation: "hey, this matter of incivility is a social misjudgment of a kind that probably does have a good faith explanation." RowanElder (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The full quote is "I Autistic and pansexual (I really hope that upsets some of the weirder users of this site.).". And clearly being Autistic upset a couple of people. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not say mental illness is in itself a WP:CIR issue. I said that, at times, particular mental illness will imply particular WP:CIR issues. What in the world is going on? RowanElder (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jwa heavily implied and you didn't call him out. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've quoted exactly what you said above just now. You don't have much wiggle room there. TarnishedPath 08:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, autism is specifically correlated with social blindnesses. It's definitionally constitutive. That means that specifically for judgments of tone, like the one Akeshi was implicitly making, autism seemed relevant – and exculpatory! RowanElder (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not social blindnesses it's a sometimes struggle to pick up on social cues (Autistic people display a range of symptoms and some differ), also cool you do think I can't make social judgements. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your ill-founded judgments aren't doing you any favours here. You should be offering an unreserved apology to Akechi and then having the good sense to shut up before someone starts a block discussion. TarnishedPath 08:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Clearly, it is not doing me favors and I am deeply deeply confused. I wouldn't know what to apologize for, at this point. RowanElder (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- For starters, for implying that an autistic editor was somehow less competent than other editors. I'm going to assume good faith that that may not have been your intent, but it's absolutely the way literally everybody else has taken it. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you: I apologize completely for saying what I did in such a way that it was taken by everyone else as saying that an autistic editor was somehow less competent than other editors because they were autistic. RowanElder (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- (I repeated a variant of this apology below, more personally to @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, and Akechi graciously accepted the apology there. Thanks again @The Bushranger.) RowanElder (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you: I apologize completely for saying what I did in such a way that it was taken by everyone else as saying that an autistic editor was somehow less competent than other editors because they were autistic. RowanElder (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- For starters, for implying that an autistic editor was somehow less competent than other editors. I'm going to assume good faith that that may not have been your intent, but it's absolutely the way literally everybody else has taken it. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Clearly, it is not doing me favors and I am deeply deeply confused. I wouldn't know what to apologize for, at this point. RowanElder (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, autism is specifically correlated with social blindnesses. It's definitionally constitutive. That means that specifically for judgments of tone, like the one Akeshi was implicitly making, autism seemed relevant – and exculpatory! RowanElder (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's also surreal to see the comments about autism in this discussion, you do know, I hope, that we have probably hundreds of active editors on this project that are autistic or are on the spectrum. It's not rare to be an autistic editor on Misplaced Pages. Not everyone chooses to put that fact on their User page but that doesn't erase their presence. Liz 07:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to me that we are dealing with the intersection of two issues here. The content issue is that Jordan Neely was misbehaving severely on a subway car, and the intervention of Daniel Penny lead, quite sadly, to his death. Since Penny was acquitted, WP:BLP policy forbids Misplaced Pages editors from describing Penny as a "bad person" or implying guilt. The second issue is how editors should interact during content disputes with other editors who self-describe on their user page as autistic and having ADHD and being pansexual and an agent of chaos. Personally, I do not care about "pansexual" in the slightest because I could not care less what editors do or don't in bed or on the sofa (couch). Autistic editors and editors with ADHD are perfectly welcome to edit Misplaced Pages as long as they comply with our policies and behavioral guidelines, just as every other editor is expected to do. If I happened to state "I am not autistic" on my user page (which I don't), then I would not expect any harsher treatment for misconduct than another editor who claims to be autistic. Since all editors should be treated the same within reason, I do not see the benefit of these declarations. They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment, but editors are perfectly free to make such declarations as long as they understand that other editors are likely to read them and draw inferences, stated openly or not. As for the inherent declaration in their username that the editor is
The Agent Of Chaos
, I find that far more troubling than the other self-declarations. The most generous interpretation is that the editor is trying too hard to be ironic and amusing, like the new hipster pizzeria in my home town that actually makes great innovative pizzas. But combined with the other self-declarations, I am confronted with legitimate questions about what this editor's goals and intentions actually are here, and I should remind the editor that actual agents of chaos get blocked pretty promptly on Misplaced Pages. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- Do you really think that me calling myself an Agent Of Chaos is a serious thing and not just a reference. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like it's my name, I know there is an editor that has The Liar at the end of their username do we assume they are one. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm just stating my mental disabilities dude why is this a problem, are you gonna get mad at my userbox that says the same thing. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, I think that you have dug a hole for yourself, and instead of climbing out, you are digging ever deeper. In the simplest terms, this is a project to build an encyclopedia. Why should anyone reading this thread be reassured that you share that goal? Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- What does that have anything to do with this discussion other than you trying excuse others of wrongdoings. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, the behaviour of all involved parties in under the microscope when you make reports here. TarnishedPath 08:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair, I am getting into article editing, also how old is my account, what like a few months old, this is getting to WP:Please do not bite the newcomers stuff. This sounds like an excuse but I am trying to be a helpful member of the community and I'm kinda scared that I will mess things up with source editing. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to stop talking now. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the admins' consideration, this reply is (I hope) partly because of me . So it sounds like they're willing to take advice. closhund/talk/ 08:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you want to be helpful, start copy editing articles or review the recent changes log looking for vandalism that needs reverting (make sure you set the filters appropriately) or anything that directly assists with the quality of articles. If you don't do at least something to help with building the project, it won't take long for others to decide that you are not here to build an encyclopaedia TarnishedPath 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks to Closhund's suggestions I actually started copy editing, it's not that scary anymore. I think I was just overwhelmed with editing massive cyclopedia. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to stop talking now. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair, I am getting into article editing, also how old is my account, what like a few months old, this is getting to WP:Please do not bite the newcomers stuff. This sounds like an excuse but I am trying to be a helpful member of the community and I'm kinda scared that I will mess things up with source editing. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, the behaviour of all involved parties in under the microscope when you make reports here. TarnishedPath 08:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- What does that have anything to do with this discussion other than you trying excuse others of wrongdoings. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, I think that you have dug a hole for yourself, and instead of climbing out, you are digging ever deeper. In the simplest terms, this is a project to build an encyclopedia. Why should anyone reading this thread be reassured that you share that goal? Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an interesting point - I posted a userbox saying I have ADHD, along with liking videogames and cats, as I see it as a part of me that I absolutely hated for decades until I was diagnosed recently. I posted it as a way to perhaps ask for a little patience, as I might be more prone to long posts or changing my edits after having another thought or idea (impulse control is an issue with ADHD). In my case, I intended it as an explanation, not an excuse. I still really and expect to be treated the same as anyone else.
- Nevertheless, I angered someone earlier, who weaponised my ADHD and used it to claim I was incompetent and shouldn't be here. Quite a few admins were singled out in those posts, but they specifically focused on my ADHD for an inordinate amount of time. They were also cut and pasted into other people's Talk pages.
- Whilst I'm well aware this was a malicious user and am not ashamed of my ADHD, nor will I hide it (I've done that for far too long), I'm now thinking I should remove those boxes - this is the internet, you can't tell what other people are thinking and it's easy to misunderstand others.
- Neurodivergence is a relatively-new condition (compared to depression, anxiety etc. it's only really been accepted in the past few decades), so there are a lot of misunderstandings and stigma attached to it. The prevalence of self-diagnosis and misinformation on social media doesn't help, as there are those who do want attention and/or use it as an excuse.
