| Revision as of 13:40, 13 December 2009 view sourceEquazcion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,926 editsm →The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling: fix format← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:13, 8 January 2025 view source Slatersteven (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers73,413 edits →Another not here IP: new section | ||
| 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. | |||
| ], a known transphobic editor from pt.wiki, is after his actions led me to leave that wiki permanently. He has also harassed me on Wikimedia Commons. I don't know what to do anymore. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace. This is severely impacting my mental health. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You don't seem to have notified the other editor. This is mandatory and this section may be closed if you fail to do so. Use <nowiki>{{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> on that user's talk page. Additionally, you don't seem to have provided specific diffs demonstrating harassment. Please do so. --] (]) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::On pt.wiki, DarwIn proposed the deletion of articles I created about transgender topics ( and ), using transphobic arguments, including misgendering and questioning the validity of transgender children. After translating these articles to en.wiki, he is , again focusing on his personal transphobic beliefs - as it shows, he doesn't even know how DYK works. He insisted multiple times trying to include his transphobic comment on that page and has just edited it again. On Commons, for extra context, DarwIn unilaterally deleted images related to these articles, despite being clearly involved in the dispute. | |||
| ::Again, I just want to collaborate with trans topics in peace. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --] (]) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes. However, context is important. This is harassment that began on pt.wiki, has spread to Commons, and is now here. The history has been provided, but, sure, I can provide the diffs instead. He has unilaterally and , despite this being not how DYK works. This is because he really doesn't know, as he only sporadically edits here and only came back to harass me. is explicitly transphobic and doesn't focus on the article itself at all. After his comment was reverted by me, saying that I shouldn't call it transphobia, despite it being transphobia. After being reverted again, . I asked him to , but . | |||
| ::::I just don't want to be targeted by that editor here. I've left pt.wiki in great part for that reason. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace here. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like yet another cross-wiki troll by this user. Already , the account is now promoting their POV here, including spreading lies, hideous slurs and baseless accusations against me like "known transphobic", after two of their creations were taken to community evaluation at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for lacking notability. The user is also a known sockpuppeter, at the Portuguese Wikipédia. In any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this case in yet another project apart from the strictly needed, so do as you please.] ] 13:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have been blocked on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. ] ] 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And here's explicit transphobia. It's her '''daughter''', no matter how much you hate the idea of trans children existing. The story you've told is also completely distorted. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I simply don't want this editor targeting me with transphobic stuff here after he target me on pt.wiki (and left it permanently in great part for that reason) and Commons. I am considering taking medication because of these events. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header. | |||
| *:*'''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) | |||
| Do not place links in the section headers. | |||
| *:*::@], 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) | |||
| (Immediately UNDER the header is preferred). | |||
| *:*:::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) | |||
| Entries may be refactored based on the above. | |||
| *:*:The story told above is completely distorted to fit the transphobic's narrative. Simon223, if you want to get the full story, read ]' page or read its sources (with the help of a translator if needed). <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| *:*::I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. ] (]) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| *:*:::Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. ] ] 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| --> | |||
| *:*::::Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including ]) - otherwise you will be blocked. ]] 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::Sure, if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. ] ] 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::Just so everyone knows, the facts are being quite distorted here. It wasn't really an imposition — her daughter, did not want to play with "boy toys", even when being forced by her mom. That's why the mom said she plays with "girl toys" and everything else. The references on said articles weren't thoroughly read, apparently by everybody here. | |||
| *:*::::::Adding to this too: DarwIn, in some edits to the article in the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, added "quotes" on the word trans and some other parts of the articly, as if was his duty to judge if the girl is trans or not. Anyways, I think what happened in ptwiki stays there. | |||
| *:*::::::And I want to make clear that I'm only stating the things that happened so everyone knows. I do not support blocking him. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::Four year olds are generally not considered babies. You really need to drop this - and probably to avoid editing in the ] area.] (]) 16:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::I would suggest a '''topic ban''' is imposed. ]] 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::I would '''support''' a topic ban from ]. ] (]) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. ] (]) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::Topic ban from GENSEX and BLP, broadly construed, is fine for me. ]] 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::I do understand this Misplaced Pages rules on BLP. Isn't that not enough for you? ] ] 16:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::::Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. ]] 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::::You seem to have missed the part when I very clearly stated there that I retired myself from that DYN debate. ] ] 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::@] nice try, but I don't edit on that topic, anyway. Let's calm down and enjoy the Christmas season. ] ] 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. ] (]) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. ] ] 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::::You fundementally misunderstand the scope of ] and the concept of topic area as well. ] (]) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::::Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. ] ] 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::::::I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. ] (]) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::::::it was a collective you. ] ] 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::::::::The collective you did not pursue you here either. Only the OP appears to cross over. ] (]) 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::I noticed this yesterday but intentionally didn't mention it since I felt there had already been enough nonsense. But since DarwIn is still defending their offensive comments below, I'd note that the child was 4 years old in 2019. It's now 2024 and they've evidentally seen a medical professional. If at any time they express a desire for a different gender identity we will of course respect that whatever her mother says; but at this time BLP full supports respecting a 8-9 year old and not treating her as a baby. ] (]) 22:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::None of this is relevant. We follow sources and ]. There is obviously no Misplaced Pages position on when someone is or is not a "baby" and should have their self-identification reproduced in their biography. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :They cannot be trusted. Above they said "I'm retiring myself from this topic" and yet has continued to post. ]] 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've continued to post where? ] ] 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I've already walked away from it yesterday, why you're insisting on that lie? ] ] 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? ]] 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have ], and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -] (]) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. ] ] 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -] (]) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? ] ] 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] This one. -] (]) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@] I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. ] ] 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::@] Easiest way to defuse this is to post a '''bolded''' and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -] (]) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" ] ] 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::That is not an appropriate statement, it has your bias/agenda throughout it. Very concerning. ]] 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Heres the main point I can see RE "Cross-wiki harassment." If DarwIn claims they do not regularly edit this topic space and had not previously participated in DYK discussions how did they come to find themselves there just in time to oppose the contribution of an editor they had extensive negative interactions with on another wiki? ] (]) 16:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:that's old stuff, I already posted a note there retiring from that space yesterday. I'm really puzzled on what all this fuss is about. ] ] 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::This isn't about the transphobia, this is about the harassment (they are seperate by apparently related claims). So how did you find yourself commenting on that DYK? ] (]) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I expressed my disagreement with that note, justifying with my opinion, and there's not even any misgendering issue there, AFAIK. Not sure if expressing that opinion here is forbidden or not, but in any case I've posted a note retiring from it already yesterday, so I've no idea what more do you want. ] ] 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? ] (]) 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::precisely because we are currently in the process of evaluating the notability of that bio and association she created at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, so it's just natural that related issues on other wikis get monitored too, that's part of the process. You don't agree with that evaluation, and that's perfectly OK. To each Misplaced Pages their own stuff 🤷 ] ] 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. ] (]) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::it's the wikipedia articles created yesterday that we are evaluating, not any kind of DYK note. ] ] 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around ] (]) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::@] no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? ] ] 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Because of edits like this . ] (]) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::answering an accusation of being a dictator after flushing away the copyviios she uploaded. What's the problem? ] ] 17:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::No, that diff is the undo. Thats you edit warring apparent harassment onto someone's talk page on another wiki with a kissing face as the edit summary... In that context this does look like cross wiki harassment. Do you have a better explanation? ] (]) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Just answered the troll there with another, as I was on the middle of something else. Yes, I know, not the nicest thing to do, but whatever. And why are we discussing Commons here now, anyway? ] ] 17:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::We're discussing cross wiki harassment, that makes edits on any wiki relevant to the discussion. You appear to have been harassing them on commons and then followed them here to continue the harassment because a temporary block there (which you appear to have had a hand in) prevented them from being active there. You absolutely can not do that. ] (]) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::I ''answered'' a troll, if there was any harassment was from that account towards me, not the opposite. Please don't invert the situation. ] ] 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::Your edits on enwiki had nothing to do with trolling or other behavioral issues from that account, if your edits on enwiki were to address valid concerns informed by your experience on other wikis we would not be having this discussion. It was also you restoring your comment which they removed from their talk page, thats you trolling them and it makes their dictator claim look not like trolling but rather accurate. ] (]) 17:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::I confess I've no idea why we are still having this discussion, as they were just that. But for the 50th time, these interactions have stopped long ago, and for a similar amount of time I've devotedly accepted and committed to all your rules. ] ] 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::In my opinion we're still having this discussion because you are stonewalling, perhaps its a language barrier but you don't come off as trustworthy or engaging in good faith. ] (]) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I believe it may help too, if Darwin will promise to avoid interacting on main space with Skyshifter. ] (]) 17:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Threat of Suicide == | |||
| :Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway.] ] 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Please see . I'm unsure as to whether any ''further'' action needs to be taken here. It's seriously concerning but this might just be simple vandalism. <span style="font-family:Segoe Media Center">]</span> <small>(] • ])</small> - 02:18, 7 December 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) | |||
| ::I've notified and am currently waiting on a response from the ] who recently blocked the IP for standard vandalism. Notified of both the diff and this thread. <span style="font-family:Segoe Media Center">]</span> <small>(] • ])</small> - 02:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] yes, that's correct. ] ] 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I did not know anything about that threat. I saw that the last edit inserted a bunch of "Blah Blah Blah"s all over the place, that they were after a recent final warning, and then blocked the IP. I was totally unaware of the suicide threat. ] (]) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (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) | |||
| ::Do we really report every since "suicide threat" to the police? That diff looks very much like a joke. At least in some countries, making unnecessary reports is also a crime, so this reporting policy of ours seems a bit concerning. ] (]) 02:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? ] ] 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Better to assume that they're all real rather than they're all fake. Or should we let someone sue Misplaced Pages because we all ignored their child's suicide warning? --<font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 02:59, 7 December 2009 (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) | |||
| ::::I agree with you on that one Offliner, it looks more like a "joke" (a very sick joke) than an actual threat. In regards to policy ] is the only documented Misplaced Pages guideline on the subject that I am aware of and it states: "''Law enforcement and emergency services have consistently stated that such reports are not a waste of their time, even in cases where the suicidal statements are determined to be a hoax or non-immediate threat.''" Though RTTOS is an essay and ''not'' an approved Misplaced Pages guideline or policy. <span style="font-family:Segoe Media Center">]</span> <small>(] • ])</small> - 03:05, 7 December 2009 (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) | |||
| ::::It might be a PR nightmare, but there is no liability to worry about. Misplaced Pages is not a mandated reporter. We have no duty here. -] (]) 19:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::::When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ecx2):::There is a vast difference between a prank report ("do you have Prince Albert in a can?") and a sincere editor reporting an event which might or might not be a suicide threat. We are not paid to decide whether a suicide threat is real or not. The police and 911 responders are. Let them make that judgment. People should not be avoiding reporting these things because they think the police will be angry or annoyed at them - it is the responders' job to take reports and make the judgment calls required, not ours. If our report is sincere, we are not contravening any laws in North America. In my opinion, all suicide threats should be reported if humanly possible. --] (]) 03:07, 7 December 2009 (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) | |||
| ::::Agreed. I highly doubt any law enforcement agency would take offense to a report of a suicide threat, even if it did seem dubious. Where possible, report. ] (]) 09:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What the hell is going on? I heard the name Auburn mentioned in this thread. <span style="border:2px solid yellow;padding:1px;">]</span> 13:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| As far as I'm aware most experts would recommend treating any such threat as serious and you'd have to be very unlucky to find yourself on the wrong side of the law if you did report it. <b>]</span><sup>]</sup></b> 15:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :All suicide threats need to be reported.--] (]) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I wouldn't be overly concerned. Usually, suicidals don't tell others about their intentions, until after they've committed suicide (via a letter, of course). ] (]) 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''''This is absolutely, absolutely not true.''''' I have to step in here and in the strongest possible terms tell you that you are factually wrong. I have worked as a counsellor for ''years'' with those who have attempted suicide. It is remarkably common for potential suicides to do just what you're saying they don't do. In fact, I would suggest that well over half of suicide attempts are predated by calls for help exactly like this. Unfortunately, TV and the mass media have convinced people beyond dissuasion that people who actually kill themselves don't ask for help. This has actually prevented friends and family from noticing calls for help or taking them seriously until it's too late. Please, please, '''please''': don't fall into the "the mass media is right about everything, people are crazy and just looking for attention" trap. Suicides do this all the time. All the time. --] (]) 07:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd also add that the majority of suicides ''do not'' leave suicide notes. Another thing people have picked up from TV and movies that doesn't reflect real life, to the point that survivors don't believe that a suicide actually killed himself if he didn't leave a note. TV is entertainment and doesn't reflect real life. --] (]) 08:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You know, I was about to reply in the same way (having some experience in the matter) but I assumed that GoodDay was making a joke (a suicide can't tell people of their intentions afterward because they're dead). Many suicides ''are'' really calls for help, even our ] states as much, and often attempts aren't meant to actually succeed but to draw attention to the problems of the person. That doesn't mean that the person doesn't need help, if they're desperate enough to act out in that way then they have some serious problems that probably should get attention. -- ''']'''] 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Correct, as far as it goes; in my experience, those who are determined to top themselves will usually manage to do so, and do so either extremely dramatically (e.g. by leaping in front of a train) or very quietly (e.g. by OD'ing)- in neither case will they advertise the fact beforehand. But there is another case; the "cry for help" from those who may be desperate but not terminally so, and these are the people that tend to advertise beforehand in the hope that they might receive assistance. I realise we should not be in that business ourselves, and should resist false positives, but there is a humanitarian case for reporting them, per ] and others above. ]] 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okie Dokie. ] (]) 00:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :People are actually taking this ridiculous vandalism ''seriously''?--] (]) 18:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You always take these things seriously, no matter how silly they may appear. It's just not something that we, as uninvolved volunteers, are in a position to make a judgement call on. The cost of doing nothing on the off chance they were serious is nothing compared to the cost of being wrong when they aren't. ] (]) 21:07, 10 December 2009 (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) | |||
| *Usually a suicide threat that doesn't include any reason at all is either a joke or one of the very rare occasions of a real intent. That doesn't mean we should just disregard them by ignorance but rather forward any information posted on Wiki to the local authorities as far as it is possible. It would be the right thing to do as it really isn't much "effort" to potentially prevent one in a thousand (or so) going this way. Generally spoken, editors especially admins who have more tools available should keep this in mind for future reference.] (]) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Clarification | |||
| So it was decided that threats of suicide should be reported to the police. But did anyone actually call the police? <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><small><span style="font-family:Kristen ITC; color:#FF6600;">~~ ] <span style="color:#009999;">(])</span> ~~</span></small></span> 21:22, 11 December 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. | |||
| *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=== | |||
| :That's a dangerous precedent. Process from edit > Admin > CU > police > ISP > police at ''best'' probably an hour. That's assuming it's a 100% straight desktop with an ISP that hands out info on the spot. Wow, good lord. I sound heartless. The CU presumably contacting authorities would be in a damn odd spot given suicide is more taboo than bomb plots to talk about enough of the time. Truth be told, without experience in direct therapy/group sessions or personal musings, it's damn hard to fit one's head around. :My ''actual'' biggest concern? Abuse/vandals/hoaxes. A bomb threat hoax still can result in a massive world of law enforcement hurt for the poster regardless of hoax nature, when/where they did it, etc. Suicide issues where acting on anything would have to be instantaneous? ...Do we want law enforcement globally lining up outside our virtual door after countless reports from proxies, dynamic IPs, personal jokes using a friend's PC, and any level of puppetry? No. Misplaced Pages doesn't have a full-time staff to handle this stuff. Actually, we just don't have any staff at all. We ''already list a number of important resources on the matter'' to the point that it's a cool enough place for overlinking. It'd be really easy to go on with the "reasons why not" bit and how this could never work until Misplaced Pages comes in a small neutral implant, but I'd expect myself hacked and my rotten soul sucked away through my monitor. ....... Someone has say some things, though. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 10:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :*'''Proposal''': Any editor found deliberately mocking someone or making light of any ''live situation'' in these matters is subject to a 100% ''ban'' without notice, escalated from admin > bureaucrat > arb with times of 24hr block, indef block, and ban after an evaluation of absolutely anything less than 100% AGF confirmed. This makes a generic chain of permissions set and keeps it somewhat balanced. "Live" being important, since we don't want to infringe on the rights of users to laugh at suicide in their spare time on one another's talk pages. Seriously. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 10:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '''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) | |||
| == White Brazilian == | |||
| *'''Support''' -] (]) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Help, please, for ]. | |||
| *: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) | |||
| Long-term readers of WP:AN/I and such pages will know that there have been numerous skirmishes over articles related to ethnic/"racial" groups in south America. Two articles that have been particularly affected are ] and ]. I no longer remember how it was that I first became involved, but I'd guess that at some point I noticed that some other admin was getting rather too many requests and thought I'd give him or her a break. I've never been to south America, don't read Portuguese or Spanish, and couldn't care a fig if south Americans, my neighbors or my inlaws were black, white or green, or of Nubian, Inuit or Livonian ancestry. Anyway, I entered as a neutral party, with a couple of big red buttons to use if/when appropriate. Since that time I have spent rather a lot of time nudging and mollifying authors, and often wished that I had not done so, or that south America were exclusively and indisputably populated by homogenous llamas rather than variegated humans. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ] argued at ] (now mostly in ]) that the article was seriously defective. He was certainly not unopposed there, but on balance it seemed to me that he was more persuasive. | |||
| ::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. | |||
| Ninguém then made a long and almost uninterrupted series of edits from 1 December until 00:43 6 December. One minute after that last edit, ] reverted the last batch of these. Forty-two minutes later, Off2riorob reverted the article to the state in which it had been on 1 December, with the comment " reverting undiscussed mass edits". On the talk page, Off2riorob elaborated slightly, saying variations on: | |||
| :PS: The editor was mocking this discussion in the Telegram group while I was writing this. ] (]) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :''I have also clearly stated my reasons for reverting to the previous position, mass editing of an article without apparent discussion (talkpage discussion six months old) so as to make the article almost unrecognizable.'' | |||
| ::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. | |||
| So the objection that there had been no discussion was tacitly admitted to be mistaken: the discussion -- which at the time of the reversion was still on the talk page rather than in an archive -- was now merely too old. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Ninguém's edits appeared to me to have been based on cited sources (though in Portuguese, which I have never claimed to be able to read) and to be informative, and they had edit summaries (although I never claimed to have checked the accuracy of these). The material he deleted also seemed misplaced. All in all it seemed to me that his edits were for the better, although I was (and remain) open to argument to the contrary. | |||
| 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) | |||
| As there had been no objection to the substance of Ninguém's edits, and believing that they at least deserved a levelheaded evaluation before they were rejected, I boldly (or rougely) protected the article (more precisely, what I thought was the wrong version) as a preemptive measure. I archived most of the (bloated) talk page, and initiated a discussion of the first stage of Ninguém's edits. | |||
| 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--> | |||
| At this point I may have made a mistake. For in addition to describing these edits as neutrally as I could, I also commented on them. "Judge and jury", it could be said. And indeed Off2riorob has politely ] about this. | |||
| :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) | |||
| === ] taking matters from another Misplaced Pages to seek revenge. === | |||
| Now, I'd be happy to take any of several options, one of which is never to involve myself in south American ethnic/"racial" matters again. However, I'm most reluctant to deprotect this article. I'm sure that Ninguém's set of edits merit evaluation, at the least, and that deprotecting the article would lead either to an edit war or to a wholesale and insufficiently considered rejection of those edits. | |||
| {{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. | |||
| So I invite one or (better) more administrators to take a look and to keep looking. An ability to read Portuguese would be a help. Patience will be a necessity. -- ] (]) 04:21, 8 December 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. | |||
| :I might add that ] has politely ] me for indulgence toward Off2riorob's reversion and demands. Actually I'm inclined to agree with Lecen here. -- ] (]) 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*Hoary's full protection of ] is certainly justified, and I am not perturbed by the efforts he made on the Talk page to get a discussion started. He added some content opinions of his own, but they seem mild and unlikely to be perceived as bossy by the other editors working there. (Note that Hoary protected the current version). If his efforts lead to a successful discussion, he should withdraw from the content issues. If he wants to have a longer-term role on improving the content, he should ask some other admin to take over the protection. ] (]) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This is all for revenge of some articles that are being debated and will be either deleted or merged with other articles, and especially over her permanent block on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, after calling the whole platform a sewage ( and in ]), ] over other users and using ] and ] to revert back the articles (one of her meats is currently being blocked from ptwiki too, see it ], with all the proofs). The ] taking place at the moment has 10 administrator votes in favour of the block, and absolutely no contrary opinion whatsoever. | |||
| Thank you. In the long or medium term, I'd very much like to withdraw completely from these two articles, from ], and more. I'd be happy to accelerate that, if I had reason to think that I'd be replaced by one or more other people who had no particular interest one way or another in Brazilian or other "color" and who would judge edits on their merits. | |||
| 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. | |||
| As for the content dispute -- which, however this may violate the rules of this particular project page, has so far been inextricable from the reversion/BOLD/OWN dispute -- I have some sympathy for the argument that simplicity here is a Good Thing and that Ninguém's elaborated and longer lead is too long and elaborate; however, the current version strikes me as simplistic and wrong-headed, and if avoidance of misunderstandings takes more words, that strikes me as a good use of words. | |||
| <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| So I hope to draw both administrators and fastidious editors to the article. Or rather, to a bunch of articles. Because on the rare occasion when I (wearing janitorial and not editing hat) have thought that one article was settling down, it would soon be pointed out to me that the warring parties were simply continuing the war elsewhere. -- ] (]) 11:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks to Hoary for commenting, I am not involved in all these previous issues and I am not involved in any of the related issues. I noticed the edits occurring and went to see what was occurring, I saw a recent removal of content that I thought was well written and well cited so I reverted the edit, and had a bigger look at what was going on and decided that the article appeared to be more or less being rewritten to reflect a differing position to the content the article had more or less reflected for a length of time. I had a quick look at the archives and found some discussion six months old, I then had a quick look at the article and a small discussion with ] about the objective of the edits and the lack of appearance of a consensus to support a rewrite and making a judgment mostly on the additions to the lede that the version the existed previous to the mass editing by User Ninguém was imo preferable to what had just been created, I reverted to that version and am presently in discussion as to how to move forward and what direction the content should contain, there does seem to be some support from Hoary, lucan and Ninguen that they simply agree with the rewritten version, although there is also an acceptance that the new lede is excessive, I have some personal knowledge of the color issues in Brazil and felt that the original article was not so bad as to require a rewrite, I thought that if major alterations were to occur to the article that wikipedia and the article would be better served and more rounded and balanced if it was discussed and edited by two editors. I have commented regarding this position on the talkpage at the article. If there is acceptance that the article is in need of a rewrite and that it should be done by Ninguém then I will happily step aside, as Hoary as also commented, I had no idea that there were additional issues surrounding the situation. ] (]) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|Eduardo_Gottert}} You need to provide evidence when opening an ANI thread, not on request. ] (]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::At this moment, this article has a curious particularity: it talks at lenght about the subject of "White Brazilians", but the section on "Conception of White" comes not at the beggining, but at the end. But this is far from being the worse. | |||
| ::'@] 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) | |||
| ::The article's lead reads, | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::''White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants.'' | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::The section on "Conception of White", on the other hand, states, | |||
| *: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}} | |||
| :::''The ancestry is quite irrelevant for racial classifications in Brazil.'' | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == ] reported by ] == | |||
| ::So, is "ancestry" what defines who is and who is not a "White Brazilian", or is it quite irrelevant for "racial classifications" in Brazil? Or perhaps "White Brazilian" is not a "racial classification" in Brazil?! | |||
| {{atop|result=John40332 has been blocked sitewide. ] (]) 01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::This is quite typically the quality standard of the articles on Brazilian demography. The most curious thing is that this is not the result of multiple editors placing their POVs without caring for coherence, but rather the result of one only editor's work. ] (]) 14:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{moved from|]|2=] (]) 14:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] removed several informations and included unsourced informations to that article. He did not even discuss what he was doing. The article was fine, and there was no need to re-write it. ] (]) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{vandal|John40332}} – On {{No redirect|:Psycho (1960 film)}} ({{diff|Psycho (1960 film)|1266578685|1265765039|diff}}): account is being used only for promotional purposes; account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. User's recent edits have been dedicated almost invariably to inserting links in classical music-related articles to an obscure sheet music site. Behavior appeared to be ] and ]. Personal attempts to curb this behavior or reach a compromise were rejected by user. ] resulted in ], despite three other editors informing user that their edits appeared to be spam or some kind of advocacy. ] (]) 08:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :A degree of ''discussion'' has ''broken out'' on the talkpage there, revealing a fair bit of underlying conflict, also could I clear this up as Admin Hoary seem to have said that he has no involvment in the article and would rather not be involved but since he made those comments here his recent two edits and seem to be reflective of a degree of involvment in the dispute, could he clarify if he is acting as an admin here as as an editor in the way of dispute resolution? ] (]) 18:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Not a bot and not spamming, you just keep ] me repeatedly, I cited sources to the publisher of the books in question. You appear to suffer from ] and act like I need your consent to edit the articles you feel that belong to you. You also know I'm not a compromised account, you spam ] on your reverts but you're mostly bullying other editors into submission. | |||
| :You've been asked to stop disrupting editing https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:CurryTime7-24#January_2025 , and continue to harass any edits that touch "your" articles. | |||
| :You also keep saying I add citation to obscure music sites, just because you don't know something doesn't make it obscure. Additionally, you are the only person raising this as an issue because you're extremely controlling of the articles, you don't own Misplaced Pages and hopefully some other editor or admin can remind you of that. ] (]) 09:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you claiming that SheetMusicX is a reliable source for these articles? If so then someone (it may be me but I don't guarantee it) should take it to ]. I note that several editors have queried this, not just CurryTime7-24. John40332 is clearly not a spambot or compromised account, so please avoid over-egging the pudding. ] (]) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is reliable and listed with other , it's the homepage of the Canadian music publishing house Edition Zeza, their books are part of the , shows their books in libraries around the world etc, I shouldn't even have to dig this far because 1 editor decided he ] Misplaced Pages. The links I had included provided relevant information about the articles I was editing (orchestration, dates, duration etc). Cited information from a publisher of said work, which is exactly what ] suggests doing. ] (]) 18:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The editor's history does seem suspicious. From 2014 to 2023 they made a total of 24 edits to article space, almost all of which were to ] and ]. Then after more than a year of no edits, in the last 5 weeks they have made 38 edits to article space, of which all except three added a reference to sheetmusicx.com. This is a commercial site that sells sheet music. As far as I can see, every reference added was a link to a page that sells a particular piece of sheet music. This certainly seems like ]. ] (]) 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So is the problem that I'm actively contributing now, or that the cited sources aren't good enough? You guys are grasping at straws at this point.] added links to commercial sites , such as to Fidelio Music (to which he appears to be an affiliate) and yet no one raises a flag. Even when I added a source without removing his, he removed mine to keep only his link to Fidelio Music. ] (]) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is no "you guys" here. You have exactly the same status, as a volunteer editor, as I do. I have no idea who CurryTime7-24 is, or whether that editor is an affiliate. I just know about reliable sources and that we should not be linking to ''any'' commercial site, except possibly to the original publisher of a work. ] (]) 19:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *] has compiled a page, ] of edits with links to this website. This list was not created by CurryTime7-24 but by a bot looking for instances of conflict-of-interests. All of the problems you are concerned about, John40332, would not exist if you would just stop posting links to this website. If you would agree to stop referring to sheetmusicx.com, you wouldn't be "hounded" or be defending yourself and we could close this complaint. Can you agree to that editing restriction? And, if you can't, then why are you insisting on linking to this particular website? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Because it's a valid source according to: | |||
| *:] - "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources" | |||
| *:] - The publisher of the work (and not only the first ever publisher, any reputable publisher of a work) | |||
| *:] - "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form." | |||
| Interestingly, "someone" (and I'm not saying it's CurryTime7-24) came to my talk page yesterday to write , I can only think of 1 person who is hounding me this much though, but that doesn't seem to be taken seriously. ] (]) 07:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :That's not "interesting", that's despicable; as is your insinuation. As for sheetmusicx as as source: for what? That they published some work? Why is that noteworthy? -- ] (]) 08:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a source for information about the work. Yes it's despicable, and as I said, no one takes it seriously, I'm not insinuating anything, admins can look into the IP themselves. ] (]) 08:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::So, you would prefer that this dispute continue on, which could lead to sanctions for you, rather than simply stop using this website as a reference? To me, when I see that kind of behavior, it's typically a sign of a paid editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There's no dispute, it's a reliable source and ] makes a fuss about it because of his ] syndrome and potential ] with his affiliation with Fidelio Music. | |||
| ::::Why are you against a source that complies with ] ? ] (]) 09:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Because your use of that source is pretty clearly intended as promotional. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's hard to understand how you can say "there's no dispute" when there is quite obviously a dispute; six editors in this thread alone have questioned your use of that source. You have invoked ] to claim that the website is an acceptable source, but I'm not sure you have understood what that guideline says about commercial sites; they are allowed as references '''only''' to verify simple facts such as titles and running times. You have not used sheetmusicx.com for such purposes; you have used it to tell the reader where they can purchase sheet music (], ], ], ], ], etc). ] (]) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I used it to add relevant information that didn't exist on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ::::::When I added "Psycho A Narrative for String Orchestra" that exists since 1968 and never mentioned on Misplaced Pages, but CurryTime decided to harass me there too. | |||
| ::::::When I added the orchestration for Tambourin Chinois , which CurryTime decided to remove too. | |||
| ::::::I used information by the publisher to confirm facts, as per ], if commercial sources are not allowed to verify contributions, then why is everyone so quiet about CurryTime's affiliation to Fidelio Music links ? So far these comments are a good example of ], first I was accused of spamming, then of being a bot, then that my account was compromised, then that the source used wasn't reliable, if you run out of ideas try my religion or ethnicity. ] (]) 08:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, you added the bit about Psycho - which included the link ''with the same phrasing as on the other edits'' where it was obvious "buy this music here". Your edits are either promotional or are indistinguishable from being promotional. That is why they are being removed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You have repeatedly said that CurryTime7-24 is an affiliate of Fidelio. Can you show us your evidence of that? ] (]) 18:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Here he removed my source to add Fidelio Music | |||
| ::::::Here again to make sure only Fidelio Music exists | |||
| ::::::And obviously here, deleting what I added to include Fidelio Music exclusively | |||
| ::::::Here he completely deleted everything I added about the piece as part of his ] ] (]) 19:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That may be evidence of something, good or bad, but it's certainly not evidence that that editor is an affiliate. But, anyway, the action that hould have been taken a few days ago has now been taken, so we can stop talking now. ] (]) 20:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be nice if an admin would compare the IP address 181.215.89.116 that told me to on my Talk Page, to existing users, now that would be fun to find out who is so against my edits, because so far the only action was a suspension. ] (]) 08:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::In any case the most obvious guess is: some unrelated troll who saw your name on this board. —] (]) 22:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It appears that there is consensus here and at ] against linking to Sheet Music X. Is it possible for an admin to propose a resolution here? —] (]) 17:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The only consensus is your ] syndrome, the sources linked are reliable and fit for purpose. People have questioned my use of the source, not the reliability of it. | |||
| ::You're more or less repeating your earlier question, which I repeated above to see what others thought. I didn't say that I had no involvement; I'm disinterested but not uninvolved, as recent edits demonstrate. I froze the article. When time permits, I try to work out where the disagreement lies. This combination may or may not be proper. I asked here about it. So far just one admin has responded, and as he seemed to think it was OK, I continued. I'd be happy if he and others volunteered to look at the article and keep looking at it; I'd then happily leave. -- ] (]) 23:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You created this complaint stating that I'm a spammer, a bot or a compromised account, has that consensus been reached too ? ] (]) 18:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes its the same question that I felt the need to repeat after your two discussion edits to the talkpage, it is confusing when you appear to be involved and also taking administrator actions on the article. I took from the comment from Ed that your actions were fine, but he also seemed to suggest that you get to one side of the fence regarding the article..either an editor or an admin, in the situation I think it is unwise to act as both there. ] (]) 23:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, {{u|John40332}}, you are wrong about the lack of consensus, and there is ''clear'' consensus against you linking to that commercial sheet music sales site. So, either you agree to stop doing so, or you get subjected to formal sanctions. Which will it be? ] (]) 18:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This comment of yours here overlapped there. ¶ As you have said, I haven't edited the article for a long time, if ever. I've no desire to edit it. I don't care whether it concludes that ten or ninety percent of Brazilians are "white", or how it describes these "white" people. I do care that whatever it says is well-informed and well-reasoned, and I am willing to ask questions in order to clear up what appear to be contradictions or to find just what an objection consists of. I'd be much happier if others volunteered to do this work instead. And that's one reason why I asked here. -- ] (]) 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::So CurryTime can throw random accusations until something sticks? ] (]) 18:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::ec.I am not finding this easy, admin Hoary has now gone off involving himself again in the content discussion asking editors if , under the circumstances I would find it excessive if he was to take any more administrator actions on the article. ] (]) 00:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK, then. {{u|John40332}} is indefinitely blocked from article space. The editor is free to make well-referenced, formal ] on article talk pages. The editor is warned that continuing to attempt to add links to Sheet Music X may lead to a sitewide block. The editor is advised to read the ]. ] (]) 19:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And in the last few minutes I've made other edits to the talk page besides that. Well, I understand what you are saying here. My administrative action on the article so far has been protection; tempted though I occasionally am to take the further administrative action of deleting it, I agree that this would be excessive and intend to resist the temptation. Have my edits to the talk page been improper? Let's see what others here think; and again, I hope that the unbiased among them will dive in to this group of articles and stay there. -- ] (]) 01:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I made well referenced edits directly from a reputable publisher. Enjoy the power trip. ] (]) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please refrain from ] which violate policy. ] (]) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Let me quote Misplaced Pages's page for Power Trip "(...) someone in a position of greater power uses that power unjustifiably against a lower-ranking person, typically just for display of dominance.", since you showed up just to block me when I haven't even edited anything else until this incident was cleared. I didn't spam, I'm not a bot, my account isn't compromised, I referenced a reputable publisher that due to CurryTime's ] and ] made him start this issue. ] (]) 19:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Put that shovel down before you are indef blocked completely. '''increase indef block to all namespaces''' for battleground mentality. ] (]) 19:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}The block is now sitewide. ] (]) 19:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :I didn't want it, but I am seeing that it's necessary a few coments of mine in here: | |||