- I'm not sure what I'm going to do to be honest. I might remove the userboxes since they're apparently doing more harm than good. I've got to work now, but I'll decide later & just wanted to put this view forward. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- BTW Apologies if this is now off-topic, the thread was moving really fast! Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you really think that me calling myself an Agent Of Chaos is a serious thing and not just a reference. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to me that we are dealing with the intersection of two issues here. The content issue is that Jordan Neely was misbehaving severely on a subway car, and the intervention of Daniel Penny lead, quite sadly, to his death. Since Penny was acquitted, WP:BLP policy forbids Misplaced Pages editors from describing Penny as a "bad person" or implying guilt. The second issue is how editors should interact during content disputes with other editors who self-describe on their user page as autistic and having ADHD and being pansexual and an agent of chaos. Personally, I do not care about "pansexual" in the slightest because I could not care less what editors do or don't in bed or on the sofa (couch). Autistic editors and editors with ADHD are perfectly welcome to edit Misplaced Pages as long as they comply with our policies and behavioral guidelines, just as every other editor is expected to do. If I happened to state "I am not autistic" on my user page (which I don't), then I would not expect any harsher treatment for misconduct than another editor who claims to be autistic. Since all editors should be treated the same within reason, I do not see the benefit of these declarations. They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment, but editors are perfectly free to make such declarations as long as they understand that other editors are likely to read them and draw inferences, stated openly or not. As for the inherent declaration in their username that the editor is
- Blue Sonnet, userboxes are a personal decision you have to make. Just know that many editors don't make use of userboxes and could very well share interests and conditions with those editors who do post them. It's self-identification and that can change over time. I think the one thing you can't control is how editors who encounter a self-identification will perceive you. That fact has caused some editors to simply blank their User pages so they don't have to worry about how bits of data about themselves could lead to other editors' judging them. But other individuals want to put all of their cards on the table. It's your call and just know, you can change your mind about it any time you want. Liz 08:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz Exactly right - I was aware of the negative perception, but someone who's looking for a reason to dislike another person will usually pick up on stuff like that first since it's an easy target. My workplace has been incredibly supportive so I've been letting my guard down, but that's not really a good idea online. Plus the userboxes were all shiny & colourful so I headed straight for them without thinking!
- I don't know if I'll keep the ADHD box since it may be doing more harm than good but the cat one will stay for now, since my furry demonic familiar demands it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blue Sonnet, userboxes are a personal decision you have to make. Just know that many editors don't make use of userboxes and could very well share interests and conditions with those editors who do post them. It's self-identification and that can change over time. I think the one thing you can't control is how editors who encounter a self-identification will perceive you. That fact has caused some editors to simply blank their User pages so they don't have to worry about how bits of data about themselves could lead to other editors' judging them. But other individuals want to put all of their cards on the table. It's your call and just know, you can change your mind about it any time you want. Liz 08:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- With due respect, Cullen, I very strongly disagree with you when you say
"They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment"
. This in and of itself can be considered ableist in a way and arguably a failure to AGF. Since neurodivergent people are quite literally defined by their neurotypes, this is no more or less self-identifying than, for example, gender orientation declarations; both are useful for editors wishing to meet, work with, and, importantly, take advice from editors who share identities and thus can relate. I second what Liz says below. - I have no comment on this particular situation otherwise as an apology appears to have been made. Jasper Deng (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you don't mind, I've apologized and I meant it, and I'm trying to understand what I could have done differently at a finer grain than "never engage about any issue of mental health with respect to competence on Misplaced Pages again," which will be my safety-first default from here until I do get better understanding.
- This reply confused me, and if I can ask without being seen to be hunting for chinks in armor or trying to litigate after the issue is resolved or anything like that, @Jasper Deng, was this meant to be a disagreement that
They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment
, i.e., a disagreement that that particular form of ableist prejudice exists? Or is it a disagreement with the prejudice, and thus an implicit attribution of the prejudice to @Cullen328? The latter did not seem like the most natural good faith reading of @Cullen328's comment, but the former doesn't make sense to me together withThis in and of itself can be considered ableist in a way
since it doesn't seem sensible that recognizing the fact of ableist prejudice would be in itself ableist (it seems the opposite, that recognizing such prejudices exist is often part of fighting such prejudices). - I've been incompetent at judging what people would interpret of my posts so far, and if I'm being incompetent in this interpretation in this reply in some blameworthy way I'll happily apologize for this as well, but I'm genuinely lost and would appreciate some more light on this if it's not a pain to provide it. RowanElder (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- To my understanding, Cullen328 seemed to be stating (without referring to specific evidence, so it's unclear what their supporting evidence for this is) that editors who see someone have a userbox that refers to their disability assume the disabled editor is looking for special treatment. I think Jasper Deng's response was suggesting the following: people who assume disabled editors are looking for special treatment because they disclosed their disability are not assuming good faith of those disabled editors and might be doing something ableist by making that assumption. For a lot of people, sharing that they're disabled is no different than sharing that they're gay or a woman, and most people would not look at someone disclosing one of those and also think the editor is looking for preferential treatment. My understanding might be wrong, but it's what I'm getting from this interaction. Does that make sense? - Purplewowies (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do think that makes sense, insofar as I do definitely understand how the belief "they are claims to preferential treatment" would be judged to be ableist, but it doesn't address my confusion. This was what I meant by "the latter" of the two interpretive alternatives in my comment just before this. My confusion was about why @Jasper Deng would have said that together with
I very strongly disagree with you
when I didn't see @Cullen328 necessarily endorsing the belief "they are claims to preferential treatment" in their original comment, just the belief "they are often perceived as claims for preferential treatment," which would not itself imply @Cullen328 has or agrees with that perception. RowanElder (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do think that makes sense, insofar as I do definitely understand how the belief "they are claims to preferential treatment" would be judged to be ableist, but it doesn't address my confusion. This was what I meant by "the latter" of the two interpretive alternatives in my comment just before this. My confusion was about why @Jasper Deng would have said that together with
- To my understanding, Cullen328 seemed to be stating (without referring to specific evidence, so it's unclear what their supporting evidence for this is) that editors who see someone have a userbox that refers to their disability assume the disabled editor is looking for special treatment. I think Jasper Deng's response was suggesting the following: people who assume disabled editors are looking for special treatment because they disclosed their disability are not assuming good faith of those disabled editors and might be doing something ableist by making that assumption. For a lot of people, sharing that they're disabled is no different than sharing that they're gay or a woman, and most people would not look at someone disclosing one of those and also think the editor is looking for preferential treatment. My understanding might be wrong, but it's what I'm getting from this interaction. Does that make sense? - Purplewowies (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Cullen328 To be entirely fair, the phrase "Agent of Chaos" is fairly common in various forms of media and seems more likely to be a reference to something (like one of these, or this, or this, etc.) than an indicator that the user is acting in bad faith. CambrianCrab (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- CambrianCrab, I readily agree that the "agent of chaos" concept is used in certain genres of fiction. But we are not writing a work of fiction here. We are writing an encyclopedia and anyone who actually behaves like a agent of chaos gets blocked promptly and indefinitely. So, I do not think that it is unreasonable to express concern about an editor choosing to portray themself that way. Cullen328 (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would you like me to change my name if it concerns you that much Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I get like username policy and names shouldn't imply intent to troll and stuff but if we actually enforced that tons of people would have to change their usernames, once again I know a user that has The Liar at the end of their name but they aren't one. I feel like the most reasonable assumption is that my username is either a joke or a reference, as it is both. I feel like it's not assuming of good faith to think I'm an actual agent of chaos just because my username says I am. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- CambrianCrab, I readily agree that the "agent of chaos" concept is used in certain genres of fiction. But we are not writing a work of fiction here. We are writing an encyclopedia and anyone who actually behaves like a agent of chaos gets blocked promptly and indefinitely. So, I do not think that it is unreasonable to express concern about an editor choosing to portray themself that way. Cullen328 (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mental illness can create a competency issue in pretty much any aspect of life. For example, a person can be found too mentally ill to stand trial in a court. I’m not sure why wikipedia should be an exception.
- It’s unfortunate and sad for sure, but it’s simply a fact that some people are too mentally ill to be objective, reasonable, and yes even competent.
- Obviously there are varying degrees of mental illness, and some are able to control it better than others. But there should definitely be a threshold where reasonable can say “this person is too mentally ill to edit” Jwa05002 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that's not a judgement any complete stranger can make over the internet, including on Misplaced Pages. You could definitely call attention to disputed content or problematic conduct without making the assumption that it's connected to the disability of someone you do not know personally based on what you think you know about a specific editor, their disability, or how the latter affects the former. People can definitely come to consensuses that users cannot edit constructively without needing to declare that it's because they have a specific disability. Connecting the two like that is very likely to instead come across as (and/or be) a personal attack. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos I apologize completely and unreservedly for saying what I did in such a way that it was taken by you (and everyone else who has said something here so far, but especially by you because your feelings were the ones hurt) as saying that you were less competent than other editors because you were autistic.
- That seems important to say before any finer-grained points. I am sorry for that, completely and unreservedly. RowanElder (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, I accept your apology Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that every single editor is expected to fully follow our behavioral guidelines, no matter what they believe about their own mental health or what diagnoses that professionals have made. I was feeling quite depressed about ten day ago for reasons that have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages, and I have been climbing out of it without letting it affect my editing, because my Misplaced Pages editing gives me solace. If any editor is confident that they can edit productively despite a mental health challenge, then go for it. If your specific challenge impedes useful collaborative editing,then take a break until you feel better. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will keep that in mind Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once Jwa receives this I won't get involved. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will keep that in mind Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that every single editor is expected to fully follow our behavioral guidelines, no matter what they believe about their own mental health or what diagnoses that professionals have made. I was feeling quite depressed about ten day ago for reasons that have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages, and I have been climbing out of it without letting it affect my editing, because my Misplaced Pages editing gives me solace. If any editor is confident that they can edit productively despite a mental health challenge, then go for it. If your specific challenge impedes useful collaborative editing,then take a break until you feel better. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for that grace. RowanElder (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's good to see a proper apology here. I must admit that I'm so used to seeing non-apology apologies that that is what I was expecting. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've meant it from the beginning that I didn't intend to use @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos's autism as a disqualification of them. I considered the incivility disqualifying and I considered their comments about civility to show additional disqualifying incompetence of social judgment, and then I intended to highlight their self-identified autism as a possible way of reconciling the incivility and incompetence with good faith to cool and stop the uncivil running conflict with @Jwa05002 (who I thought was also responsible for incivility and making poor judgment calls, such as moving from the specific/local frustration about incompetence and incivility (actually blameworthy) to general/global frustration with neurodivergence (not blameworthy)).
- This I now see was naive and strongly against community norms, in particular viewed as unacceptably patronizing and ableist in itself, and so I'm not going to do that again here and I do find it easy to make a complete and genuine apology for having broken those norms.
- In my friendships and collaborations with autistic people in offline life, I will continue to do what has made my friendships and collaborations with them work so far. This sometimes does include very direct conversation about when to step away from fights when someone is missing social cues, but in my context it is rarely blamably patronizing or ableist to do so since there's an already strong expectation of respect for neurodivergence (and in the rare cases it is blamably patronizing or ableist, I also listen to that and stop as quickly as possible, like I am here). One of my main takeaways here is that on Misplaced Pages, the general patterns of unwanted but de facto incivility mean that there is not strong expectation that people do already respect the neurodivergent, in fact the reverse: a pretty strong expectation that communication that could be disrespect for the neurodivergent is disrespect for the neurodivergent. That seems true (that too many people don't respect neurodivergence) and important, and insofar as I wasn't already seeing it, it was because I was tripping over the "assume good faith" policy trying not to assume others were prejudiced against the neurodivergent and/or disrespecting the neurodivergent (since that seemed like it would be assuming bad faith).
- I don't yet understand how to reconcile "assume good faith" and "proactively defend people from systemic prejudices" very well. Off of Misplaced Pages I just don't assume good faith! It's something I think a lot of contemporary American political discourse has been choking on, and I think it'll be worth my time to continue thinking about it with this additional information from this experience. RowanElder (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's good to see a proper apology here. I must admit that I'm so used to seeing non-apology apologies that that is what I was expecting. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I can't comment on @RowanElder as I've not interacted with them, I will note that I already reported @Jwa05002 concerning (in part) some of these issues about a month ago. People wanting to judge any misbehavior, with full context, may want to read the talk page discussion where I engaged with them on it, as well as the aforementioned report itself, which has specific diffs (all of this was when my username was LaughingManiac).
- For full disclosure, since I was fairly heavily involved at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely and promised to disengage to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING, I'll attempt to refrain from getting too deep into this particular discussion. It also bears mentioning that I ended up retracting the report myself, as can be seen above. Part of it was based on my own experience as a mentally ill person and expectations concerning how the topic be handled, and I found that Jwa05002 made a valid point that personal experience cannot dictate neutral Misplaced Pages editing, something which seemed supported by Misplaced Pages's second pillar, specifically the last sentence. So, I closed the report (with the - I assumed - mutual understanding that there would be no more aspersions on Jwa05002's part), and disengaged.
- I can say that my personal view of this subject is that there were problematic undertones both in how Jordan Neely's mental illness had been weaponized by Penny's defense, as well as in how it was being discussed on the talk page. I found Jwa05002's own mentions and utilization of the topic very offensive, to me personally, which is (in part) why I disengaged, since because I was personally affected in this case, I felt it would be difficult for me to participate neutrally. On a semi-related point, I do feel that Misplaced Pages in general would benefit from stricter guidelines concerning "personal experiences" beyond merely dismissing them, given that the manner in which some of the content in cases like these is treated, as well as the overt and rampant generalizations or prejudiced discourse against already vulnerable populations, may well discourage marginalized editors from contributing. But, this is ultimately a different topic that would be better suited for the village pump.
- I will also mention, however, that it'd be rather disappointing in my view if a comment like this one (which to me reads like a personal attack, never even mind that the notion that "severely mentally ill people" shouldn't be allowed to participate on Misplaced Pages is deeply troubling to me) is allowed to stand.
- EDIT: For fuller disclosure, I will note that I was pinged to this discussion by Akechi mentioning me, in diffs like this one. I'm unsure whether this counts as CANVASSING? Hopefully not - my intent here is merely to provide context concerning a dispute in which I was originally involved in, which seems relevant, if not identical, to this one in my eyes. NewBorders (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know little about the Jordan Neely case, and have not investigated it in particular, but have to give a few words about Misplaced Pages editing by people who are mentally ill or neurodivergent. I have a mental illess (I don't know if it's severe enough for Jwa05002, but I lost about half my working life because of it), and, largely through that, I know plenty of people with autism, ADHD and schizophrenia. I don't choose to display my mental status on my user page, but reveal it when relevant. I just checked and a have made nearly 49,000 edits since 2007. I don't think anyone has spotted my mental condition in all that time, because I take reponsibility for my editing and do not edit when I'm not up to it. If all the people with a mental illess or neurodivergence left Misplaced Pages it would be a much poorer place, and might not even exist. Some people with those conditions are very good editors, and some are not so good, just like "normal" people. I hope we can accept such people just as we can accept people of different genders, nationalities, sexual preferences etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are absolutely varying degrees of mental illness and it wasn’t my intention to imply anyone who suffers from a mental illness should not edit Misplaced Pages pages.
- in this case, my comment was directed at one specific editor.
- its unfortunate for sure, but some people simply aren’t capable of being objective and reasonable enough to edit pages.
- this admin page is full of examples of users being blocked from editing because they simply aren’t able to handle the responsibility that comes with it. Jwa05002 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Have I displayed any of that because you've kinda been urging me to stop being on the talk page for a while because of my extreme bias, which I genuinely don't know what you are talking about. This just seems like you found a more reasonable way to try and get me to stop editing. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Jwa05002, rather than defending your comments on the article's talk page you should be offering an unreserved apology to Akechi. TarnishedPath 02:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I went back and looked through that entire discussion (about schizophrenia) and I see that there were 2 different editors besides me during the conversation.
- so I do apologize for conflating the two of you (Akechi and whoever the other editor was)
- I honestly did not realize Akechi was not the editor who volunteered they had a schizophrenia diagnosis. That’s for sure my mistake. Akechi, I apologize for implying you’d been diagnosed with a mental illness. Jwa05002 (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cool, do you also wanna apologise for the comments you made about severely mentally ill people, as well as just assuming I was because of my Autism. You could also just apologise generally to the user with schizophrenia they should see it, because honestly it's kind of disgusting to imply someone isn't competent because of their disabilities. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t. I stand by my statement that “severely mentally ill” people shouldn’t make edits to Misplaced Pages articles.