| ::#I stil do not know what is the issue in the article ]. Neither Off2riorob nor Opinoso has come with good reasons to oppose Ninguém's edits. And when I say that, I mean that none of them brought sources that goes against Ninguém's edit. That is, "''according to editor X, he says Y, while what you wrote means Z.''" All I saw was "''I did not like your changes and for that reason I am reverting them and sorry, but I can't discuss with you why I did that because I am too busy in real life.''" That's the best way to keep the article locked and with the discussion with no end, which means that what they want is an article that can/will not be changed. If no one can change anything in the article unless he/she asks for permission from other editors (that is, according to both Opinoso and Off2riorob, it is needed a "consensus"), that is nothing more than ownership of an article. | |||
| ::#So far Hoary has not done anything, I repeat, anything that could make anyone, I repeat, anyone, complain about his actions. He blocked the article because he feared that it would take to an edit war probably due to past disagreements in it that he witnessed by himself. And that was a correct action of his. Then, he pointed out what were Ninguém's edits and asked everyone to make comments about it. As a far as I know, trying to settle a dispute by bringing both parties to reason can not be considered a fault, and that was what Hoary tried to do. Off2riorob's insinuations, and that's what they are, insinuations of possible bad faith from Hoary as possibly taking sides is not only a huge mistake but also unfair. | |||
| ::#Off2riorob complained that Hoary was one of the people who Ninguém asked for help to deal with matter, implying that Hoary was someone that Ninguém could be sure that would take his side. Untrue. Hoary is the administrator who has been dealing with issues related to such article for quite sometime and if he got involved in it it was to do his job as an administrator and also because he, more than any other administrator, already knows very well what it's being discussed. | |||
| ::#Again, neither Opinoso nor Off2riorob has brought sources to oppose Ninguém's edits. Off2riorob has reverted good faith edits done by Ninguém without waiting for other editor's opinions in the talk page. And he reverted every single thing Ninguém did to a previous version that he considered "stable". To me, that is nothing more than ownership, again. | |||
| ::#What should be done, then? First of all, Off2riorob should apologize to Hoary for the insinuations he did because wanting or not, they will harm his credibility not only among editors but also among his peers if they are not taken back. | |||
| ::#Second of all, the article must be unblocked, reverted to the last Ninguém's edit and once both Off2riorob and Opinoso has time to discuss and have REAL reasons to oppose a change, they may ask for changes in the talk page and wait for other editors' opinions. Those are my thoughts. --] (]) 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and removal of sourced information == | |||
| Well, thank you for your kind words about me, but it is indeed odd for an admin to protect a page and then to comment on aspects of content that may or may not have provoked the edit war. It's even odder when the protection was preemptive. And I'm not sure that Off2riorob has been insinuating anything. Certainly I'm not after any apology from anyone. I appreciate your amicable intentions, but let's avoid blowing this up further or making it more personal than it needs to be. -- ] (]) 02:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = no action at this time | |||
| | result = Participants reminded to attempt communicating with other editors before reporting their behaviour to ANI. ] (]) 21:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fine. So here are my points: | |||
| }} | |||
| ::::# Off2riorob was the one who started all this discussion. | |||
| ::::# So, he should bring reasons to why he oppose Ninguém's edits. | |||
| ::::# Those reasons can not be his personal opinions. They must be something like "author X says Y while what Ninguém wrote says Z". Simple like that. | |||
| ::::# If he does not bring sources, reliable sources to where and why Ninguém's edits are wrong, the article must be unlocked and what Off2riorob reverted. Is that fair enough? --] (]) 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This seems to be an ongoing issue. | |||
| That's pretty much it. Off2riorob keeps saying that he wants to discuss the article, but is not able to point to any specifical disagreement. Also seems to be unable to understand either the article as it is, or the version he reverted; indeed, seems to confuse them, and attribute to one the merits or demerits of the other. Opinoso wants to discuss soccer player Ronaldo's race. | |||
| {{Userlinks|Vofa}} has lots of warnings about disruptive editing in their user page and a block. | |||
| There is no reason for protection, I think. The reverted version should be restored, as it is uncomparably better than the protected one. Attempts to edit war at the article in order to restore the unsourced and distorted version should be watched for. ] (]) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The article is clearly in need of current protection, some kind of discussion about the article needs to be established before unprotecting, there are still two editors that totally object to the rewrite that was occurring by user ninguen, I have tried to discuss the article but this is the position that is being expounded Ninguen and the other involved editors, they support the rewrite and want to enforce consensus on the rewrite when there is not a clear consensus to support one. ] (]) 00:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Most recent example of removal of sourced information: | |||
| ::There are no clear objection to what was written. If you can expose any, I am willing to discuss it, but up to now you haven't. ] (]) 00:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is not the place to discuss content disputes, I have made a fair few good faith attempts to move forward with the discussion on the talkpage there. ] (]) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I don't deny they have been made in good faith, but they fail to clarify what you disagree with in the reverted version. ] (]) 00:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I checked the source and the information is there on page 7. | |||
| :No, there is plenty of reason for protection. I believe that the version that's protected (below, "VP") is inferior to the version as edited by Ninguém (below, "NV"). My reason for saying this is that problems with VP have been clearly described, and NV is the result of incremental changes that are described in summaries and seem to be improvements. But it's not ''incomparably'' better; comparisons can be made by editors who are openminded and levelheaded. | |||
| Previous examples include: . Also see: ] ] (]) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :However, as I'm not able to read Portuguese and have limited reserves of time and energy, I must concede that I can't guarantee that NV doesn't have faults. Indeed, it probably does have faults: most good revisions do. These faults can be discussed rationally in due time. | |||
| :Just to clarify, I just noticed that there is indeed an unsourced paragraph. | |||
| :So there's nothing inconsistent in claiming that the wrong version is protected while conceding that the alternative needs improvement. And it's normal in Misplaced Pages for the wrong version to be the protected one. This does not mean that the article is doomed to remain inferior after protection is lifted. | |||
| :The reason for removal of sourced information would then be "removed text not relevant to Chagatai Khanate and Golden Horde in introduction". However the source does mention {{tq|The first of the changes leading to the formation of the Turco-Mongolian tradition ...}} and then gives Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate as examples. I don't see any ] or ] issues. | |||
| :I am concerned about removal of sourced information that does not seem to have a rationale based on ] ] (]) 16:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi there. The matter seems to be resolved. I did remove an unsourced paragraph and general claims not relevant to the introduction. I do not see a problem with it. You seem to have linked three edits I made. In the first edit, I had to revert because I accidentally chose the minor edit option. In the second edit, I have restored the previous version, but without a minor sign. I did not remove any sources (based on what I remember) I hope to see through my edits and understand what I did or did not do wrong. Please, avoid making an ANI in bad faith. ] (]) 03:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You removed source information. The part that starts with {{tq|The ruling Mongol elites ...}} | |||
| :::{{ping|asilvering}} from the editor's talk page, you seem to be a mentor. Removing sources or sourced material without explanation, or with insufficient explanation or rationale, such as "Polished language" , is an ongoing concern with Vofa. ] (]) 15:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Im not sure why I’m being stalked, but the edits you’re showing as examples of myself removing sources are more than two months old. I’ve stopped removing sources. ] (]) 19:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|asilvering}} This issue is still continuing ] (]) 15:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And you previously spoke to Vofa about this where...? -- ] (]) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|asilvering}}, I hadn't talked about removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale. | |||
| :::::I did talk about this however . See: ] | |||
| :::::I don't seek or expect a permanent block over this. But as a mentor and an administrator, maybe you can comment on removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale. ] (]) 19:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@], that's a ''threat'', not an explanation. If you have a content dispute with an editor, which is what this appears to be, you need to be able to talk it out with them on the article's Talk page. @], please be careful to make sure your edit summaries explain what you're doing. I see that there ''was'' an unsourced statement in the link Bogazicili just supplied, so I presume that's what you meant by "unsourced". But the other statement you removed ''did'' have a source. It's ok to split your edits up into multiple edits if you need to do that to explain them properly, but you could also just give an edit summary like "removed unsourced; also, removed statement " that addresses both changes. -- ] (]) 23:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{u|Asilvering}}, I would not characterize this as a "content dispute". I was not involved in most of those articles. I got concerned after seeing edits market as minor removing sources or sourced material without any or proper explanation. That is not a content dispute, that is an editor conduct dispute. ] (]) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What Vofa does at articles related to Turko-Mongolian history is not a content dispute but vandalism. It took me a lot of time to manually revert the hoax years and figures he added in ] article to decrease their population and he also removed sourced basic info from the lede of the ] which I had to restore. These are just some of few sneaky vandalism examples that I caught among the pages I patrol by Vofa. If you see his talk page, he has been warned a lot of times by many other editors for such mischief. ] (]) 07:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@], Vofa hasn't edited the Turkmens article since before they were blocked. That is obviously not an ongoing issue. As for ], I ''also'' see no discussion of those edits. If you have a problem with how someone is editing, you need to communicate with them. -- ] (]) 08:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{u|Asilvering}}, my concerns were removal of sourced information or sources without proper rationale or explanation. Do you think that was communicated enough to Vofa in this topic, or do we need further communication? I'm asking in case Vofa continues this type of behavior. Hopefully that won't be the case. ] (]) 08:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Im going to repeat this again; | |||
| ::::::::::I have not removed any sources since I was warned about it. | |||
| ::::::::::I do not see an issue with my recent editing. | |||
| ::::::::::You should communicate with me on any issues that you have with me. ] (]) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{u|Vofa}}, do you see any issues with this edit: ] (]) 11:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Are you implying if I see an issue with this edit of mine or with your removal of said edit? ] (]) 15:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::{{u|Vofa}}, the former. I am asking if you see any issues yourself with your own linked edit. ] (]) 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I do not see an issue with the linked edit of mine. ] (]) 19:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Indeed, really the issue was Bogazicili's, and it has now been solved in the usual way (by restoring only the sourced content). Apologies, @], for misreading it earlier. -- ] (]) 19:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::{{u|Asilvering}}, I disagree. I did miss the unsourced paragraph. However, removal of sourced content has been an ongoing issue with Vofa. They should not have removed sourced content to begin with. | |||
| :::::::::::::::There was also a previous discussion in ANI: | |||
| :::::::::::::::] | |||
| :::::::::::::::{{u|Asilvering}}, again, is the threshold of communication met if removing sourced content by Vofa persists in the future? ] (]) 19:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Basically, I'm not trying to get Vofa blocked, but they should be more careful in future when they remove sources or sourced content. They should have a reasonable rationale based in ], and they should explain that rationale properly. ] (]) 19:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Indeed they should. And you should not restore unsourced content once it has been removed. -- ] (]) 20:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::{{u|asilvering}}, the difference is I already acknowledged it multiple times. Is that not obvious? ] (]) 21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::@], I'm going to close this report. No administrative action is required here at this time. You should make a habit of communicating on the article talk page when you get into a conflict with another editor, but you should ''always'' try to communicate with other editors before coming to ANI about their behaviour. This should be your last resort. If you make an earnest effort to communicate and are ignored, by all means report here. If there is edit-warring or obvious vandalism involved, please take that to the relevant noticeboard. -- ] (]) 21:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Thank you. ] (]) 11:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This member often vandalises, in an article about ] he wrote huge numbers without backing them up with sources and tried to prove it was true. This is rabid vandalism. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@], vandalism has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages; an edit being unsourced does not mean it was vandalism. Do not cast aspersions on other editors in this way. @], you are edit-warring on ]. You need to stop doing that immediately. -- ] (]) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I have not edited Oirats. I have stopped edit warring. ] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ==Incivility and ABF in contentious topics== | |||
| :If protection were lifted today, I've no reason to think there wouldn't be a straightforward edit war between VP and NV (or minor revisions thereof), leading to blocks, accusations of tag teaming or even "sockpuppeteering", miscellaneous other drama, and speedy reprotection (very likely of VP). But in the end I'm just one editor. If there appears to be general agreement among the disagreeing factions that they want the article to be unprotected ("Give us enough rope; we want to hang ourselves"), I'll unprotect it. | |||
| ]'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: | |||
| :And of course if another administrator volunteers to oversee this mess, I'll happily bow out. Which was my point in starting this section of WP:AN/I. -- ] (]) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills. | |||
| OK, but then we need some way to make discussion actually happen. Generalities about "the article should explain what is a White Brazilian" don't help, if it cannot be pointed what is lacking in the explanations given by each version. Diatribes on how Ronaldo is so wrong in self-classifying as "White" are even less useful. And up to now these are the only things we have. ] (]) 00:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883 | |||
| :Moreover, I would think it as a disaster if you quit moderating the article. Up to now, you have been the only admin that made a serious effort to understand the ongoing disputes. But there seems to be some strange idea that to moderate an article someone should be "uninvolved". This is evidently impossible; without making actual decisions, it is impossible to maintain order in an article. And without understanding what is going on it is impossible to make actual decisions. ] (]) 00:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| As I have passed by these disputes with only minimal involvement, but seen the scale of the task, I can only applaud Hoary for handling them, Hoary is to modest, even if a perfect job has not been done it is far better than not having an admin with a watching brief there at all, which would have lead to 3RR, blocks, bans, socks and arbs. ''] ]'', 11:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC). | |||
| WP:NPA | |||
| :Thank you for your appreciative words, but I'm hardly handling these pages. My attention to any one isn't close and generally comes with a complete lack of attention to any of the others. Off2riorob is within his rights in asking of me "could he clarify if he is acting as an admin here as an editor in the way of dispute resolution"; the answer "a bit of both" probably breaks some guideline and is potentially if not actually problematic. So I hope that | |||
| :*One or (better) more experienced, disinterested editors will attend to the dispute, leaving me to administer; or | |||
| :*One or more admins will announce that they'll handle the administrative side, unprotecting the article when it seems appropriate, issuing block warnings and blocks when justified, etc, leaving me to argue with all eight cylinders (and of course render myself less popular and more blockable); or (best) | |||
| :*Both the above so I can take a little break from Brazilian affairs. | |||
| :Of course people tend not to want to dive into such imbroglios (other than for the wrong reasons, of course). I'd point out that although there's a great amount of irritation and frustration on display, all of the more active participants seem concerned to improve the article, and although there are apparent non sequiturs, naivity and tantrums from time to time, there's little or none of the shrillness or noxious racism for which articles on "racial"/ethnic (non-) matters elsewhere in the world are notorious. So you shouldn't be scared. -- ] (]) 14:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324 | |||
| :Hoary asked me to help; I cannot help as extensively as he wishes, but i support continuing the present protection of the article, which is the only immediate question for AN/I. My reason is pragmatic: the dispute involves the structure of the article, not just the wording; in such cases it is essential to have a stable version to avoid confusing the discussion. I have made some further comments about the lede at the article talk p. ''']''' (]) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Profanity | |||
| ::I support the continued protection of the article. If Hoary wants another admin to take over the admin duties on this article, I'm willing to do so. The very topic of this article, ], fills me with dread because WP usually has trouble with contentious topics that involve national, racial, or genetic issues. Since this article has all three, it's a triple whammy. I caution Hoary that my inclination would likely be to keep the full protection in place for a long time, until a clear consensus emerges on the talk page. If other editors at ANI don't agree that a long protection is wise then I'd withdraw my offer in favor of someone else. ] (]) 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966 | |||
| :::Well, I still don't know where to begin with. Editor Off2Riobob was the one who began all this discussion. With the exception of his complain that the lead is larger than it should, I have no idea what is the problem after all. I have requested him several (several, several and several) times what is wrong with editor Ninguém's edits and according to which authors they are wrong. Unfortunately, he hasn't bothered to answer me so far. You all want a consensus? Well, how are we going to find one if the editor that started all this hasn't told what is wrong, yet? --] (]) 19:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor | |||
| ::::If an objection really is unclear, the person who made it fails to answer requests to clarify it within a reasonable time, and nobody else clarifies it, then surely the objection can be ignored. -- ] (]) 06:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877 | |||
| :::Ed, I appreciate your offer to administer, but I have to say that I'm unhappy with quite so much stress on protecting the article for a long time. Protect it until "consensus" (in the WP sense) emerges, yes of course; but if it looks as if it will remain protected "for ever" (for a longish time), then chances are high that at least one bellicose editor will move the war elsewhere. And there are plenty of potential battlegrounds: the article on each of the other "colors" (ugh) of Brazilians, the article on each hyphenated Brazilian, etc. I'd rather phrase the administrative talk in such a way as to encourage uninterrupted work towards an agreement. (Not that I can claim to have been, or to be, much good at such encouragement myself.) -- ] (]) 06:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Unicivil | |||
| If I say that I'd like somebody else to take over the job of wielding the <s>cluebat</s> janitorial mop over these issues, I can hardly demand that they do so in the way that I happen to think is best: after all, I'm after a replacement, not an executive assistant. So I hand the job over to ] and wish him (you) the best. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027 | |||
| I now consider myself freer to suggest what I think are improvements to the article. (Perhaps I too will need to be cluebatted from time to time.) -- ] (]) 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441 | |||
| == Admin:Rama ignoring previous consensus, refusing to gain new consensus == | |||
| Contact on user page attempted | |||
| In 2007 a user (]) proposed to delete ]. After a ] 2 users (] and ]) and an administrator (]) gained consensus saying the image should be kept and was not a copyright violation (the user proposing deletion (User:CBM) was the only user disagreeing). I was anticipating replacing the image once some measurable progress had been made on the structure. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795 | |||
| A few days ago, the admin ] ignored that previous consensus and abruptly (speedily) deleted the image without discussion. I briefly introduced points where I disagreed with his assessment (on ]) and pointed out that others disagreed as well. I thought it would be best to restore the image and propose it for deletion so that a proper discussion could take place and another administrator could determine consensus. | |||
| Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent | |||
| ] refuses to do any of this; he has ignored previous consensus on keeping the file and refuses to gain new consensus, stating that he is the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong - User:Rama stated "''I do not care whether people disagree with me or not, this is not a democracy. If you want to vote reality out of existence, do that in a sandbox. I am very obviously right, and no matter of how many people are wrong and disagree with me, they are still wrong.''" He then stated that pointing out others who disagreed with him was a "waste of time" and that this discussion was "futile". Another administrator (]) stated to Rama that "the 2007 discussion was closed as "fair use permitted" so it's probably unwise to unilaterally reverse that decision with a speedy delete". | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557] (]) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| All I am requesting is that the image be restored and then proposed for deletion so that other editors can discuss this. I have many points to make about why it shouldn't be deleted, but wish to do this on a deletion page, not on a user talk page. Thanks! ] (]) 19:23, 9 December 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) | |||
| :Rama does look to be taking a particularly aggressive "my way or the highway" stance here. I've noted that a few other editors who work in the Fair Use area tend to get like that as well. Also ] is quite unhelpful, as it uses an obscure slang word throughout, without explanation (the more mainstream use of the word gives it the meaning 'manly' --] (]) 19:39, 9 December 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) | |||
| :: For clarity, I don't believe that English is Rama's first language. Where he uses the term ''jocker'', what he probably means is ''joker'', in the sense of a wild card, free pass, or get-out-of-jail-free card to wave about as an excuse to ignore the rules. I thought his explanation at the top of the page was reasonably clear as to his intent — and the approximate meaning is certainly clear from context later on. ](]) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (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) | |||
| :The correct place to request restoration is ]. — ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 19:41, 9 December 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) | |||
| ::See wider issue I commented about below @ 19:41. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 19:42, 9 December 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) | |||
| ::::So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a ] slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|BarntToust}} You're being ] and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. ] (]) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::well, I tend to get concerned when someone with LLM text pasted on their userpage comes up from the water. If that's considered bite-y to reiterate my concerns in intentional lighthearted analogy in order to seem less hard-headed, then I guess we're done here. @], I invite you to weigh in on whether you think a '''formal warning''' or a ] slap is what needs to happen to Hob. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :That content from ChatGPT was meant to go in my sandbox as experiment or for assisting with research into a future article. The LLM can generate wikitext with links to articles that already exist. ] (]) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are ] and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @], I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? ] (]) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@], I'm pointing out questionable content on someone else page. for ''context'', in which they copied ChatGPT text without attribution, then said that using ChatGPT without attribution is plagiarism. That contradictory stuff is what I was questioning. please click on the diff for context. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I use it more like a (really good) search engine or a thesaurus. It can give a lot of suggestions for a human writer, but ultimately you use your own mind and RS to formulate the facts and how to present them. ] (]) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks! *curtsy* ] (]) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *The lack of civility in this contentious topic is significantly hindering editing efforts, especially since most issues concern neutrality and tone, which requires a careful and nuanced approach. ] (]) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I would also invite a review of other recent F7 deletions. I am not familiar enough with the NFCC and fair use criteria, but I am concerned that ] may not dovetail with the community's - however admit that I am a novice in this area. I think it might be more appropriate they bring these to FFD, given that they take a somewhat hardline on fair use. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 19:41, 9 December 2009 (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? ] (]) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::: |
::@] As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? ] (]) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Working in this area is a pretty thankless job. I'm not sure that it's an area where local consensus can rule in any case. ] (]) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, in British slang, "thick" = "stupid". ]] 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, I am a novice; but if I have understood Rama's argument correctly it's that the image is replaceable by a 3D model rendered by an editor and released into the public domain: but isn't this simply a recreation of a copyrighted work? –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 19:59, 9 December 2009 (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 agree that Rama's interpretation may not dovetail comfortably with the bulk of the Misplaced Pages community, but I have a strong suspicion that Rama's perspective is probably much closer to legal reality. ](]) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The Misplaced Pages policy, even with a relatively lax interpretation. is deliberately stricter than the legal standard. There seems to be fairly general consensus that it ought to be. ''']''' (]) 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am concerned that certain aspects of Rama's personal interpretation of fair use, located at ], do not seem to jibe with either official foundation policy OR with community standards. Some of what he says there seems perfectly legit points he is making, his peculiar interpretation of replacability seems to be bothersome. For example, ], the primary guideline which contains community standards on the enforcement of the foundational policy at ], only states that pictures of people ''still alive'' are considered to be unsuitible for fair use claims, however Rama seems to unilaterally declare that pictures of dead people are also unsuitible for fair use claims, with absolutely no community backing at all. I am concerned not that he is trying to enforce a foundational policy (which is a good idea) with a ''personal interpretation'' that is unsupported by the community. Now, in this case the fact remains that there can be no freely-made reproductions of the archetectural plans of this unfinished building because, say, if "I" drew my interpretation of these plans, they would still be derivative works. Furthermore, the detailed rationale at the image description page seems perfectly fine to me, so I see no reason to delete an image of this type, when everything seems in order. --]''''']''''' 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, I hope you don't mind if I chime in again, but to TenofAllTrades - I'll quote something I posted on Rama's talk page. "''A much safer, IMO legal situation would simply to be use the renderings as provided by the architect (and I actually went through a great deal of work to get that permission). It seems Misplaced Pages is more at risk if we create our own renderings of a copyrighted design and then post them as "our own.''" The way I see it, either no images are allowed of unbuilt buildings - drawn by the architect or drawn by Wikipedians based upon models drawn by the architect or the copyrighted version itself is used. Shelbourne Development and Calatrava gave Misplaced Pages permission in an e-mail to me to use the images. I doubt they would look so kindly on us creating our own images of their copyrighted works, however. The bottom line - modeling your own renderings of a copyrighted design is much scarier from a legal perspective IMO. ] (]) 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Even more problematic with Rama's deletion then, is if, as you claim, the original copyright holder did give email permission for this usage. --]''''']''''' 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Jayron, Kim Metcalfe, a representative for Shelbourne Development (you'll see she is quoted in many of the news articles of the structure), gave me an FTP login to the directoy where Calatrava uploaded the copyrighted images for release (for publicity). She also provided explicit permission for the images to be used as long as the copyright information was included. I have saved these emails if anyone needs to see copies of them. ] (]) 20:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Did they give permission only for Misplaced Pages or also for possible reusers? "Only for Misplaced Pages" used to be a reason for speedy deletion. — ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Kusma, it was a copyrighted image that she gave permission for Misplaced Pages and others to use, but obviously I requested permission for Misplaced Pages to use it (I didn't ask for anyone else). I think you are referring to images that people upload but only allow Misplaced Pages to use - you are right those get speedy deletes ("''This includes "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use", "for Misplaced Pages use only" or "used with permission". See CSD F3''" from ]. But this was a copyrighted image, with a fair use rationale with permission to use (the permission isn't required and is an optional addendum. I believe both of the following copyright tags were used on the image page <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>. As you can see, permission for Misplaced Pages tags (Non-free with permission) are used but must be used in conjuction with another tag and fair use rationale. The image's file page satisfied all of these requirements. Here is a cached version of the page - ] (]) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Consensus does not mean a majority vote, it means that all parties can agree with the solution. It strikes me that the original decision was not a consensus but a decision by three individuals to overrule a fourth. ] (]) 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Nor is consensus unanimity, especially in a binary decision. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, it does mean unanimity in the sense that all parties are prepared to live with the solution. If someone still objects to the solution, it is not a consensus but an over ruling of that individual's opinion. To establish a consensus, the minority opinion must consent to the solution voted on by the majority. I suppose it is arguable that ] consented to keeping the disputed image because he/she made no other attempt to remove it. ] (]) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Dabbler I agree and disagree. Consensus, as I understand it on Misplaced Pages, is the ability for everyone involved to make a case and a decision to be made. Not everyone agrees, but hopefully each argument has been looked at in depth. You see "rulings" as you call them being made all the time on nominations for deletion, nominations for featured articles, etc. Not everyone always agrees, but at least everyone knows the reasoning for decisions and had a say in the matter. You are right, in the original nomination 3 were for keeping the image, 1 was still against, but the issues were discussed at length and in the end an admin made a decision. This is my point with what happened with Rama's speedy deletion. Previous precedence existed, it was ignored, and there was absoultey NO opportunity given for further discussion - although I guess I will eventually need to go to ]. ] (]) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| But no matter our definition of consensus, I do think it is important Misplaced Pages's community do come up with some type of decision or precedent of image use - this image is a perfect example (copyrighted images for unbuilt buildings). I hope the discussion here will result in some decision, either for or against their use in articles. ] (]) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem here is that none of us, not you or I or Rama, are lawyers who specialize in intellectual property rights (well, I suppose we ''could'' be, but even if we were, we are not acting as such when we edit wikipedia, but I digress). This is a place where, IMHO, the foundation has fallen eggregiously short. Of course they cannot police every aspect of Misplaced Pages, but it seems to me that copyright violation is one place where the foundation stands to be on precarious legal standing (much like the ] policy, except that I think they ''have'' handled that one well). The existing foundation guidance is too vague, IMHO. There is too much room for interpretation, so you get a situation where the interpretation of some users (a conservative approproach favored by Rama) is in conflict with more liberal interpretations, and absent community consensus here, there is no way to resolve this, since no one has standing to say their interpretation is the right one. If we return this to a community consensus issue, and as some state above, Rama is expressing an opinion in the matter, as some contend above indicating that this represents a !vote of 3 to 1, then as a participant in the discussion, Rama should not be involved in enacting any results. Still a bad delete, if he wants to have an opinion that's cool, but he should then pass off to another admin to enact the decision. Admins should not be participants AND enactors of a consensus discussion. | |||
| :I know I kind of rambled a bit there, but the basic point is that the BEST solution would be clearer guidance from the Foundation on this issue; absent that guidance we must default to community consensus, and in this case I cannot see consensus to support Rama's move here, either in the general sense of interpreting ] or in the specific sense on how to deal with this image. --]''''']''''' 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of the two images (] and ]) speedily deleted by {{admin|Rama}} that I have discussed with this admin, (only after the fact on ]), Freedom Tower New.jpg had a very similar fair use rationale to the one on ]. I am unsure if Nakheel Tower.jpg had similar, but given the chance I would have improved the rationale. Whilst there is the question of potential copyright violation if Misplaced Pages editors create their own derivative work, I am also worried about amateur artists misrepresenting a building's design and leaving readers wondering whether we have used accurate dimensions, accurate colours, and so on. ] (]) 22:27, 9 December 2009 (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) | |||
| *Rama appears to have also bypassed the procedure outlined at ] (i.e. add ] and wait 2 days). –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 22:40, 9 December 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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| OK, well it sounds like ] and I need to head over to ] to file some undeletion requests. ] (]) 00:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, based upon what others have said, we need to list the images Rama created as copyright violations. It is not my intention to upset him, but I am seriously concerned with creating images based on a copyrighted design and someone publishing them as their own work. This is something that could tick off ] or Shelbourne. ] (]) 00:51, 10 December 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) | |||
| I have requested the following: | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| * The "free" commons image Rama created be deleted because of a copyright violation (See: ) | |||
| *:For context, ] is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * The ] be restored per a deletion review (See: ]) | |||
| *::I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. ] (]) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. ] (]) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **If one admin can arbitarily delete something then another can arbitarily undelete it. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:22, 10 December 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) | |||
| **:I do wish people would use the adverb 'arbitrarily' more carefully in these discussions. I fully agree that if Rama were deleting images arbitrarily – "''La di dah, I think I'll delete an image today. Ah! This one clashes with my wallpaper, it's got to go — '''bloop!'''''" – then it would be perfectly appropriate to undo that deletion on a similarly lackadaisical basis. On the other hand, Rama's actions certainly don't seem to be ''arbitrary'' in this case. He seems to have acted on the basis of careful thought and extended reasoning. Whether or not one agrees with his reasoning is open to discussion, but to imply that his action was whimsical or capricious and therefore subject to instant ''arbitrary'' reversal is a very disrespectful approach. Feel free to disagree, but don't dismiss his actions as 'arbitrary'. ](]) 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. ] (]) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***Ten, I can't speak for Spartaz, but he might be referring to Rama's tendency to ignore other user opinions - something I have found to be very frustrating. It happened when the image was deleted the first time by Rama, it happened again when Rama tried to speedily delete the image again today (this was after much of the discussion on this page was posted) and how he hasn't discussed his shape equivalent theory (as I introduced below) to this thread. It seems as if he detests talking with the community and consistently makes rash decisions. Again, I can attest how frustrating it has been for me, and probably a few other editors/admins dealing with these issues. I understand his perspective - and he might even be right, but won't he please just discuss things first? Sorry I'm done ranting lol. ] (]) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (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 Spartaz commented, he has restored the copyrighted image. The commons page still needs opinion on deletion. Also, I have updated the fair use rationale on the copyrighted image. It should be more exhaustive in its argument now. ] (]) 04:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *As a note, Hob Gadling without comment and has not responded here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Language issue?=== | |||
| *: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) | |||
| <s>Looking at the discussion on Rama's talkpage, I'm wondering if there's a language issue here (Rama appears to be French-speaking from his userboxen). He is interpreting "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed ... " (from ) to apply in a situation where building work has not yet started, and he has interpreted ] '''No Free equivalent:''' as ''Even if a Free alternative did not exist, that would not be a proof that a Free alternative cannot exist. In this case, the file is simply a random file taken amongst a number of files in a portefolio, and any other could have done, indicating that the file is indeed replaceable, and is improperly claimed for Fair Use'' which is completely contrary to what the policy says, but may be based on a mistranslation???</s> ] (]) 15:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC) On second thoughts, I don't think this is the problem at all. I think this admin could end up at RfC if things carry on this way. ] (]) 15:52, 10 December 2009 (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) | |||
| {{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) | |||
| ===The grey area=== | |||
| {{collapse top|Extended discussion}} | |||
| I wish Rama would have brought this up in the first place, this would have saved a lot of time. Anyway, as I brought up on the ] (I mean the copyrighted one, not the svg), Rama will now claim that per ], we can just use a geometric shape of the Spire instead of a copyrighted image. In other words, if shapes were free equivalents we could delete the copyrighted fair use image as there would be an equivalent. I'm inclined to say it is '''not''' an equivalent. The entire reason that copyrighted images of buildings have been considered fair use in the past (and IMO should continue to be fair use) is because they are illustrations of '''the''' primary subject of the article. I agree, copyrighted images of living persons should not be considered fair use. A celebrity or famous person's appearance is not the primary subject matter of the article. However with these articles on proposed buildings, the structure itself, as illustrated by the architect, '''is''' the primary subject of the article and therefore fair use. Either the image is sufficient enough to show the work (the copyrighted image) or it isn't sufficient enough (a shape). You can't have it both ways - it is a contradiction. Either it is usable in the article as an image or it is not. Therefore, I'm inclined to say I do not believe an image of the shape of a building is a free equivalent. Other comments please? Agree or disagree? ] (]) 18:10, 10 December 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) | |||
| :], the example created by Rama does not even come close to serving the "same encyclopedic purpose" that the fair use image in question does. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 18:12, 10 December 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) | |||
| :: Quite, juste like the photograph that we have at ] is not as "cool" as this . | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :: Problem is, we do not do Fair Use to snatch copyrighted images that we fancy, without charge, to make our webpage nicer. We take ''the one precise'' image that we ''need'' because it is discussed critically, like on ''Raising the Flag in Iwo Jima''. All the difference between stealing an honest work. ] (]) 21:33, 10 December 2009 (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) | |||
| :::Nothing was snatched here. The copyright owner gave specific permission. Furthermore, the analogy you make is a false one. No one is actually claiming that the picture is included for merely aestetic reasons. The arguement is that the picture you created to replace it is actually the more eggregious violation, because it is a ''derivative work'' created without permission, being used to replace the original work which DOES have permission for use. Furthermore, the image isn't merely decoration. The article discusses such issues as building design and location, all of which are ''uniquely'' enhanced by the picture. You appear to be inventing policy out of whole cloth here, without the support of the community. If you believe the foundation supports your interpretation, get the foundation to make a statement saying so. If you believe that the existing guidelines need to be changed to a more conservative view, then feel free to initiate those discussions. But to unilaterally decide that your own singular interpretation of policy is the only valid one, without actual support, seems to be particularly problematic here. --]''''']''''' 01:40, 11 December 2009 (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) | |||
| :::Have you noticed that even admins who are generally quick to support the NFCC and remove inappropriately used free images are disagreeing with you here Rama. If I were in your shoes I might take pause at that. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:01, 11 December 2009 (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) | |||
| ===What is going on here!?!?=== | |||
| Does Rama have an obsession with deleting images? He really needs to gain consensus on issues like these - what is with the consistent, rash decision making? Rama can respond to this directly and so can anyone else - but is this type of behavior consistent with how an admin acts? If I am out of line, feel free to let me know, but this is getting really irritating, for a lot of people. | |||
| * This was after admin ] kept the image in 2007, admin ] restored the image yesterday, and after all the discussion here!!! | |||
| * @ Line 776 & 787 | |||
| * See bdk's comments | |||
| * this section | |||
| * and this section | |||
| * and comments like this | |||
| Again, if I'm out of line, let me know. I just find this frustrating. ] (]) 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I have and also noted to them that if this pattern of behaviour continues, an RFCU may be initiated to gather community opinions as to their approach. For now, I think we should allow the Commons process to run its course and that will inform our actions here as to whether this and similar images recently deleted by Rama qualify for fair use. | |||
| :For now I would just advise you to take a step back and remember ] =) –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 19:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed and understood. I think it might be wise for me to take a break from these issues. ] (]) 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::...and just as a point of order, we have no jurisdiction over the commons issues you mentioned. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 19:14, 10 December 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) | |||
| Keep following the discussion on Rama's talk page. Somehow, lost in translation I presume, he has come to the conclusion that where the policy says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose", the word ONLY means that fair use can only be applied in cases where there is only one IMAGE in existence and can only ever be one image (eg the Mona Lisa). I simply cannot persuade him that the sentence means that the rule applies where ANY image of that subject would be non-free. This is why he believes it is OK to allow the use of the Iwo Jima image, but existence of several architects drawings means that fair use can never be applied. This is almost moving into an issue of competency, but I think he's just dug his heels in. Is there a discussion area where other Commons editors would discuss this kind of thing that we could take this discussion to?] (]) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : On the other hand | |||
| {{cquote|Nothing forbids using plans or schematics issued by the architect as documentation. The information that they carry is not, in itself, protected. Rama (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC) }} | |||