- Schizophrenia is a “severe mental illness” (don’t take my word for it, check out the Misplaced Pages article about it). That’s tragic and sad for sure, but still in my opinion, people suffering from that type of severe mental illness aren’t competent to edit Misplaced Pages articles. Jwa05002 (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is not you're decision to make and mental illnesses can vary in condition, we judge people's actions not how they were born. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jwa05002, I know many people with schizophrenia who would be perfectly capable of writing Misplaced Pages articles. We block/ban people because of what they do on Misplaced Pages, not because of whether they happen to have a broken leg, cancer or schizophrenia. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cool, do you also wanna apologise for the comments you made about severely mentally ill people, as well as just assuming I was because of my Autism. You could also just apologise generally to the user with schizophrenia they should see it, because honestly it's kind of disgusting to imply someone isn't competent because of their disabilities. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, just in case anyone finds it meaningful I'll reaffirm my commitment to these principles as well. I specifically avoided "severe enough" language because I don't think any "overall amount" would be relevant. I spoke about impacts on specific, relevant domains. Someone can be dealing with crippling catatonic panic attacks or having outright hallucinations offline and also still be participating in Misplaced Pages constructively and valuably when they're up for it. All my evidence is that both have in fact happened in real cases, constructively and for the best. My primary principle here was that editors should not contribute where they are disruptively incompetent for any reason, with mental illness simply not a special reason (and similarly for forms of neurodivergence I don't actually like to conflate with flat "mental illness", such as many forms of autism spectrum conditions). RowanElder (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Block proposal - Jwa05002
I propose an indef CBAN for Jwa05002 as consequence of their statements at Special:Diff/1269119175 where they wrote
Agreed. @Akechi The Agent of Chaos self admittedly (in these discussions) suffers from schizophrenia. I have the deepest sympathy for anybody with mental health issues, but that doesn’t mean severely mentally ill people should be editing Misplaced Pages articles. It’s exactly as you stated, competence is required. But….i guess this is what Misplaced Pages has devolved into. It’s sad really"
and then at Special:Diff/1269339244 where they just wrote
I don’t. I stand by my statement that “severely mentally ill” people shouldn’t make edits to Misplaced Pages articles. Schizophrenia is a “severe mental illness” (don’t take my word for it, check out the Misplaced Pages article about it). That’s tragic and sad for sure, but still in my opinion, people suffering from that type of severe mental illness aren’t competent to edit Misplaced Pages articles.
All of the editors contributions, bar one which was an edit they shouldn't have been making per WP:ARBECR, are at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and it therefore appears that the editor is WP:NOTHERE. TarnishedPath 05:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure if I can place any votes because of my involvement but @Jwa05002 has in my opinion been trying to scare some user away from comment on Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely, including me where they said (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#c-Jwa05002-20250101224800-Akechi_The_Agent_Of_Chaos-20241230034200)
- "Based on this comment and many others I’ve seen you make here, you are far too personally biased (for whatever reason) to be making edits to this Misplaced Pages article. You are simply unable to be objective about it. Misplaced Pages should not exist as a forum for editors to grind their personal axes." in what could be seen as an attempt to scare me away from things. I don't know what Jwa was talking about because if you look at my comments on the talk page it was mostly trying to explain WP:killing of to people. The personal bias I can only assume was my disagreeing with them on the move request, as that is all I can think of. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Extended confirmed gaming by Sairamb1407
Sairamb1407 has made 299 dummy edits to their user-space and many non substantial edits to other articles and have gamed their way into the extended confirmed user group. in order to edit the EC protected Republic TV , consider revoking their ECR until they make 500 legitimate edits. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I note that this editor made their 502nd edit to an extended confirmed protected article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have revoked their EC permission. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their talk page is full of warnings saying they may be blocked without further warning if they do some vandalism again. That user has only been here for a month... Just FYI. Nakonana (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have revoked their EC permission. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
IP legal threat
BLOCKED Both IPs are blocked. Heart 02:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP 95.180.241.18 made a legal threat and is trying to justify it after I warned them twice about it, disregarding policy. See diff 1 and diff 2. IP 95.180.245.225 is also related. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- 95.180.241.18, you are quite entitled to take legal action, but you have to choose between that and discussing the issue on Misplaced Pages. You can't do both, per policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The other IP also continued the tirade and I would like to clarify that it is a BLP violation as well. Would it be possible to revoke their talk page access temporarily? See diff 1 and diff 2. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
User trolling and tracking me
OP BLOCKED WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello: I want to let all of the admins to know that User:Dorian Gray Wild exploits my weakness in non-editing and talking in the
English Misplaced Pages, as well as my relatively not so good English and my relaying on Google Translate to write in English, to have advantage over me and to get me a one way interaction ban with him.
All of his knowledge about me in the wiki space is from tracking and stalking me and his behaviors to me are in the limits of an Internet Troll.
I hope that you can help me to get rid of him and to end my one way interaction ban. זור987 (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you're currently under a one-way iBan then coming to AN/I to complain about the editor you aren't supposed to interact with using zero evidence they've done anything at all is probably a bad choice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Simonm223: What is AN/I? זור987 (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also: There is no interaction with the user. And I think that the one-way Internet ban, isn't valid in this page. זור987 (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- This page, where you have posted your complaint, is AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- As זור987 has regrettably declared and demonstrated on multiple occasions now that they are not able to read and write English without the help of a translation tool, and that the output even then is sometimes less-than-intelligible, I think we should consider a CIR block at this time. signed, Rosguill 15:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- זור987, I don't understand your complaint. You have presented no evidence that Dorian Gray Wild has done anything wrong. Your complaint appears to be a baseless personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- 987 does not appear to be aware what the noticeboard they are posting on is, which is worrying. They have also raised (another) complaint about a user they currently have a one-way IBAN against who has not even edited in two weeks. In the last month this user has made 17 edits. 11 relate to Dorian Gray Wild and their accusations/attempts to have the IBAN removed. I am honestly confused as to their motives, but the trend of their editing before and since their IBAN makes me lean towards CIR here. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support CIR Block Based on the discussion above I think a CIR block is, sadly, appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here is the discussion that led me to my one-way iBan. All the information Dorian gave in that discussion, is from tracking me, either anonymously in the Hebrew Misplaced Pages or from his user at the English Misplaced Pages and other Wikipedias. זור987 (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you please stop refactoring your comment? It's very frustrating. Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please read the above comments and decide whether you wish to respond to them. This is not round two of that same discussion you link, with the same evidence. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think, based on the discussion so far, the best we can hope is that an admin will act quickly to block זור987. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're doing yourself a disservice. M.Bitton (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is the complicated user interface of the English Misplaced Pages that caused the bolding of my comment. And Misplaced Pages now also very very slow. זור987 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
complicated user interface of the English Misplaced Pages
andMisplaced Pages now also very very slow
are not valid excuses for what you are doing. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 15:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- I was referring to the discussion that you linked to. M.Bitton (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is the complicated user interface of the English Misplaced Pages that caused the bolding of my comment. And Misplaced Pages now also very very slow. זור987 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked per the emerging consensus on our part and the doubling down on their part. I've also tried to briefly explain our language/competence requirements to them in Hebrew on their user talk page. signed, Rosguill 15:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Belligerent / combative behaviour, accusation of racism, and antisemitism by User:Raoni86
BLOCKED Blocked for WP:NOTHERE Heart 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Raoni86 wrote a draft of his father Draft:Luc_Hensill, a musician, which I declined for not meeting the general notability guidelines. The article was deleted during an AfD 14 years ago (a suspiciously similar username, Raoniz contributed to that discussion).
Anti-semitism:
- ...there was also an article about him on wikipedia en, but it was removed by a dear jew before.
- while my father was still alive we had a problem with someone in the jewish confession, my father sadly played in a group named "The Klan", it had no ties to the KKK but I guess we've been targets of this person, I understand why
Accusations of racism:
- ...think it might be racism, cuz belgium is insignifiant to you for some reasons
- Thanks to you the world wouldn't know an artist who made movies, tv shows, marked his generation and multiple records among compilations.This looks like racism
Threats to sockpuppet:
Belligerent / combative behaviour:
Disparaging another editor's contributions:
Homophobia
Needs a NOTHERE block qcne (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- A CU between Raoni86 and Raoniz is probably wise - the Raoniz account seems to have been inactive for a good many years but if they're threatening to sock then it's probably wise to catch the obvious sleeping sock accounts early. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I expect they've forgotten the login, since the last edit was almost 15 years ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the block, @DoubleGrazing. qcne (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not me, guv. All credit to Pickersgill-Cunliffe. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- In that case, thanks @Pickersgill-Cunliffe! qcne (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not me, guv. All credit to Pickersgill-Cunliffe. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the block, @DoubleGrazing. qcne (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I expect they've forgotten the login, since the last edit was almost 15 years ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Spammer/scammer on LinkedIn
Undisclosed paid editors exist, details at eleven. Nothing requiring immediate administative attention here. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a spammer or scammer on LinkedIn named "Md Moshiur Rahman" claiming to get people's information on Misplaced Pages and asking to get paid. Please investigate and ping me with any updates. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide us a link to this account?CycoMa2 (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you search the username Bearian left, plus "wikipedia linkedin", you will find it. Toadspike 16:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Md Moshiur Rahman does exist but has no contributions, including no deleted contributions. --Yamla (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Search engines adapt to the user (including search history, geolocation, device used, browser used, search engine used, etc.). Two people can type in the same thing, but Google will show them completely different results. I for one am unable to find the user Yamla linked when I type "Md Moshiur Rahman wikipedia LinkedIn" (without quotation marks) in Google. A link would be helpful. Nakonana (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-can-i-get-listed-wikipedia-md-moshiur-rahman-c0tgc/ CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whoops, forgot to ping Bearian CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing. My instincts are pretty good, no? Bearian (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whoops, forgot to ping Bearian CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Better link https://www.linkedin.com/in/moshiur-rahman862/ CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-can-i-get-listed-wikipedia-md-moshiur-rahman-c0tgc/ CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you search the username Bearian left, plus "wikipedia linkedin", you will find it. Toadspike 16:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm missing the scamming part. Here's a LinkedIn article he wrote about getting an article on Misplaced Pages: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-can-i-get-listed-wikipedia-md-moshiur-rahman-c0tgc/ . Doesn't look bad to me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That link seems to provide good advice, except possibly "Choose a neutral username that does not directly identify you or your organisation to avoid potential conflicts of interest". The choice of user name does not eliminate conflicts of interest. I can't read the other links because I'm not on LinkedIn, and don't wish to be. Bearian should know better than to ask people to evaluate things without providing evidence, and to ask people to ping him when there are watchlists and subscriptions that can show any updates. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first link I gave is not bad but the second link is a bit worse. His about includes "I create Misplaced Pages pages that help professionals, entrepreneurs, and brands enhance their online presence. As a skilled Misplaced Pages Editor and Page Creator, I specialise in Misplaced Pages writing, editing, management, and consulting." CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The only thing I could think of as scamming would be that he claims to be a content creator on Misplaced Pages when he actually has zero edits (if we assume that Yamla found the right user). That's a false claim of expertise. He might be asking for money for a service that he doesn't actually provide.
- However, can Misplaced Pages even do something against things that are published/claimed on LinkedIn? Nakonana (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That link seems to provide good advice, except possibly "Choose a neutral username that does not directly identify you or your organisation to avoid potential conflicts of interest". The choice of user name does not eliminate conflicts of interest. I can't read the other links because I'm not on LinkedIn, and don't wish to be. Bearian should know better than to ask people to evaluate things without providing evidence, and to ask people to ping him when there are watchlists and subscriptions that can show any updates. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- On LinkedIn, he says he started working January 2025 for Panel PR, which is https://www.linkedin.com/company/panel-pr/ . If that is correct, there shouldn't be a long history of editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that there have been individuals trying to charge for help getting people positive Misplaced Pages articles since the project became widely known and publicized around 2005-2006. We've even had arbitration cases involving paid editing. I don't see how this instance is an urgent or intractable problem especially since this user account isn't currently active. We have had a policy for UPEs for years, let's just let that guide any action to be taken should this editor start editing. Liz 01:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Since this editor hasn't made any onwiki declarations, the whole above thread is a case of WP:OUTING, which many people who posted should have known. Please delete and revdel, and post such concerns privately to ArbCom or other dedicated channels. Fram (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Newly-registered editor making legal threats and harassment
Disruptive editor given block for edit-warring. There might be a return trip to ANI if legal threats resume. Liz 00:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor Janessian has been making legal threats regarding victims' images at Murder of Wong Chik Yeok, demanding their removal, and is now demanding that I tell them why such images are allowed "without permission". –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it might be the photos they want removing, but I'm not sure? They've removed the two info boxes as well as the photos. Knitsey (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have reverted the removal of the infoboxes and left them a note. PhilKnight (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- They should definitely knock it off with the legal threats but, yeah, did the same thing as PhilKnight. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now blocked for 24 hours for edit warring by JBW. PhilKnight (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- They should definitely knock it off with the legal threats but, yeah, did the same thing as PhilKnight. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have reverted the removal of the infoboxes and left them a note. PhilKnight (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Me (DragonofBatley)
It may seem odd but I'm going to appoint myself to here to save @KJP1: the trouble. It is suggested I be put under a restricted amount of editing for new articles and using Articles for Creation. I have agreed to do so but there is cause to refer it here. I have accepted the offers to fix my ways and work on it but it appears it needs an ANI report and involvement so I will do so now. The other editors can put their cases forward. I will only say to please look at the bad and the good edits I have made to the site and not just the negatives. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notifying other editors from the wider discussions @PamD:, @Noswall59:, @Rupples:, @Crouch, Swale:, @KeithD:, @SchroCat:, @Tryptofish:, @Cremastra: and @Voice of Clam:. If I missed anyone else sorry DragonofBatley (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: Special:Permalink/1268766779#Source/text_integrity. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of Lawley, Shropshire, Annesley South Junction Halt railway station, Gonerby Hillfoot and now redirected Lawley Furnaces and Lawley Bank. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes and I made some questionable choices of responses for which I am taking back as both inappropriate and immature. I am on the spectrum and do sometimes have moments of taking things personally if i feel attacked or something similar. I regret those actions and offered a fresh start to wipe slate clean and better myself but it seems it was at least now pointless as KJP1 is insisting ANI get involved. I am actually a very professional person and willing to learn. I had a bad day and went to cool off. I came back after a short time and willing to work out my issues but again. It is not really worth trying to if ANI is the new way forward. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also this discussion: Special:PermanentLink/1269282704#Dragon. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of Lawley, Shropshire, Annesley South Junction Halt railway station, Gonerby Hillfoot and now redirected Lawley Furnaces and Lawley Bank. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. I'm glad to see that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on.
- I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. WP:JAN25 is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, then we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions.
- I'd also like to personally recommend to DragonofBatley to draft articles in userspace and then move them to mainspace him/herself. I find this approach helps me clear my head and write the article in stages, rather than write it all at once in one edit – when I do the latter, I tend to leave loose ends.
- Happy editing, Cremastra (u — c) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing DragonofBatley (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- You may use your talk page for whatever you like. You can also create a subpage, such as User:DragonofBatley/Interesting topics list. It seems like you have a large group of people who want to help you and who find value in your contributions here, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to continue to provide feedback to you. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the threads that Schazjmd and I shared. I think given Dragon's communication style, the block/ban thing was probably hyperbole. Regarding CCI, where were issues raised regarding copyright concerns in Dragon's edits? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is no socking. The only time I may edit off my account is for minor corrections made to certain articles. I made one anon edit months ago to a page I believe it was Derbyshire or Yorkshire which mispelt I believe it was a church or a nearby settlement had a letter missing. But apart from that. This is my main account and I have no issues with editors making sure I am not causing a nuisance to articles not that I intend to do so. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are good points.