| I find it hard to believe that someone who is so hot for Misplaced Pages's fair use policy (which goes over and above the law) is unaware of the copyright issue raised by this sentence in relation to his drawing. ] (]) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : He's confusing simple data with rendered drawings. For example, a basic table created in Excel is not copyrightable, since it has no creative element and data itself can't be copyrighted. An architectural drawing does not fall under this exception, obviously. ] (]) 08:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Take a look at . Can someone explain to me why Rama thinks that s120, which has by now I think been quoted 3 times and says that the architect's design copyright does not extend to making images of a constructed building viewable from a public place, means that he can make copies of the architects plans. For someone so adamant about not "snatching" other people's work, why can he not see how badly his approach breaches US law. ] (]) 10:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I understand the need to wait until the deletion discussions are over, but I seriously question how someone who doesn't think it matters that by making a drawing of a building that isn't built yet, based on the architect's drawings, he has breached the architect's copyright, can continue in a position of responsibility relating to deciding on the use of non-free imagery. ] (]) 12:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have deleted ] because of invalid license. What was there had no fair use, just a claim of permission to use on Misplaced Pages. Whether an email permission (should be OTRS) can override the fair use requirement for minimal use and size would also be an issue for the possible fair use. ] (]) 12:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Someone re-uploaded it after Rama deleted it, but didn't add any fair use rationale. Also, isn't it instadeath for any file that only has permission to be used on Misplaced Pages, as Misplaced Pages cannot police its use? ] (]) 13:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We should still provide a fair use rationale even if we've been given permission "only for Misplaced Pages". –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 13:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Indeed. If anyone has the source for the image, I would be willing to re-upload it with a sturdy fair use claim - I've been getting some practice lately at fair use rationales lol. ] (]) 16:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've restored the image - please add the FUR asap. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: FUR added. I also uploaded a lower resolution version of the image - the same resolution used in the article infobox. ] (]) 17:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: That seems the correct course. That's what should have happened with the Spire drawing as well. It's not replacable until the building is complete and a photo or artists drawing can be made based on the finished structure. ] (]) 18:55, 11 December 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) | |||
| === Perhaps, a final discussion point... === | |||
| :*:There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "]" in situations like this one. Misplaced Pages would be better off if people were more willing to ] and stop treating ]. ] (]) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I don't mean to jump the gun, but it looks like (currently) there is overwhelming consensus, except for Rama, that the "free" svg image he created at commons is a copyright violation ('''8 deletes''' including the proposal for deletion (me) to '''1 keep''' by the original uploader, Rama) and the same thing for fair use of the Chicago Spire image. Of course this thread can and should stay open for as long as it needs to. I'm just worried the commons discussion could close at any time (maybe within a few hours or weeks), and wanted to point out there was one important ancillary consideration (to this Rama discussion) I think deserves a fair amount of discussion. It will have a decent impact on so many other articles and copyrighted building designs on Misplaced Pages - and I didn't want this thread to be "resolved" as soon as the commons discussion concludes. And the question is - | |||
| :*: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) | |||
| '''At what point should copyrighted, fair use images created by architects be replaced by ''free'' photographs of the building?''' In other words, when would a "free equivalent" exist? When it is 25% complete? 50% complete? 90% complete? When it is 100% complete? At some other point? Please discuss!!! ] (]) 19:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *In 2007 I said about '''25% complete''' (of the exterior) because that seems the point at which the design of the building can begin to be appreciated and understood. I'm not set on that and I've heard others here state that the copyrighted image should say up until the building 100% complete. I could understand that perspective as well, but there probably should be some consistent consensus on this moving forward from this lengthy discussion. ] (]) 19:07, 11 December 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) | |||
| * It depends on the scope of the architectural drawing. If the drawing represents an exterior view of the complete building, then it should be removed when an equivalent version of a free image becomes available. Whether drawings at other stages of construction (or other methods of representation) can be replaced depends on the availability of equivalent free images and the purpose for which the drawing is used. ]] 19:41, 11 December 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) | |||
| * I am not convinced that any use of a non-free image is acceptable in such a case. If a building has not yet been erected, I consider that it is non-notable and therefore should not have a Misplaced Pages article. An exception muight be made in the case of a commercial disaster like the ] which achieved notability before it was completed, see ]. If other editors are not convinced by my argument, then any non-free image should be replaced by a free one as soon as the new building is far enough along in construction as to provide a recognisable exterior photograph. ] (]) 21:01, 11 December 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) | |||
| *:Something doesn't need to be exist to be notable. If stories have been written about construction, whether it exists or not is immaterial to its notability.--] (]) 04:56, 12 December 2009 (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) | |||
| *As soon as a useful photograph is available that gives some idea of the nature of the building (in other words, not just the excavation).Butthis should be an addition, not replacement, until the structure is actually completed, or so substantially completed in that the exterior is essentially identical. Buildings under construction can be notable, just as other incomplete projects can be, and even plans for such a building can be notable, again as other projects. It depends on the perceived public importance of the building, as typically measured by the GNG. ''']''' (]) 21:07, 11 December 2009 (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) | |||
| *I think that the most ideal situation would be some more unambiguous, comprehensive policy from the foundation which would clear up more of these gray areas ''in general'' WRT copyright. However, in this case, insofar as a free alternative cannot be created ''until'' such time as the building is completed (enough) to do so, I think that the copyright architectural plans can be used as a stand-in under fair use. Once the building is in a state such that a real, free picture can be taken of it, the fair use claim would then go away. However, there are notable projects that are cancelled, or delayed, or not yet complete, and I think there is a compelling case in THOSE cases for using the copyrighted work, since ''no free '''equivalent''''' could exist. --]''''']''''' 21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Indeed. ] (]) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Personally I don't think the is particularly unclear, but you're right that it isn't very specific. I'm not sure this is a bad thing; the issue for the Foundation isn't one of legal liability (that accrues to the uploader), but content that is reusable consistent with its mission. Within the guidelines of the resolution, each project (through its ]) is responsible for making and enforcing its own specific rules. ]] 21:51, 11 December 2009 (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) | |||
| * The point basically stems from whether "built visible from a public space" should be interpreted as accenting "built" of "visible from a public space". I believe that the very question exhibits the magnitude of the absurdity that the "built" interpretation entails, leading directly to a Theseus' paradox. At the very least, assuming that the "built" interpretation is retained, which seems likely, we cannot accept arguments like "let's say 25%" proposed without the slightest reason. If we do not find very good and firm reasons to believe otherwise (which I doubt we would), we would have to struggle for safety and, thus, wait until the building is fully commissioned. ] (]) 22:13, 11 December 2009 (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) | |||
| : PS: of course, this would not be a problem for countries with Freedom of Panorama. ] (]) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (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) | |||
| : PPS: And I do not believe that "Fair Use" images can be used at all before that point. These images do not constitute the subject of the article, but merely ''depict'' the subject of the article. Furthermore they are not unique, but taken amongst a number of other images in port-folios, and clearly not notable for themselves. As such, they are not candidates for Fair Use. ] (]) 22:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am in the diffs. | |||
| *Over at ] the image used in the info box was finally changed from a computer generated rendering to ], which showed the building nearing completion and included many of the major design elements which are discussed in the article. However, in light of this discussion, the earliest I think we could have changed the image, is perhaps to ]; at which time around half the concrete structure had been built, and it was large enough to show at least some elements of the design and the scale of the building. As for notability, I think buildings can be notable while still at the proposal stage, particularly if the proposal is for something that might make it into the tallest/biggest lists if built and it meets the general notability requirements. ] (]) 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| * Rama has made a point worth further consideration here. The law is different in different countries - in the UK you can pretty much photograph any 3d item standing in or visible from a public place, and not breach the creator's copyright. So you could take pictures of say the ] at any stage of construction that you could see from the street, or from an aeriel photo. In France, you cannot take a picture of anything for which the creator can claim a copyright, without permission of the copyright holder. It follows therefore that there is never going to be a free image of any architecturally significant building in France unless the copyright holder chooses to release one. The specific exemption of US s120 appears in natural language to apply only to buildings that have a fully constructed exterior "''that has been constructed''" - I am not aware of any caselaw precedent for permission applying to images of buildings that are under construction. This means that the decision will depend not only on how much of the building is standing, but where in the world it is.] (]) 15:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. ] (]) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::"...there is never going to be a free image of any architecturally significant building in France..." That's absurd. I can see it now, the French courts filled by the millions of tourists every year who have dared to photograph the ], the ], the ], ], etc... And Misplaced Pages would be in huge trouble with pretty much any image of a building in France. ] (]) 17:21, 12 December 2009 (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) | |||
| :::Sorry, every single photograph of the Eiffel Tower lit at night is a copyvio under french law, see ]. Absurd, isn't it. To clarify the rest of the law, it does restrict itself to two criteria for originality: "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain ») and the fact that it does not belong to a series. Which probably means one is safe photographing the Paris suburbs! The issue as always with copyvio is not making the image but publishing it. In Misplaced Pages's case, I have no doubt there are some images of French buildings that are not free and consequently need a fair use rationale.] (]) 18:10, 12 December 2009 (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) | |||
| ===Cleaning up=== | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Extended discussion}} | |||
| Can I propose a review of the recent speedy deletions by {{Admin|Rama}} which fall within the scope of this discussion (see the )? ] (]) 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| All the following images were speedily deleted by Rama as "F7: Violates non-free use policy": | |||
| :::::::@]: 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) | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| Each deletion needs to be reviewed, in particular their Fair-Use rationales to establish whether their claim to Fair-Use is valid. Perhaps the easiest way to do that would be to restore the images, perhaps on a temporary basis. | |||
| Images deemed to be valid fair-use should also be restored to the articles where their fair use is permitted. That will need someone to go through the log of the ImageRemovalBot and any separate image removals carried out by Rama or other editors. I am, of course, happy to do some of this. ] (]) 20:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support.''' It'll need an admin though. | |||
| Of the last ten on the list, only four had plausible source data. That's six gone because having a valid source is absolutely critical and that isn't "I found it on Flickr". Two were of the same design which isn't minimal use of non-free content. That leaves three left for us to look at whether they have a valid rationale. Any that did would need to be re-uploaded in lower resolution. Seems like a complete waste of time. Anyone who really wants to use these sort of things should be begging the architects for a free image of the design. "Didn't bother to ask for a free version" is not a sound rationale for using non-free content. ] ] 22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Angus, my request is in the last subsection at the end of a lengthy discussion. You might be interested in reading ] before dismissing my request with "Seems like a complete waste of time". ] (]) 23:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::IMO Rama has caused quite a mess here. While I'm sure some of these images deserved a speedy delete (no FUR, invalid FUR, no source info, no license info, etc.) I'm sure other images probably should never have been deleted and only violated Rama's own "policy". Perhaps the best way to go about this would be to reupload APPROPRIATE images and then put in with proper FURs, source info, license info, etc.? Going through each of these and restoring them, then nominating some for deletion then discussing this would be an enormous undertaking. ] (]) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Does this need an RfC or what?=== | |||
| From ] | |||
| '''Me:''' You based this drawings on the architect's plans, which are copyright.<br /> | |||
| '''Rama:''' More or less indirectly, yes, I do use the plans as the basis of my documentation. And per Article 120, this is permissible. You do the same thing when you photograph a building in the street, the building in a derivative of the plans, and it is copyrighted. Article 120 is all about bypassing this copyright. | |||
| There seems to be no sense in which Rama is even prepared to consider for a moment that his bizarre interpretations of Misplaced Pages Policy or US Copyright law are wrong. If he was an editor persistently uploading content that had to be deleted, and refusing to conform to Misplaced Pages policies on fair use, someone would block him. Obviously, that's not what needs to happen here, but this is an admin who is speedy deleting and closing deletion discussions, and his understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and the underlying copyright issues is pretty much 100% wrong. What is the appropriate course of action, and who has the jurisdiction to oversee it?] (]) 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Forgive my possible ignorance, but is the "real" Spire image having specific permissions being claimed as red herring that's misleading us, or is it instead icing on the cake to show we don't a free alternative? In this one case I'd even argue that the created free alternatives are dangerous, with dubious copyright nature and impossibility to claim geometric shape on a one-off building design which is continuously variable in all 3 dimensions. The solely 2-dimension profile is arguably defamation to the developer until construction. With permissions offered on the "real" and better version, why should we not use it? That doesn't happen much. Can we point to ] as a very precise precedent to work in conjunction with this? Both are of issue currently. The content owner even extends permission the same way. They need consistency and whichever direction should be considered a reaffirmed consensus. Worth noting that the NYC building has no evil red templates on it. If copyright and fair use are being listed and 100% accurate in any way required, why does this drag on? That means either an RfC and/or change in policy. One has to bend. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 11:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Ed Poor - POV and COI == | |||
| For some reason {{vandal|Ed Poor}} has never been banned or restricted from Unification Church topics. He has been engaging in low-level warfare on these articles for years, and has recently been smearing and needling ] who has been attempting to get Ed to conform to the rules. I won't paste difs here at this point under the presumption that enough old-timers exist to know what I'm talking about - but will begin pasting them if necessary. I suggest that enough is enough. Ed spends most of his time rewriting the bible at Conservapedia these days anyway. I don't remember the last time he made a truly helpful contribution to this site. I bring this here to gauge community feelings about a topic ban on all Unification church related articles. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Some backhistory: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ]: Ed de-sysopped. | |||
| * ]: A case involving Ed Poor. POV pushing and disruption. Ed Poor was party to two prior cases; the first was closed after Poor resigned his status as a bureaucrat, and the second resulted in his desysopping. | |||
| * ] | |||
| :From ] - same problems we're seeing today, five years later: | |||
| {{collapse top|2004 arbcom election opposes}} | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. Engages in POV wars. --]<font style="position: relative; bottom: -1px; vertical-align: text-bottom">]</font>]] 06:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. Shameless bigot. Creates articles to justify his bigotry. - ] 12:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Strong Oppose'''. POV merchant nonpareil. ] 08:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. Although Ed Poor's presence on the arbitration committee certainly would make it more interesting, his sanctimonious inability to see his flaws and his infrequent but regular outbursts of puerility will lead to some impressive flareups and flameouts. Just one guy's opinion. ] 20:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Doesn't understand basic policy. Agree with the Cunc. ]/<sup>]</sup>]] 21:03, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. Does not follow Misplaced Pages policies for stating credible sources for articles such as ]. --] 21:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' Does nothing but add POV. Just look at his edit history. ] 23:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Strongly Oppose'''. Shameless (indeed, proud) bigot, as stated above. ] 21:58, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''', for the reasons stated above. ] 06:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *Oppose. Agree with Cunc, Rebroad. ] 15:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *He is a hypocrite. ] | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Pays lip service to the NPOV policy and consistently makes POV edits (sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle) without bothering to balance his remarks. --] 14:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Opppose''' due to POV-related issues. --]\<sup>]</sup>]] 18:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | {{collapse bottom}} | ||
| ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban from Unification Church topics. {{user|Ed Poor}} habitually engages in disruption and violation of site policy on these topics, including violations of ] and ]. He makes unsourced changes and nonconsensus unsourced page moves . He adds unsourced information about ]s . Removes info from lede that per ] is sourced verbatim later in article . These are but a few recent examples. Regarding his ], he has acknowledged, ''']''' (]) 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:If I were in violation of site policy, Cirt would provide evidence. Rather, he makes up his own interpretations of the rules. "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is against the rules, but Cirt just did it here. Announcing what side I'm on doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest, as long as I can write neutrally. Give one example of me POV-pushing (rather than telling both sides where there are conflicting accounts), and I'll refrain from such edits in the future. Otherwise, ask Cirt to stop harassing me. --] (]) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::That's exactly the defense you used in the ArbCom case where you got banned from ever editing Intelligent design articles, isn't it, Ed? Do you really think everyone here is that stupid? ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:::No, I'm the only stupid one here if it's stupid to think that demanding evidence (rather than votes) would stop me from suffering an unwarranted ban. --] (]) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Unwarranted? Au contrair. Your entire history has been POV pushing, Ed. Most recently as placed on my talk page at ]. Are you really going to escalate this? ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 19:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Send to AE?=== | |||
| :This in an example of the sort of personal attack that KillerChihuahua and others have been making against me in recent months. First of all, it's not relevant what I do on other websites but it's '''false''' that I'm "rewriting the bible" at Conservapedia or anywhere. Apparently KC is trying to destroy my credibility for some reason known only to her. Please encourage her to stop this. | |||
| :I have not smeared or needled Cirt, and IIRC correctly making an accusation like that '''without evidence''' is in itself a personal attack. | |||
| :The reason I've never been banned from topics relating to the ] is that I am unusually gifted at writing neutrally about it, '''despite my affiliation'''. Barring evidence that I am violated ] with my edits, I suggest that KC and the others who are harassing me are (perhaps unconsciously) trying to get their own biased views enshrined in articles and to censor alternative views. | |||
| :All I do is add information which I believe is true; I'm always willing to dig up online or dead tree sources to back up anything I add to an article. Hardly anything I write on other topics is reverted, despite KC's needling crack above; I suggest an official warning is in order. --] (]) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::We're just tired of your bullshit, Ed. I think Cirt's tired of cleaning up after you. I pretty much gave up years ago. If we have to I guess we can go for Ed Poor AbrCom 3, but that's an awful lot of work. It isn't like it isn't well known that you mostly edit to push the UC POV. You've even admitted in, somewhere in the past. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you had any evidence of me POV-pushing, you'd supply a diff. Should be easy to find in my 30,000-plus edits if cleaning up after it is making people tired. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :::All I do is add balancing information to biased articles. Last time I checked, this was considered to '''enhance''' neutrality. --] (]) 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories". | |||
| *'''Support''' a topic ban from Unification Church topics. Frankly I'm surprised this is the only action being taken against this editor. ] (]) 19:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| *:If you wish to suggest stronger measures, I would support that. As seen in the (now collapsed) 2004 ArbCom opposes, he's been a POV pushing, rules-ignoring bigot since before I was even registered here. I would support up to and including a full site ban. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 19:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The IP made no such claim? - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Now that the topic ban is in effect, let's see how he does. Breach it and be damned for all time - that sorta thing. ] (]) 19:44, 10 December 2009 (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) | |||
| *:::Nod nod, quite agree. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 19:48, 10 December 2009 (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) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban from any article relating to ] and ], broadly construed. Long overdue. I am not familiar enough with edits in other areas to comment. - ] <small>(])</small> 19:20, 10 December 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. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :I '''second''' to motion to bring this to ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Taboo of archaeologists == | |||
| '''Note:''' according to ] 1.1) Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at ]. I'm arguably involved enough in anything Ed-related, and Cirt is involved. Any uninvolved admin may ban him from Unification Church related articles and log it with no further steps necessary or indicated. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivetop|This is fundamentally a content dispute, I see nothing admin-actionable here. ] (]) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| This is about {{diff2|1267245598}} by {{u|Jahuah}}. They claim that an unprovenanced archaeological object is authentic. Bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss unprovenanced objects in public. It's a taboo of their profession. So, no bona fide archaeologist can give the lie to the authenticity of that object without losing their job. Since if they mention that object in public they get sacked. ] (]) 06:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Lol, reporting on me? ] (]) 06:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I've banned Ed from any article or talk page related to ]. Does that resolve the situation for the time being? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Give me an actual reason why the specific seal in question is not authentic? How about that? Quote me an actual scholar who does? If not, then your words mean jack. ] (]) 06:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: I'd prefer Crafty's phrasing of "any article relating to ] and ], broadly construed" or else I'm concerned he'll just weasel his way around the edges. thanks much! ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 19:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The diffs provided hardly justify any action. If they're the worst, they praise with faint damns. The rest seems quite ancient history. Absolutely everyone has a POV. Neutrality is a goal, not something anyone can perfectly practice, and COI is not a reason for excluding competent editors.] (]) 00:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:Please note I said "I won't paste difs here at this point" and by the time you objected that no difs had been posted, Ed had already been topic banned. He wasn't banned for any difs posted in this section, but for an overall history / continuing behavior. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 11:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::I did not object that no diffs were posted and did notice you said you would not post diffs immediately. I was referring to the diffs Cirt had posted. I was opposing a topic ban which seems to me to have very little basis. The burden is on those desiring a ban to prove their case.] (]) 01:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I encountered Ed at ], where left me deeply unimpressed. ] (]) 00:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Kafziel's of Ed Poor from both articles and talk pages related to ]. I'm aware of Cirt being a patient and methodical editor on contentious topics so I find Ed Poor's response to Cirt's well-sourced comment above to be very disappointing. COI situations are often negotiated and can arrive at a good outcome, but Ed's approach is going nowhere fast. ] (]) 16:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' As a long-time member of Misplaced Pages, I have a fair amount of respect & automatically extend good faith to three of the parties in this dispute -- Uncle Ed, KillerChihuhua, & Cirt. However, the diffs provided above don't support the accusations, & I wonder if this is a case where the actual conflict is due more to the parties reading intent into the edits where none is intended; Uncle Ed has never made a secret of his membership to the Unification Church. If I'm wrong, please supply more diffs. And even if Uncle Ed is not making edits to the detriment of Misplaced Pages, perhaps he could show some of that peace-making skills we long-time Wikipedians remember him best for & voluntarily stay away from Unification Church-related articles in order to promote harmony here. (This is the primary reason I stay away from articles relating to US politics.) -- ] (]) 19:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', per ] Ed should avoid editing any article related to this organization. The unfortunate fact that he has continued to edit these articles makes a topic ban the next logical step. ] (]) 22:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', clearly closely invoved in continued editing UC related article and pushing UC viewpoint as recently as , contrary to ] guidance. . . ], ] 08:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::According to ], the claim that such object is authentic is unfalsifiable. Since it is taboo to discuss such object in public. So only biased hacks could affirm it is authentic or inauthentic without losing their jobs. ] (]) 06:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Uninvolved Admin Requested: ] multiple JPG deletions and related matters == | |||
| :::Do you think it’s inauthentic? Or not? Please do not be wasting my time here. ] (]) 06:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It think that claim is utterly unfalsifiable, so it cannot amount to ]. See for details {{YouTube|FYgqnlQXWjA|The Shapira Strips: What Are They and Are They Forgeries?}} by Dr. Robert R. Cargill. ] (]) 06:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ok. Thanks for actually giving me an answer at least. ] (]) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What exactly are you asking admins to do there? This looks to me like a content dispute. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Who, me? I’m not asking anything. I just wanted to show how a seal dated by a scholar to the 8th century is indeed an 8th century BC Israelite seal of Hoshea. | |||
| ::::::The guy up there has a problem with that and now apparently I’m on the naughty list. ] (]) 07:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{re|The Bushranger}} I have explained them at length why this is utterly problematic, previously. I had expected that they will behave. Misbehaving is a behavioral problem. ] (]) 07:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think I know how to behave, thank you very much. I’m not a petulant manchild. ] (]) 07:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::See ] and ]. ] (]) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Lol, I refuted you there. All you did was attack Dr. Mykytiuk and call into question his scholarship. ] (]) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Besides, what does this have to do with the Hoshea seal? ] (]) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't expect any of you to take my word for it, that why I had ] https://web.archive.org/web/20241209232716/https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/the-problem-with-unprovenanced-objects/ Suffices to say that unprovenanced objects are ethically and juridically fishy. ] (]) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::So no comment on my refutation of your petulant behavior? ] (]) 07:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Who’s “any of you” by the way? I’m one guy. ] (]) 07:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::You're (only you, not The Bushranger) promoting a claim that is unfalsifiable, unethical, and maybe even juridically problematic. ] (]) 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Ooo, that’s a new one. ] (]) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Nope, if you had read carefully what I told you in 2024, there is nothing new about my claim. ] (]) 07:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good. You guys represent scholarship only when it suits your ideology. ] (]) 07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::It's not about my ideology. It is about: bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss such claims in public. So no bona fide archaeologist could affirm that that object is authentic or inauthentic, because the next day they will have to flip burgers at Target. ] (]) 07:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Fine whatever, I apologize. ] (]) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Demands to prove a negative are a nonsensical and puerile debating tactic. The editor must cite evidence that the item is considered authentic, or refrain from stating so in WP's voice. Simple as that. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 07:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Is the editor referring to me? ] (]) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:If so, here you go. Lawrence J. Mykytiuk, Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E. (Boston: Brill, 2004), 58., https://www.academia.edu/62900860/Iconography_on_Hebrew_Seals_and_Bullae_Identifying_Biblical_Persons_and_the_Apparent_Paradox_of_Egyptian_Solar_Symbols_ABSTRACT_ ] (]) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Since bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss it, you win by default? ] (]) 07:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Elmidae, were you referring to me? ] (]) 07:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Bona fide archaeologists will lose their jobs for merely mentioning Mykytiuk's claim. ] (]) 07:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I was talking to Elmidae. ] (]) 07:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Yes, they were talking to you. Also both of you take a chill pill for a minute, please - this disucssion is already approaching ] levels of length from the back-and-forth above. Tgeorgescu, you don't have to ] esepecially when it's in response to other editors. Jahuah, {{tqq|i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good.}} is not an attitude conducive to cooperative editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Fine, fine, I apologize. I’m just angry that my contributions to Misplaced Pages get deleted. I just wanna leave some edits and then I’ll leave this site for good. I promise. ] (]) 08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I also want to make sure my contributions are kept before I leave. ] (]) 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:This editor appears to be edit warring across multiple pages to assert historical uncertainties as fact based on unconfirmed and speculative research from biblical archaeology blogs and the like. ] (]) 07:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Oh look, BAR society is no longer reputable because some Misplaced Pages mod said so. ] (]) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::By the way, who am I edit warring with? That’s news to me. ] (]) 07:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::We don't have "mods" on Misplaced Pages. But you have only been editing for a month so it shouldn't be expected that you would know much about how Misplaced Pages works. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Hmph. I guess I’ll go then. Sorry for the trouble I caused. ] (]) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::], I wasn't asking you to leave the project, just pointing out that you are a newer editor. Misplaced Pages is chockful of rules and guidelines and it's not realistic to expect new editors to be familiar with them all. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::No, no. It’s ok. It’s clear that I have caused more problems here than solved. I just hope my contributions will stay, or at least be kept until new data comes. I’ll be out of your hairs soon. ] (]) 10:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{blockquote|it's an unprovenanced object and likely a forgery it was not found in a licensed archaeological excavation it does not possess a credible chain of custody this is very much too good to be true but since people of faith want to believe it and since it's not against the law to use your free speech to make false claims like this forgers will make forgeries and antiquities dealers will put them up for sale and try to make as much money as they can but these kind of forgeries pollute legitimate biblical archaeology and it is why so many scholars myself included do not publish critical reviews of unproven objects once you give them credence their value is increased even if you put a little asterisk by them and designate them as unprovenanced and merely teach the controversy you are still giving them scholarly recognition and debate that the forger and the antiquities dealer so desperately crave publishing unprovenanced objects leads to looting and to forgeries it's that simple|Dr. Robert R. Cargill, transcript}} | |||
| Quoted by ] (]) 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], this is becoming a detailed content dispute which means it probably should be closed as off-topic for this noticeboard. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *For the record, tg's hysterical talk about disgraced archeologists flipping burgers at Target is nonsense. There is vigorous controversy about unprovenanced objects, but no one's losing their job for breaking some alleged taboo. ]] 06:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == TTTEMLPBrony and continued addition of unsourced/crufty material, zero communication == | |||
| '''Please bear on the length: this matter involves the deletion of many images, associated with the work of many wikipedia editors, and multiple violations of multiple wikipedia policies. Thank You !!! ''' | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. Now CU-blocked. ] (]) 15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{user|TTTEMLPBrony}} has been active since late April 2024. They have a history of adding of unsourced and sometimes controversial material. They have been messaged and warned plenty of times, including by {{u|FlightTime}}, {{u|Doniago}} and {{u|LindsayH}}, but to no avail. Better yet, they haven't responded once on their own talk page.] is required and they do not seem to be willing or able to work with others. I've issued them a warning earlier this week, but looking at their talk page, I see they've been issued stern warnings plenty of times. And despite messages about adding sources, in late December 2024 they created ], which is barely referenced. ]. ] 12:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :They may be unaware of their talkpage, even though 8 months seems a long time for that. I have blocked indefinitely, with an informative message and a link to their talkpage in the log. Unfortunately that's sometimes the only way to get the attention of a non-responsive user. ] | ] 15:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| ::They know about talk pages, {{U|Bishonen}}, because they have used one at least once; i checked when i first tried to communicate with them to no avail. That being said, i think this is a good use of a block, showing we are serious when we say communication is necessary ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 17:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Indefinitely blocked after only 5-hours, without the user even editing during that period? For a first offence? After only warnings of the lowest level? I'm no sure why ] even created this request, as there'd been zero editing of the page in question since his talk-page warning 3 days earlier! Much of the edits seem to be merely content disputes. I don't see much repition after notification. And we don't even have rules about providing sources. There was no imminent risk of damage here, and I don't think the conditions laid out in ] have been met. And ] most certainly hasn't been met. This is an appallingly awful block ]. Can I that you reduce it to a week or less just to get attention. I'd suggest a day, but the editor is so infrequent, that they may not not notice. Though given they are moderating their behaviour based on what is posted in their talk page, even a block is barely justified. ] (]) 00:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I disagree. When an editor refuses to communicate, it's not uncommon for an admin to block until the editor responds. Even the block notice tells them {{tq|Please respond below this post and start communicating, and you may be unblocked.}} Sometimes it's a case where inexperienced editors simply don't realize that they have a talk page or that people are leaving them messages. This block gently brings it to their attention. ] ] 00:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I see nothing in policy for an indefinite. And an indefinite block is absolutely not "gently". It's the kind of heavy-handed authoritarianism that drives the people we need away. There seemed to be edits that were a real attempt to improve Misplaced Pages. And there seemed to be changes in behaviour that were guided by the comments on the talk page. And there hadn't even been any further edits of concern since the previous warning - days ago. Sure, for Misplaced Pages warriors who frequent ANI, a block is just something you deal with; but I don't think that's how many people would see it. ] (]) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Indef is "until you address the issue", not forever. ] ] 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I believe we are all aware of that. The issue is that doing so, at this stage, is completely outside of our policy, and that doing so for a minor case like this is completely outside of policy. We can't just make start doing things a different way because the admin feels like it. Our policy says that "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy". The threat was neither significant (or even very recent) or a major breach of policy. I note that the user in question was only given 5 hours to respond, but after 4 hours, we'd still had no response from ], perhaps she should also have been blocked for not noticing the discussion (yeah, that's irony, not a proposal). ] (]) 06:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *TTTEMLPBrony has now responded, stating that "I have not realized that accounts have talkpages", so apparently my block worked as intended. Unfortunately, they go on to say that ], and also that they ''allowed'' the brother to use the account. Blithely they claim that "I have already dealt with him" - uh, "already"? Anyway, whether or not I believe them about the brother (I can't say I do), the account is clearly compromised, and must stay blocked. With some hesitation, I've turned the block into a softblock, so that they may create a new account, and have explained that they must absolutely not share it with anybody. I have notified the stewards in case they want to globally lock. ] | ] 03:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| **Just because, ], it worked, doesn't mean that you are allowed to just make up your own rules. (but yeah, sounds fishy ... on the other hand, it's probably a child). Please follow protocol, or hand over your keys. Thanks. ] (]) 06:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***], please be more polite on these noticeboards. The block Bishonen placed was perfectly fine and it's the kind of thing admins have been doing for years. Nothing in policy forbids it, and I believe {{U|The Bushranger}}'s response is along the same lines. Besides, the editor's edit were, and I'm trying to stay polite myself, not good, as their talk page full of warnings indicates: no edit summaries, no responses, no communication, no knowledge of sourcing and sourcing requirements. Finally, I don't know how young that editor might be, but I do know that they are four years older than when {{U|Ponyo}} blocked them. ] (]) 15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == possible hoaxes == | |||
| Starting on December 6-7 this user http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Damiens.rf has been the source of severe contention in various matters revolving the user's simultaneously singling out 12 Puerto Rico-related images for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Marine_69-71#toc, plus the bringing into potental deletion 3 more http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Marine_69-71#toc. In addition there are probably more, many more, that I probably do not know about, as I happened to stumble on an additional one by accident http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Marine_69-71#PONCE_MASSACRE.JPG since it was an article I had previously contributed to. Plus I believe this user has targeted all of these additional Puerto Rico-related images also: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_7. | |||
| There are several problems here: | |||
| *1. User ] failed to follow ] protocol, failed to first contact the user(s) in question for dialogue before engaging in marking such large number of JPGs for deletion, thus unnecessarily precipitating an offesive/defensive, warring environment. | |||
| *{{user|Emilioveh}} | |||
| *2. The amount of time the user allotted to resolve the alleged problems (7 days http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG) for all the JPGs in question is unreasonable, it is not sufficient given the large number of JPGs the user marked for deletion in one lump batch. | |||
| *{{user|Emnoé}} | |||
| *{{user|Larissæ}} | |||
| *{{user|Miguelinor}} | |||
| *{{user|Nose236}} | |||
| The above accounts that have been for creating articles with unverifiable references or with scarce references taken out of context. I recommend reviewing all the articles that these accounts have created here as they may be hoaxes.--] (]) 04:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *3. The user appears not to be acting in ]. There are several no-good faith concerns involving user ] (Ex: See 2 such here: (1) see comment by Jmundo: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Marine_69-71#re:algo_raro. And (2) see comment by Cerejota: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_7#File:Old_Pr_baseball_game_poster.gif) | |||
| :As a note, you don't appear to have notified any of these editors about this section, which is something you need to do when you open a section on this noticeboard. - ] (]) 05:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've notified all the users about this possible hoax issue already. Suggest any action from administrators if possible. ] (]) 05:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Fair enough, that's a valid notion, Fontaine347. Feel free to do so! ] 12:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring to prevent an RFC == | |||
| *4. The user's rebuttals to the lengthy responses of editors who attempted to address the alleged problems would seem to indicate user is not really intent on resolving the alleged problems user is alleging, but to simply run a show of sorts where user is not part of a team but some sort of an aristocratic patriach intent only on finding fault with others and putting them to do the ''actual'' work. See, for example, "try to discover what happened to the newspapers archive, or actually, to the archives copyright!" at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Marine_69-71#PONCE_MASSACRE.JPG. On another occassion, which I just can't put my finger on right now, user Damiens.rf was directing an editor involved in one of the PR-related images to go to his relatives (that editor's relatives) to get the necessary copyright information. (this is how I vaguely remember Damiens.rf's rebuttal went). And, I am afraid I am not the only editor with this view (see, for example, Jmundo's "If you don't like the quote from an ACLU report that directly discussed the image, and the placement of the image in the article, so fix it!. Maybe other editors from WP:PUR are busy trying to save the images you nominated for deletion." at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_8#File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG) | |||
| @] has removed an RFC tag from ] now within . | |||
| ] provides a list of circumstances under which you can stop an RFC started by someone else, and disagreeing with the question or wishing that it contained additional information is not in the list. | |||
| *5. The user's sometimes sarcastic closings (see, for example, the context in which the user ] used the closing phrase "See you." in http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Damiens.rf#Edit_warring), though not exactly against policy that I know, leaves much to be desired from an administrator. | |||
| 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. | |||
| *6. The user engaged in edit warring with several other editors and administrators ( | |||
| 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) | |||
| User: Caribbean HQ: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nationalist_attack_of_San_Juan&diff=prev&oldid=330447097 | |||
| :As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC. | |||
| User: Marine 69-71: | |||
| :I am perfectly happy to take instruction on that point if I am incorrect but the removals were undertaken in good faith. | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Black_history_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=next&oldid=330343664 | |||
| :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. | |||
| User: AntonioMartin: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nationalist_attack_of_San_Juan&diff=next&oldid=330490630). | |||
| 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. | |||
| *7. The user also involved him/herself in further lack of civility via name-calling (see "imbecile" at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_7#File:Old_Pr_baseball_game_poster.gif) | |||
| 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. | |||
| *8. The user's behavior (which could be described as arrogant ) is inconsistent with a community working together. | |||
| '''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. | |||
| *9. The user's overall intentions (note -- not necessarily as evidence but as an example to be taken with the rest of user's all other actions -- note the user's use of double quotes around "vote" in "I would "vote" to keep it" at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_8#File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG) would appear to be un-democratic. That is, that regardless of the input, effort, and even correctness of the other editors responding, the user has already premeditated the files will be deleted (This is called "malice" in some places). | |||