- However, I don't think you meant CCI, since as far as I can tell, copyright has not been a problem. I think a CCI-like thing may be in order. WP:Failed verification cleanup project, anyone? Cremastra (u — c) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course plagiarism is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break WP:Copyright and WP:Plagiarism. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add DragonofBatley (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break WP:Copyright and WP:Plagiarism. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course plagiarism is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The reason I mentioned CCI is because multiple editors who have been closely involved in the edits said on KJP1's talk page (linked above) that some sort of CCI might be needed. I'm simply basing it on that. If they actually meant an informal CCI-like process for verifiability, then it's that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's the latter. @DragonofBatley: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay I will do my best. Ill try to write any notable text seperate from a source as best as I can. If the CCI issue is one of the ongoing problems. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's the latter. @DragonofBatley: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing DragonofBatley (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I made a number of suggestions about page creation restrictions in the discussion thread but as noted in reply their problems aren't limited to article creation (and I'd expect to see a shift to other problems with editing existing articles) and as noted above the AFC suggestion might overburden AFC. Maybe keeping the suggestion about only creating articles on civil parishes would be a good idea in other words going along with what Cremastra has suggested namely using userspace drafts instead of AFC or creating straight away. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree to that. @Crouch, Swale if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to WP:Canvassing but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Telford and Wrekin is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in Category:Civil parishes in Shropshire. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely Category:Telford and Wrekin. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I will do. So far we have I believe Dawley Hamlets, Great Dawley, Lawley and Overdale, Ketley, Oakengates, Wrockwardine, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench, Donnington, Madeley, Ironbridge Gorge and Wellington (which a few more articles could be added or made like for its church, notable suburbs etc) of course if they pass the AfC DragonofBatley (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Telford and Wrekin is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in Category:Civil parishes in Shropshire. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely Category:Telford and Wrekin. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree to that. @Crouch, Swale if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to WP:Canvassing but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- DragonofBatley, to me, the biggest concern is the repeated instances noted in those discussions where the text you added wasn't supported by the sources that you cited. That's a big deal. How do you plan to address that problem? Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That doesn't address my question at all. Editors pointed out multiple instances where you wrote something then cited a source that didn't support what you wrote. How do you plan to address that problem? Schazjmd (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Plagiarism is not the issue. Could you please explain where to find Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and what it means to you? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: while you're taking a breather as @Tryptofish suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:Notability, WP:Geoland, WP:Verifiability (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example London and City of London. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for Oxford and the City of Oxford. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near Wellington, Telford. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the Domesday Book commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings DragonofBatley (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Er, definitely don't use Domesday as your reference for anything on Misplaced Pages, that's quite solidly original research. Old poems etc are also not secondary research - that would still be primary research. Secondary research is stuff by academics and so on about the subject. -- asilvering (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near Wellington, Telford. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the Domesday Book commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings DragonofBatley (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:Notability, WP:Geoland, WP:Verifiability (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example London and City of London. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for Oxford and the City of Oxford. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: while you're taking a breather as @Tryptofish suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- DragonofBatley has agreed to a voluntary editing restriction to publish all drafts through AfC, up to five at a time, enforceable by partial or site blocks. Does that restriction resolve the concerns raised here and in other discussions? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It strikes me as low, given that the only other editor of whom I'm aware of with a similar restriction is capped at 20. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most of the concerns raised in the discussions seem to be related to articles created by Dragon, rather than additions to existing articles, but I think the editors familiar with Dragon will clarify if that's wrong. I'm open to lowering the number. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Many of the editors who have been involved in the prior discussions have not yet had an opportunity to respond here. Let's give it sufficient time. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. I did answer your question on the policy. I hope it gives some understanding of my knowledge. If i need more researching into it. I will DragonofBatley (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I asked a second question. Could you please answer that one as well? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: Are you willing to accept the proposal that you only be allowed to publish articles through AFC and that you can only have five active AFC nominations at any given time, and that if you violate either of those two restrictions, you may be blocked? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree to this. I have already completed one article for AfC for All Saints Church, Wellington. Hopefully this proves I am willing to accept using AfC and submitted one at any given time. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve looked at a number of articles created by Dragon and they fail even the most basic sourcing requirements or standards. Unreliable sources and fabricated information from sources are the main issue there, and I don’t want to see any new articles being created until the 400+ old ones have been cleaned up. I would like to see a complete ban on creating any new articles, whether in user space, main space or at drafts until it can be proven that Dragon has the basic competence required to source properly - and the best place for that is cleaning up some of the crap he’s already produced. We have a good pathway of restricting the activity of editors guilty of serial copyright infringements, and this is a very similar set of problems that should face the same pathway of editing restrictions and activity management before we put too much of a burden on AfC or have too much other dross added to main space. - SchroCat (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) KJP1 has made an offer on the talk page about a way forward, but I’ll let them repeat and clarify here here. - SchroCat (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not see any Serial Copyright Infringements on my articles nor do I practice such things. I will not bombard replies but all I will say is maybe check out my new article created through AfC and see that I actually rushed nothing and sourced properly. Here you All Saints Church, Wellington. I will go back to my as you call them "crap" articles and fix what I can fix in due time. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the verifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? voorts (talk/contributions) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - SchroCat (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the verifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? voorts (talk/contributions) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I worry about AfC. Yes, Dragon's All Saints Church, Wellington was approved by an AfC reviewer ... who themself copied in, unacknowledged, text from Listed buildings in Wellington, Shropshire and failed to make the references work. They also removed the wrong one of two "References" sections, leaving Refs after Ext links, and put the church into the wrong category (Grade II listed churches.., instead of grade II* ...). Yes, I know those of us who don't offer to take on the work of AfC should be careful about criticising those who do, but this is a bit disappointing.
- And Dragon's version as submitted to AfC also includes linked centuries, an Easter Egg link in the "See also", and some pretty clunky prose, before we get on to any issues of verifiability. PamD 09:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
IP apparently unable to hear messages about ENGVAR/DATE AT/RETAIN
Blocked for a year. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2601:47:4B01:4B30:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
Starting in late 2023 this IP editor has been changing spellings and dates formats between English variants. They come back ever month or, two make the same or similar edits, get reverted, and repeat. They've been warned multiple times, but either can not see the messages or will not. They must be somewhat aware as they come back to make the same edits after being repeatedly reverted. As the same person has been on the range for over a year making the same problematic edits could a 3–6 month block be put it place, at least until they find a talk page. Anything shorter could be missed due to their infrequent editing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've left notices at the last to IP talk pages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I blocked the /64 for a year. Nearly all their edits have been reverted and I checked that a lot of the IP's changes were as described above. They have only edited articles and have never used a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Johnuniq. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I blocked the /64 for a year. Nearly all their edits have been reverted and I checked that a lot of the IP's changes were as described above. They have only edited articles and have never used a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Cross wiki disruptive editing by an IP user after they were blocked here
zh.wiki is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user: 108.185.166.91 made disruptive edit on chinese wikipedia after being blocked here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonTheSucculentDude (talk • contribs) 02:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please report on the Chinese Misplaced Pages. The English Misplaced Pages admins cannot do anything about cross-wiki affairs. If you feel a global ban is warranted, please see meta:Global blocks (Non-administrator comment) Heart 02:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's meta:Global blocks (thanks for fixing the link above since I've written this comment :) ), not global bans, a ban is something that happens only by community consensus, a block prevents disruptive editing and can be the technical way to implement a ban (but not all blocks are), see WP:BLOCKNOTBAN. You can request a global block (note that for user accounts it's called a "global lock") for an IP at meta:SRG. :) MolecularPilot 03:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Chinese ANI is here btw! :) MolecularPilot 03:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's meta:Global blocks (thanks for fixing the link above since I've written this comment :) ), not global bans, a ban is something that happens only by community consensus, a block prevents disruptive editing and can be the technical way to implement a ban (but not all blocks are), see WP:BLOCKNOTBAN. You can request a global block (note that for user accounts it's called a "global lock") for an IP at meta:SRG. :) MolecularPilot 03:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Stalking from @Iruka13
- Iruka13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is a continuation of various discussions happening on the Talk page of the user Iruka13.
I have been feeling harassed and stalked by this user for months now, figuring it was only me. Except, as is evidenced from that user's talk page, it ISN'T only me. As well as my post, @Netherzone has laid out their own harassment. Bear in mind both of our posts come AFTER the user was already banned for a week by @Star Mississippi for incivility to a different person entirely. I don't believe it's only us.
As laid out: one of my photos was tagged by @Iruka13 for deletion around 4 months ago. So fine. Except when asking why, or if the user had read any of the supporting material, I was met by threats to delete work I'd done on the site - plus varying degrees of condescension and bullying. This was largely on the talk page of a now deleted file. Since then, the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons. The reason I say this is stalking is that these images aren't new. If there was a genuine issue, they could have *all* been tagged four months ago. Instead it's a drip-drip-drip. As an example, this file was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.