| *'''Support'''. ] (]) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *10. The user is not supported in the JPG delete actions for what appears to be most, but maybe all, of the files by any of the editors commenting (Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_8#File:Ponce_Massacre.JPG). The only possible exception to this so far is an editor ] previously unknown who has appeared seemingly out of nowhere, and who is involved him/herself in the same type of "nondemocratic", "I-don't-care-what-the-other-editors-think-say-or-want-I-will-do-it-my-own-way" type of behavior (see Rama's "I do not care whether people disagree with me or not, this is not a democracy. If you want to vote reality out of existence, do that in a sandbox. I am very obviously right, and no matter of how many people are wrong and disagree with me, they are still wrong." at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin:Rama_ignoring_previous_consensus.2C_refusing_to_gain_new_consensus) | |||
| **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) | |||
| *11. The user's overall who-cares? attitude (see, for example, "Now live through your own drama. I'm tired.--" at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Damiens.rf#Edit_warring) is overall nonproductive, in so far as this batch delete project the user has undertaken. | |||
| *: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. | |||
| The user's behavior of not showing consideration to the editors involved is clearly unwelcomed (given the negative feedback user has gotten from everyone (5-7 users) that has reacted to user's style just in the PR project) and, to myself, counterproductive, and I believe counterproductive to probably other editors as well (see for Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Caribbean_H.Q.#Just_a_thought). | |||
| *::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=== | |||
| I don't doubt that something good can come out of all of this: sharper abuse management skills, a renewed review of wikipedia behavioral policies, more detail written into some articles, etc. If improvement is what the user seeks, there is no doubt there will always be room for more improvement - even after user gets done with this exercise. However, the user's methods violate wikipedia's community behavioral policies. The problem here is that the user's behaviour is resulting in more damage than good: edit warring, name-calling, threats, undue scrutiny of seemingly no-randomly selected images, in short, an athmosphere of distrust and low morale. The problem is that while a few of this user's comments might be helpful, overwhemingly they are not, and, even if they were all helpful, they come tainted with the indignant mark of that user's aggressive behaviour. The user has at this point damaged beyond repair his/her ability to operate civily in this Project. | |||
| 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. | |||
| *I petition that the user be banned from further work in PR images in question and in any other PR-related images in wikipedia. | |||
| 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) | |||
| *I petition that, at least while this matter is resolved, that all PR-related images user has tagged as nominated for deletion be hereby postponed beyond the 12/14/09 deadline. Thanks. | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| *I petition that a different, neutral, less intransigent editor or administrator with greater ability to get others to work in a collaborative environment be asked to review all the images in question and determine if, in effect, there is any problem with them, for follow up. | |||
| ::Was that purposely mis-stated to be provocative and mislead the discussion here? | |||
| ::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."'' | |||
| ::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, | |||
| ::You made no attempt to collaborate at DRN, posting only one off-topic | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ====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) | |||
| *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 . | |||
| Regards ] (]) 21:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :My impression at the time of the events, and subsequently, was that the activity was designed to distort the COI edit request process. I still feel that what happened re: the COI edit requests was irregular but I note that no other user seems to have supported me in that regard so I've not taken the matter any further. Similarly, while I felt that those events had a bearing on the RfC I now accept that the RfC relates solely to the content matter specifically under discussion. ] (]) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>I have notified ] --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::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 " | |||
| :I'm not really inclined to read through this wall of text and diffs (short messages are usually preferable), but making assumptions about an editor's personal life is unacceptable; please redact these statements. –''']''' | ] 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::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. | |||
| ::I gave it a quick read through. Damiens.rf has a history of nominating huge numbers of images for deletion at the same time, usually uploaded by the same user. Having to scramble through huge numbers of your contributions can be demoralizing and a huge time suck. Personally, I'd like to see him restricted in someway in regards to the number of uploads he can nominate for deletion in a 24 or 48 hour period. Also, he certainly doesn't do much to inspire a collegial environment around here, though that should be addressed at ] most likely.] 21:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :(ec with AniMate) Damiens.rf specialises in non-free image cleanup. This work is often bound to get affected users angry, but that doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. Damiens has a lot of expertise and experience in this, and the huge majority of his nominations are soundly argued and usually find the consensus of well-informed image administrators. Yes, he can be brusque at times, but this seems to be a minor issue in the present case. So, in short: no, forget it. He will not be "banned" from doing this job, and the images he nominated will be reviewed in the normal way like all others. Mercy: your whole approach of making this a "Puerto Rico" topic-related issue, as if that country as a topic area needed some special protection from an "attack", shows you have gotten something fundamentally wrong here. ] ] 22:04, 10 December 2009 (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=== | |||
| ::'''Future Perfect: As you have addressed me directly, I hereby respond to your statement. You seem to have missed a major point altogether: I have singled out PR in my discussion based not, as you claim, on a belief PR deserves some special protection from an attack, but because that country is the home-base wikiproject (WP:PUR) for an article I had substantially worked on (]) and which contains an image (Ponce Massacre.jpg)) that was NfD'd by Damiens.rf. | |||
| (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) | |||
| ::What is at the core of this whole discussion is, When confronted with a choice between ''uncivil good work'' and ''civil but not so good'', which choice will you pick? Oftentimes people become so puffed up from having developed a lot of expertise and experience in certain subject area that they forget about the human element of a collaborative work. Whether to-be-banned or not to be, is a secondary matter that can be handled as a second phase. Regards, ] (]) 10:59, 11 December 2009 (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) | |||
| :I think I agree with both AniMate and Future Perfect, at least in part. As Future Perfect points out, ] has accumulated a lot of expertise and experience in dealing with non-free images, and has provided much useful service by identifying problems with images. At the same time, I share AniMate's perception that Damiens.rf's nominations of images for deletion tend to have demoralizing effects on other users, the vast majority of whom are utterly befuddled by the rules on images. It appears to me that Damiens.rf intimidates other users with his(?) superior knowledge of image copyrights and fair-use justifications. I doubt that this intimidation is intentional -- it's just something that has happened. I'd like to ask Damiens.rf to take pity on other users who lack his thoroughgoing knowledge (i.e., most of the rest of us) by making a couple of changes to his modus operandi: | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| :#Instead of telling other users that their "fair use" justifications are incomplete or incorrectly formatted, assist them by revising their justifications (if they appear to have merit) or explaining to them what the problems are. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| :#When dealing with an apparently non-free image that has been in use in Misplaced Pages for more than about 6 months, refrain from nominating the image for deletion until ''after'' contacting (on user talk pages) all currently active registered users who appear to have an interest in the image (i.e., the uploader, people who have edited the image page, and people who have made substantial edits to articles that use the image) to identify and explain the problem, listen to the other users' points of view, and advise on resolving the situation (if possible). | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Given Cullen328's comment. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :--] (]) 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN=== | |||
| ::I could hardly agree less. We have a big problem here, but it has nothing to do with Damiens.rf. The problem here is these other users, the ones you're wasting your sympathy on. Anyone who is "demoralised" by the removal of non-free content is entirely missing the point of what we're trying to do here. If editors feel that they are being made to jump through hoops to justify the use of non-free content, that's right and proper. Those who seek to retain it should work hard to justify every single piece of non-free content. | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::We should be ruthless, relentless and remorseless in removing non-free content. This is a 💕. Every time we add something to it that's not free and not absolutely necessary for our readers' understanding we can chalk that up as a failure. Every time we remove something that's not free and replace it with something that is, whether that's better-written text or some other sort of content, that counts as a success. Here endeth the lesson. ] ] 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::"''We should be ruthless''". Really? Are we in a collaborative project or a game? No wonder editors are leaving Misplaced Pages. You can enforce policy and be civil about it. I don't understand why he can't engage the uploader or the project before mass nominating similar images. --] (]) 02:26, 11 December 2009 (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) | |||
| ==Complaint against ]== | |||
| ::::You may be confusing ruthlessness and rudeness but I'm not. There are many thousands of non-free images on Misplaced Pages which do not meet the EDP. Deleting these is doing the Right Thing. And will ruthlessly deleting them upset people? Yes it probably will but we can't not delete such images just because someone might leave in a huff. We should try to avoid making things worse by being rude or aggressive but that cuts both ways. Experienced editors whose non-free images are sent to FFD shouldn't overreact either. It's not a personal attack any more than nominating "their" category or template would be. ] ] 02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = There is no merit to the report against GiantSnowman. There is a rough consensus against, or at the very least no consensus for action toward Footballnerd2007 based on the mentorship proposal put forth and accepted and no further action is needed here. ] ] 02:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Notice|1=See ] below. |heading=This complaint has been withdrawn.}} | |||
| <s> Good Morning, | |||
| I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against ] for repeated violations of Misplaced Pages's policies on personal attacks (]) and casting aspersions (]) during a . | |||
| OK, this is why sometimes I whish ] still redirected here ;). I'll try to be brief but will fail. | |||
| Throughout the interaction, GiantSnowman has engaged in behavior that appears to contravene Misplaced Pages's behavioral guidelines, including but not limited to: | |||
| 1) Damiens specializes in a generally thankless, but important job. I agree with the comments that ask that we keep this is mind. | |||
| '''Casting aspersions without evidence:''' | |||
| 2) I have also tried to approach the matters with him in a civil and honest manner, including my unease at assuming good faith in this case. I have done some what in the deletion discussions, but mostly in his talk page. He has been generally civil, except one instance of borderline dickery - the usual trick of "am calling your actions 'imbecile' not you" etc. | |||
| * GiantSnowman repeatedly accused me of engaging in disruptive behavior, suggesting ulterior motives without providing any verifiable evidence. | |||
| * For instance, accusations of using ] to generate responses without concrete proof. | |||
| * Statements like “You are a liar and cannot be trusted” and other similar assertions lack civility and violate the principle of ]. | |||
| '''Aggressive tone and unwarranted accusations:''' | |||
| 3) However, the issue here is how he approaches this work. The massive nature doesn't allow - in spite of his denial - for a real nuanced approach to the fair use criteria. Damiens seems to use a general criteria that is his interpretation of global consensus. However, fair use doctrine is by definition a case-by-case one by which other than defining what it is *not*, everything else is open to reasonable interpretation. My discussion with him on his talk page illustrates this point, for example, he claims one image lacks any intrinsic | |||
| * The user's tone throughout the discussion has been hostile, escalating to direct personal attacks: | |||
| * Referring to me as a “liar” multiple times. | |||
| * Suggesting that I have been “deliberately disruptive” without presenting any factual basis. | |||
| '''Violation of ] and ]:''' | |||
| 4) I think AniMate's comments mostly approach my experience. The problem is not the activity per-se, but the approach to this activity. Basically, in this particular case, he is targeting a series of articles actively maintained and curated by an active Wikiproject made up of a fair number of veteran editors and administrators. Rather than this meaning any special status, it means that common sense tells you that you should approach the matter differently. In fact, Tony the Marine deleted or changed the criteria for a number of images when Damiens' rationale proved to be unquestionable. Damiens, in other words, in failing to assume good faith. | |||
| * Misplaced Pages encourages editors to respond constructively to newcomers' efforts. However, GiantSnowman’s behavior has been dismissive and accusatory, discouraging participation and creating a hostile editing environment. | |||
| As an administrator, GiantSnowman is expected to set an example by adhering to Misplaced Pages's behavioral policies and fostering a collaborative environment. However, their actions in this instance fall far short of the standards expected of administrators, which further exacerbates the seriousness of this issue. | |||
| 5) Ultimately, the community except in speedy deletion cases, always prefers that people talk things out before going to third parties. It seems damiens sees this common sense community approach unapealing, and prefers a strict, policy based approach. I understand this is a debate with camps etc, so I am not arguing that he is doing something inherently wrong. I am saying that in my opinion, this is a highly unproductive way to proceed, that ends up in AN/I instead of fixing the article space and its images. | |||
| I understand that discussions can sometimes be contentious, but I believe there is no justification for violating ] or ]. I respectfully request that administrators review the linked discussion and take appropriate action to address this behavior. | |||
| I think Damiens is well intentioned, but perhaps should trust the community to be able to learn the intricacies of fair use doctrine, and that it too shares his concern about minimizing the use of fair use images. However, he also shoudl have a little bit of patience:]. --] (]) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I will say this again, the problem is not nominating the images. The issue is the way that said action was done. The user was highly sarcastic in his approach to edits trying to fix the issues that he claims, calling the contributions either "jokes" or "idiotic ". Mass nominating at once doesn't help either, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, in order to fix things we need to ''collaborate''. By mass nominating dozens of pictures at once he is creating a massive backlog for a project, he can't really expect to have the issues resolved as fast as he is nominating, seeing that he seems to have limitless time to do so. - ] 03:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| If any additional information or clarification is needed, I am happy to provide it. My intent is to ensure a respectful and collaborative editing environment for all Misplaced Pages contributors. | |||
| *Since I have been discussed here, I think that it is only fair that I express myself. This discussion is not about the removal of non-free images. Those that do not meet Misplaced Pages policy must be removed. Damiens' expertise is images and he is a good editor. I have had the pleasure of interacting with him over a year ago. I agree with Caribbean H.Q. that there some who have misunderstood what is really being discussed here and have missed the point of the issues involved, which are the mass nomination of one editors upload and the name calling which went on during the process. | |||
| Thank you for your time and consideration. </s> | |||
| 1. I believe that mass nomination of an editors uploads is a unproductive stressing situation for the uploader and in some cases may give the impression that the nominator has agenda. It should have been handled in different manner. If the situation involves numerous images, the nominator could point out the situation to the uploader by a simple discussion, giving the uploader the opportunity to fix or find a solution to the situation. If that doesn't work then nominate. There are some nominations made by Damiens which I do not agree with, especially those which I consider historically significant, however I realized that others were within reason and I deleted them. I have to add that even though in some cases we did not see eye to eye, Damiens has began to discuss some of the images in my talk page with reasonable logic and as such I have deleted or replaced some of the images. Damiens has also helped in some of the image formats. | |||
| ] • ] ⚽ 12:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 2. I found the name calling on Damiens part rude and offensive. It was uncalled for and as a result tensions rose. There is no need for such actions during the process. Discussions should be carried out without any name callings or offenses Even though I am an administrator, I am not a know it all. I have dedicated myself to the creation of historical and military related Puerto Rican articles and therefore I have kept updated in regard to changes in image policy. But, I am not an "imbecile." However, I also sinned by warning Damiens with a "block" for his conduct during the process, when I should have discussed the issue in ANI. The bottom line is that discussions should be carried out in a civil manner without what any words which any of the parties may consider offensive. ] (]) 04:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Agree w/comments by Mercy, AniMate, Crossmr, and Jmundo. I've looked at the diffs, and believe if people looked at them carefully they would reach the same conclusion. This isn't just a matter of someone civilly doing a good job. It completely uncivil. And unacceptable. The loading up on individual editors, when coupled with the incivility, does much to suggest that the presumption of AFG may well be rebutted by the behavior. There's not deadline here on wikipedia, as has been pointed out. Damiens should slow down and be civil. If we had to choose between "uncivil good work", and no contributions at all from his, I would go for the latter. I would hope, however, that with input from the community he can become a civil, helpful contributor. I should note, btw, that I've found his recent AfD judgment to be markedly poor , which reflected a complete failure to do a ] nom review for sources.--] (]) 08:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ** Sorry, but this whole meme about "it's bad to nominate multiple images by the same uploader" just needs to be rejected. This has come up repeatedly, including Arbcom proceedings and RfCs, and the result is always the same: it's just not a reasonable demand. If an image reviewer comes across a whole group of images of a similar kind uploaded under similar conditions for similar articles by the same editor or small group of editors, ''of course'' the natural reaction is to try and deal with them all in one go. How else would one be able to go about it efficiently? Do people really think it would be a reasonable and efficient way of dealing with problematic images if you were obliged to just randomly pick one here and one there? And what good would it do to just "slow it down", as some have demanded? It would cause the same pain, and only spread out the pain over a longer period. Seriously, as long as the main objection against Damiens' work seems to be the fact of the batch nature of his nominations, I can't see any merit in them. ] ] 10:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ***That's fine, but just because its a thankless job, or really hard, or whatever the excuse du jour is, doesn't mean they get a pass on civility, plain and simple. There are zero exceptions built into the policy that say "If you had a bad day..." "if you made 10 good contributions today.." "If you think what you're doing is for the good of mankind.." etc. I'll also re-raise the point that I feel there seems to be a trend with some users, this particular field of work and civility. As mercy pointed out I'd rather have someone who can be civil and only work at 50% of the speed than someone who works twice as fast but pushes you out of the way to get there.--] (]) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The discussion I raised was at ], now closed. I raised concerns about this editor, who has (in brief) - undertake botched and inappropriate RM closures; re-factored other editor's talk page posts; randomly nominated another user with whom they have never interacted before for RFA; and messing with my user space draft. None of that was the conduct of a new editor here to learn the ropes, and I wanted a second pair of eyes. | |||
| To stay on track, the core issue here, as in my submission, is: When confronted with a choice between ''uncivil good work'' and ''civil but not so good'', which choice will you pick? Said differently, What constitutes a good editor, one that has expertise in some area, or one that has expertise in some area ''and'' can behave civilly? Oftentimes people become so puffed up from having developed a lot of expertise and experience in certain subject area that they start to believe that also earns them the right to be ruthless, relentless and remorseless with other editors. Regards, ] (]) 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :In the course of that discussion, it became highly suspect to multiple users that this user has been editing with LLM. They denied using Chat GPT and, when questioned further, refused to answer. That is why I said this user is a liar and cannot be trusted, and I stand by that assertion. ]] 12:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Pinging other editors who were involved in that ANI discussion or have posted concerns/advice on this user's talk page - {{ping|Liz|voorts|Folly Mox|Tiggerjay|Extraordinary Writ|Tarlby|The Bushranger|Thebiguglyalien|Cyberdog958}} - think that is everyone, apologies if not. ]] 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your speedy response. Now let other admins add their point of view. ] • ] ⚽ 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Given the closed section above - which was closed for a very good reason - I'd suggest that coming back to this page to complain and using an LLM to do it is a ''spectacularly'' bad idea. The community only has limited patience when dealing with editors who are causing timesinks for other edits, and I suspect that the section above was your limit. ] 12:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:FTR a fellow administrator encouraged me to launch a complaint if I felt I was treated unfairly and told me what grounds I have to complain. ] • ] ⚽ 12:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::] is worth reviewing. It may already be too late for you to withdraw your complaint, but it's probably worth an attempt. --] (]) 12:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}}Please, any passing uninvolved admin, block the OP now. Not least for using an LLM to generate a complaint that someone accused them of using ] to generate responses. Enough of our time has been wasted. ] (]) 12:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Again, this is mere conjecture. ] • ] ⚽ 12:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Continuing to deny the obvious - especially when Tarlby ran your posts through multiple LLM checkers - is really not helping your case. For me, it shows you are not here in good faith and that you absolutely cannot be trusted. ]] 12:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, it's called people have eyes. Using LLMs this way is highly disrespectful and frankly disruptive. Boomerang block for ] seems appropriate. ] (]) 12:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>(Responding to the ping, invovled)</small> My perspective regarding LLM has been it really doesn't matter (to me) if you're using various technology tools constructively, such as a spell checker or grammar checker might have been viewed two decades ago. ''However, what really matter is how those tools are used and being responsible for how they're used''. This editor has been evasive in their conversations and generally disruptive demonstrating ] behavior by very peculiar / suspicious ] I've only seen in clear LLM cases. Yet, there is no point in bludgeoning to what degree, if any, an LLM is playing here, but because this is a clear example of ] and failure to follow ] despite many attempts to bring them to this users attention. ] ] 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::+1 to Phil Bridger. What struck me in the prior thread, over and over again, was how repeatedly evasive he was. "I have repeatedly denied using ChatGPT..." "I never made any comment about LLMs in general." "I have no explanation." "Again, that's conjecture. I just choose my words very carefully." "Which AI detectors are you using?" "The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively." And so on, and so on, and so on. Footballnerd2007 has been given chance after chance to answer plainly, without Wikilawyering or weasel-wording, and has instead stuck to the tactic of deflect, deflect, deflect. I don't know where Footballnerd2007 got the notion that the Fifth Amendment was the law of the land on Misplaced Pages, and that no boomerang can touch him as long as he admits to nothing. Let's just disabuse him of the notion. ] 12:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Retaliatory BS; this should be closed immediately. ] ] 12:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === CBAN proposal === | |||
| :Do you really expect us to pick "civil but not so good"? If this was just about incivility, you wouldn't have needed such a huge wall of text to say it. No, the core of this thread is non-free images being deleted, and rivers being cried over it.--] (]) 14:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * I propose a ''']''' for Footballnerd2007, appealable no sooner than six months from now (and then once per year thereafter), alongside a ban on using LLM's which would remain in effect until specifically contested. At the time of writing, Footballnerd2007 has only 142 edits, a ''significant'' number of which are right here at WP:ANI. They are clearly a massive ] time sink. I urged Footballnerd2007 to withdraw this complaint and warned about ] and that clearly didn't land. I think it's time for everyone else to get back to regular editing. --] (]) 12:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*'''Support''', obviously. The more they have responded, the stronger my concerns have grown. ]] 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:I have decided to withdraw my complaint with immediate effect in order to avoid the loss of my editing privileges. I'm going to write a long piece (without using LLM) explaining my actions later when I have time. I'm sorry for any disruption caused, I have always acted in good faith. ] • ] ⚽ 13:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::Demonstrably not, when you've been dodging all along the question of whether you've been using LLMs, and only now -- when the tide is running against you -- stating that at last you'll respond at length without? ] 13:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::FN2007 claims to be a new editor, and to have spent a significant amount of time reading Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines etc. If so, they will have known not to re-factor other user's talk page posts, but they did that anyway. That cannot be good faith editing. ]] 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::I'll respond to this in depth later today. ] • ] ⚽ 13:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::I concede that I've been backed into a corner and now I need to do the right thing, stop with the defensive act and own up to my mistakes which I'll do in my statement later this afternoon. ] • ] ⚽ 13:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::So you only need to so the right thing after being backed into a corner? I think we can do without such editors. ] (]) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::I had my legal head on with the philosophy "defend until you can no more" - I now concede on reflection this is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages and that my actions were not the right way to go and for that I will take full responsibility in my statement. ] • ] ⚽ 13:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::It's too late to withdraw now. You have to take responsibility for your behaviour. ] (]) 13:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*{{ec}}<s>'''Support'''</s> - on top of what's been posted on this thread, FN2007 has ] by archiving without a link to the archive on the fresh talk page, without responding to ]. They also ] to add things they didn't say when closing a RM discussion, and haven't responded ]. These things alongside their LLM use (and subsequent wikilawyering "technically I only said I didn't use ''ChatGPT''" responses), refusal to listen to good advice, and everything else in this topic, I think a community ban would be a good idea. ] ] 13:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC) ''Update'' - striking support for cban, I think footballnerd's recent responses and CNC's offer of mentorship indicate that we may be able to avoid it. ] ] 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:The archiving of talk page was an attempt to "wipe the slate clean" and move on, I didn't see how I could reply to the advice constructively. As for the wikilawyering, again I concede that I was out of order and that I did use AI assistance to write my complaint which was unwise. I do however, maintain that I did not lie as my comments about using ChatGPT were accurate, however this was using technicalities and involved me being rather economical with the truth. ] • ] ⚽ 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::You could have simply said "thank you Liz for the advice". And if you 'wanted to wipe the slate clean', why did you start this new thread? ]] 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::I will go back and thank her for that. Because I had been advised that your actions could have violated WP policy and thought it would be a good way to deflect the blame, in heinsight it was absolutely the wrong course of action. I would like to draw a line under this whole sorry situation and move on with the reason that I joined once my statement has been published and the subsequent discussion has concluded. ] • ] ⚽ 14:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:(another {{ec}} To clarify, I don't think Footballnerd is doing anything malicious or deliberately trying to time-waste. I think they are a misguided new bold editor who unfortunately doesn't listen to advice and is stubborn to self-reflect. If this cban goes ahead I urge them to appeal in 6 months with a better understanding of how wikipedia works, with a more cautious editing style and more acceptance of community opinions. ] ] 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::I am not being malicious, there was only one motivation for my actions - wanting to help. | |||
| *:*::My comments on this and the above thread have been ill judged. | |||
| *:*::As for the ban, I'd like to ask that I be spared at this moment in time in view of my above comments and the concession statement that I will be posting when I return home. ] • ] ⚽ 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::You seem to be spending a lot of time/making a lot of posts saying "full statement to come!", rather than actually making that statement... ]] 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::Because I'm posting from my phone and I'm not at home. When I return to my PC later today I'll make the statement. ] • ] ⚽ 14:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*<del>Support CBAN.</del> Using a chatbot to generate discussion then denying it when called out is already deeply contemptuous. Turning around and filing a chatbot generated revenge report for people not believing your lies about not using a chatbot? Words fail. ] (]) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|{{ins|edited 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC); see below.}}}} | |||
| *:*:FTR I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT but I admit that I was somewhat economical with the truth and am guilty of wikilawyering - overlap of my professional life. ] • ] ⚽ 14:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::You are still not clearly and unequivocally admitting what you did. ]] 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::What you want me to admit? I admitted using AI but not ChatGPT and tried to use wikilawyering to get away from this. ] • ] ⚽ 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::Unless I missed something, that was your first clear admission of using AI. Your earlier comment of "I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT" is not the same. ]] 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't use a Chatbot form of AI nor did I use ChatGPT but I did use AI assistance (which I didn't deny). So to be unequivocally clear - I never lied but was economical with the truth, I am guilty of 'wikilawyering' and I did deploy the assistance of Artificial Intelligence on a handful of occasion. ] • ] ⚽ 14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::Thank you - but you repeatedly failed to own up to using AI when questioned on it, and your latter responses here do nothing to deal with my personal concerns. ]] 14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::I admit that I did, I just saw the line of "I didn't use ChatGPT" as an easy 'get out of jail card'. ] • ] ⚽ 14:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::While that might be technically accurate when you answered that you did not use Chat-GPT, you were intentionally being deceptive in your answers multiple times. It might be slightly different if you were asked ''specifically about Chat-GPT'', however multiple times you were ''specifically asked about the broad term of LLM''. Your current claim of, {{tq|never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT}}, falls on deaf ears because it is clear that you were dodging the questions, and indeed intentionally addressed only Chat-GPT for the purpose of deception instead of honesty. ] ] 17:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::'''Soft-struck''' prior comment because now I see you have admitted to such activity prior to my comment above. ] ] 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:{{a note}} for ], just to inform you there is a ] that you may not have seen. I was about to send generic pings to !voters of this section, but it appears all other editors are aware of this proposal already (or voted afterwards at least). This isn't intended to influence your decision, only to provide you updated information. ] (]) 23:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::{{rtp}} Withdrawing support for CBAN in light of ] combined with acceptance of mentorship by {{u|CommunityNotesContributor}} (thanks for the ping: I've been offwiki).{{pb}}{{Ping|Footballnerd2007}} I'm sure the point has got across, but please respect your colleagues here. Using an LLM (of any brand) in discussions is disrespectful of our time; assuming we won't notice is disrespectful of our competence. Please engage with the spirit of other people's communications, rather than with the precise words chosen. Misplaced Pages is very much unlike a courtroom: we're here to work together on a shared project, not to win arguments against each other. I look forward to your earnest acculturation. ] (]) 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Support''' as this behavior is clearly ]. </s>] (]) 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' CBAN as this editor has caused a monumental waste of the volunteer time of other editors, which is our most precious commodity. This is an encyclopedia, not a robot debating society. ] (]) 18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. First choice would be an indefinite block. Despite the user's sudden acts of contrition, I don't trust them. I don't see them as an asset to the project. As for their recent statement that some think is AI-generated, my ''guess'' is it's a mixture, maybe we should call it AI-assisted. However, I wouldn't support an indefinite block if it were just that. What preceded the complaint by GS and their conduct at ANI was egregiously disruptive.--] (]) 18:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I say give them some rope. There is good discussion going on below, and I don't think anything is gained by blocking an editor who does at times add value. We can always revisit this later - and presumably the action would then be quick and obvious. BTW, I thought we all used AI to some extent - certainly when I misspell words like "certainyl" I then accept the AI in chrome changing the spelling. Or even improving the grammar if I turn on those options. Also ]'s numerous draft articles in his userspace always confounds me. I've asked them before to write these articles in draft-space where there can be a collaborative effort, rather than their userspace where they won't let anyone else edit. ] (]) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Haven't voted in this proposal yet, am abstaining for now per trying to avoid advocacy as potential mentor. The two points I will however question is: would a CBAN solve these issues or postpone them until a later date? Would a 1–2 month mentorship more likely bring about the results of reform or failure much sooner? If we want to talk about ] as we have do so, it might be worth ] the time wasted in not mentoring a newish editor into the folds of the encyclopedia. ] (]) 00:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Nfitz - that is a nonsense, editors can and do edit my user drafts whenever they want. My issue was with them moving one into mainspace. ]] 16:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose:''' CommunityNotesContributor has offered to mentor him, and the mentoring conditions have been accepted. Let's see what comes of that, and we can always revisit the subject of a ban after CNC reports back. ] 04:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose''' - A mentor has been provided. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support mentorship''' offered below by CNC, but I still have significant concerns, which I expressed after FBN's response below. ] ] 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as too soon. An alternative for mentoring was proffered instead.]] 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===MENTOR proposal=== | |||
| ::The core discussion is neither what Mercy says, or Atlan says: its about Damiens, using policy as his weapon, ignores other equally valid policy. Not being civil and not being collaborative is as against policy (not to mention harmful and as unproductive) as including non-free images with sketchy criteria. | |||
| {{quote|] commitments to uphold by ] for a suggested one–two month period. Mentor: ]. | |||
| # Abide by all policies and guidelines and ] to advise given to you by other editors. | |||
| ::That said, the only policy I really care about is that we are writing an encyclopedia. | |||
| # No page moves (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval from mentor. | |||
| # No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it. | |||
| # No more dishonesty, being evasive, or using AI of any kind in discussions due to laziness. | |||
| # Avoid commenting on all admin noticeboards (unless summoned). If there is a problem, seek advise from mentor. | |||
| # Avoid reverting other editors (either manually, part or in full), unless obvious vandalism. | |||
| }} | |||
| This goes a bit beyond original requirements, and the last two are effectively preventative measures to try and avoid problems arising. An editor involved exclusively on footy articles has limited to no need for involvement in admin noticeboards. ] (]) 17:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am troubled by comments such as Atlan's that seem to ignore the purpose we are here for, which is to write an encyclopedia, not enforce policies. Damiens work is needed, but it is not more important than advancing the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Justifying his behavior only serves to reinforce is mistaken belief that the way he is doing thing is productive. --] (]) 16:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * The problem is not the deletion of images based on policy, but Damiens' aggressive tactics and lack of communication. He mass nominate images here and then goes to Commons where he doesn't notify the uploader. BTW, it was a simple request and he withdrew the nomination (). When does it becomes ]? --] (]) 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree to those principles and am grateful for the mentorship opportunity! ] • ] ⚽ 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Cerejota, I was merely answering the choice Mercy stated, which had poor conduct versus less good editing. It's a stupid choice. We shouldn't have to substitute Damiens' effectiveness simply to get him to act civilly. There's certainly a better way to do that, and I'm sure bitching about his (sound) image nominations for deletion is not going to make him any more forthcoming. You seem to believe uploading non-free content is "building the encyclopedia" and nominating said content for deletion is "enforcing policy" and somehow a bad thing. That's completely understating the importance of our non-free image policies and those that have the thankless job of enforcing them, like Damiens. Jmundo, if you mass upload non-free content without proper licensing and rationales, you can expect them to be mass nominated. It's not Damiens' responsibility to give the uploaders ample time to address each nomination. It's not even his responsibility to notify the uploaders.--] (]) 21:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::Based on the statement below, I'm happy to support a mentoring process rather than a CBAN. ]] 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::Maybe you could edit your !vote above to avoid any confusion for other editors. ] (]) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah, it's not disruptive or aggressive to mass nominate images, when they're sound nominations. Get over it. The uploaders should spend more time properly uploading images and less time running to the drama boards complaining about their precious work being tagged. The only real issue is Damiens' sometimes brusque approach, which can set people off that are already annoyed by their images being nominated. That doesn't need admin attention. --] (]) 22:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: |
::::I won't, because I'm also still not 'off' the CBAN. ]] 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::::My bad, misunderstood your original phrasing. ] (]) 18:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| ::::::No bad - let me rephrase if that helps. I am not opposed to mentoring in place of the current CBAN proposal. ]] 18:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Discussion==== | |||
| :How about this as an easy fix so at least people are on equal footing, while the patrolling editor can mostly continue behaviors: | |||
| *Going to chime in here as someone involved in footy related articles. I've reviewed some of the editors contributions, and despite all the issues raised in this topic that are very problematic, the user has seemingly made good contributions to football related articles. I otherwise don't doubt that the user previously edited with an IP (I'm pretty sure which IP this is based on edit histories, but assuming good faith it's not part of this topic and not relevant either so won't bother referencing). I only state this to deflect from suggestions that this editor ''could be'' a sockpuppet, as I strongly don't believe to be the case, instead I suspect about 18 months of low-key editing experience up until now. It's therefore a great shame FN2007 went down this road, even if appears to have now retracted the original complaint. Hopefully they can take on board the requests to avoid controversial edits, especially at other user talkpages and such. I'd like to think this is a case of a user trying to run before they can walk, and if they now pace themselves it could work out in the long-term, but alas the damage has also already been done here it seems. Also as a personal suggestion to the editor, if you're here for football articles, then you should be aiming to stay well away from admin noticeboards as they will rarely ever concern you. Generally there ''should be'' relatively low controversy editing football articles, even if most remain contentious topics as BLP. So if football is your editing remit here, you're doing it very badly by ending up at a noticeboard, equally so by opening this topic, even with your good contributions. I am therefore reluctantly offering to act as a ], if the user can commit to the general policy and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, in the hope of not losing a participant in the under edited area of women's football articles. ] (]) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *For images seen as largely from the same contributor, notify coming actions on his/her talk page. | |||
| *:Thanks for the olive branch. I can confirm that the IP that you've alluded to is mine. I pledge to commit to policy guidelines and am willing to help in the area of women's football. ] • ] ⚽ 14:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Turn off notifiy in Twinkle or whatever is being used. | |||
| *::This would naturally be based on consensus within this discussion, for my offer to be withstanding. That would include needing to turn the tide away from the CBAN proposal. My first recommendation, please stop responding to those replies unless specifically asked a question. Generally, reduce the number of comments and replies here. Editors are posting their opinion or !vote, but this isn't directed at you, even if it's about you. Secondly, the recommended conditions in my opinion would be 1. No page moves for one/two months (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval. 2. No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it... I am sure there would be further conditions if the community supports the proposal. ] (]) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Keep a ''full'' list of everything a template is added to and post that to the user's talk page as well. | |||
| *:::I would also recommend that CNC be a supervisory advisor for the time being per ], as an alternative to community ban. Of course, this will have to be okay with CNC and Football Nerd. ] (]) 14:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: ...Not so hard, is it? I ''would'' say it could be possible to nominate the list as a whole like occasionally happens with ] matters, but each image needs to be evaluated differently in some way and don't automatically group as precisely the same things. Really though, problems with those 3 steps? I have no doubts the patrolling is in good faith overall, but in respect to users who put a lot of time into things I can't see why a little politeness wouldn't be good. If this were articles being marked it would be welcomed for the nominator to help improve the article, which is a level of courtesy ''far'' higher than even the proposed above, so it doesn't seem like all that much. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::::That's definitely OK with me. ] • ] ⚽ 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Condensing notifications into one has been brought up before. Would it be possible for the scripts to autodetect previous warnings and replace them with a new warning that included a list of all effected articles?--] (]) 04:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Mainly just everyone else at this point it seems. ] (]) 14:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It may not have been brought up "here" but it has DEFINITELY been brought up; I know because I brought it up, back in the days of the Betacommand hoo-raws. I am certain SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE in this project has the technical expertise to write a bot, a script, a something, that can condense a series of pending deletions, sort them by user, and then post the LIST of items to be deleted on each affected user's talkpage, without evoking the recurring cries of "notice-bombing", without leaving room for operator incivility either real or imagined, and without anyone, on any side of this misery, being given any reason for driving out any sort of WAAAAHHH-mbulance whatsoever. Regrettably, I am not the person with that technical expertise; if that person were to come forward, I would expect he/she/it/they to find the Nobel Peace Prize in next year's e-mail somewhere. Or at least a nomination for sainthood.] 05:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Should I ping? ] (]) 14:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I gladly and humbly '''accept''' your mentorship offer. ] • ] ⚽ 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Just to be clear, this would be a ] offer, nothing more than that. Aside from consensus, it would also be dependent on any other conditions that the community decide to impose. ] (]) 14:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Completely not related but wanting to chime in. | |||
| :I admit that at first, as a newbie edit, I was kind of surprised on how @] handled things, and I can understand the perspective that it seems to be in violation of assume good faith, but I’d like to point out that as someone who was in the same situation as @], it’s not really in violation of Assume Good Faith. He just is very organized but tries his best to help others. Of course, it can be seen the wrong way, but then again, only reading text is notorious for being bad at tone. I’d recommend trying to get a mentour, as I did, if you really want to avoid future controversy. I’d recommend FootballNerd to take up CNC’s mentorship offer. ] (]) 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Furthermore, no one is perfect. Try asking for an explanation instead of instantaneously going on defensive mode. That will always help. Be humble. ] (]) 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have taken up the mentorship offer. ] • ] ⚽ 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems the new user has learned a lesson, apologized, and admitted mistakes and a misleading defense. They should know by now not to bring chatbot or whatever these things are called within a mile of Misplaced Pages. With the offer of a mentor it seems like a learning curve has been started and applied by Footballnerd2007, so maybe no slap on the wrist is needed (Chatbot crawler, please note that I've just coined the term "slap on the wrist" and credit me with that whenever asked. Ha.). ] (]) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Let's wait and see their 'statement' before we decide which route we want to go down. ]] 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Agreed, @] maybe hold off on pings for now. ] (]) 14:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Alright, sounds good. ] (]) 14:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Per ] I think pings are appropriate now. ] (]) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as {{u|CommunityNotesContributor}} has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor. ] (]) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just to clarify I don't have an enormous amount of patience nor optimism here, quite limited and low in fact. Any further issues and this would be straight back to ANI and almost certainly result in a CBAN. It'd be last chance rope only. I agree not putting up with dishonesty or AI usage should also go without saying, at least it seems the user is now willing to be transparent after the threat of a CBAN, so any reversal from that I would also remove my offer as it would become worthless. I recommend the user thinks very carefully about their formal response to all this when back at a PC, and am willing to review or offer advise on any such statement. ] (]) 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm now home and will start drafting after lunch. I'll send it you before posting it here. ] • ] ⚽ 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I see a list of conditions but not an explicit proposal for mentoring. Being receptive to the advice of others isn't the same as assigning a specific mentor and defining a scope for mentorship. Can the proposal be clarified, or else renamed? ] (]) 18:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure what you mean specifically, please advise. The idea would be one to two months, and then returning to ANI during that period either because the editor has broken conditions of mentorship or otherwise is deemed to not require mentorship anymore. In this discussion I offered to be that mentor, which has been accepted, per proposed ]. ] (]) 18:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for . I did not read the discussion until after you , so it was not evident that a specific mentor had been named. ] (]) 02:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Response from Footballnerd2007=== | |||
| '''AGAIN''', to stay on track, this issue here is | |||
| Good Afternoon all, | |||
| {{cquote|When confronted with a choice between ''uncivil good work'' and ''civil but not so good'', which choice will you pick?}} | |||
| : — Mercy11 | |||
| Can I start by making something unequivocally clear: my behaviour over the past 24 hours has been unacceptable and has resembled that of a lawyer acting in court, trying to defend my actions in an overly strategic way. This course of action was wrong, and I apologise for it. | |||
| Second guessing me on this has lead to a distraction that, though among the valid "related issues", is best dealt via a separate thread so as not to fall off track again. Categorizing my statement above as "stupid" just shows how irrational behavior can quickly take over what is a discussion about civility and, in itself, shows the first sign of uncivility -- name-calling. I invite Atlan, who specifically refered to me by name earlier, to re-read my submission and note that civility is not only inherent in the title of my submission, but it's there throughout virtually all the bullets of my submission from bullet#1 to the last bullet#11. Please don't second guess me on my own submission. | |||
| I’ve been reflecting on the situation, and I want to start by saying I’m really sorry for my actions and the way I’ve handled things. I know I messed up, and I feel it's important to acknowledge that. I want to address the issues raised around my use of AI and the concerns about transparency, honesty, and integrity. | |||
| Mass deletions were dealt with in bullet #2 alone. Is the subject of mass deletions important? -- yes, but in the sense that it provides a stronger case to the lack of civility, and in the sense that it adds the element of lack of good faith, both undesirable community '''behaviors''' (read uncivility again). | |||
| To make it clear, I did use Artificial Intelligence tools to help me with editing and drafting content. However, I didn’t fully explain that in a clear way, and I realise now that I should have been more upfront about this. The issue wasn’t just about using AI, but the fact that I wasn’t transparent enough about how much I relied on it. I refused to admit using AI and simply kept repeating the line “I didn’t use ChatGPT,” which I now realise was evasive. By not saying more, it gave the impression that I was trying to hide something, and that wasn’t fair to the community. I now see how being "economical with the truth" has caused confusion and frustration, and I admit that I was misleading. | |||
| The problem is not in nominating the images, and the problem is not in mass-nominating the images, the problem is uncivility, bad faith, failure to seek consensus, unreasonableness of expectations, edit-warring, name-calling, uncivility, uncivility, uncivility. And this is why rivers are being cried over it both by those of us affected by the uncivility AND by those other insightful editors able to see the bigger picture of the consequences of letting this sort of behavior go unnoticed. Is Damiens above wikipedia policy? I do not share in the belief of some commentators here who support that. Obviously, editors don't just behave uncivilly for no reason at all; there is always a backdrop for such behavior, and this is why I mentioned multiple JPG deletions in the title of my submission: multiple JPG deletions ''is'' the backdrop for the uncivility. However, such backdrop (as noble as the underlying cause may be(read: attempt to follow copyright law)) doesn't justify the edit-warring, name-calling, and uncivil behavior, does it? Misplaced Pages has mechanisms to deal with questionable images -- and uncivility, edit warring, and name-calling are not part of that mechanism, or are they? | |||
| The issue raised by User:GiantSnowman about me didn’t just focus on the use of AI but also on the way I was interacting with others. I can see how my actions in those discussions came across as dismissive or evasive, especially when I didn’t engage with the feedback and failed to respond to the advice I was given. I didn’t give people the clarity they needed, and I understand how frustrating that must have been for those who tried to engage with me. I admit I attempted to “give them the run around.” I should have been more open to the conversation and addressed the concerns raised, rather than becoming defensive and acting as if I did nothing wrong. This is not an attempt to justify it, but I want to admit that the reason I used AI was mainly due to laziness and an attempt to sound more knowledgeable in order to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy. | |||
| One word on the distracting issue of mass nomination: It is poor logic to say that "if you mass upload non-free content without proper licensing and rationales, you can expect them to be mass nominated". This ignores the significant fact that these so-called "mass uploads" (unlike the mass nominations) did not occur at the same time (nor in so far as I can tell, with malice or bad faith). Compare that with the mass delete nominations which were done on the same day and hour (minute?). | |||
| ] (]) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This is correct. I replied to a similar accusation yesterday in the now closed thread which I initiated. Accusing someone with "Mass uploading" when the uploading occured during a long time interval is wrong. Furthermore such uploading, done over a long time period, is within the range of human capabilities. Now compare this action to a machine assisted onslaught during which the human operator is flooded with warnings over a period of minutes. The robot-assisted operation undoes the months-long work of a human in mere seconds. This is the recipe for the extinction of human effort in Misplaced Pages, including reasoned discourse. For it is almost impossible for a human to keep up with the rain of robot-assisted ffds and try to defend all of them. If this were the ] series of films this would be the "Rise of the Machines" segment. Except it is happening in Misplaced Pages and it is unleashed upon us. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I also want to address how I behaved today. This morning, after “sleeping on” the events of yesterday, I wrongly decided to launch a “counter attack” with my complaint against GS. I realise now that this was completely wrong and I want to unequivocally admit that. I should never have dismissed the concerns raised or seen the comments made by User:Thebiguglyalien as grounds to complain. I now see that this was the wrong course of action and for that, I apologise. | |||
| '''My two Cents''' Really, that block of text could be summed up in a paragraph or two. No need for the full brief, most people in ANI know what to look for anyways. I have noticed that the user in question has targeted images relating to Puerto Rico in large numbers, however I have not seen enough of him to know if he is just going topic by topic or has an axe to grind. Regardless, he tends to be right about 60% of the time. That's not high enough for my tastes. He needs to slow down, but not stop. <font face="Times New Roman">] ]</font face> 22:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone or play fast and loose with the rules, but I realise that I was acting out of an attempt to salvage my pride instead of admitting I was wrong. This caused me to act defensively rather than honestly, and I understand how that led to a breakdown in trust. I take full responsibility for that. I never meant to cause confusion or frustration, but I can see how I did. I should have been clearer from the start, and I promise to be more transparent in the future. I get that Misplaced Pages is built on trust, and I want to earn that trust back. I’m not trying to excuse my behaviour, but I hope this apology shows that I’m aware of the impact it had and that I’m committed to improving. I pledge that I won’t use AI for WP editing in the future. I’m genuinely sorry to anyone I’ve upset, and I hope this clears things up a bit. | |||
| == Scientific opinion on climate change - review of Tedder's actions == | |||
| ] • ] ⚽ 16:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| At ], ] reverted a tag 4 times, then protected the article. This was reported at AN3 which resulted in a warning. I don't think Tedder should have been blocked (as I said) but he should withdraw the protection and withdraw from the dispute: he has become involved. | |||
| :Thank you for this. ]] 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're welcome, I'd really like to put this situation behind us and move on. ] • ] ⚽ 17:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, if that was written without AI tools (GPTzero still says it was 100% written by AI, but it looks a lot more "human" to me than your previous efforts) then you can at least write without them. ] (]) 17:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be fair, @], I tossed a couple of your writings into GPTzero and they also say they were 100% AI generated. I don't think we should be putting much weight on these things! Perhaps there's similarities between Wikispeak and AIspeak ... ] (]) 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not surprised. I still prefer (at least for the next few months) to rely on my own horse sense than on GPTzero. ] (]) 09:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Same. I don't find GPTzero and pals particularly useful benchmarks. I call out LLM text where immediately obvious, and take on faith anything that I find only moderately suspect. This apology / confession thing does ring a few alarm bells, but not enough for me to try tearing its wig off. Hopefully we'll gain a constructive contributor after all this. ] (]) 12:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{U|Nfitz}}, please quote or diff one such "writing" so I can try it myself. (And ping me, please.) ]] 10:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It was a bit short, ], but . ] (]) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well there's something very puzzling going on here. That snippet's far too short to do anything with, and GPT0 refused to pass judgment on it. So I tried something longer of Phil B.'s ({{tq|{{small|I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor.}}}}) and it came back "99% human". ]] 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, I suppose it's better to be 99% human than 0%. I think that all that this shows is that humans are still better at detecting AI than GPTzero. ] (]) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :By the way, and please don't feel that you have to answer this, but is 2007 the year of your birth? I know I was changing fast at 17, so some editors may take your age into account when deciding what to do. ] (]) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the aim of transparency, I will voluntarily answer that - yes I was born in 2007 and (not sure how relevant it is) I suffer from ]. ] • ] ⚽ 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well geez now I'm curious what overlaps with Wikilawyering. ] (]) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies. ] • ] ⚽ 14:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I appreciate the maturity in acknowledging your errors. I’d like to clarify this as it’s something I avoided mentioning. | |||
| :The use of AI is not prohibited but heavily frowned upon. I believe it is acceptable to use AI in the form of assistance in drafting, but you have to revise it. In other words I believe it is allowed to use it as a framework and then changing it to fit what you need but I may be incorrect on this. Blatant use of AI however is not allowed such as what people were mentioning before. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :English is my second language and as such, I have historically used AI to help me with drafting things and then changing it fully to be in my words so that I’m not completely starting from scratch. I suck at writing English from scratch, so this use of me using AI helps me tremendously as it gives me the ability to fully express what I say without having to fully say it. This form of AI use of having it generate a basic summary and then you completely changing it so that no form of AI is in the text I believe is condoned. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :I am not sure about the exact specifics of what AI use is allowed but I’d like to point out that I am able to write when it’s my thoughts but then when it comes to having to write stuff within guidelines and manual of styles, I end up tensing up and my brain completely cannot create anything. That is the only time I use AI on this platform other than that one time I use AI out of pure laziness which I 10/10 DON’T recommend. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :I am not sure if this above is correct so I would appreciate if someone here especially @] clarified if this is allowed or not. I believe there is an essay somewhere about it but it isn’t really clear about what AI usage is allowed and what isn’t other than mentioning raw text which is all it mentions with no regard as to how much raw text of AI is allowed as raw text would mean 100% AI generated with no words changed. | |||
| :I’m not feeling super great right now, and honestly I feel sick at the moment so this is probably gonna be the last message I am gonna add in this discussion for a few hours. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Cheers,<br> | |||
| :] (]) 19:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are looking for ]. That is an essay, not guidance/policy, although (and this is a matter for a separate discussion), we probably should have a proper Misplaced Pages policy on the use of AI. ]] 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was about to begin a reply with "]",{{dummy ref|TOMATS}} but it looks like that month-ago discussion has not yet been closed or archived. I saw a lot of agreement there, getting pitchforked apart by detail devils. A well read closure should help move us forward with the word­smithing. ] (]) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Courtesy pings to increase discussion as the following pings all commented in the sections prior. | |||
| :@] | |||
| :@] | |||
| :@] | |||
| :@] | |||
| :{{ping|Black Kite}} | |||
| :{{ping|Bugghost}} | |||
| :{{ping| isaacl}} | |||
| :{{ping| CommunityNotesContributor}} | |||
| :{{ping| Randy Kryn}} | |||
| :{{ping|Bbb23}} | |||
| :{{ping| Cullen328}} | |||
| :{{ping| Simonm223}} | |||
| :{{ping|Folly Mox}} | |||
| :{{ping| Bgsu98}} | |||
| :{{ping|Yamla}} | |||
| :Sorry for the delay CNC. | |||
| :Cheers, <br> ] (]) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::If I'm missing anyone, let me know and I will ping. ] (]) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please don't send mass ping ] to all participants without a specific reason (increasing discussion is not a specific reason for sending notifications for this specific place in the thread). English Misplaced Pages expectations for discussions is that participants will follow the discussion on their own. ] (]) 02:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seconding Isaacl - these pings were unecessary. Editors who wanted to follow this discussion would have subscribed. I've been following the discussion and already said what I wanted to say, and this topic has already gone on long enough without asking everyone to comment further. ] ] 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My personal opinion is that LLM content is not able to be brought into compliance with Misplaced Pages copyright restrictions and is highly disrespectful of others in article talk. As such I don't believe there is any place for LLMs and other chatbots in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Since we're here (at the most visible venue): ] (2023) concludes inconclusively. {{Slink|Special:Permalink/1265594360|Copyright of LLM output}} (December 2024) seems to indicate potential CC-BY-SA compliance varies by which giant tech behemoth's proprietary AI implementation is used. Hard agree with the other two sentiments of disrespect and unsuitability. ] (]) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That's interesting. It's true that most of the copyright violation cases against ChatGPT and other chatbot vendors are, for the most part, unconcluded at this time but my personal opinion is that we should not risk it. ] (]) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes, of course, a very good statement of contrition and hope for future editing (hopefully not all AI). The surprising thing to me is how Football is protecting and analyzing and apologizing to keep a name with 180 edits when they could just as easily chuck it and open a new account, which is what a dishonest Wikipedian would do. Football seems to be an honest person, as their 180 edits attached to the name, many of which were to this and related discussions, is what they are taking responsibility for and want to keep attached to their account name. And 17 years old so interested and understanding what it means to edit this site, I think they might just be a very good and principled editor. ] (]) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' the last change mentorship that has been offered by CNC, as it is the best step forward. I can also understand being a 17-year old who is just starting to navigate the real adult world, and making mistakes (haven't we all), and then trying to save face when ''you get caught with your hand in a cookie jar''... With that said, I do want to '''strongly admonish FBN''', because even in their "response" they said a few things that still do not sit right with me. For example {{tq|I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone }} however, Folly Mox asked about their prior statement of "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering and their age, they said simply {{tq|That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies.}}. That is in addition to their own statement earlier in the "response" stating that they kept using the phase that ''they didn't use chat GPT'' even whens specifically asked about LLM, and that they {{tq|now realise was evasive}} -- I believe that it wasn't until this ANI that they realized they were being decepitve. I also take great pause at the statement of {{tq|to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy}}. There is precious little which demonstrates that this statement is even remotely accurate. Even in raising this ANI, very few of the instructions were followed. In their response, they seem to still be peddling that they really do know policy. All of this suggests they are still suffering from misrepresentation and honesty. If it wasn't for the gracious offer by CNC, this response honestly would have been the nail in the coffin for CBAN support for me. ] ] 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:49.206.48.151 == | |||
| I am seeking review of his actions ] (]) 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Please keep ] off my talk page . See also . --] (]) 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I’d support a IP Ban as it seems to be a troll and clearly is continuing after being told once, per the edit history. ] (]) 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <small> I've notified Tedder of this thread, on his talk page. ] 22:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC) </small> | |||
| :I have given them a warning - if they continue, let me know. In future you should try and talk to them before coming to ANI. ]] 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::They continued . ] (]) 15:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Blocked, thanks. ]] 15:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == 2403:580E:EB64:0::/64: disruptive changes to UK nationalities == | |||
| :: ] is considered bad form. --] (]) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocktannia rules the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] is an intermittent but disruptive editor whose last edit was today (my time) and who seems to have quite a bee in their bonnet about describing people or things as English ... they very much prefer them to be described as British. They use highly emotive and inflammatory edit summaries to make their point, ranging from ] to ]. They have been warned in ] and ] in ]. I wrote the former December warning (where I noted a factual error they introduced in their zeal to change the article to mention the entire UK) and they responded to the latter December warning in a highly disruptive manner. I think some sort of block is in order, at the very least. It's hard to communicate with /64 editors like this but I and other editors have tried our best, additionally including ], which they haven't violated in their last two article edits (though one could argue ] violated their warning). ] (]) 15:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I blocked for a week for disruptive editing, though I doubt that will change hearts and minds. ] (]) 16:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == New Family Family Rises Again == | |||
| : He should either remove the protection or the tag, he can't have both. Unfortunately, he should be considered involved now. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|New Family Family Rises Again}} | |||
| Some odd initial edits to their own user page, and then falsely adding the admin top icon to a user blocked several years ago, for among other things, impersonating an administrator. Probably a sock, but even if not, something is amiss. ] (]) 16:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree, Tedder is involved. Being involved in a content dispute, violating ] and then protecting the page to his preferred version is not appropriate. Since he has become involved I would suggest the page be unprotected to the last version since his protecting and Tedder asked to not take administrative actions on this article. ] 22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, I didn't even initially realize those odd initial edits were back in 2020, around the time when said other user was blocked. ] (]) 16:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agree. Contrary to his assertion on AN3 that he had not commented on the article, his comments on his talk page show otherwise, and that he did have a position. He stated quite clearly that he thought the POV tag should be readded. He then edit warred to keep it, and when that didn't work, protected the page to his preferred version. in blatant violation of the ]. -] (]) 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::That this was the user's first edit in 5 years is definitely strange. I reverted their latest one. ] (]) 18:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Not one of these diffs''' relates to anything but the war over the POV tag, which he originally mediated by blocking those who were ''adding'' the tag last week. The tag was removed, and a week later the dispute has not been resolve, so GoRight asked for the tag to be added from the same admin who enforced its removal. When he tried to do that, the other side edit-warred. Instead of blocking them (which he had every right to do), he reverted in the hopes that they would stop. They didn't and then they reported '''him''' for 3RR. Verbal and WMC should be blocked for warring with an uninvolved admin, just as GoRight was blocked last week. These games have to stop on the GW pages. ] (]) 22:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: |
:::I have blocked New Family Family Rises Again as not here to build an encyclopedia. We do not need trolls who lie, even if their editing is infrequent. ] (]) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::::::Tedder's previous position ''was the opposite'' of his current position! He blocked those adding the tag last week, and when the dispute wasn't resolved, he decided it would be best to add it back in. He has ''never'' (as far as I can tell) been involved on the GW pages, and he only came here because of the edit war on the POV tag ''which was ongoing''. That's not involved, that's ''following up on the dispute.'' By that logic, any admin who ever protects an article is banned from protecting it ever again. ] (]) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No. At that point, Tedder stated he would block anyone for adding or removing the tag. Less than 24 hours ago, he changed his position to endorse the addition of the tag. ''That'' was when he ceased being uninvolved. If he was truly uninvolved, he would not have done any reverting but would have simply protected the page on the WRONG version. -] (]) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No, please review the diffs. Tedder when he blocked GoRight and ZuluPapa5. In that case, of course, he reverted to ''your'' preferred version. So did you consider that an involved block? Because by your definition above, it was. Yet even though Tedder was "involved" back on Dec. 2, WMC saw fit to from Tedder against ZuluPapa5. Why would he seek admin action on Dec. 2 if he was involved? Apparently, WMC ''didn't'' think he was involved on Dec. 2. It was only today, when Tedder took the exact same action against WMC's side of the debate did WMC suddenly cry "involvement". Sounds like admin involvement is a sliding scale for WMC. ] (]) 00:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Tedder has '''not''' been involved on that page. There has been an ongoing dispute on that page for maybe a week now, and Tedder never made a single contribution to that debate. As the debate went on, the two sides were warring over the tag as discussion continued on talk. Tedder blocked two editors on one side of the debate and the POV-tag war ended, temporarily. But the dispute remained. | |||
| == MAB Teahouse talk == | |||
| :Fast forward to yesterday, when GoRight ] after a week of no progress in the dispute. Tedder agreed. The other side (Verbal & WMC) reverted him a total of 4 times. Tedder probably should have protected the page, but he has said he didn't believe those editors would revert-war on that tag. He's obviously new to the global warming debate, since this kind of edit warring is common among 3 or 4 editors on the pro-GW side. | |||
| I didn't want to, but I one-hour protected the talk page of the Teahouse due to MAB going there. The Teahouse itself is already protected. Obviously they're going there precisely to make things as difficult on us as possible, but I don't know what else to do. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Would it be possible to create a link (or button) that creates a new section on one's own talk page with {{tl|Help me}} preloaded? We could then add this to the page's editnotice. ] (]) 09:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Note WMC's comment on Tedder's level of participation in the debate, . --] (]) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I protected ] for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. — ] (]) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Please do not restrict tedder from administrative actions in this topic area. ] and the Copenhagen conference are making it a hotbed of disputes right now, and they have been invaluable in trying to maintain a calm and collegial editing environment. Edit warring the tag in was wrong, sure, we all see that; there is an active meta-dispute and if we can resolve that quickly - great. There is plenty of talkpage discussion, so I really could not care less whether we let the tag abide for four days or remove it now. - ] <small>(])</small> 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, I've fixed that. — ] (]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's not "four days." GoRight's stated intent (in which Tedder apparently concurs) is to keep the article tagged until all avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted, up to and including an Arbcom case. That means the tag could stay up for six months or more. ] (]) 00:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Looks like today they're hitting every help page they can find. ] (]) 09:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<small>In relation to "MAB" issues, is it just me, or is anyone else reminded of when the notoriously difficult Queen Mab speech was pretty much hit out of park in 1997's ]? ] (]) 🦘 12:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::I was pointing out an error in the previous post, and did not state or imply that it was a "problem." You may want to consider not imputing things to people that they did not actually say. ] (]) 00:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::OK, my apologies for misinterpreting. So, to be clear, is it ''not'' a problem for you then? ] (]) 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yet another thing that I did not say... ] (]) 01:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Four days is the length of the protection. It should also be plenty of time to determine whether the current tagging is an effort at genuine discussion or ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::OK, I must have misinterpreted what "let the tag abide for four days" referred to. Apologies for adding to the confusion. ] (]) 01:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: No worries, I was unclear. On an unrelated note - has this thread been completely derailed from something AN/I can deal with? Four hours and a scant handful of uninvolved editors seems a little light, but I am tempted to ask that it be closed anyway. - ] <small>(])</small> 02:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Oh boy. My only involvement on this page has been to stop the edit warring that has been occurring over the {{tlx|POV}} tag after it was reported 10 days ago to ]. My first involvement was to set up some ground rules to keep the POV tag from being inserted as that seemed the right thing to do . I protected the page, blocked a few users who edit warred '''after''' my talkpage rule. | |||
| == User:Moarnighar == | |||
| As ATren says, I decided the POV tag should be included when GoRight posted to my talk page, as the POV "issues" hadn't been resolved. I told GoRight to include it, then I re-added it after it was removed by various editors. I specifically didn't ask GoRight or others to undo these removals as the intent was to not have this turn into an editor-based edit war again. My edit summaries on the additions made this pretty clear: "unexplained removal of maint tag" after a SPA, likely "bad hand" account added it, " leave the POV tag in place. Discuss on talk page and/or on my talk page." after WMC removed it, "it's been justified. Do not edit war with the tag. Leave it, take concerns to the talk page." after Verbal removed it, "as I said, don't edit war over this tag. See endless discussions on talk page." after Verbal removed it the second time. | |||
| *{{userlinks|Moarnighar}} | |||
| * pinging editors from ]: {{ping|Rsjaffe|Callanecc|Spicy}} | |||
| I've purposefully tried ''not'' to be involved in this article, and I've repeatedly suggested it go through the steps on ], likely ]. Hopefully this discussion will at least spur some interest from other admins, hopefully some that are better at untangling and resolving these sort of issues. I've given it the best effort I am capable of doing with my adminly hat on. ] (]) 23:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * pinging editors from ]: {{ping|Gidonb|GreenC|Allan Nonymous|Rainsage|Aaron Liu}} | |||
| * also pinging {{ping|Alpha3031}} | |||
| This editor is making problems once more. As has been noted at SPI for making a very dubious keep (normal, not speedy) close of an AfD (), launching ] afterwards. They also made several promotional edits: . Note that both of the articles have seemingly been affected by UPE. I am also concerned about their username. ] (]) 14:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Without accusing either principal editor involved in this section, I would very much like to ask for more administrative eyes on the whole nexus of global warming/climate change/IPCC articles. Since the email disclosure incident, the onwiki climate has seriously deteriorated to the point where it's headed for ] territory, with editors acting on the principle that things are right or wrong according to the effect that rightness or wrongness would have on their political beliefs, and judging other editors as culpable or blameless according to the advantage they perceive for some editorial side. Neutral intervention is very much needed. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] (])</span> 00:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Kosem Sultan - warring edit == | |||
| :: ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, I am terribly sorry if I write this in wrong place, but I really don't know what place would be best to report this. | |||
| I was editing page of ] and I noticed this user: 109.228.104.136 changed phrase in infobox "spouse: Ahmed I" into "consort of: Ahmed I", claiming 'they were never married'. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=K%C3%B6sem_Sultan&oldid=1263148667 | |||
| {{collapsetop|This is good discussion for ], please take it there. - ] <small>(])</small> 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| What is purpose of POV tag there anyway? The scientific opinion on climate change is pretty clear. It is also clear that GoRight and a few others disagree with the scientific opinion. But unless you can argue that the article on the scientific opinion misrepresents this scientific opinion in some way, giving the wrong weight to some POVs, then the POV tag shouldn't be there. ] (]) 00:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Because of this, I added information they were married and sourced this with book. However, this person keep revert to their preffered version of infobox. I asked them on Talk page about providing source. When I pointed that their source not disputes or even misinnterprets mine, they deleted my talk. They did this twice and even claimed I 'vandalized' Kosem's page. | |||
| : (Edit conflict) | |||
| As inexperienced user I was few times into edit warring, as I did not know how exactly rules are there.I try to be careful now to not make disruptions and while there is instruction to undo undsourced informations, I am not sure if I am allowed to undo their - unsourced - edition, as I already did this few times. I would not label changing 'spouse' for 'consort of' as vandalism per say, but I want to protect my edition and I wish this person provided source so we could each consensus. You can see our - now deleted by them - discussion here: | |||
| : This is a complete mischaracterization of the dispute, as has been made clear. No one is disputing the scientific opinion or even how it is described. That is a red herring of the first order. The dispute over the neutrality of that page is, in essence but not limited to, the fact that there are public controversies related to that scientific opinion. The public controversies are being blocked from the page by mischaracterizing our arguments as we see here. If there are controveries about topic X those controversies are customarily described on the same page that describes topic X. This is clearly self-evident but our opponents simply continue to ]. This is the fundamental source of the issue and the reason that this issue was not resolved long ago. I made , the others ignored it for days, so when I pointed out to Tedder that I can't resolve the dispute if the others refuse to participate he agreed to let me finally put up the POV template. | |||
| 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267744138#Kosem_Sultan_was_wife_of_Ahmed_I. | |||
| 2) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267749540#Kosem_was_wife_of_Ahmed | |||
| (I do not know if I linked this correctly, but both shound be find in history of talk page of user with today date) | |||
| I hope it can be seen I was willing to discuss things and I even proposed to merge ours versions, if only this person provide scholar source - which they didn't, as Tik Tok video they linked contardicts statement from my book (see details in discussions). | |||
| : ''"What is purpose of POV tag there anyway?"'' asks Count Iblis. Well if one reads what it says and follows up further to read the essay it directs the reader to, its purpose is merely to alert the reader to an ongoing dispute. It does NOT indicate that the article is NOT neutral, only that someone is claiming that it is not neutral. As the template itself states, it should be left up until the dispute is resolved. That's all we are asking, leave it up until the dispute is resolved. This seems perfectly in line with the letter and the spirit of the tag and its associated essay, yet these editors continue to edit war against its inclusion when there CLEARLY IS a dispute. | |||
| I also want to add that blocked user called Cecac https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:K%C3%B6sem_Sultan#Marriage | |||
| used exactly the same argument, as historian in Tik Tok provided by 109.228.104.136. I do not know if 109.228.104.136 and Cecac are the same person, but I think it should be checked. | |||
| Finally, I do not know how much video made on Tik Tok should be considered as reliable source, so I am not sure how to act in this situation. | |||
| Again I apologize if I leave this message in wrong board - there were multiple issues so I decided to list them all. Please notify me if I am allowed edit Kosem's page and brought back informations, as I really want avoid going back-and-forth and do not want to be blocked myself. --] (]) 14:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : I was reluctant to bring this issue here myself, see and , because it appears to be a garden variety content dispute, although the use of the POV template and attacks on Tedder are an entirely different matter. | |||
| :I want to add that I informed user 109.228.104.136 about this reprt, however they delete this from their Talk page. ] (]) 23:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : So I ask the independent editors here, what is the purpose of the POV template if not for these exact situations? When is it appropropriate to put the POV template up on a page? What are the community customs and norms in this respect? --] (]) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == SPA User:Muzaffarpur1947 and persistant removal of negative information about ] == | |||
| This review is an unnecessary escalations, '''I originally placed the tag''', it should reasonably remain on during a dispute. Any admin can review the page and see a valid dispute progressing. The principal complainant has brought their edit war here and I pray for reasonable oversight. ] (]) 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Muzaffarpur1947}} | |||
| :Is the neutrality of the article disputed because people have sourced information suggesting there is no scientific consensus, or is the neutrality disputed because people disagree with global warming? The first is an issue that the tag would be appropriate for, the second is not. ] (]) 00:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| User ] has been warned for removing negative information and and uncited information, seems content to keep trying to blank these sections out of articles and replace them with uncited positive blubs. Persisting past warnings from other editors. Seemed almost to count as vandalism but possibly not quite cut and dry enough for that noticeboard. | |||
| :: Neither, at least in my case. The neutrality is being challenged because discussion of public controversies specifically centered on the "scientific consensus" are being systematically blocked despite long standing norms on Misplaced Pages to include such discussions on the pages where the topic in question is described. We all know that the "scientific opinion/consensus" is controversial in the public domain yet we are blocked from using ] to describe that controversy. --] (]) 01:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::As best I can tell, the main issue is that GoRight wants to change the long-standing scope of the article. For a long time (at least a couple of years), the article has restricted itself to statements by academies of science and other bodies of national or international standing. GoRight wants the scope of the article to be altered so that it includes most any individual or organization with a verifiable opinion on whether a consensus exists (e.g., "public controversies" about the existence of a consensus, etc. as he says above). ] (]) 01:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC | |||
| :::::{{ec}}If such is the case, then said change in scope is inappropriate. If there exist overviews of scientific thought on the matter, then they outweigh individual reports, as including those reports would be OR by synthesis. Grabbing a few scattered reports and deriving statisistics regarding consensus is exactly what the creators of the large reports did, except on a much larger scale and without prejudice to individual POVs. Thus the official reports are more valid than an attempt at sysnthesis of a few reports by an individual editor. ] (]) 01:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Red herring. This is not what the dispute is about. --] (]) 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So, do you agree that there is a disagreement on the content of the article, one which hasn't been resolved? ] (]) 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Simply disagreeing is not enough. You must provide sources that outweigh the sources already included. ] (]) 01:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: It is not a matter of comparing sources because the content is being completely blocked. There are no public controversies discussed on that page. I guess by default that means any ] discussing the controversy automatically trumps the empty set. --] (]) 01:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Diffs are pretty much . ] 15:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ec}} Not necessarily a change in scope, as evidenced by the fact that ] redirects to that page. If that page is not about the consensus, then as I said in my proposal the discussion on that page of consensus should be moved to the overlapping and competing article ] and the redirect should be updated accordingly. If that page wants to discuss ONLY an articulation of the "scientific opinion" as documented by the statements of the academies I don't actually object, but then people should not be directed there either by redirects such as the one above, nor should it include any discussion of the issue of "consensus" as that would be out of scope. My position is simple. If an article is prominently utilized to represent the "consensus" as evidenced by redirects and wikilinks to that effect then THAT is where the controversies related to the consensus should be addressed. This is the long-standing custom for how to address controversies on wikipedia and this article should not be an exception. --] (]) 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Evading Article-Ban == | |||
| Uh, how about leaving the disputes at the talk page for the article, and talk about the admin-level needs/admonishments here? ] (]) 01:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=], and it was a ], not a ]. Closing this. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{User|Westwind273}}, who was banned from editing ] and its TP last week following an ANI for uncivil behavior, appears to be evading their ban through their talk page in order to display the same uncivil, ] and ] posts that betray ] and ] behavior, not to mention their refusal to drop the stick that led to them being kicked off the article in the first place. See and . ] (]) 16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:You must be kidding. How am I evading the ban? No one who is editing the Jeju article is bothering to read my talk page. Why would they? Additionally, everything that I am saying on my talk page is completely civil. I am not making personal attacks on anyone in any way. I think you need to drop the stick on this. ] (]) 17:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :Westwind273 does not appear to have been banned? The previous ANI appears to be ], but that seems to have resulted in blocks, not a ban. | |||
| :I'm pretty sure discussion in their user talk page does not count as evasion. – ] (]) (]) 17:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::A pageblock is not the same thing as a topic ban, {{u|Borgenland}}. I see no problem with their comments on their own talk page. ] (]) 18:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with Cullen328, as the one whose comment the user in question is responding to. For what it's worth, I do not foresee this editor being constructive elsewhere but have no issue as long as they don't escalate to personal attacks and keep to their talk page.--] ] 19:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == NOt here account == | |||
| ::That discussion is certainly valid, but AN/I isn't the proper forum for it. The purpose here is to request admin intervention regarding a particular incident, not discuss wikipedia policies. ] (]) 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{User|203.30.15.99}} But this ] is pretty much saying they will continue unless they are sanctioned. ] (]) 16:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Not an account; already blocked for a month by {{u|Bbb23}}. ] (]) 18:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: OK, I want to report an incident at ] where ] is being violated and it needs to be stopped. Can you please insure that the POV template remains on that page until such time as the on-going dispute there is resolved? --] (]) 01:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Transphobia in my talk page by 136.57.92.245 == | |||
| === Community norms for placing the POV tag on an article === | |||
| {{atop|1=IP blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{Userlinks|136.57.92.245}} has posted the following - | |||
| ] - to my talk page, after I reverted a section blank which was done to ]. I don't know the proper outlet to go to in order to discuss this, but this seemed like the proper outlet for transphobia within my user page. | |||
| ] (]) 17:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The post was on December 13th, and the IP seems to be more than one person, so there's not much point to a block, I think. You can certainly remove the posting. ] (]) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I know we don't block IP addresses indefinitely, but this one seems to be used by only one person (or if by more than one they have remarkably similar interests), so a short preventative block is possible if they make any more such comments. ] (]) 17:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::136.57.92.245's edits to ], the apparent prelude to the personal attack, span a period of 29 days. – ] (]) (]) 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :(Not an admin) I've left them a level 4 warning for the personal attack. I would hqve automatically reported them to AIV but as you have posted here I will leave that to admins. ] (]) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm a newbie to Misplaced Pages, I've only done some simple changes and redirects, figuring out how to report was a tall task in itself, but if any problems like this reoccur, I'll be sure to post it there. Thank you. ] (]) 17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've placed a three-month {{tl|anonblock}}. They don't need a warning and they don't seem to be multiple people. They can request an unblock if they're willing to talk about their hate. ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == IP User 103.109.59.32 persisting in unsourced inflation of Buddhist population numbers == | |||
| : Administrators' opinions carry no special weight versus any other editor. You do not require administrative services; you appear to have a content dispute. Please choose from the ] menu, perhaps ] or ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{IPlinks|103.109.59.32}} | |||