If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream of harassment. They never engage civilly, never explain, never offer any reasoning. Again, from the other comments on the user's Talk page, this practice of stalking, bullying, and condescension is seemingly not a one-off. I don't understand how there can be so much drama on a single six-week period of one person's Talk page. Especially when, apparently, the user has already been banned from Commons for similar destructive behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterspeterson (talk • contribs) 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just dropping a link to my discussion with Iruka here. My block was less about whether they were technically correct, but their complete unwillingness and inability to edit in a collaborative environment despite a multitude of warnings. I have not followed up with further sanctions as at least one admin disagreed, and I haven't had the on wiki time to moderate this. My POV there and here is that being right isn't sufficient, and Iruka13 has to learn to play well with others if he's going to edit here. I am not sure whether this is a language barrier, but they've been told a number of times that their conduct is problematic. Star Mississippi 03:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm also going to add from what I've seen at the deletion discussions (they've not targeted any of mine; I exclusively deal in copyleft media on Commons) that Iruka13 is frequently and obviously meritless in their nominations. A huge portion of them are very obviously spurious in a way that's comparable to Gish gallop and Brandolini's law, where the amount of energy required to nominate them is immensely lower than the amount required to refute them. I'm genuinely baffled that they've been getting away with this. If they were basically always correct and just being – pardon my French – an insufferable jackass about it, that would be one thing. It's another thing entirely, though, to take a birdshot approach to deletion noms knowing there will be zero repurcussions for whichever spuriously nominated ones survive the discussion because WP:AGF. It's literally just a technique aimed at exhausting the other party, and this bizarre edge case they're creating has made me think that we might actually need some sort of limit on the number of noms possible in a given time period. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide the redlink to the "talk page of a deleted file" where you said that the harassment "largely" occurred? Administrators can view the content of a deleted page. :) MolecularPilot 03:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd love to - but I don't know how to find a page that was deleted so long ago. I think it would have been around October 2024? Is there a way I can search this out? Peterspeterson (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am reproducing the comment from File talk:Kraven-comparison.jpg here:
voorts (talk/contributions) 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Do you even know what is significant for an article and what is not? Where in authoritative sources is this distinction mentioned? Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote and I will be right? And let's be simpler, ok? — Ирука 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes! That's the comment. The "demolish everything you wrote" bit.
- The same user has now been following me around for months. This is exactly the reason other users like @Netherzone feel unsafe. How is this allowed to go on? Peterspeterson (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That conduct probably would have merited a temporary block in November, but I'm not going to block him based on that now without more evidence that it's part of a pattern. Regarding
the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons
, could you please provide diffs (perhaps to talk page notices that you got) of spurious deletion nominations? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- It's the process of one after the other, after the other.
- If there were genuine issues with images, why didn't Iruka tag them all back then? Instead, it's been a drip-drip-drip all the way up until today. This is why I feel harassed. The tagging isn't on new images.
- As an example, this file was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.
- If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream. Peterspeterson (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- My understanding is that stuff like that lead to Star Missicipi's 1 week block on the 10th of December. Has there been any conduct made you feel uncomfortable since their block expired, beyond nominating your images for deletion (indicating they might be watching which images you make) and them being deleted? :) MolecularPilot 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jinx voorts, beat me too it! Had an edit conflict there (but forgot to add (edit conflict))! :) MolecularPilot 03:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi. Yes. This file was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.
- If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream.
- Basically, why would they suddenly decide to look at an image that had been up for months, on a whim? Peterspeterson (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- My guess would be that the user was looking through your file creations (which is not sanctionable conduct by itself) as they had found you to be, in their opinion, a creator of fair use files that may not meet our guidelines for free-use content and was seeing if there were any others to tag for deletion. If you don't agree with decision of the admin who chose to accept the CSD nom and delete the file, you can submit an appeal to WP:DRV. I'm not entirely sure what you want to be done here? Has there been any re-occurance of subpar communication like the above since the 17th of December? MolecularPilot 04:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- But that's exactly my point. All those files were already on Misplaced Pages at that previous time. If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged in one go.
- Instead, it's tag a file, wait 2-3 weeks, tag another, wait 2-3 weeks, tag another. And repeat.
- But why would anyone keep returning to those old images, from a single user, over and over and over?
- That's why I feel harassed. Especially because - as with the image linked above - I don't believe there's an issue.
- Plus, as pointed out by @TheTechnician27, tahere have been more than 150 image deletion nominations in the last two weeks alone. Peterspeterson (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Three* but nonetheless correct. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)e
- My guess would be that the user was looking through your file creations (which is not sanctionable conduct by itself) as they had found you to be, in their opinion, a creator of fair use files that may not meet our guidelines for free-use content and was seeing if there were any others to tag for deletion. If you don't agree with decision of the admin who chose to accept the CSD nom and delete the file, you can submit an appeal to WP:DRV. I'm not entirely sure what you want to be done here? Has there been any re-occurance of subpar communication like the above since the 17th of December? MolecularPilot 04:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That conduct probably would have merited a temporary block in November, but I'm not going to block him based on that now without more evidence that it's part of a pattern. Regarding
- Voorts, you just beat me to it--thanks. But let me add that Peterson doesn't look good either. What Iruka was responding to was this, " There's no point in people drive-bying these pages with that "needs image" tag if, when somebody tries to do something about it, a person *with zero knowledge of the subject matter* doesn't bother to do any reading before rejecting. This whole process is ridiculous." Drmies (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've undeleted that file talk page so non-admin watchers can see the whole exchange in context. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am reproducing the comment from File talk:Kraven-comparison.jpg here:
- I'd love to - but I don't know how to find a page that was deleted so long ago. I think it would have been around October 2024? Is there a way I can search this out? Peterspeterson (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm reading over a bunch of material, including their talk page. It's clear to me (and I think User:Pppery agrees) that many of their deletion nominations are correct. On the other hand, the way in which they go about things is deemed problematic by plenty of others, and I wonder if User:Bagumba, User:Zanahary, User:TheTechnician27, and User:Kingsif have any additional insight. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, that matched my understanding, including them being usually (but by no means always) right on the merits but problematic in how they went about it. I don't really have the energy to spent more time analyzing this than I already have - the other admins watching this page can do what needs to be done and I don't think any further comments from me would be helpful. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Peterspeterson & @TheTechnician27: If I am going to take action, I need to see a post-block pattern of conduct. Please provide some form of evidence, such as diffs. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- My most recent issues relate to the file I linked above - here. This was tagged last week and deleted today.
- Again, if the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's the fifth or sixth(?) that's been tagged and deleted since that first one. Each a week or three apart.
- Of course I feel stalked. None of these images are new. They could've all been tagged at the time.
- Instead, it's drip-drip-drip.
- On that one linked above, why would Iruka suddenly decide to look at an image that had been up for months on a whim? Unless it's because they're stalking. It's the same behaviour described by @Netherzone Peterspeterson (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The instructions at the top of this page state:
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
(emphasis in original). I am not going to block someone without evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- There's no way I could possibly fulfil what you ask.
- The point is that instead of tagging multiple files for deletion in one go, the same user has tagged image files of mine one after the other. Tag for deletion, wait 2-3 weeks, tag, wait 2-3 weeks, tag.
- I can't see the files *because they've been deleted*. What am I supposed to link you to?
- Even if all the deletions were correct - and I'm not convinced that's true - how is this a legitimate way to act?
- The harassment is that all these files were live when the first tag was made. Instead of highlighting any issues at the time, Iruka has been following me around the site for months. I'm not the only person saying this. Peterspeterson (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at your talk page history, you received two deletion notifications on 12 November 2024 (one for an image that you uploaded that same date, and one for an image that you uploaded a few weeks prior), one on 22 November 2024 for the image you uploaded 12 November, one on 3 December 2024 for an image you uploaded in October, and one on 6 January for an image you uploaded in October.The 22 November nomination makes sense in context because it was originally nominated for lacking an adequate license per F4 on 12 November, which was remedied, and then Iruka came back ten days later to nominate it for lacking contextual significance. That leaves the nominations on 3 December and 6 January. Two nominations one month apart is not adequate evidence of stalking, in my opinion. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also note your responses to two of those notifications (both for files that were deleted):
- voorts (talk/contributions) 04:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK @Voorts & @TheTechnician27- I think I have been able to find some sort of timeline to illustrate what I'm saying.
- On 12 Nov, File:Kraven-comparison.jpg was nominated for deletion. I'd uploaded in the days before, so OK. Fair enough. I'm still not convinced by the merits of this deletion in regards to the point of the page and the image - but OK.