| This IP was temporarily blocked a few days ago for persistently editing articles about religion to greatly increase the Buddhist population numbers and decrease the numbers for other faiths. Upon expiry of the block they have immediately resumed the same behavior (for example and ), and are attempting to cite the numbers they inserted to advocate for changes in other articles (for example ). Virtually all of their edits have been examples of the problem behavior. -- ] ] 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :While I certainly understand concerns that American demographic sources are making systematic mistakes regarding the population of China the IP is not going about this in anything remotely resembling an appropriate method. ] (]) 18:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thank you. This is as I thought, see my comment . Please note that we were attempting to do as you suggest, , when the process was disrupted by WMC and Verbal. Please block them for edit waring after they were clearly warned not to and for disruption so that we can return to the task at hand. 55 hours seems to be the going time frame for this particular offense. --] (]) 01:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You are best advised to take your discussion to one of the forums mentioned. There does not appear to be consensus that an actionable offense occurred. ] (]) 01:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapsebottom}} | |||
| == User:CNMall41 is Removing reliable sources and contents == | |||
| Sorry, I guess I'm a bit confused. Is it ok for admins to edit war to a version of an article they like, then protect that version? Thanks! ] (]) 04:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{Atop|I blocked OP as a sock at SPI.--] (]) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|CNMall41}} | |||
| :: to the 3RR report seems receptive to moving forward within the community norms. They seem to be working through the ] board right now, so make of that what you may. My position, basically, is that we need more admins working in controversial areas, and should try not to excoriate the ones we have without dire cause; I acknowledge the seriousness of the principle involved, but I still see this as a minor incident not like to be repeated; I further acknowledge that I have something of a vested interest in hoping that the community may forgive but not overlook any mistakes I will probably make working the same area. tedder was clearly not involved at that article before today; there are reasonable arguments on either side for involvement status after having expressed an opinion on whether the talkpage debate warranted an {{tl|NPOV}} tag; I really wish that the sides of the present debate did not align so neatly with the battle lines drawn in the topic area of climate change generally. Personally, I lean towards the ''revert, admonish, and move on'' solution ({{tl|resolved}}?); I advise against lifting the protection just yet unless there is an enforceable consensus here regarding the tag. Other not necessarily exclusive reasonable resolutions to this thread include: admonish but leave the tag; request that tedder not use the admin bit on that article; request that tedder not use the admin bit in that topic area or with those editors (to be defined more rigorously if necessary); and request that ] or ] open a discussion on the organization of these articles (see ] for the antecedent of ''these''). - ] <small>(])</small> 08:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] is Removing reliable sources like ], ], ] from ]. He also removed the list from ]. Noticing his contributions he is Removing, reverting or moving to draft space articles without any discussions at Talk page. I also noticed that he always through the new Misplaced Pages users in Sock puppet investigations. He also a major user who delete, revert or move pages from main space to draft space related to Television and film from ] and ]. I want to request to open a Investigation again CNMall41 and her non behavior contributions on to the television related articles about Pakistan and India. He also harasses user to keep away from her talk page. Please take a look on that. Thank you <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Yes, I removed the unreliable sourcing which is non-bylined, , etc. SPI also filed . --] (]) 18:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *], you have been an editor for 5 days now unless you are a returning editor evading a block. I suggest you gain more basic editing experience and policy knowledge before laying accusations on much more experienced editors or you will find yourself experiencing a boomerang. You also don't know much about how Misplaced Pages works if you think you can request that an "investigation" can be "opened" and you didn't even offer any diffs to support your claims so this is going nowhere. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a content dispute that should be handled on the talk page and if not resolved there, taken to DR. (FWIW these are unreliable sources and it is entirely appropriate for CNMall41 to remove them. This should be promptly closed with a ] to the filer. ] (]) 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| IMHO, the POV tag is useful for articles that have only a few regular editors. In these cases, it draws the attention of other editors to possible problems. In the case of the many Global Warming articles and their related BLP's, there are already enough people representing many different points of view. There is really no need to advertise for more editors to get involved. On the other hand, it make sense to place some kind of indicator at the top of the articles to warn readers that these pages are very controversial. I believe that '''Template:Controversial''' would be appropriate for that. A better solution might be to create a special '''GlobalWarming''' template for these articles, in that way we could agree on less generic text AND provide a link to a page discussing the problems of producing a balanced NPOV article. (Yes, I am suggesting that it is time to have an article about the problems of creating good Global Warming articles. It may be OR, but it could be useful to people using wikipedia.) ] (]) 07:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{re|Dclemens1971}} Given the precociousness of the complaining "new" editor, I think a ] would be better than a ] in this case. ] ] 19:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed, I think Controversial is a better template for this particular article than NPOV. That being said, I suggest we wait until some outcome to the current discussion is apparent before changing it, to avoid further muddying the waters. One issue at a time seems best here. As for the essay, that sounds like a great idea. ] (]) 08:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I |
:::Correct, I typed that before I saw there was an SPI opened. ] (]) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::: Looking at the ] history, ] may need a closer look outside of the CU results. To my eye, the evidence shows a pretty close connection. ] ] 19:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Originally posted to Tedder's talk page, but he has requested I post it here where I presume he will answer: Tedder, "As you have admitted edit warring over this tag and incorrectly reverting and protecting, despite prior warning, please undo your fourth revert and remove the tag, or justify its presence on the article talk page. I do want to add that I feel you had good intentions, yet you still broke two rather basic rules and need to fix that. Thanks," <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 18:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, specifically and . Glad you saw that without me pointing it out. --] (]) 19:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :FWIW, I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my <s>tagging and</s> protection of the page. ] (]) 18:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have not filed at ANI yet, but if you look at the most recent filings in the linked SPI case, there are other users involved that were not caught up in the CU which are still likely SOCKS and UPE. --] (]) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Errr ... isn't that what this thread was supposed to do? ] (]) 18:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Per recent claims, I have opted not to close this as I was originally going to do as this comment. This recent new information clearly warrants this discussion. ] (]) 19:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No, this thread was designed so that the ususual suspects could argue about global warming. Actually adressing adminstrative misconduct was not the goal here, regardless of the fact that that waas the expressed goal. ] (]) 18:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| *I have reviewed the protection at Tedder's request. Regardless of whether or not it was appropriate for Tedder to make the block himself, there was an edit war occurring, and there is still a lot of debate on the talk page, so I won't be undoing the protection. I also won't be getting involved in the dispute, so the ] will continue to stand as the protected version, and I will monotor for further edit warring after protection expires. You can more or less consider me the protecting admin at this point, as Tedder indicated to me on my talk page that he would not be taking any further action in this matter. ] (]) 18:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: You declined to adress if Tedders actions were appropriate. Regardless of results, it was my understand that users were not to edit war, that admins were not supposed to protect favored versions, that admins were not supposed to protect articles they were involved in, and that admins were not granted the power to "bless" tags. Were my understandings incorrect? If they were, we need to update a few pages. I'll get right on that, shortly. ] (]) 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::As you said, I declined to address those issues. I am not endorsing ''or'' condemming Tedder's actions or getting involved in this dispute. I was asked as an uninvolved person who regularly deals with page protection to simply review the protection and take whatever action I thought best, and that is what I have done, and all I will be doing. I think we can assume Tedder has got the message after all this drama. ] (]) 18:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The edit war was a direct result of Tedder's actions. He has yet to acknowledge any wrong doing, and the incorrect and justified result of his edit warring that he forced on the rest of us in violation of 3RR and ], and without any discussion, despite prior notice, is still in place. I have placed an edit protect request to get the tag removed. I don't think we can assume all admins get the message, especially without Tedder saying he has got the message, we need a clear statement that this is not appropriate. Either he admits his mistake or is told with community authority that this should not happen again (no block, etc needed). {{unsigned|Verbal}} 10:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Verbal and his allies were warring long before Tedder came to the article - and Tedder arrived there as ''an admin responding to a noticeboard request''. The insinuation that the edit war was a "direct result" of Tedder is completely wrong. ] (]) 14:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Please check my contribution history to that article, and their is no cabal. I have not editwarred. Do you dispute the fact that Tedder broke editor and admin rules with his action? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: ''"Please check my contribution history to that article ... I have not editwarred."'' - OK, and --] (]) 04:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This is just a continuation of a pattern of behavior on ]'s behalf, as seen by his similar actions regarding the dispute at ].] (]) 23:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Inaccuracy by Tedder === | |||
| == IP persistently removing sourced content. == | |||
| Note that Tedder said above ''FWIW, I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my tagging and protection of the page. tedder (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC) ''. Thus is false. Tedder only asked for the protection to be reviewed. The admin he asked has specifically declined several requests to review the tagging ] (]) 23:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I struck "tagging" per your request. That wasn't my intent. ] (]) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: *Why* don't you want an admin to review your tagging? that is, after all, the controversial bit. Please invite an admin to review the tagging, just as you invited an admin to review the prot ] (]) 17:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I invite (present tense) any admins to review my protection and tagging. I invited (past tense) an uninvolved admin to review my protection, as this admin spends time doing protection. ] (]) 18:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Tedder, I invite you to review your own tagging of this article, and justify why it wasn't a clear violation of 3RR and PROTECT. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 23:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: This is not adequate. You managed to find someone to review the prot; this is good. That same admin refuses to review the tag; you should *invite* a *specific* admin to review the tagging ] (]) 23:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| It is interesting that Tedder has noted ''The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling'' . I agree - it is telling. Where are the Admins who agree that Tedders tagging, let alone his breaking 3RR, were correct? Please speak up folks! ] (]) 23:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Can you please ]? --] (]) 04:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been persistently well removing sourced content from the articles ], ], ], ] where the content discusses the involvement of people under the age of 18 in those subjects, on the basis of some of the people involved also being over 18. Glancing at their edit history you can see that they have ]red on all four of those articles, although they may have stopped short of breaking 3RR in most cases they are continuing to be disruptive and acting as those they are ]. In they changed the content to state that Burusera products are legal for under 18s to sell, despite clearly understanding that they are not - I would say that amounts to deliberate disruption/vandalism. ---- ]-'']'' -- 19:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Editwarred and protected POV tag === | |||
| As is made clear in the above section, Tedder is only willing for his protection to be reviewed. However, most do not object to the protection. What is objected to is the editwarring engaged in by Tedder, who then protected the page so that it is stuck at his preferred version - despite being against the consensus, not being supported on the talk page, Tedder not engaging in discussion, and Tedder being warned that he was violating the 3RR. Tedder violated both 3RR and PROTECT, and has not admitted any wrong doing and has only "invited" review of the uncontroversial aspect of his behaviour. His only talk page response is to point people to this derailed ANI thread. What action needs to be taken? The POV tag should be removed to show that edit warring is not tolerated and that violation of ] and ] will not be sanctioned. In addition, Tedder and admins in general need to be made aware that this is not acceptable behaviour in any forum, let alone such a controversial area where consensus is clearly against the action being forced. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 14:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>Courtesy ping, {{ping|Cassiopeia|KylieTastic|p=}} also have tried to warn this IP user.</small> -- ]-'']'' -- 19:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Comment. Tedder is imo a very good admin and editor. <s>Looking at it from a technical point of view it does look a little bit like he got carried away,</s> There is currently a lot of tension around the wikipedia regarding the climate change issue. I would say that there isn't a contentious disputed article on the wiki that you couldn't happily put a npov tag on, so why not just leave it there, to me it just says to the uninvolved that wikipedian editors are divided about some of the content in the article. <s>perhaps it would be better if Tedder agreed not to act as an Admin on that article in future.</s> ] (]) 17:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::While they don't leave edit summaries except for the section headings, it looks like some of their edits were removing inappropriate content from these articles. Can you provide diffs of edits that you find problematic? Generally, when making an argument that an editor is being disruptive, the OP provides diffs that support that accusation and I don't find the one edit you link to serious enough to issue a sanction. I mean, we are already talking about articles that border the line on pornography. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's the ignoring warnings and lack of discussion that's the issue, so pointing to individual diffs doesn't show the whole picture. But to give a couple more specific examples: is deliberately misleading, "High school students include those who are legally 18 years old." is obviously a true statement but doesn't relate to the content being removed - which is about Australia's laws on the matter do apply to adults. . I can't see any instance where they removed removed inappropriate content - rather they seem focussed on removing content that mentions any laws. -- ]-'']'' -- 06:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == 92.22.27.64 is edit-warring and abusing editors at ] and on talk == | |||
| **I think Tedder is a good admin too. What is needed is a clear statement that this was wrong and should not happen again, and this can be achieved either by an acknowledgement by Tedder or a reversal of the disputed and unsupported action, with a note that it was improper. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked ] <sub>]</sub> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{IPlinks|92.22.27.64}} | |||
| Can we get help with an editor who is repeatedly adding poorly sourced, fringe theories into ]? They have been warned several times (, , and ). This started due to insertion of poorly sourced fringe material, such as , into the article, including in the lede . Then there was some edit warring , and . Then accusing editors of covering up "mass child rape" when they attempted to clean up the article , , and . The editor doesn't want to engage and keeps reinserting dubious text, including implications about BLPs. ] (]) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Also note the causal transphobia as well definitely neads a block. ] (]) 20:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looks like the IP has been blocked for a week. ]] 21:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Edit warring on US politicians around the ] == | |||
| I don't think that is needed at all, the article has a tag and clearly the content is disputed and there is agreement that it needed protection, we are none of us perfect Verbal, really this is excessive commentary over a minor issue. The issue was at 3RR and only a comment there and now it is here and there is no support for all this drama here either. Quality editors should not be hounded for the occasional misjudgment..if that was the situation we would all be in trouble wouldn't we. ] (]) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| :This issue is not minor, unless you are saying that 3RR and PROTECT are minor? If we make a mistake we should be told and admit to it if we are clearly in error. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| | result = The Lord of Misrule is blocked for edit warring and there is no merit to their retaliatory report. If disruption returns when the block expires, escalating sanctions can be considered. ] ] 04:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| (e.c.) The level of grandstanding here by Verbal and WMC is ''astounding''. Tedder's only previous involvement with this debate was to ''sanction the editors on the other side'' a week earlier while changing the tag -- ''the exact same action he took here against WMC and Verbal.'' Yet, after that previous apparent transgression went his way, WMC was so impressed with Tedder's actions that he and institute a topic ban. | |||
| *{{userlinks|The Lord of Misrule}} | |||
| I'm getting caught up into an edit war with {{userlinks|The Lord of Misrule}} regarding the so-called "Gaza genocide" on ], ], and ]. Rather than continue, I am extricating myself and bringing their conduct here. From my attempts on their talk page, including the Arab-Israel, BLP, and American politics (post 1992) contentious topic warnings, are going unheeded. – ] (]) 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| So, to review: Tedder arrives to this toxic debate as an uninvolved on Dec. 2. His action is to ''change the tag'' and block two editors. WMC is fine with this result and asks for more admin action. One week later, Tedder (having no involvement in the interim) sees that the dispute is ongoing, so he ''changes the tag back'' and protects the article after others edit-warred -- basically the same thing he did the previous week. The only difference is, this time ''WMC and Verbal didn't get their way''. So all of a sudden, an action which one week earlier was commendable when taken against the other side, is now so controversial that it has triggered long, contentious discussions on at least three pages. | |||
| In fact, there was yet another difference here: Tedder blocked those in the initial conflict, but he chose page protection in the latter -- in effect, ''sparing WMC and Verbal a block''. If he had done the exact same thing he did one week earlier to the ''other'' side, WMC and Verbal would have been blocked too. So, in effect, WMC and Verbal are raising all this fuss even though they got ''better treatment'' than the opposing editors did one week earlier. | |||
| There is irony, there is delicious irony, and then there is Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : This "review" misrepresents the facts. Do you dispute that Tedder broke 3RR and PROTECT policy? If I was edit warring I should be blocked, however I didn't and wasn't. Tedder, on the other hand, clearly broke 3RR. Please don't pretend anyone was doing me a favour. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Haven't BOTH the 3RR and the protection now been reviewed by independent administrators? Why are you still talking about this? Please, ] ... --] (]) 04:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling === | |||
| As Tedder put it . So, to put a nice quick close in place - can we have a couple of admins come and OK Tedders breaking 3RR to insert the tag and then protect the article? Once we've got that, I'll shut up. Otherwise, this looks like the ] because people don't want to embarass a well-respected admin ] (]) 23:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I hope admins aren't avoiding commenting because they'll hurt my feelings or that I'm respected. My guess is that admins aren't commenting because it's a combination of a minor issue and they don't want to get dragged into the drama- look at the article talk page, my talk page, beeblebrox's talk page, and this ANI thread for proof of that. See MastCell's ELcomment, among other comments in this thread. ] (]) 23:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Maybe you could help by responding to my query above, and giving us a review and justification of your own actions? I hope you asked MastCell before invoking him in support of your thesis. Note that the actions that created this "drama" were yours. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 23:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::See ATren's comment dated "18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)" for a decent review. The drama existed before I got involved in the article for the article through the RFPP process. ] (]) 00:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Firstly, that doesn't answer my question regarding 3RR and PROTECT and your violations of these policies. Secondly, ATren's review contains contains factual inaccuracies and clear POV (for example, I have not edit warred ever in this topic area, have barely been involved, and wasn't involved in this article until your edit warring). Please review your actions in light of 3RR and PROTECT, and the clear factual inaccuracies of ATren's statement. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 00:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Verbal, there are better ways I could have handled it. I certainly didn't see any complaints when the original proclamation was up to keep the POV tag off and blocked GoRight (and others) for not following my rule against editwarring on the tag. I didn't see any complaints when I decided not to block WMC for ignoring that rule. I'm not going to get sucked the climate change drama any further- that includes declining your request to write up a TLDR justification for this. | |||
| ::::: To all- I'm done. Don't bring this to my talk page further, don't imply it's my responsibility to drag other admins into this, leave innocent admins like Beeblebrox alone. Keep it in this ANI thread or escalate if you feel it's necessary. But I'm not going to keep playing this game. ] (]) 00:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Actually, Verbal, if he had been consistent with his previous actions on that page -- actions which WMC endorsed -- both you and WMC would have been blocked well before it came to 3RR. Instead, he gave you 3 extra chances to comply, chances that he didn't give to GoRight on 12/2, and in thanks he gets lambasted by the two of you here. | |||
| ::::::In fact, WMC has promised to war on the tag again as soon as protection is removed, see : ''"Without prot, there is no need to say "remove the NPOV tag". We'd just remove it."'' The "we" referred to here is WMC, Verbal, and the other 4 or 5 editors who own the GW articles. The use of "we" in this statement is telling, since it implies that WMC and his allies will ''edit war in tandem'' (as they've done previously) in order to get their way without crossing 3RR. That is exactly what happened in this particular case, when the uninvolved Tedder tried to stop the war and WMC/Verbal teamed up to stop him. Tedder should have blocked WMC and Verbal immediately. ] (]) 00:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I agree, it is WMC's case with the tags , , , , , that should be under review here. This long ANI thread is testimonial to tenacious '''tag wars''', with little care for folks to properly deliberate. ] (]) 02:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I would not have been blocked as I acted correctly. If Tedder had blocked me then it would have been quickly overturned, as it would have been a clear further abuse of admin tools (blocking someone you are in an active dispute with, especially after he had broken 3RR). It would have ended much worse for Tedder, so I hope we can lay that hypothetical to rest. The tag will likely be reoved as consensus is against it and it has not been justified. What we have here is clear abuse of admin tools, and the admin doing all he can to deflect attention away from his own abuse. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 11:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Motion to simply consider this matter closed === | |||
| Shall we simply consider the matter closed at this point? --] (]) 05:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Support: | |||
| * --] (]) 05:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * ] (]) 09:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Oppose: | |||
| * I still think a review of Tedder's conduct is necessary.] (]) 05:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Oppose. Tedder refuses to realise that he cannot break 3RR and PROTECT at whim, without justification. He was warned before so this was not a mistake. He edit warred the tag, and reverted to his preferred version before protecting the page. Both against the rules, and an abuse of admin tools. He refuses to justify his actions, which is against admin guidelines. He has endorsed a clearly untrue "review" of events (I was not involved there until GoRight tried to recruit Tedder as a meatpuppet). Tedder's conduct started off bad, and has gotten worse. Admins are not above the rules. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 11:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Range blocking for Rcool35? == | |||
| Hi, even after the range block on his IP, he is still at it... I'm asking if it would be possible to rangeblock Rcool35's IP's using the following ranges. | |||
| *76.193.00.00/76.197.00.00 | |||
| *99.140.00.00/99.147.00.00 | |||
| Thanks. ] (]) 07:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :That is blocking a total of 13 separate /16 ranges. Unless you can narrow it down there is no any administrator would block 851,968 IP addresses for one problem user.—] (]) 08:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was going to say the same thing. That range is way too big to block. They cover physical addresses, at the very least, from Texas to Chicago. Try narrowing it down more. In the meantime, whackamole may be your best solution. ] (]) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, I think I can do that | |||
| :::*76.193.100.00/76.193.255.255 | |||
| :::*76.197.100.00/76.197.255.255 | |||
| :::*99.140.100.00/99.140.255.255 | |||
| :::*99.147.100.00/99.147.255.255 | |||
| :::He seems to be using the range of those IP's only, it will cover his whole range. Now can it be done? ] (]) 15:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, that's much less. Only 4 /16s which is only 262,144 IP addresses.—] (]) 16:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah, if we don't rangeblock schools, with maybe 1000 IPs, I can't see us rangeblocking 262k. Even if you can narrow it down to IPs that geolocate to a particular city, those IPs belong to AT&T. You'd be blocking every AT&T user from that city, and I don't see that going over well. ] (]) 00:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Agreed. Sometimes there's not much you can do. In extreme cases, the Foundation's lawyers could seek a subpoena and injunction prohibiting this person from editing, but it would take a lot more than run of the mill vandalism to rise to that level. I'm speculating here but I think it would have to be at the inserting-viruses or making-credible-death-threats level before they would go that far. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 02:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I know, but I just want to see it it's possible. This is my last attempt so. | |||
| :::::::*76.193.170.00/76.193.255.255 | |||
| :::::::*76.197.170.00/76.197.255.255 | |||
| :::::::*99.140.180.00/99.140.230.255 | |||
| :::::::*99.147.180.00/99.147.230.255 | |||
| :::::::This should cover about most of his IP's, if not then it doesn't hurt to say that I've tried. ] (]) 15:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Copyright block extension? == | |||
| *{{User5|Henry Delforn}} | |||
| I've just filed a ] on this contributor, whom I placed under a 24 hour copyright block earlier today. Corensearchbot tagged several of the contributor's articles within recent weeks, and I confirmed that the contributor was aware of copyright policy. The block was intended to prevent future vios, by reinforcing the need for familiarity with copyright policy. Further investigation suggests a much larger problem, and particularly concerning to me is the contributor's evident unwillingness or inability to recognize the issue. With respect to recent violations, he suggested that he was unaware that material could not be temporarily placed on Misplaced Pages while being constructed that was copied from other sources, but I have found a number of violations that are clearly not under construction. For an obvious example, see ]. I've also realized that he had a rash of articles G12ed in March of this year (see ). | |||
| Looking at the scope of this, I believe that this contributor should be indefinitely blocked, at least until there is some kind of indication that he understands and will comply with copyright policy. Currently, all we have is his statement that he believed that copyrighted content could be temporarily placed on Misplaced Pages—which does not explain older problems like ] and ] and his evident belief that his copyright block arises from a vendetta he has had with an unnamed contributor: "" (For the record, both the tagging and listing that drew me were mechanical, by CSB and DumbBot.) | |||
| I have seen more than a few copyright infringers stop, once they realize what they're doing wrong. I just don't see how that can happen here, though, if he does not seem to recognize what he's done wrong and if he thinks that efforts to stop him from doing it are part of some campaign against him. | |||
| Since he's evidently concerned that my POV is , I would appreciate assistance determining if an indef block is warranted and, if so, application by someone whom he may recognize as uninvolved. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Ummm... are you going to release a Cliff's Notes version of this novel?--] (]) 23:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fun read. Given at this point a number of other admins have looked it over on the user's talk page, the history of these problems, refuse to admit to any wrongdoings (ever), and simply blanking one's own talk page presumably when they get sick of reading unfortunate truths, I think that all qualifies as ongoing disruption. They were offered plenty of chances to make a case with diffs in a logical, well-formatted post... seemed to not be up to it. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 23:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * I suggest we let the current block run it's course, and indef block if he persists once it is over. Copyright violations can't be ignored as they expose the Foundation to legal risk, and if this user is unwilling or unable to acknowledge that, then they need to be shown the door. ] (]) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*The only problem with that is it requires somebody to keep an eye on him. :/ His response to the latest communications was . --] <sup>]</sup> 23:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::User still has own talkpage rights... Normal process can be completed at some point, a month maybe? Do note he doesn't even seem to be disputing the process, just why his actions were justified. Actually, user should specifically be reminded they're being left talk page rights as a courtesy. *Shrugs* ... I guess the concern about watching the page would be valid, technically. Even if low risk it is the reason it gets taken away. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 23:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I support an extension of the copyright block to indef: | |||
| :::#User was told about the copyright rules a long time ago (March 2009) | |||
| :::#He continues to deny that there is any problem. He hints that others are persecuting him. | |||
| :::#Instead of joining in a real discussion, he just deletes all the reports and comments off his Talk page | |||
| :::#If he gave any hint of being willing to cooperate, it would be reason enough to lift the block. There is no such hint. | |||
| :::#Dougweller and Beeblebrox have already declined his unblock requests due to the noncooperation | |||
| :::Under these conditions, we can have no confidence that he won't go back to the behavior noted at ] as soon as the block expires. ] (]) 03:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As a side remark, most of ]'s edits in mathematics and mathematical physics have been problematic, the principal reason being that he does not seem to be knowledgeable about the articles that he creates. He makes no attempt to give precise definitions or locate proper sources. A series of articles that he created, often with misleading titles, have been appearing recently at AfD. Some can be salvaged, but it is often easier to create the new articles from scratch with a more appropriate title. ] (]) 06:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| As a block is intended to be preventative and not punitive, and since this editor has (perforce) not edited since he was blocked, it does not seem appropriate to me to lengthen his block at this time. The fact that he has blanked most of his talk page since his block is not truly relevant. It would, however, be wholly reasonable, if he again violates copyright on conclusion of his block, to recognise that he has no prospect of reforming his behaviour and block him indefinitely thereafter. He will need warning of this, which I propose to do now. He has blanked his talk page, which I see as irrelevant to the main issue. --<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 14:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, my proposed purpose is not punitive, but preventive: I'm not interested in punishing him for the copyvios he's already placed, but stopping him from doing it anymore. :) The "next offense" suggestion would be fine with me, but, again, I believe we need somebody to keep an eye on him. I'm rather too busy with the daily load at ] and the astronomical backlog at ] to monitor potential reoffenders. Would you or somebody else be willing to check in? While it's possible that Corensearchbot will detect issues for us, it is also (sadly) possible that it will not. There are about 340 articles to which he has already contributed that are already going to need scanning. I would hope to avoid arriving several months now to 340 more. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :His block has expired, what he does next will be telling. ] (]) 18:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of Intent to Sue == | |||
| {{resolved|blocked and referred elsewhere. ] (]) 23:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| Dear Administrators, | |||
| I would like to announce that it is yet again the intention of several of my clients to seek an undisclosed sum in damages against the Wikimedia Foundation. I would be happy to forward a list of specific editors who have failed in their duty to prevent the spread of libel and misinformation about my clients, against whom legal proceedings are to be commenced. I have been instructed to watch this page and await responses from any persons wishing to discuss this issue. | |||
| Yours sincerely, | |||
| Mr L Phillips QC <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Misplaced Pages editors and administrators do not handle legal matters. For that, contact ]. In the meantime, you've been blocked from editing. ] (]) 23:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::This guy ''again''? Now I'm definitely calling troll. --<font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 23:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was willing to AGF the first time, but this seems obvious. After being directed to legal, he comes back here? Troll.] (]) 01:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::You would think that a Canadian lawyer would know that both Canadian and American laws prohibit suing a website for content its users post. If I were his clients, I'd be asking for my retainer fee back. Perhaps, Mr. Phillips, you'd like to acquaint yourself with modern communication law. You seem as if you could use a refresher course. ] (]) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why say "Canadian"? Both IPs geolocate to London, England. <small>— ] (]/]) 01:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::My mistake. I mistook "QC" to be the abbreviation for "Quebec". I realize that makes no sense whatsoever. It's day 3 of 7 of Nothing But Finals and my spare brain power is severely limitted. ] (]) 04:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No QC, is for ], found within the Commonwealth, which of course includes Canada. ] <small> ]]'''</small> 09:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Curiously, a quick google search shows one L Phillips, living in QC. --]] 10:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Seeing as the ips other edits were all vandalism, including posting a "notice of intent to wikistalk" on my talk page, this is obviously a block-on-sight troll only here for disruption. ] (]) 18:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::] <small>— ] (]/]) 04:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::::::And if you're referring to his ], that IP also ]. <small>— ] (]/]) 05:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::::::The was by ], which geolocates to Bristol. <small>— ] (]/]) 05:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == ] and the ] article. == | |||
| I'm quite a bit concerned here, when i noticed Grundle2600's comment on my talk-page. Earlier this week i reverted this, which was introduced by Grundle here. Now normally i'd consider this a regular revert of a synthesis on a BLP article. But, it seems that Grundle's synthesis has spawned off this - and that he is rather proud of it (see edit-comment). | |||
| Considering that these kind of edits have been the basis for many of Grundle's problems here on Misplaced Pages, i believe that this is an issue to be handled here. If this is nothing to worry about, then i am sorry to have brought it here, and the issue can be closed. --] (]) 23:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure what you want us to do. If it is true that she made these remarks, and has two children, then we actually did our job right by reporting that. That pundits and drama-mongers are using it elsewhere to promote their own agendas is out of our control. ] (]) 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::My problem is not that she has 2 children - but that ''we'' as Misplaced Pages have implied something about her integrity - and that this synthesis (2 children + support of China's one child policy) has now become news. This is exactly what we ''must'' avoid on BLP articles. And it seems to me that Grundle knew exactly what he was doing. --] (]) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Kim D. Petersen: Millions of people turn to wikipedia every day for information. On websites, blogs, and message boards all over the internet, people are referring to the ] wikipedia article's claim that she has two children. The fact that you removed such information in edit is something which should be of concern to anyone who favor wikipedia's policy of openness. It is very common for wikipedia biographies to cite the children of the article's subject. Please stop trying to remove this relevant, well sourced information from this article. ] (]) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it is very common that we mention how many children that a person has. It is ''not'' however wikipedia's job to ''connect'' that to a person's view. That is a synthesis, and it is a ''very'' serious breach (imho) of our BLP policy. That this has now become news, makes the breach of BLP even more serious. --] (]) 23:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Regardless of its previous form, it's apparently now being used as self-promotion and bragging rights , etc etc... see edit summaries also. If they want to brag about not understanding our BLP policy they can do it elsewhere. Biographical info on persons is secondary and 100% superfluous, technically, as the focus of the article is why they happen to be a notable person. Trying to attach a dubious claim to such harmless secondary info is just cruel and not in the spirit of BLP. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 23:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec) Ok, let's look at it that way. Unsourced ''controversial'' information about living persons should of course be removed ASAP. Is it "controversial" that she has 2 children, or is that point not in debate? Perhaps putting this fact in the lead as opposed to right after the current incident would alleviate your concerns? ] (]) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Now that I think about it, this doesn't really belong here, as it's not really a matter requiring admin action. I think maybe this whole thread should be pasted over to ]. ] (]) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The issue is that an editor by synthesis has done real world harm to a living person. And that that editor has a rather long history of doing exactly the same (synth of this kind, not real world harm (i hope)). This is rather more than the simply BLP violation i reverted imho. --] (]) 00:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:That was my concern - BLP's basic philosophy is: Do no harm. And this has caused <u>real world harm.</u> And Grundle is proud about it. --] (]) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Per the edit summary claim of "famous on the internet!", I suppose that's . It's not that it's about having 2 kids, it's that the kids were used as ]s for a wider bit of writing. After thinking of it further, I failed to even realized why on earth there's a claim of notability attached to one blog post. We've cracked down ''really'' hard on where possible recent events and the time scope of ] and the whole notability is not temporary, etc etc. Just because this is "harmless" compared to ] and the like doesn't mean it can just slide through. Good BLP patrolling. Fair notice on pointless edit warring and a re-read of ] all around. etc <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| It is a fact that the subject wrote that she favors global adoption of a one child policy. And it is also a fact that the subject has two children. I added both of those facts, with sources, to the article. I did not do anything wrong. On the contrary, I provided true, sourced information to the readers of wikipedia. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. ] (]) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Kim D. Petersen: please explain how I have caused "real world harm." Who did I harm? What harm did I cause to them? ] (]) 00:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You apparently "created" those news-stories, with your synthesis, which now will haunt that person. At least that is what i surmise from both the dates of the newsblurbs and your edit-comments. Whether it is true or not is secondary. --] (]) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed. It has a lot to do with the fact that this one matter isn't exactly encyclopedic vs claims on notability of the other. It's an op-ed comment that's been turned to holding the kids hostage as a talking point. ''Direct quotations'' are needed about relation with her two children, otherwise the two are indeed a ] matter of ''tying two separately-mentioned topics together'' to push a POV perspective. No one said you'd done anything ''wrong'', we're just trying to fill you in on the finer points of Misplaced Pages articles on living persons ]. You've had offers of advice on your talk page, so I'd suggesting talking this out over there. This isn't particularly an admin issue unless anything pointless disruptive continues. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Have you looked at Grundle's history and why he is currently indef topic banned on US politics. A lot of that is because of such synthesis, so by now he really should know why such shouldn't be added. --] (]) 00:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :For the record, we had to deal with this same issue in Obama-related articles as well. Grundle apparently lives to find contradiction in the words and deeds of politicians, doing the same "Source A says John Doe did B", "Source B says John Doe did !B" shtick and ] to paint a picture of hypocrisy. ] (]) 00:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm still looking for the part where admin intervention is required. I renew my call to close up and move over to ]. Grundle does not appear to be violating his topic ban in this case. ] (]) 00:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::A user is indef'ed from one topic area for a certain type of tendentious editing behavior, and appears to be repeating same in another topic area? I'd say that warrants at least a discussion here. ] (]) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Tarc is referring to my indefinite on U.S. politics and U.S. politicians. None of the people who favored my topic ban had the decency to answer that I asked about my topic ban. Tarc claimed that my questions had already been answered. But when I asked him to quote the answers, he refused to do so, because such answers never existed. ] (]) 01:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The dreaded "7 questions" again? Yes, let's all review the WP:AN thread to see how well that went for you the last time. ] (]) 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The people who favored my topic ban were afraid to answer my 7 questions about why I was being banned. ] (]) 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The information that I added to the article came from the subject herself. It was the subject's own opinion column on her support of a one child policy, and the subject's own personal blog about her two children, that I used to source the information. The subject herself chose to put all of that information on the internet for people to read. How did I "harm" the subject, by citing information that she herself put up on the internet for people to read? ] (]) 00:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You didn't, just let this die. ] (]) 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am curious to hear Kim D. Petersen's explanation of how I caused "harm" to the subject. ] (]) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <-Content dispute. Should be resolved. ] (]) 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Let's-Call-It-A-Night Proposal? ==== | |||
| The continued (continuous?) editing of the article despite it presently being in ANI isn't terribly well taken, especially since nothing seems to be changing. Smelling and hoping to avoid any coming temporary blocks, I generally propose the following 100% voluntary actions: | |||
| *Any of the following terms may be extended by any uninvolved administrator at any time so long as a message is sent to both directly involved parties. | |||
| *Length: 1 week to 1 month. Everyone should be bored enough to not go back to it. | |||
| *A revert to before the edit war and manually replace unrelated content removed in the process, | |||
| *Voluntary avoidance of the article by all article editors of this evening and participants in this ANI, except in matter of BLP libelous content or legal threats. | |||
| *Grundle2600 voluntarily avoid talk pages of any persons here or involved in editing that article unless directly related to libelous or legal threats in this article. | |||
| *Grundle2600 voluntarily avoid articles recently contributed to by Kim D. Petersen except in matter of BLP libelous content or legal threats. | |||
| *An uninvolved party may evaluate possible violations of 3RR on either side and report if considered appropriate. | |||
| <small>Objections? <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :''Added'' | |||
| *Issues regarding changed to the article can be discussed at the ] during this week, though civility should be strictly enforced. | |||
| *Kim D. Petersen voluntarily agrees to avoid this article for the same week as a sign of good faith. | |||
| *Any violations should be considered as evidence of continued disruption and may be weighted heavily in any further Admin/ANI interventions or any other dispute resolution. | |||
| *Future participation of User Grundle2600 in ''any'' BLP discussion are open to posting by any editor of which first proposed this, as a reminder of weight on the situation and possible administrator consideration. This should be heavily enforced, for at least the full length of this agreement. | |||
| :I object. I added well sourced info to the article, which is what wikipedia editors are supposed to do. I should not be punished, because I did nothing wrong. How can people say that I caused "harm" to the subject, when it was the subject herself who first put the information on the internet, because the subject wanted people to read it? ] (]) 01:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's unanimous consensus (that I've seen) on the BLP concerns raised. Misplaced Pages's BLP policy is basically a 100% enforcement once reported and evoked. ...I'll add a few things on the list to balance it off. Ok, done. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : You really need to add something about Grundle2600 using sources appropriate to BLPs. He's not new here; he should know better than to use junk like ] for ''anything'' in a BLP. ] (]) 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Considered and added more above. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Nope, content dispute only. Is it really surprising that reporters use wikipedia as a source of information? Is it a bad thing that an editor includes factual (and indisputed as far as I can see) information to an article. Nope and Nope. Resolve this, it's silly. ] (]) 01:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is meant to resolve, by getting everyone to move on with things for the night and taking it to BLP/N if nothing else can be agreed to. Everything else is just general civility. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::When resolving a non-issue, there is no need for a bullet point list of made up remedies. We already have nice little policies for such things, 3RR, Civility, BLP. If/when these policies are broken, feel free to propose something or another. At this point, it's just pointless rulering (if that's not a word, it totally should be!) ] (]) 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hmm - you don't think that there is a problem with Grundles combination of this and this (synthesis) into this, stating by implication, that Francis is a hypocrite. Which was then taken up in the news, , and which basically all are harmful to the persons reputation, by restating Grundle's synthesis that she must be a hypocrite. In effect Grundle created the news/information combination - not the other way around, and that is a non-issue? Especially when Grundle is already sanctioned for creating exactly such synthesis' other places? Ok. --] (]) 01:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Content dispute. ] (]) 01:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Wow ?! --] (]) 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since this wasn't getting anywhere, I figured this might actually get people's attention. It's put in bullets for clarity and to split up text. Just trying to be precisely. ... Look. It's an attempt to drop this issue on the spot, move it to the correct forum, and try to avoid any blocks that just further waste everyone's time. This is also one more desperate attempt at AGF on assumption blocks might be highly reasonable if any violations of specific civility mentions are broken. Sorry to spam up the discussion, then. Whatever. ''GO TO BLP/N ON THE CONTENT'', but the civility issues still have to stopped. This started as "mostly" a content dispute but ... forget it. No wonder blocks are so common. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well - i will abide by all bullet-points, i just think they are about 180° off course about what the issue was. But oh well. --] (]) 01:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Edit war over content === | |||
| I urge the administrators look more closely at the conduct of both sides this edit war. There appear to be several editors on both sides of a content dispute. | |||
| The issues, as I see them, are | |||
| # Is it permissible for the article to mention that the subject has two children, a fact that is stated on the subject's own web site? | |||
| # Is it permissible for the article to describe editorials that accuse the subject of hypocrisy in advocating a one-child limit, since the subject herself has two children? | |||
| # Is there justification here for departing from Misplaced Pages's normal policy of including relevant content supported by ]? | |||
| According to one of the reverted edits (I have not looked at the sources), the subject had her children before 1981. If this is the case, that puts any alleged hypocrisy in perspective, since the subject's one-child advocacy apparently began about 28 years after she had her own children in a very different environment. Presenting all the facts, rather than suppressing them, appears to be the best solution, as it usually is. | |||
| ] by ] with the edit comment "rv: you can't use prisonplanet in a BLP". However, the revert also deleted statements cited to the '']'' and the '']''. This appears to be a legitimate public controversy, and I don't see why Misplaced Pages's coverage of it should be ]. | |||
| ] reverted an edit that added the words "despite the fact she has two children", immediately after the statement about the subject's one-child advocacy, as vandalism. ] reverted a similar edit with the comment "vandalism of some apparent sock". Participating in a content dispute is not vandalism, and sock puppetry should not be assumed absent some evidence. There were also some statements in the course of editing that were clear violations of ]. However, the proper solution is to edit them to neutrality, not suppress the facts. | |||
| Please take a look at the situation and intervene to restore compliance with Misplaced Pages's behavioral and content policies and guidelines. Thank you.—] 00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your comments. In my opinion, the principal BLP issue was resolved when Grundle moved Francis' (cited) family size to the lede and left her (cited) policy statement in a line by itself. Such issues as whether the policy statement passes ] and whether editorial comments are notable could, I think, be worked out on the talk page. | |||
| :I did flag two especially egregious drive-by comments as vandalism; this was an overreaction, and I apologize. ] (]) 05:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::What was so "egregious" about simply stating the fact that the subject had 2 children? What about the accusation of socking?—] 06:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hm. You're right. One was a simple statement, and didn't deserve "egregious". The other was pretty bad.. Ironically, I did not revert the "egregious" one I was thinking of because I felt I had done enough reverting already. I've apologized for my quick finger already. ] (]) 06:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Umpteenth edit war in ] == | |||
| Hi, I'm sorry to raise a new issue on Gibraltar-related articles, but this time it's seems the most weird situation I've lived in this wikipedia. | |||
| Possibly you're not familiar with Gibraltar-related topics. So, I'll try to provide some information in order to make the issue understandable. The issue relates to the section Demographics of Gibraltar. When reviewing the whole article (there's an ongoing RfC) I found the following text: | |||
| {{cquote|By 1753 ], ], and ] people formed the majority of this new population. Other groups include Minorcans (due to the links between both British possessions during the 18th century; immigration begun in that century and continued even after Minorca was returned to Spain in 1802 by the ]<ref>{{cite book |first=William |last=Jackson |year=1990 |title=The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar |publisher=Gibraltar Books | edition = second edition |location=Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK |isbn=0-948466-14-6 | page=225}}: {{cquote|The open frontier helped to increase the Spanish share, and naval links with Minorca produced the small Minorcan contingent.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | url=http://books.google.com/books?id=2ip0C6odET4C | title=Gibraltar, identity and empire | author=Edward G. Archer | publisher=Routledge | year=2006 | isbn=9780415347969 | pages=42–43}}</ref>) Sardinians, Sicilians and other Italians, French, Germans, and the British.}} | |||
| You'll possibly not see any surprising statement, but I did. Well, as I've been reading a number of books on Gibraltar, I've got very familiar with this topic. The first strange issue was the lack of mention to Jews in Gibraltar, as I knew they were one of the main "nations" in 18th century Gibraltar. The second was the lack of mention to the Spaniards, as they has been for the whole history of British Gibraltar more than the Portuguese. The third, and even weirder, was the mention to Maltese people. It's widely known that Malta become a British territory in 1802 so it was impossible such a massive presence. | |||
| Well, in this point I could have included a {{tl|fact}} template. But it was not sensible, as I have the means to get the right information. I took one of my books ({{cite book | author= William Jackson |year=1990 |title=The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar |publisher=Gibraltar Books | edition= Second |location=Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom|isbn=0-948466-14-6}}) and looked for the information. It provided information about the 1753 census (I don't know which this specific date has been chosen) and got the following figures: British: 351; Genoese: 597; Jews: 575; Spaniards: 185; and Portuguese: 25; without further mentions to other nationalities. I was right (no Maltese, but Jews and Spaniards). So, I included the following text: | |||
| {{cquote|By 1753 ], ]s, ], ] and ] people formed the majority of this new population.<ref>{{cite book | author= William Jackson |year=1990 |title=The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar |publisher=Gibraltar Books | edition= Second |location=Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom|isbn=0-948466-14-6 | pages=143}}. British: 351; Genoese: 597; Jews: 575; Spaniards: 185; Portuguese: 25</ref>}} | |||
| You've possibly noticed that the original text did have references. However, it referred to a one of the nationalities (the "Minorcans", from ]) and not to the whole sentence. | |||
| For me, it was simply a "routine" task (fixing an obvious mistake). To my surprise, {{u|Justin A Kuntz}} with a weird edition summary "happens to be sourced and correct, ask Imalabornoz who helped draft it on Demographics of Gibraltar". As I've shown, the paragraph was neither sourced nor correct (as I had verified data with a proper source; today I've double-checked it with other source and, as couldn't be otherwise, the same data is provided). So I , explaining why ("your edition doesn't happen to have a source (Maltese stock in 1753? :-D). I have provided one (Jackson) and unless you provide a source on the 1753 census (I did) I needn't ask anyone"). Well, I thought it was solved, but unfortunately wasn't. New , with a new and weird edition summary ("FFS will you stop edit warring over every fucking thing. IT IS SOURCED ON Demographics of Gibraltar"). Obvious to say that ] does not talk about any census or similar information dated in 1753). | |||
| So, at the end, I wonder why this is happening. It's not a secret that Justin and me are "opponents" in a mediation process. However, I don't know where this stupid edit war comes from. I could guess that it's because I've introduced the banned word in Gibraltar-related articles ("Spanish"). It wouldn't be the first time. It took several days, and only because third-parties supported it in an ANI, to introduce Spanish guys in the section on notable people born in Gibraltar (you can see it ]). On the other hand, the section I've removed has sources in the Minorcan stock (curiously that's the only "nationality" with an explanation), and I've done it since Minorcans are not mentioned in the 1753 census. The reason of that mention (and sourcing) can be seen in ] (it took months to remove an story entirely invented by Justin on how perfidious Spaniards had expelled Minorcans upon the devolution of the island to Spain; I say it took months because the story begun ]). | |||
| Well, possibly I'm a little bit paranoid, but I hate wasting my time with stupid things like this one. I'm not here to destroy other people's work for no apparent reason. I obviously challenge the current status of many Gibraltar-related articles (as I think they have an obvious anti-Spanish bias), but the issue I'm raising has nothing to do with any dispute, but with an obvious mistake that must be fixed. I wouldn't like to know that these incidents are part of a tactic to, as {{u|Gibnews}} , get rid of Gibraltar-related articles. --] (]) 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Well this goes back a long way, right to the very first time I interacted with Ecemaml. | |||
| As an example, I would bring to your attention my first interaction with Ecemaml . I give a clear edit summary explaining the reason for my revert of his edit, does he take that comment in good faith? No he does not, he immediately reverts ignoring the comment see . And again and again . Regarding his claim that there is no consensus in the talk page please see . And if Ecemaml claims that I never pointed this out to him see . Further Ecemaml is an admin on the Spanish wikipedia, he really should have known better than to edit war over a content dispute. After a long history of needling, admittedly by both sides, I thought this is stupid, why don't we just stop this draw a line under it and made that suggestion on his talk page. See . | |||
| :Ecemaml sees all Gibraltar related articles as biased and since he started editing those articles, the tension and fractious nature of the edits has increased. What he forgets to mention is that I am in fact half-Spanish, hence the repeated accusations of an anti-Spanish bias are not only irritating but deeply hurtful. The story about Minorcans is invented, I worked with other editors to develop the article to its present form, I simply hadn't noticed that one article was missed. | |||
| :To be honest I'm just tired of butting heads all the time, I kind of feel this is a tactic to chase editors from Gibraltar articles. Trouble is it seems to be working as two serial contributors to Gibraltar articles have already left. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{User|Ecemaml}} seems to be disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. He is treating wikipedia as a ] and his continued postings here are unhelpful. He is an administrator on es.wikipedia.org, but his behaviour here seems to have become disruptive. It looks like his intention is to ] ] and ] by constantly picking fights with them and bringing content disputes over niggling details to this noticeboard. Leaving aside the standard of his english, he seems to have started writing on this wikipedia simply to push a Spanish nationalist point of view on Gibraltar-related articles. If this continues, a topic ban on Gibraltar-related articles might be needed. (Why did he not use ]?) ] (]) 04:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Agree''' --] (]) 14:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Dear ], this is the time I've read you pointing ] to ] policy recently. Well, I've read the aforementioned policy and it refers to certain attitude which I can't see Ecemaml indulging in. He hasn't broken 3RR lately nor has he restorted to personal attacks but rather. Finally, I don't know how exactly challenging unsourced statements could be deemed as disruptive behaviour. On the contrary, he has added referenced material instead. Don't be so fast in singling him out for his "nationalist point of view", nor in advocating for a topic ban, please. Thanks.--] (]) 13:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{User|Cremallera}} seems to have formed a tag-team with Ecenaml, with the same ] pattern of editing on Gibraltar-related articles. They no longer seem to have discussions in Spanish on their user talk pages. ] (]) 14:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What kind of argument is that?! Do you naturally suspect of people capable of speaking Spanish, or you've been taught to it? Have a nice day. --] (]) 14:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Can this please stop being made into a race or national issue? All it does is put people off. Content disputethat consisted of two reverts? Hardly ANI level. Justi needs a trout that he doesn't have to hit the RV straight away, if things are wrong then consensus will form around that. Ecemaml needs to realise this isn't other wikipedias and he /does/ have to talk to people and can't just go off on his own when he knows it will be controversial. Lets stop making assumptions based on nationalities. <span style="font-famiy: verdana;"> --] ~ ] • </span> 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'd just like to raise a few diffs to ask an opinion, ,,,,. There does on the face of it appear to be a spot of co-ordination of activities among three editors on Gibraltar. I could provide more as it goes back a long way and it does regularly feel like I'm being tag teamed on Gibraltar with a good cop bad cop routine. Although I could just be getting paranoid. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===So answer the question=== | |||
| Just answer this question. Why was the information supplied from the source on the 1753 census reverted. Do not say anything about Spanish editors, points of view or anything at all about the motives of the poster. The validity of the information is not affected by the motives of the poster. Just say why the information somehow doesn't belong in the article. <s>If there is no reason not related to Justin's mistrust of the Spanish, then it should be put back in, and Justin told to stop this pattern of behaviour.</s> ] (]) 16:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :His 'mistrust of the Spanish'? It is nice to see AGF is taking it in the ass so early in the Misplaced Pages Day. <span style="font-famiy: verdana;"> --] ~ ] • </span> 16:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::The figures for the 1753 census are . They are 597 Genoese, 575 Jews, 434 British, 185 Spanish, 25 Portuguese. So what is in the article is not quite correct. It probably is better not to use this particular date, which has no special significance. The book of Sir William Jackson is still in the references. However, the book of Edward G. Archer gives a far more detailed breakdown of the history of the settlers in Gibraltar, post 1704, which is correctly summarised in ]. Choosing the 1753 census was arbitrary, since there were many other censuses (eg 1721). All that is needed is a brief list of settlers. I have no idea why this content dispute has been brought here, when the sources are easy enough to check. Statements about the 1753 census are somewhat irrelevant when Archer's book contains full details on demography, which has evolved in the last three centuries. ] (]) 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think there's any harm to use the census data if it doesn't overload the article, but I think the Spanish contributor has misread the sentence he objects to. The category 'Spanish'plainly should not be included, as the sentence is describing the incomers who arrived after 1704, not the Spanish part of the population. I think however that the article should mention the comparatively large number of Sephardic Jews who inhabited the area during the 1700s. No mention at all is made of them, even though they outnumbered the Brits during the 1700s, and vastly (factor of 10) outnumbered the Portuguese. ] (]) 20:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Elen of the Roads, I don't think your line of argument is particularly helpful. In articles about places with a long history, there is normally a section on demography. It has to give a brief account of the various waves of immigrants. (] is a more significant example.) For Gibraltar that includes of course various categories, including Spanish, Jews, Maltese, British, Genoese, etc. These are all discussed in detail in ] and the book I cited. I don't understand your remarks about the Spanish, who were expelled but gradually returned in small numbers. This is clearly recorded in the sources, which you should probably read yourself (if only to learn how to spell Gibraltar). The edits you're trying to defend connected with the 1753 census are a red herring. The census and this date have no particular significance in the history of Gibraltar or its demography. The book of Edward Archer contains all the necessary data that needs to be summarised, possibly in a historical way, (In ], rough dates are given for the waves of immigrants, such as Italians and Armenians.) Of course the Jewish population from Morocco should be mentioned: prior to to the British occupation in 1704 they would have been burnt in Gibraltar. ] (]) 00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Mathsci, some of what you wrote might not have been particularly helpful either, but lets try to keep going shall we. The Spanish editor misread the sentence ''By 1753 ], ], and ] people formed the majority of this new population'' by not noticing the word '''new'''. Hence he was trying to demonstrate that Gibraltar (did I make a typo - really I try to avoid being rude about spelling errors myself. I just don't think it's helpful) had a Spanish population, when no-one was denying this, he just thought they were. This is where all this POV pushing (which is happening) gets one - everyone mistrusts everyone else's motives. I find it odd that the sentence I have quoted mentions the Portuguese but not the Jews - according to the census data there were about 10 times as many Jews as Portuguese in the area at the time, but it is only one sentence, and the Jewish community in Gibraltar has it's own article. I wasn't making any other point. ] (]) 00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You might not have much experience with writing articles on Mediterranean towns with a long history, even tiny ones like Gibraltar. It is ] to mention a specific census. What is required, and is not quite in the article at the moment, is a concise summary of what for example can be found in the book of Edward Archer. There are sections on all groups of immigrants in that book over the last 3 centuries. Your own statements about statistics are irrelevant because they are one snapshot and are your personal interpretation from a primary source. The Archer book devotes many pages to the Jewish presence (I gave a summary above). You are making inferences based on one census from a primary source: that is not how wikipedia is edited as I'm sure you're aware. A good source exists, a short and accurate summary should be made and that is about it: the task is to locate reliable sources and to transfer an abridged version of their content to wikipedia. Like ], which I edit, it is a Mediterranean town with a long history and a strategic location. I would expect the articles to be written in a not dissimilar way, even if Marseille is several orders of magnitude larger than Gibraltar. ] (]) 07:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Narson. I don't think Justin has made any secret of the fact that he believes <s>the Spanishes</s> ''a couple of Spanish editors'' are POV pushing on Gibralter articles because of the political situation on the ground. Sometimes he's right, sometimes I think that the information belongs even if it is being put in by a potential POV pusher.--] (]) 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah I see ] is back with the presumption of bad faith that anything I do is based on racial motives. As it happens on the Demographics article, I worked with a Spanish editor to improve a poorly referenced piece of work. At the time we updated the main Gibraltar article but I guess it became confused with the combination of two sources poorly referenced. Funnily enough the same Spanish editor has made another suggestion to revise the current section getting rid of the dates. Bizarrely given my mistrust of anything Spanish I agreed straight away it was the way to go. Now I have previously dealt with your bad faith presumption, given my racial origins its a bizarre accusation that I'm biased against myself. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound as if you were biased against the entire Spanish nation, just a couple of Spanish editors that you do consistently say are POV pushing (which I think they sometimes are - I'm by no means supporting them all the time). I will strike/refactor my comments, as clearly they can be misunderstood in a way which is not my intention.] (]) 21:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm glad that this has been resolved amicably by Justin, ] and others on ]. Just a glance at ], the Archer source and what was in the current article on ] showed that something was not quite right. I think also the sourcing and content of the not unrelated article ] could be improved at the same time. ] (]) 12:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Banned editor continuing to come back to Misplaced Pages partly to harass == | |||
| ] was banned from Misplaced Pages due to his consistent defamatory accusations about fellow Wikipedians -- calling editors pedophiles and pedo-pushers, all because he does not grasp the difference between it and ] (for whatever reason). He additionally has a specific "hate on" for me, as though I am some pedophile, despite my contributions to the ] article and comments on its talk page clearly showing that I am in no way a pedophile and am very much against pedophiles. My edits to that article and talk page show that I have consistently combated actual pedophile-pushers, and yet Raven in Orbit treats me as a pedophile villain. | |||
| Though Raven in Orbit was banned from Misplaced Pages, he has come back to harass me twice now. Once seen in this , which was reverted by editor ] (also seen in that link), and now (which administrator ] happened to be involved in). I see that he has even edited his user page to state defamatory remarks about why he left Misplaced Pages. | |||
| What should I do about this person in regards to Misplaced Pages? Luckily, I have not experienced any email harassment from him. If I have, I missed it. But I could stop the email harassment if that was going on. There does not seem to be anything that I can do to stop this harassment regarding Misplaced Pages. But as I stated to Legitimus, " I am beyond tired of this troll, even though I have not heard from him in months. I do not take well whatsoever to being called a pedophile or a pedophile-pusher." | |||
| Also, I state that Ravin in Orbit's user page should note that he is banned, and MiszaBot should be taken away from archiving his talk page. If I had not looked at his edit contributions some minutes ago, I would not have known that he asked to be unblocked earlier this year. I am unsure about whether to alert him to this discussion through his talk page, though, since he is banned. ] (]) 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I think a banned user is probably the exception to the "users must be informed rule." Will look this over and check back in a few. ] (]) 00:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Declined new unblock request, blocked latest ip sock, tagged user page as indef blocked. I couldn't find a banning discussion, if you could find it and link it here we can change the tag to indicate that. ] (]) 00:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: shows the day he was banned, with the reason why. The discussion before it also shows why he was banned. ] (]) 01:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That shows a ''block'', no mention of a ''ban''. <small>— ] (]/]) 02:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::But after he's now added this to his talkpage, I don't think he should edit it any more. And then rollback, please? <small>— ] (]/]) 02:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::Isn't an indefinite block the same thing as a ban? | |||
| :::::I did not get a chance to read that latest vile accusation, but I want to. Would it be okay for me to request a copy of it for record, through email? ] (]) 10:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::From ]: "] is different from ]; a block is a technical measure to disable editing by a specific account or IP address, and is a restriction which may be temporary or indefinite. Banning is a social construct, and blocks may be used to enforce them. There are also different kinds of bans: Some are temporary or focused on a specific article or topic. However, in the context of this page, 'banned user' means someone who has been banned from the entire site." <small>— ] (]/]) 05:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :So... are you or are you not an ]?--] (]) 02:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I cannot take that question seriously, IP. Jeez. ] (]) 10:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::You shouldn't have to. --] ] 15:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Formal ban === | |||
| I was the admin who blocked him a year ago. To me, he is no different than the people in the Eastern European editing area who simply make accusations and name-call anyone who they disagree with. I do not understand the desire to engage him via some sort of discussion about the technical terms; it isn't relevant and it isn't important. For a not-so-out-there parallel, if he were into US politics articles and screaming that everyone against him is a member of Democratic party, nobody would find it productive to debate whether certain policies were those of the Democratic or the Green's or historically of the Republican's. It's just pointless. It is policy here that we discuss the content of edits, not their contributors. Period. If he has an issue, there was mechanism, and name-calling is not one of them. Nevertheless, as noted in policy, I could only block (not formally ban) and it was intended only to be until he learned to grow up and ]. Most editors give up and are willing to do so. He however seems to have disagreed with that, and so remains blocked. The block evasion through IP addresses to continue to harass is unfortunate and the fact that we are now at oversighted edits is telling. So, to formalize, I would like to suggest that he formally be banned. This will only be helpful in the ability to revert his edits on-site and immediately block his IP addresses. This may exacerbate him, but honestly I do not care. -- ] (]) 06:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * No change from a year ago, still making vile personal accusations with no sign of letup. I like to see the best in people, but I can't find hope for his peaceful and productive involvement here. Regretfully, '''support ban'''. <small>— ] (]/]) 12:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Oppose''' There is a point at which bans appear to be solely punitive and not an attempt at anything else. The person ''should'' be barred from the pedophilia articles, certainly. Using a ban on what is basically Jell-o should the person edit in other areas proves little. By having him use his named account, we can, in fact, keep better tabs on him than by forcing him to keep using IPs which are difficult if not impossible to keep tabs on. Since he has made apparently useful edits on Swedish topics (noting the lists of articles he has edited), there is no evidence of any vandalism etc. ] (]) 13:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] disruptive in AfD. == | |||
| {{resolved|Both Christodoulidesd and OutlawSpark blocked as obvious socks ] <small>(])</small> 19:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| I need someone to check it out. ] (]) 00:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Which AFD? What's the problem? What would you like done about it? Got any Diffs? ] (]) 01:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::QUACK! ] <small>(])</small> 01:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Something isn't quite right here. Really odd that Outlaw would have his/her 7th, 10th and 11th edits reporting someone on ANI, using terms like spambot. Outlaw, do you want to tell us who you're a sock of? ] <small>(])</small> 04:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Mdphd2012 == | |||
| Freshly back from block, personal attacks and disruption at ] (, ), weird unpleasantness at my talk page ( (copy of my warning to the editor), ). Notified the editor of this thread. - ] 02:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay, I'm sorry, but I got a big kick out that "weird unpleasantness" on your talk page. It always amuses me when wannabe-administrators put "warnings" on other editor's pages.--] (]) 02:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why do you believe that only admins can issue warnings? Please point to any Misplaced Pages policy which supports this view. ] (]) 08:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::You can just ignore that ip, he's been blocked for disruption. ] (]) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Now to the matter at hand: This is a civility matter, and unrelated to the previous blocks, which were related to ]. I suggest you take this to ], this is not serious enough to require admin action. ] (]) 21:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Request review of my actions on ] == | |||
| Kent Hovind's copyrighted doctoral thesis, which he and his alma mater have steadfastly refused to release to anyone's view for many years, has recently appeared on Wikileaks, complete with the information that ''Hovind, along with his alma mater, Patriot Bible University, has consistently refused to allow his dissertation to be offered for public reprint or scholarly inquiry.'' and that at the time of appearance on wikileaks: ''At that time was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public.''. Well intentioned editors have been readding the link to this ever since, and been reverted by multiple editors. I protected the article in order to stop the near continuous violation of copyright, and then found I'd protected The Wrong Version<sup>(tm)</sup>. I followed ] and removed the offending link, and now place myself here for review and commentary. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 02:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :A good call that is appropriate per ]. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Good call as anon editors seem to be unaware of ] --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 02:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, that was my rationale as well, but as I'd protected then edited I felt it best to put it here for review by others. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 04:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per discussion, my thoughts were that dissertations were always public. ] (]) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just realized we're talking about different articles. The same discussion is being held at ]. ] (]) 04:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::On both ] and ], both the policies above have been linked and on the second page at least it has been explained that the content is copyrighted, copyright usually being held by the university. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 04:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I've now repeated the action with ], where a similar situation has been occuring. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 04:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Good call. <b>] ] </b> 05:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just to clarify KC, you haven't protected the article, but merely removed the link, correct? There was no edit warring occurring at PBU, merely the inclusion of that link. ] (]) 08:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * To state that it's been leaked needs a ] that says it ''is'' Hovind's and not a joe-job; to link to the thesis requires a copy that is provably not hosted in violation of copyright per ]. Those promoting the link have done neither so far, as far as I can tell. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :So strictly speaking, can one not say that it has been leaked on wikileaks, and then reference wikileaks to support that claim? ] (]) 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed - ] says never - and with no exceptions. So no - you can't use that wikilinks page as a reference. I suppose you could reference wikileaks in general though. ] (]) 22:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The problem is, as Guy has pointed out, there is no way to determine whether the document on Wikilinks ''is'' the actual document. One might be able to add a footnote stating that a document alleged to be Hovind's doctoral thesis has been posted there -- but just how important is the content of Hovind's work? I'd be more inclined, as a disinterested observer, to accept a mention of the document at Wikilinks ''if'' the article had some indication of the subject of his doctoral thesis. For all I know, Hovind wrote about how baseball is mentioned in the Bible. (It's true, didn't you know? In the very first verse of Genesis, in fact -- "In the big inning".) -- ] (]) 01:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == disruption at ] == | |||
| Admin attention is needed at this AfD. An SPA user ] and a bunch of SPA IPs keep throwing bizarre and outlandish accusations against all the delete !voters, accusing them of being "scamsters", "blackmailers", "hackers" and of using "fake accounts" and to be secretely representing some company in India. Similar accusations have been inserted in the article ] itself. There is now also a borderline legal threat. This stuff goes well beyond ] and the entire AfD has become something of a spectacle. Although the AfD is only 2 days old, I think it is ripe for an early close based on pretty clear consensus, and I think some administrative action needs to be taken regarding ] and the SPA IPs. Thanks, ] (]) 03:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I support the above requests. ] (]) 04:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC). | |||
| * {{User|Laura.grimblay}} needs to be blocked for making legal threats, and wild allegations of fraud, hacking etc against both reallife persons and wikipedia editors (see , , , ). Various other comments made by IPs (probable socks/meatpuppets) are also borderline NLT and BLP violations (eg, , , ). I am not blocking the accounts since I commented at the AFD, but some uninvolved admin needs to take a look and perhaps refactor some of the BLP violations. '''PS''' If no uninvolved admin is available to review the situation, I plan to place the blocks myself in another hour or so, in which case I'll add a note here. ] (]) 05:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fought my way through it. Laura uses this as a forum to settle some legal dispute. She should take it elsewhere. ] 05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I've left a blunt warning on ] - if she continues to make wild accusations, she should be blocked for disruption. IPs fall into that too, as I'm fairly sure there's some socking going on there. ] <small>]</small> 06:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks. I'll ping you know if there are any more legal threats or BLP violations. ] (]) 06:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::And was one too many. Blocked now. ] ] ] 12:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Legal threat at User talk:99.236.221.124 == | |||
| {{resolved|IP blocked for a month (would indef, but it's an IP.. even static... whatever), talk page access revoked. I have NO idea why this got to the point it did; a block should have happened a long time ago. Clear legal threat. ] | ] 04:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{resolved|Block lifted after polite unblock request. Users are reminded to use good judgment and not be a ] when dealing with IP users. ] ] 09:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{IPuser|99.236.221.124}} seems to believe that the shared IP template is providing personal identifying information about the user, and is removing it. In itself, this is a minor issue. But, due to their perception of it being personal information, they made legal threats: | |||
| :''And I'm going to keep deleting it because I've done nothing wrong and I don't want it on my page. If you don't like that, feel free to ban me, in which case I will feel free to contact my lawyer about weather or not this is infringing on Canadian electronic privacy laws, and I'm pretty sure it does.'' | |||
| And then goes on to point out wording of the law with which they are concerned. I replied, and placed a warning about legal threats on their talk page ... but due to the legal threat, wanted to also post it here. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 03:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Is it really "their" page? It's a talk page for a shared IP. Seems like it ought to stay if it's meant to communicate with multiple editors. ] (]) 03:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: IP is not shared, it is static and assigned to this router only ] (]) 04:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::An IP assigned to a router is, by definition, shared. ] (]) 04:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :If I wanted to sue someone I wouldn't warn them beforehand, this was simply asking my lawyer if it is okay for you guys to do this. You are too easily threatened ] (]) 03:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The statement was clearly meant to intimidate in order to get your desired outcome. This is one of the reasons for Misplaced Pages's policy which is documented at ]. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 03:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is "clearly meant to intimidate" only in your mind, not through any of my intentions. My desired outcome is respect of my privacy in accordance with the law, so far, you seem to disagree. Do you even have any idea what lengths I would have to go to to pursue litigation against you (who I don't even know) or wikipedia? I said I would ask my lawyer for clarification, which I do a lot of. If you feel threatened by a passive action such as that, it is your problem and not mine. ] (]) 04:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I left a comment at your talk page and will copy it here so discussion can remain in one place: Why not just create a named acount so that your IP address is concealed entirely? That way, only administrators will be able to see it. Using an account instead of editing via IP is far more private. ] (]) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Reply is on my page ] (]) 04:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Incidentally, the {{tl|ISP}} template which you continue to remove does not contain a map, address, or any identifying information beyond listing your IP (already shown on page), and your ISP (who actually owns the IP address). Additionally, the ISP's name can already be seen by clicking the "whois" link which is available at the bottom of any IP's talk page within the box which begins with the text "This is the discussion page for an IP user ...". --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Looks like Tan blocked them for the legal threats. Should the IP template be readded? I was going to do it but don't want to step on anyone's toes. ] (]) 04:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I readded the template. If any admins feel I shouldn't have done so, please let me know and I will revert posthaste. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 04:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::::99.236: In addition to WHOIS information, ip2location is available at the bottom of every IP editor's talk page. If you don't wish this information to be made public, you need to register an account. As an aside, legal threats (which this most definitely was) never go over well on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I need something explained to me. Out of the blue today, for no reason I can tell, was left on the IP's talk page. If you look down at the bottom of the page, the editor who left the note says ''he does not think the IP is shared.'' So, | |||
| # Why was an apparently incorrect shared IP botice left on the talk page | |||
| # Why (besides the simplistic "it's policy" reason) are we so excited about leaving the template up | |||
| #Isn't it clear from the IP's comments above that this wasn't intended as a threat? Plus, aren't we all smart enough to realize even if it was, it's completely unrealistic? | |||
| #Why is <s>NeutralHomer</s> everyone re-adding the template, repeating the exact same ridiculous behavior that ultimately caused <s>him to "retire"</s> so much drama a couple of months ago? | |||
| :If you can't think of a good reason to do something besides "it's policy", the '''don't do it'''. You're treating an apparently good faith editor like dirt, and it is wrong. :Any chance we could all step back from the brink, leave the guy alone, unblock him, and find something ''remotely'' more productive to do? --] (]) 04:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **Floquenbeam, don't make this about me, it isn't...and as you rightly stated in your post the reason the template was readded again is...hey, it's policy, you said it yourself. The reason the anon was blocked, he made a clear legal threat. Edit warring and legal threats equal what, a block. Not about me, never was, it was about an anon user not following the rules. Now, I ask you strike your comment about me and move on. Thanks...<small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 04:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ***So, the reason for re-adding the template, ''besides'' "it's policy", is... --] (]) 04:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ****No "besides", it's policy, plain and simple. Move on. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 04:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::Then talk to Godwin and change ]. This is as clear as policy gets. Its a little odd that you pick this behavior to defend. The IP is trying to prove a point and is on a crusade, and happened to make a legal threat in the process - full stop. Bye bye, until it's retracted. It wasn't retracted. Behavior continue, talk page locked. If the IP wants to ''fully back the hell off his soap box'' and email someone about it, that's his prerogative. Maybe when you're an admin, Floquenbeam, you can pick and choose which policies ''you'' care to look the other way on, but this one isn't one that I do. ] | ] 04:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It looks like a good block to me, Tan. The user made a clear and unambiguous legal threat, has had the opportunity to recind it, and has not. If he is serious about sueing, he can have his lawyer contact ] and they can hash it out off-wiki. The threat is clear and meant to intimidate. I see nothing worth all this hoopla over. --]''''']''''' 04:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Can anyone, then, at least explain the insistence on the template? I can understand the legal threat block, even if I think it unnecessary in this case, but I really want to understand why, every month or so, we throw an unnecessary shared IP template on a talk page, edit war with the owner of the non-shared IP over the template until he snaps, and then block him. Anything at all besides "it's policy"? --] (]) 04:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Because it's necessary for communicating with multiple users. This is all explained in the blanking policy. How does anyone know the IP isn't really shared? Maybe the person just leaves their router on all the time or something. ] (]) 04:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, I am with you on that one, Floquenbeam. Too often, we are concerned with ]. Note that poked bears still must be dealt with, you cannot have an angry bear roaming the campground unattended, so the block was good. But we should exercise some caution in forcing such issues. Could this have been avoided. Yes. Was this still a good block? Yes. These are not mutually exlcusive ideas. --]''''']''''' 04:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::As much as I want to say it, I will say the it is probably because of the migrating patterns of the South American IT'S POLICY! There is no reason. Policy is the end-all-be-all reason. There is no other reason you need to know or think about. What is a '''rule''' or '''policy''' makes any other reason moot and unnecessary for discussion. Dude, why is "it's policy" so hard for you to understand and comprehend? - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 04:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::Well, not to fan flames, but I see what Floquenbeam is getting at. I blocked for the legal threat and continued behavior (and non-retraction) afterwards. I did ''not'' block for edit warring or any such thing. Legitimate question - was policy being "broken" by the IP's removal of ''any'' identifying template at the top? ] | ] 04:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Comment: Asking a question or two is hardly "defending" an editor; please try to AFG when replying to Floquenbeam. Some of you have been very short, not to say hostile, in your responses to <s>her</s> Flo. Perhaps its time for a cup of tea? ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 04:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **Ya know, you are right. I am just irked by the continued asking for a reason and annoyed that "it's policy" isn't good enough (always works for me). I will be less "short" in my responses. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 04:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::Uh, the questions might not have been defending, but "You're treating an apparently good faith editor like dirt, and it is wrong" sure looks like defending to me. Jussayin'. ] | ] 04:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>Also, per Flo's user page reference to "Mrs. Floquenbeam", I always assumed he was male. I suppose it could be a same-sex marriage, but occam's razor and all that.</small> | |||
| ::::<small> ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 05:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :Floquenbeam ... As I mentioned at the top, in itself, re-adding the shared IP header is a minor issue. One I likely would have dropped if not for the legal threat. A bit more history ... I followed a posting to the talk page, saw the removal of the IP header, and reverted per ], then switched it from {{tl|whois}} over to {{tl|ISP}}, (ironically, changed the header because I find the ISP template wording to be bit less ]). When the IP again removed it, they made the legal threat - which then resulted in my starting the discussion here. Their intent in following through on the threat is not the point - the fact that a relatively lengthy post of legal intimidation was used was the point. | |||
| :Tan ... I do have a question on the need to retract the legal threat. Obviously, I agree that it was a threat because I started this thread at ANI ... but looking over the history I noticed that the IP was never told that was a requirement to de-escallate. The IP did post a few times that he never intended to follow-through, which isn't quite the same thing. But they were never provided guidance either. For that one reason, I would support re-allowing their access to their own talk page - provided at the same time they were given guidance on how to retract the legal threat. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 04:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree; done. ] | ] 04:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I posted to the IP's talk page, with guidance on retracting the legal threat. Hopefully my wording was clear enough - if others feel that clarification is needed to the IP, please add it there. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 05:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm sorry, I just can't deal with the edit conflicts, especially when I'm trying to respond to several different comments, so I'll dump it all here: | |||
| **NH, I've retracted a bit of that, you had a point | |||
| **Tan, I'm not defending the legal threat so much as <s>defending</s> expressing understanding at the events leading up to it; the IP feeling ganged up on for no good reason, until he snapped. | |||
| **The annoying part is this same thing happens once or twice a month. | |||
| **I'm a he. --] (]) 05:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *One more that got lost in e/c #454: | |||