- On 22 Nov, File:AvXduo.jpeg was nominated.
- On 3 Dec File:Daredevilcomparison.jpeg was nominated.
- On 6 Jan File:Galleryvprem.jpeg was nominated. This is the most dubious of all.
- These four images were all there at the time of the first nomination. If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged at once.
- Instead, it's four over two months - which comes directly after the message:
- > Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote
- Which is exactly what's happening. Spaced out, spurious nominations.
- Why would a user suddenly return to look at a different user's work, weeks apart, unless they're stalking?
- And, if it was only me, then maybe I'd put it down to paranoia. Except the user's Talk page has at least one other user saying a very similar thing.
- I can't see the comments you've linked to btw - but believe it or not, when someone says
- > Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote
- and then starts doing it, it does tend to lead to incivility. Peterspeterson (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to add, by the user's own admission in 2023, they have
- > 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects
- Link: User talk:Iruka13/Archives/2023#c-Iruka13-20230927154300-Marchjuly-20230927005100
- That's in *their own words*. Peterspeterson (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged at once.
There's no rule that requires an editor to go through another editor's contributions and decide whether to nominate them for deletion all at once. There are also innocent explanations, such as not wanting to overwhelm someone with a dozen nominations all at once or not having the time.Regarding Netherzone's claim of stalking, Iruka's "laboratory" appears to be a place where they keep notes on files they intend to renominate for deletion at a later date.I am also well aware of the history of Iruka's blocks, but blocks can't be used to punish people for sins of the past. I see no evidence of stalking here and I won't be taking action. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- OK, so when another old file gets tagged with little justification in 2-3 weeks, can I message you again? What about 2-3 weeks after that?
- I don't even know how I'm supposed to appeal / counteract the tag-tag-tag behaviour. I can't see any justification for the deletion of today's file and it's not as if Iruka ever gives any reason. Peterspeterson (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at your talk page history, you received two deletion notifications on 12 November 2024 (one for an image that you uploaded that same date, and one for an image that you uploaded a few weeks prior), one on 22 November 2024 for the image you uploaded 12 November, one on 3 December 2024 for an image you uploaded in October, and one on 6 January for an image you uploaded in October.The 22 November nomination makes sense in context because it was originally nominated for lacking an adequate license per F4 on 12 November, which was remedied, and then Iruka came back ten days later to nominate it for lacking contextual significance. That leaves the nominations on 3 December and 6 January. Two nominations one month apart is not adequate evidence of stalking, in my opinion. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Iruka has provided reasons consistent with policies, guidelines, and practice. For example, File:Galleryvprem.jpeg was tagged with {{di-fails NFCC|date=6 January 2025|1=yes|8=yes}}. I've reviewed the fair use rationale that you provided and I believe that the file was properly deleted. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The instructions at the top of this page state:
- Does 170 image deletion noms since Christmas count as "a pattern of conduct"? Because I see this as effectively a Gish gallop where it's functionally impossible for most editors to meaningfully evaluate the merits of each one. Since non-free media has to meet a substantially higher standard for 'Keep' than for 'Delete', this means that 'Keep' voters need to take substantially more time per nom than the 'Delete' ones, and creating such a glut of noms severely and unfairly tips the balance in favor of a 'Delete' vote on average. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please provide diffs. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Appreciate the ask, because this made me realize that I was incorrect about the original figure. It's actually 210 since Christmas, or a bit over 10 per day. Edit history and then Ctrl+F "up for deletion" and "tagging for deletion". 170 noms; 40 CSDs. I want to clarify I've been absent from this since the original block, but this has to be absurd to keep up with for anyone at the discussions trying to argue to in good faith to preserve these images. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- How many were declined by patrolling admins? How many were no permission tags where permissions were then added? An admin cannot block someone without evidence and I'm not going to dig through Iruka's contributions to look for it. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ultimately I haven't been keeping up with the situation on a per-nom basis, and by nature of them consistently putting up over 1000 edits a month, I'm not going to be going through them except for macro-scale patterns. I was brought here for my perspective, and this is it: that Iruka is abusing the system by making an unprecedented amount of noms with little regard for merit (the noms I witnessed were immediately pre-block, thus as you said not qualifying here for post-block behavior) in order to make dubious noms on average more successful solely because they can't have as much individual time dedicated to them. It's a very obvious tactic, and I'm equal parts perplexed that there's no protection against this and yet unsurprised because there's likely never been anyone this unnaturally zealous to warrant it. I don't intend to go beyond what I was brought here to do for right now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
It's a very obvious tactic, I'm equal parts perplexed that there's no protection against this and yet unsurprised because there's likely never been anyone this unnaturally zealous to warrant it.
Please do comment on other editors' motives without evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- Between more than one experienced editor accusing Iruka of stalking them, their "let someone else sort it out" attitude toward obvious, consequential mistakes they make, their argumentative behavior, their gross power-tripping attitude ("Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote and I will be right?" (also note the wikilawyering going on in that comment)), their ridiculous noms (including arguments like "just use a 3D model bro" or "a free alternative can reasonably exist because you can just get a basketball backboard and break it for an image bro" or "just offer to pay them money to put it under a free license it bro"; all pre-block, so I'm not bothering to dig it up), the absurd frequency of noms they create, and their indefinite block on Commons, all I'll say is that I assume good faith until an editor flushes that down the toilet. With that, I'm done here unless someone has a specific question for me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- "I have 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects."
- Kinda sounds like maybe this user does harass people, considering that's what they wrote *on their own page*.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Iruka13/Archives/2023#c-Iruka13-20230927154300-Marchjuly-20230927005100 Peterspeterson (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Between more than one experienced editor accusing Iruka of stalking them, their "let someone else sort it out" attitude toward obvious, consequential mistakes they make, their argumentative behavior, their gross power-tripping attitude ("Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote and I will be right?" (also note the wikilawyering going on in that comment)), their ridiculous noms (including arguments like "just use a 3D model bro" or "a free alternative can reasonably exist because you can just get a basketball backboard and break it for an image bro" or "just offer to pay them money to put it under a free license it bro"; all pre-block, so I'm not bothering to dig it up), the absurd frequency of noms they create, and their indefinite block on Commons, all I'll say is that I assume good faith until an editor flushes that down the toilet. With that, I'm done here unless someone has a specific question for me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ultimately I haven't been keeping up with the situation on a per-nom basis, and by nature of them consistently putting up over 1000 edits a month, I'm not going to be going through them except for macro-scale patterns. I was brought here for my perspective, and this is it: that Iruka is abusing the system by making an unprecedented amount of noms with little regard for merit (the noms I witnessed were immediately pre-block, thus as you said not qualifying here for post-block behavior) in order to make dubious noms on average more successful solely because they can't have as much individual time dedicated to them. It's a very obvious tactic, and I'm equal parts perplexed that there's no protection against this and yet unsurprised because there's likely never been anyone this unnaturally zealous to warrant it. I don't intend to go beyond what I was brought here to do for right now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- How many were declined by patrolling admins? How many were no permission tags where permissions were then added? An admin cannot block someone without evidence and I'm not going to dig through Iruka's contributions to look for it. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Appreciate the ask, because this made me realize that I was incorrect about the original figure. It's actually 210 since Christmas, or a bit over 10 per day. Edit history and then Ctrl+F "up for deletion" and "tagging for deletion". 170 noms; 40 CSDs. I want to clarify I've been absent from this since the original block, but this has to be absurd to keep up with for anyone at the discussions trying to argue to in good faith to preserve these images. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please provide diffs. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
User:अधिवक्ता संतोष, legal threat
अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See this friendly comment. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 06:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I obviously don't condone the legal threat, and an admin would be well within their right to block. But the complaint was about real vandalism (a claim that a prominent actor had entered politics "due to a failed acting career") that had remained up for a month—I can understand why someone would be frustrated. I have removed the claim and would not recommend any further action. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- From their latest remark on the article talk page, it sounds like you removed the sentence that set them off, Extraordinary Writ. Liz 07:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, as I said above
I have removed the claim
. There are related conversations happening on the talk page as well as here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, as I said above
- From their latest remark on the article talk page, it sounds like you removed the sentence that set them off, Extraordinary Writ. Liz 07:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)