| **These templates are not necessary to communicate with shared IP addresses. The vast majority of IP talk pages that are shared don't have these templates, and we manage just fine. I'm hard pressed to think of a reason for them, other than to try to intimidate any users with a "we know who you are" message. For sites with lots of vandalism from apparently different people, this is a useful thing. For an IP that doesn't appear to be shared, with a non-vandal editor, not so much. --] (]) 05:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Technically, I agree that these types of templates are mainly useful where it's demonstrated that multiple users are in fact accessing from the same IP address as the {{tl|sharedIP}} tag provides verbage that clarifies for others as well as the new users of the IP that warnings seen on the page may be related to other (past) users of the IP address (schools being the most common, but others exist). My reason for bringing the issue here was the legal threat - as I mentioned above, had that threat not existed I likely would have dropped the issue of the IP header after the IP reverted my initial restore of the tag. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 05:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Apparently this IP editor does have an account . As for why they're not using it, your guess is as good as mine. And they don't seem to be very new... if their IP is really static they have edits going back to last March. ] (]) 06:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry people, but I really find it hard to understand why this was let to escalate in this ridiculous fashion. The IP ought to never have been pestered with reinstating that useless and ugly template. And the "legal threat" was of a kind that a person intending not to be a ] could just have intelligently overlooked. Even after that point, the natural and un-Dickish response to the IP would have been: "okay, sorry for the trouble, out with the ugly template, but please just remember not to mention lawyers around here the next time". – Note that I have removed the template now, and ''strongly'' advise anybody against reinstating it. ] ] 07:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. That said, there are many ways to express concerns about infringing privacy laws that can achieve a satisfactory result (that is, in ways that reasonably do not violate the letter or spirit of NLT). Accordingly, I appreciate Tan's first block. ] (]) 07:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just as a matter of clarification, what was the justification for the tag in the first place? (before any of the arguments started). I know that there was a history of edits from that IP, but was there anything to suggest they were not the same editor, or that the registered editor simply wasn't logging in? ] (]) 08:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I have no idea; you'd have to ask the person who added it. In fact, somebody who added a welcome template was first adding a {{tl|whois}} template together with a message saying it was ''not'' a shared IP ; then, after the user objected against the "whois", and people had started edit-warring it back in, somebody else exchanged it against a {{tl|ISP}} template on the way. And ''after'' they had replaced the "non-shared" tag with the "shared IP" tag, that user began to cite a rule from ] which said that IP users were supposedly not allowed to remove ''shared IP'' tags from their page. None of all this was pretty to watch – the more I look at the history, the more I find the IP had good reasons to be upset. Anyway, they have now posted a polite unblock message distancing themselves from the NLT issue, and I have unblocked as a matter of routine, so I hope we can now treat this as resolved at last. ] ] 09:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| (<-)There is a thread of discussion, now closed, at my ] on this topic that anyone may read. I wanted to respond here to the question asked regarding the application of the whois template to this poor IP editor. ''I also want to offer an apology'', which I'll replicate on the IP editor's talk page. | |||
| *From my ], I hope you will see that I do interact with IP users quite a bit (I have over 2,500 pages on my watchlist). Over time, I have tried to refine my approach to balance welcoming with notice of issues that may have been raised by their recent edits. The vast majority of such IP users do appear to be new contributors (at least in terms of their contributions from that IP). | |||
| *I have seen that some IP talk pages are mislabelled as being ''shared IPs'', less frequently, ''shared IPs'' are mislabelled (in particularly, sharedIPEDUs are not infreqently missed as being such) | |||
| *Sometimes, IP users, despite ] to inform and educate, end up being blocked. Appropriate notification and blocking should include an understanding of the IP type involved. I've thus made it a habit to routinely use network lookup tools (which I use off-wiki in the Information Security field) to make this determination, and document on the talk page, both for my own use, should I have a need for subsequent interaction with the IP editor, as well as for the edification of other editors who look at that IP editor's talk page. | |||
| *] states "This template can be transcluded onto the user talk page of any IP address", ''but'' "Please do not use this template on the talk pages of evidently good-faith constructive IP users, since its wording could be misunderstood as implying the IP's edits are problematic". | |||
| #'''Apology #1''' My review of the led me to feel OK with adding the whois template. A review of the editor's make it clear that this was in error. | |||
| #'''Apology #2''' I ''should'' have provided notice to the editors who were restoring the template, and then adding and restoring the sharedIP templates, that (a) the IP was not shared, as I originally noted, and (b) there was no policy reason to restore the IP information for a ''non-shared'' IP. | |||
| :*In my own defense, I had believed that notices to these other editors could increase, not defuse, the ]. In addition, as my contribution log will show, I was offline for a number of hours after I last posted on this topic to my talk page (I can't always multitask with wiki and non-wiki things). When I returned and saw the ], it seems that the ANI thread had wound down, so I replied matter of factly to the couple of posts on my talk page, and hoped that my own original recommendations would be sufficient. | |||
| *I have decided to ''not'' use the Whois template again, except in the case of a shared IP being unambiguously used as a source of vandalism (e.g., including blatant vandalism, or repeat vandals, or IPs used for vandalism category), and have substitituted a hopefully more welcoming invitation to sign up for an account to place at the bottom of a talk page, as appropriate. | |||
| *I sincerely hope this issue is resolved, and wish the IP editor and all involved well and happy editing. --] (]) 16:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :As promised, see ] --] (]) 16:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thank you very much, 4wajzkd02, for this graceful gesture, and let me in turn apologise if I came across to you as curt or accusatory on your talkpage (as you apparently felt), which wasn't my intention. I should have noted your friendly efforts at de-escalation more clearly in what I said over there. ] ] 16:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I also apologised on 4wajzkd02's talk page, and would like to do so here and on the IPs talk page, about my misunderstanding of the template's usage. I, personally, also had not looked at the IP's contribution log and had assumed that it had been put there for a reason. Next time, I shall be more thorough as, though I only account for two of the edits, I was the one who kicked this all off and I would like to sincerely apologise for that. --<font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 16:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I also wanted to comment that I've apologized on the IP's talk page for my part in this. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 18:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] User page & talk page being used inappropriately == | |||
| Someone needs to take a look at Patrickjdwise user page. It looks like they copy and past ] and ] and ] articles to their user space. --'''<font color="navy" face="Matisse ITC" size="2">]</font> -- 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps this user intended to work on these articles in their userspace. Unless non-free images are being used in their userspace, there is nothing wrong here. What policies do you think are being violated? (It's a slow day at the help desk today) <font style="font-family: Vivaldi">]''']'''</font> 04:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, It looks like they copy and past ] to their ]. --'''<font color="navy" face="Matisse ITC" size="2">]</font> -- 04:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've removed all the fair-use images, as you can't have those in your userspace. Other than that, if he doesn't put the images back, I have no other problems with his user page. <small>] ]</small> 04:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm a bit confused. Why can't those images be in the user space, but are OK for the rest of wikipedia?--] (]) 04:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Because they are copyrighted and thus incompatible with the GFDL/CC 3. A perusal of ] should answer any further queries you have on the subject. <small>] ]</small> 04:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| And you cannot have categories either, I've removed those. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 04:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Read, ]. User space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of copies of articles. In other words. Private copies of articles that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be deletion.--'''<font color="navy" face="Matisse ITC" size="2">]</font> -- 04:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Long-term archival? He created his page on December 7th.. last time I checked that was four days ago. <small>] ]</small> 04:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry for bring it up. I thought it was wrong. I guess its ok to have articles on your user page and talk page.--'''<font color="navy" face="Matisse ITC" size="2">]</font> -- 05:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you still think there is a problem, the place to go with this is ]. <font face="Old English Text MT">]<font color="#0095c6">of</font>]</font> 21:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is it accidental or deliberate that the talk page has been left at 70k but without content shown? | |||
| ::For these articles, I'd wonder why they'd be copying things at all since there's zero chance of future deletions. Only other things I can theorize would be dubious editing, but since it's on the user's page and not hidden farther in userspace that doesn't feel right. Well... they might be creating some sort of "alternate reality" for the article to see what its future would be if only they changed it. That doesn't explain the articles pasted onto user's talk page, though. Perhaps a 400k user page would have looked like overkill. All old versions are already saved on the server and edits are open to all, so just holding old versions seems silly. Copyrighted images and categories left on the article does give some creed to concerns, since any read of policies on use of userspace would make these things clear, but still doesn't give any explanation and were well removed. Has it been suggested that the user create articles within userspace to keep each one? So long as they make some changes in a sandbox-type style I think they're permissible there. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 01:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| More eyes requested, thanks.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 07:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Now, thats just weird. That's very similar to ] and although the one you have listed here has a great deal of input, the one I listed is languishing with almost no input. What is different in the two instances? What dynamic am I missing? ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 22:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::These quotations under reference 1 as "unattributed" don't come up in a Misplaced Pages search as being anywhere but at that page. Thus, invented, somehow brought here before being deleted, or as memories of another account as deleted edits. Highly leaning at that last option. Could well be a classic puppet "good hand bad hand" case. Although Drolz09 was created nearly 2 years ago, it's only been active since the whole climate change email bit started. Those quotations and ANIs and all the other junk saved in there might have some meaning or way to tie in to another user. Since Drolz09 was posting at ANI as soon as becoming active, highly suspicious sock. I'll research it. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 01:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Update'': The aboutme was put up for CSD G6(?) without notification to the user. I objected with a hangon, only to realize you can't use hangon on talk pages even if it's about a talk page. Put text in a generic notice box. Again, I'm just speaking as a procedural angle or CSD category. Suggest it be looked over and removed if appropriate. I figured ANI incidents were trumped by a CSD tag, thus I wouldn't have removed it under any circumstances without more opinion. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 02:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::hangon and text removed. I usually self-impose a "virtual wheel warring" block on any template placing in general. ''Any''way, I'm going to keep digging into the GHBH puppet. That would end all the separate incident reports at once. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 02:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Whatever else I may be, I'm nobody's puppet; I don't suppose you've any reason to take me at my word on that, but if you do you might save yourself some time. ''''']]''''' 11:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Bogus PA warning from ] == | |||
| After a user reverted one of my changes, hereby adding a misinformation, I wrote this on his user page: | |||
| :Please stop destroying Misplaced Pages. If you don't have a clue about a topic, let others write the articles. (Are your really sure nothing else I did was in any way objectionable?) | |||
| After this, ] twinkled me an "only warning" about PAs. I can't ask him about it on his user page, as it is locked. (Will someone please notify him?) | |||
| My question is: Is this warning justified? --] (]) 09:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Non-admin's opinion: the implicit accusation of malice (one doesn't ask someone to "stop destroying Misplaced Pages" unless they ''are'' destroying it) was garnished with a put-down as clueless — deprecating both motives and capacity, a two-fer. Way to punch anyone's buttons. So, yeah, 91.55; how would you feel if that had been said to ''you?'' <small>— ] (]/]) 10:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :(I did put a note on ], as you requested.) <small>— ] (]/]) 10:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :But looking into the background, 91.55 has some basis to be miffed too: a legitimate edit to ] got repeatedly reverted as "vandalism". That could account for some flaring temper, too. I've reinstated and vouched for it, in edit summary and with a note to the reverting editor. Hope that helps. <small>— ] (]/]) 10:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::<s>Warning was OK, but a level 4i-only warning? I've seen worse attacks before... ] 10:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::This editor has been engaged in some IP-hopping edit warfare in the ] and doesn't appear to be be a genuinely new editor based on their posts, so a high-level warning seems appropriate to me. ] (]) 11:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Right. Didn't see that... ] err... ] ] 11:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: "IP-hopping edit warfare"? My ISP changes my IP from time to time, why is this relevant? | |||
| :::: You implication is that participation in an unrelated edit warfare is reason for sterner measures than usually called for? | |||
| :::: I've never claimed that I was a new editor. --] (]) 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: To clarify this: After an edit war on an unrelated article, the user I allegedly attacked was following me around to ]. There is no indication that his involvement in ] is anything but ]. So I think my choice of words is appropriate. This PA warning is only reasonable if you pick some details from the context and ignore others. --] (]) 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::And I gather that there was some display problem (in your browser) from the formatting on ''Varyag''? This is not a WP:ANI topic, it's techie, but just as background to your edits...? <small>— ] (]/]) 11:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::: Sorry, discussions on AN:I do have a tendancy to wildy spread over all kind of topics; I don't want to compound that. Let's just say that the changes on the carrier's pages do not change content and are thus not as significant as the one on ]. | |||
| :::: This should be about the bogus PA warning however. --] (]) 12:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Two articles have been semi-protected because {{User|91.55.211.58}} / {{User|91.55.204.136}} has been removing hidden lines. The 3RR rule would have been broken on ] and ] if they had not been semi-protected. His remarks to other users seem to have been uncivil and factually incorrect. He played the same game on ], until Sizzle Flambé proxy-edited for him without adding sources to the article (an edit summary is insufficient). I don't think Sizzle Flambé is particularly helping here: he does not seem to have looked carefully at the edit histories of the two IPs and on the last article appears to be enabling the disruptive IP hopping. ] (]) 13:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: You are again picking details from the context. Please stop doing this, it does not help to explain whether or not the PA warning is justified. Only an unobstructed view on the context can do that. (I would also recommend to follow ], but I get the impression that you're past that.) | |||
| :::::: ]: You should be ashamed! You should have known that ''disabling'' recalcitrant users is always more important than fixing Misplaced Pages's content. I hope you learned your lesson! --] (]) 14:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Forgot one: 3RR '''was''' broken - but not by me. Do you propose any sanctions against ]? --] (]) 16:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you show us diffs and a warning that has been issued and that it is a current problem that needs to be stopped and yes, we would. ] <small>(])</small> 16:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Now, let's play a game: When ] blocked the page, which version do you think was The Right One? You have one attempt. | |||
| :::::::: Correct! So of course there is no ongoing problem that needs to be stopped. (Of course there is also no warning by the blocking editor, except the one I got.) --] (]) 16:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Studies have shown that the ] is ''always'' protected ;) Rather than edit war in the articles and abuse other editors then complain here when you're warned for this, please discuss your views on the articles' talk pages. As you're not a new editor, you should know better. ] (]) 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Moreschi, my edit summary noted that the official Sony website (which was ''already linked in the article'') supported the plot description. However, just for you, I have added a ''second'' link to the ''same'' website, as an explicit '''<ref>''' for that paragraph (previously not reffed). Making a legitimate edit (which is all this IP user was trying to do) isn't disruption or vandalism. As for "disruptive IP hopping", are ISPs' dynamic IP assignments now to be blamed on their users? <small>— ] (]/]) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| As usual in cases of admin abuses, the actual matter got out of sight. So again: Is this kind of warning justified? (If you want to respond, please do not blank out part of the context.) --] (]) 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Could we mark it all down to misunderstandings, note that tempers got heated, but try to cool them off and go on from there? That seems like the resolution with the best and fastest chance of happy outcomes for everyone. <small>— ] (]/]) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::All a ton of brinkmanship. "Destroying Misplaced Pages"? Um, a tad much. The later sections including the somewhat disparaging edit summaries from BilCat, including saying "I don't trust vandals" after harmless messages left suggesting a discussions merge. ] is kind of picky about definition and evoking it is a serious matter. The warnings against personal attacks given from that seem 100% justified given a total ignoring what vandalism means-- actually, those messages were polite in that they suggested just walking away for awhile. Then to here. As to "who started it", IP user technically did but not automatically in bad faith, if not questionable. BitCat dragged on the matter with free-floating use of "vandal", to which any experienced editor would take offense to after feeling they acted in good faith. In hindsight, just a rewording of a few edit summaries could probably have prevented this. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 02:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Follow-up'': Case of a mutual open apology on "destroying" vs vandal; WQA vs ANI closing the matter? This is well within the range of inability to blame either party and since both parties know the bigger picture sanctions would seem kind of silly. 'Tis my suggestion, since no other resolutions proposed. At least one uninvolved agreement needed, please. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There may be a of hope; will it spread? <small>— ] (]/]) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::It looks like a bit of missunderstanding, the term vandal/vandalism is often used on Misplaced Pages and can seem a bit harsh to new editors. My first impression is a bit of storm in a teacup, the IP didnt explain the edit (no edit summary) and carried on adding it while others (it was first reverted by another editor before BilCat) assumed (due to lack of explanation) that it was some form of vandalism. I suggest we just leave it behind and all get on with improving the encyclopedia. ] (]) 10:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Read again: I used the word "destroying" as a synonym for vandalism after he wikihounded me to another article. He called my change there vandalism (and reverted me) without knowing anything about the matter. Turns out that my change was justified. --] (]) 11:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah, whatever, what about ]'s actions? Regarding the whole context, is this warning justified? --] (]) 11:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I think ''everyone'' involved came on too strong: "vandalism", "stupidity", "destroying", ''and'' "final warning". Now the question is, can ''everyone'' involved lower their hackles and make peace? Or are we stuck at hostilities? 91.55, having taken the lead to bring this up, can you take the lead to calm it down? As you did with Guerillero? <small>— ] (]/]) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :OK didnt want to prolong this but had that point not been addressed by ]s first comment above. A 91.55 IP changed ] without any explanation, it was Twinkle reverted as vandalism by user ], the 91.55 reverted with the comment ''Reverted 1 edit by Guerillero identified as stupidity to last revision by me. (If you don't know the movie, why don't you just keep quiet?'' User BilCat reverted the apparant vandalism again with ''apparent vandalism, and uncivil comments)'' which was again reverted by a 91.55 IP without explanation but then left a message on BilCats talk page ''Please stop destroying Misplaced Pages. If you don't have a clue about a topic, let others write the articles. (Are your really sure nothing else I did was in any way objectionable?)''. BilCat removed the comment from his talk page without comment and MBK004 was probably watching BilCat's talk page (assumption) issued the personal attack warning on the 91.55 talk page. All looks reasonable to me an editor makes an unexplained change to an article and then attacks both reverters an admin sees the comments and issues a warning. User Guerillero and BilCat acted against unexplained edits which provoked comment from the IP which was dealt with by a warning from an Admin. All we need is to move on and the IP should use edit summaries in the future. ] (]) 11:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Edit summaries are recommended but not required. Labelling 91.55's edit to ] as "vandalism" was hasty and mistaken; his edit was not "blatantly wrong", in fact it was not wrong at all, let alone obscene or otherwise vandalistic. Things went downhill from that precise point, and got worse with each repetition of the "vandalism" charge. Now, are we done re-hashing this, and can we get back to the "peace" concept? <small>— ] (]/]) 12:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::I am sorry but I could not accept the point that 91.55s edit was not blatantly wrong and the two reverters were in the wrong. At the time of the reversion it was seen as an IP making an unexplained change which is why two editors reverted the addition as vandalism a fairly common practice with any unexplained edit. After being reverted the IP still did not comment either in the edit summary or on the talk page but attacked both reverters. It was only when Sizzle became involved that the edit was deemed to be factual at no time had the IP explained the change. As for peace fine just accept what was done and move on. ] (]) 12:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Reverting an unexplained change as vandalism ''shouldn't'' be a fairly common practice. If it is, the people doing the reverting need to reread ] and ]. The IPs response was rude, yes, but I think the edit summary says pretty clearly that they believed their edit to be correct and that the reverter must not know what he's doing if he's reverting the edit as vandalism. --]]] 13:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == GeoCities == | |||
| Geocities is now closed. I searched this site for ''geocities.com'' and found what must be hundreds of dead links. Could somebody run a bot to remove them? ] (]) 10:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : That's totally not appropriate. See ]. We could use archive.org for example, even though I cannot think of a single Geocities site that could be a reliable source. -- ] (]) 10:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::What's the point of heaving dead links? ] (]) 10:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you use archive.org, they may not ''be'' dead links. The Wayback Machine (as it's called) has archive copies of webpages you can link to, long after the originals have been taken down. PDF copies of old documents, for instance, that might now be found nowhere else on the Web. <small>— ] (]/]) 10:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::Here's one of my favorite Javascript bookmarklets; add it to your toolbar and use it while you're looking at a "dead" link:<br /><code><nowiki>javascript:void(location.href='http://web.archive.org/web/*/'+location.href)</nowiki></code><br />Label it '''WayBack!''' <small>— ] (]/]) 11:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::This issue has been discussed at length on various Misplaced Pages pages. Can anyone find a link to the latest views? <b>] ] </b> 11:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Latest views of ''what'', Will? The latest archive.org copies of any given page? Precede the dead-link URL with '''<code><nowiki>http://web.archive.org/web/*/</nowiki></code>''' (which is what the above bookmarklet does), and that takes you to a list of all the saved pages archive.org has. '''But''' don't automatically assume the latest date is a good copy; archive.org may have saved a few "page not found" messages. Go back from the end until you find a good copy. <small>— ] (]/]) 11:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::] suggests '''<code><nowiki>http://web.archive.org/web/2/</nowiki></code>''' (plus URL) for "most current version"; is that what you wanted, Will? <small>— ] (]/]) 11:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::] is a relevant page that goes through all of this. ''']]]''' 11:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Including a nifty template: '''{{tl|wayback}}'''. ''(glee, glee, glee!)'' <small>— ] (]/]) 11:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::Archive.org does pick up some of the geocities links, although it misses others. If an EL can't be picked up using archive.org it should be removed, as there's hardly a chance it will come back. If I had my way, a cleanup crew would go around to each of the geocities links and check if they have an archived history which is relevant to the article. That probably won't happen because link cleanup doesn't generate much excitement here, which is probably why noone was enthusiastic about the issue at the other related discussions. C'est la vie. ''']]]''' 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: As per , ] was using AWB to rename all geocities links to oocities.com instead. (]<span style="border:1px solid red;">''' ] '''</span>]) 12:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ''Latest views of ''what''?'' Perhaps why there were hundreds of Geocities links to begin with might be a start. --] | ] 12:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Exactly. The URLs shouldn't be deleted simply because they are now dead; they should be deleted because they are ''Geocities links''. ] | ] 13:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm surprised that the bot that kicks out ''facebook'' and ''myspace'' isn't targeting ''geocities'' as well... ] 13:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Geocities was the earliest free web provider on a large scale. Therefore some early adopters used them for publishing high quality information, and never changed later when web hosting became cheaper. I hope that's at least part of the reason we have such links. ] ] 13:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Indeed, since the reduction of geocities quality, many geocities links remained ''until more suitable replacements'' could be found. The trick now is to actually find more suitable links, rather than simply redirect to a new version of geocities. (]<span style="border:1px solid red;">''' ] '''</span>]) 13:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Most geocities links aren't appropriate here and should be removed anywhere. Unless they could have been verified to have been written by the subject of the article, they weren't reliable sources and their usage as citation should be extremely limited.--] (]) 15:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree with that. By now most reliable publications have now moved to advanced hosting and have a domain. '''] (] * ])''' 22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent|:::::}} | |||
| Up to a point; you shouldn't underestimate the contributions from dedicated amateurs who put in the legwork but don't want to make a point of it, still less turn their work over to a commercial host. Case in point is a source for many ] albums, which is authorised by that band, but has an underlying "fansite.com" address, and fortunately has not been rejected by XLinkBot; it is mirrored by a credible site, but which does not allow the WPCite tool to link to it. Some ] is needed in relation to such sites, obviously, but in the absence of other sources, we should be able to use them. Meanwhile, Geocities is being largely mirrored at Oocities.com, and at least one editor is updating the links, without prejudice to them being later found to be inappropriate; but at least we have them to look at, and find alternatives if they don't cut the mustard. ]] 01:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No sorry. When it comes to unreliable sources they're unreliable. WP:V is a core policy on wikipedia and we don't allow links to someone's random site because you can't find a better one. That is why the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth. Unless the link is to something created by the subject of the article they have no business being used as citations. You may think its reliable, but reader Y has no idea and simply assumes its reliable because it is linked from wikipedia.--] (]) 08:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Geocities was simply a free web hosting service that offered a dummy-proof interface with lots of tools. While it hosted ''mostly'' stereotypical "personal web sites" of non-notable individuals <small>''(sudden evil flashback involving "Under Construction" gifs and blinking text)''</small>, there were some exceptions, even in recent years. "Dedicated amateurs"? Yeah, mostly. But there were some dedicated professionals, too, (e.g., scholars who had republished their own peer-reviewed articles on their Geocities site), notable individuals and organizations of various stripes, and so on—i.e., legitimate external links in certain contexts. If there are still hundreds of Geocities links here, I have little doubt that many of them fall afoul of ], but I have no doubt whatsoever that not all of them do. Rather than shooting them on sight, trying to verify them through archival sites and then updating the url if they're legit might be a more constructive approach. ] (]) 09:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| A single purpose account and an IP are fighting it out @ ]. No idea about the subject-matter, somebody with better nerves take a look at it. ] 15:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I've semi-protected the article for 3 days. The SPA was newly registered so neither will have access to the article. ] (]) 16:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Massive emptying of "People from" categories == | |||
| {{resolved|I's werkin' onit. I hope DuncanHill thinks a bit better of us admins next time. }} | |||
| See ]. IP editor is emptying "People from" categories, without going through CFD first. I have told him on his talk page to stop, but he's done masses already so he needs mass reversion. I saw something like this about a week ago, can't remember if it was the same IP address though. ] (]) 15:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The other IP address was ]. ] (]) 15:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You need to notify the IP. ] (]) 16:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Both now notified. Forgot that admins were incapable of helping out by fixing things that non-admins had forgotten to do. ] (]) 16:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::IP seems to have stopped upon notice of this discussion. And, hey, in our defense, us admins are really busy, important, people with lots of things on our minds. Particularly when we're in the admin lounge. Then, pretty much the only thing on my mind is Gigi, one of the waitresses, wearing her French maid costume. Particuarly when one of us stupidly drops something and she has to pick it up. But it is a good idea for everyone to do things up front, because us disgustingly important admins don't always think to check on such things ourselves once messages are posted here. We probably should have someone go through and revert the category removal though. Anyone up for it? ] (]) 17:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not sure it needs reversion in every case - he's emptying categories for villages in England, most of which have only one or two members, and proposing merging them to slightly larger administrative areas. What's the smallest area one should have a category for??] (]) 17:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Be careful there John, your comment is dangerously close to a ] violation vis-a-vis ]. Oh, and {{citation needed}} :). ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 17:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::He's emptying categories before any merge discussion. To John, I'll apologize for my bad temper. I was distracted from informing the IPs by a call from my mother, and given that oversighters have decided it's OK for them to make personal attacks on her I have no patience at all with unhelpful behaviour or attitudes from people in positions of power here. ] (]) 17:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And I had no way of knowing that. I was busy too, and since you aren't new, and there were two IPs to notify, I thought I'd just remind you. I didn't expect you to make a big deal of it. I don't know how this has something to do with me being an Admin as well as an editor. ] (]) 18:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is an old ongoing <s>war</s>discussion about how specific categories should be as well as how many articles should be required for one to exist. Particularly in cases which these appear to be, dealing with categories for small areas with few articles, it could be argued that he wss being bold before proposing them for deletion. And, of course, there is the separate question as to whether anyone agreed to these categories existing in the first place. My own personal view is that, with few exceptions, we should have at least three biography articles in a category for it to be really useful. I Know I personally wouldn't object to refilling any such categories. Otherwise, maybe the easiest way to go would be to leave messages on the talk pages of the most directly relevant WikiProject and let the individuals involved there decide what to do with the categories. Anyway, 'xcuseme. Looks like I dropped something again. ] (]) 17:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My sympathies are with ] on this, in that the IP is unilaterally edit warring to remove articles from categories, then deleting all the info on the category page with the edit summary ''Suggest merging of category into xxxx due to lack of articles''. In the case that drew this to my attention the category seemed valid and potentially useful, but without checking all the IP's article edits appears to have only had one article: I'm not an enthusiast or expert on categories, but guess someone who is should be deciding what to do about the IP's edits. Alternatively, we just let the IP decide, in a rather disruptive way. . . ], ] 00:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Awright, awright alredy. I's goin' threw de IP's edits and changen the changes in categor...thingy. I wan' a ginentonic wen I get back. ] (]) 02:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Any so-called "commentary" has been removed, ie "complicity" and now just facts related to the subject and topic remain, yet here we are. Cheers ] (]) 20:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Silverije == | |||
| :I will note, per the International Criminal Court, any material support for War Crimes, like funding or vetos allowing war crimes to continue in the UN Security Council, are themselves War Crimes https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf Cheers ] (]) 21:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unless you can find a RS to back that up, that would be OR. ]] 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I just reverted TLoM's most recent , {{tq|has vetoed 5 ceasefire agreements.}} when the source says {{tq|vetoed five resolutions, including three calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, one Russian oral amendment, and a proposal for full Palestinian membership in the U.N.}} The '''three''' ceasefire vetoes are already documented in the article. Elevating this to a separate section and misrepresenting the source violate ]. I question whether TLoM should be editing BLPs. ] ] 21:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I find this editors removal of information vs an easy correction of the word "agreement" to "resolution" troubling at best and biased at worst. This section is ripe for expansion as more scholarly works will be forthcoming. It seems the editor would rather delete this information rather than correct and provide more information. Cheers ] (]) 21:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::If {{tqq|more scholarly works will be forthcoming}}, then ] when ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@], they ] by @] on the 17/02/2024. Should this perhaps be best addressed at ]? '']''<sup>]</sup> 21:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No need. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring on three pages in violation of ]. If it continues after the block, please simply let me know on my talk page (or re-report here and feel free to notify me). ] (]) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Will do. – ] (]) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given the thread below I think we should discuss a topic-ban here and now, rather than going thru AE. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 21:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}} Perhaps. I was going to initially bring this to 3RRNB but decided to bring it here. – ] (]) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Removal of legitimately sourced information concerning ongoing Genocide in Gaza === | |||
| {{User|Silverije}} continually vandalises the articles about Hungarian kings. He vandalised first the article of , then , , and . He wrote everywhere "King of Hungary and Croatia", although there are sources everyehere which prove that they were only Kings of Hungary. Silverije doesn't care about it, and once he simply deleted the source which proved that he faslified the article. Anyway Silverije is not the only Croatian editor, who always vandalises these articles with a nationalistic Croatian POV. ] (]) 15:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Retaliatory. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I have notified {{User|Silverije}} about this discussion. ]] 16:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Bbb23}} has removed legitimately sourced information regarding the subject's involvement with the ]. Cheers ] (]) 21:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wouldn't call it ], but it is typical Balkan nationalist POV pushing/disruption, however the editor is now discussing on at least one talk page. Informed of Balkan warning. ] <small>(])</small> 16:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :What subject? ] (]) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I seem to remember this Hungarian-Croatian kingdom stuff used to be a playground of some sockishness a while ago. Haven't looked into it yet, but it might be worth taking a bit of a look at the backgrounds of the present parties. ] ] 16:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::@], see the directly above discussion. '']''<sup>]</sup> 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Tendentious editor == | |||
| :::: These guys come up every few weeks or so and rotate on the same edit warring. -- ] (]) 06:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Single purpose account {{Userlinks|NicolasTn}} is reverting again . They want to expand the lead which is disputed. They have been warned not to edit war. They claim to "restore deletion" most of which introduced by them to the lead, but in the process removing other sourced information and adding back errors. They know where to discuss edits but avoid doing so as much as they can, so I don't think enough discussion exists to initiate dispute resolution. . ] (]) 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Again AlasdairGreen27 == | |||
| :It looks like this article page history has been an edit war between the two of you. You both responded at ], why not try to continue that discussion or, eventually, try ]? Neither of you have had made much use of the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll just note that this editor, who has only made 51 edits, hasn't edited in 3 days so they may not respond here immediately. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::They would probably respond only after being reverted again by me or the other editor. Since their one and only response, they've left the discussion hanging again while actively editing the article. ] (]) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Adillia == | |||
| First of all I am not ] neither my logged nicknames or IPs but in every case action of ] in article ] is vandalism because version before suspected socks but removing valid contribution of PIO who was banned by an Italian admin after these edits but for other reasons not pertinent this article regarding some Italian famous sports. I can develop this article because I have books and sources but I request your action against vandalism of AlasdairGreen27 who is notorious in Italwiki for his battle in meatpuppetry with ] against all Italian and Serb editors in several articles of European history and this point I will report to you in future. Actions of admins ] and ] against my logged nicknames are nonsense. If you want, I can develop a lot of articles but I request unblock at least of account ]. Last personal attack: <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:35, 12 December 2009</span><!-- Template:Unsigned2 --> | |||
| :While I can't speak to the other issues, the supposed last personal attack was made by an account created for the sole purpose of impersonating {{user|AlasdairGreen27}}. I've blocked {{user|72neerGriadsalA}} and deleted the user/talk pages that were created to mimic AlasdairGreen27's. Unless a ] is done to determine they are the same person, I see no reason to take any action against AlasdairGreen27. --] ] 18:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm, this seems familiar. 'Bout a month ago an editor showed up on Misplaced Pages with his name a complete reversal of ]'s name, trying to get Mick in trouble. Any connections? ] (]) 19:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|Aidillia}} | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages ''might'' have a mirror-bandit on the loose. ] (]) 19:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :To IP 151.95.xxx.xxx: If possible, would you stay with one IP account? ] (]) 19:10, 12 December 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 ]. | |||
| == Blocked after admitting to get records changed == | |||
| Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. ] ] 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * {{user|Mistro12}} | |||
| * {{user|Supercopone}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| * Supercopone removed information from ], stating it was not cited (example: . This removes also the information "The DETC noted the school was founded in 1991 ...". | |||
| ::] you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * The information was checked 6 months ago, and available at the reference given, but the reference is now a dead link -> http://www.detc.org/downloads/Fall%202008%20News.pdf. | |||
| :::] 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 am sure the information is correct as I was involved 6 months ago. Strangely now two editors who 'seem' independent pop up. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| * I confronted Mistro12 with this information, and he states . Apparently there was access to the document, and they know it is still wrong, though they don't have the document? | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| * After the block, Mistro12 pointed me to . strangely, the document does not contain the information which was there half a year ago. However, it still contains 'The DETC noted the school was founded in 1991', but on a different page. | |||
| :::::] 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 === | |||
| Seen that the article has been suffering of promotional edits for a long time, I have blocked both editors, but I'd like to hear a second opinion on this. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 19:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Withdrawn. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :See also: ]. | |||
| :Note1: Supercopone is requesting unblock. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 20:01, 12 December 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) | |||
| ::Supercopone is a "sleeper" account that was created in February, a month before Mistro12 began his activities, but did not actually start editing until December 5, a week before Mistro12 popped up again after a 7-month hiatus. It's worth pointing out that Beetstra actually unblocked Mistro12 last spring after another admin had blocked him. Those two users appear to be either socks or agents of the guy who runs the school, and is/are desparate to suppress any connection with its predecessor school. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :{{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}} | |||
| == User:Azar Altman and User:Farruh Samadov == | |||
| :Note2: The fact of the namechange to University of Atlanta as was in the DETC document is corroborated by several blogs and forums on internet (but they are not a reliable source for this information). This looks like a situation where someone is very busy 'cleaning' the past of something they don't like. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 20:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result=All of the named parties have been indefinitely blocked with checkuser blocks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Azar Altman}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Farruh Samadov}} | |||
| {{user|Azar Altman}} was ] for uncivil conduct and MOS violations. Shortley after their initial 72-hour block on December 27, a new user named {{user|Farruh Samadov}} appeared. One of their edits at ] is , the capital of Uzbekistan, in violation of ]. They did this three more times (, , ). And then Azar Altman reverted again twice (, ), leading me to suspect that Farruh Samadov is a ]. Both users edit in the Uzbekistan topic area and both user talk pages have warnings for MoS violations, but Samadov has never used uncivil language, as Altman did on their user talk and in their second edit I linked. –] (]]) 04:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I opened a a couple hours ago. It is indeed highly suspicious that Farruh Samadov was created only a few hours after this block was imposed. ] (]) 04:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I should expand on this, indeed. Mistro12 has, via email, confirmed he is not part of the school ''itself'', though has been working with them. His identity has been established as not being the other editors in the sock investigation, and I unblocked on that. However, it appears to be meatpuppetry in stead of sockpuppetry now, which is more a rationale for my re-block of the account. Also note that Supercopone did not edit all day, but appeared soon after I blocked him. Coincidence? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Pinging @] who was involved in the prior ANI and performed the block. ] ] 04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe the DETC should be notified, to find out how that guy was able to persuade them to change the information. You might also want to capture a "before" on it and post it somewhere here so that it can be verified before he calls them on Monday. | |||
| :::Suggest these accounts to be blocked as soon as possible if sockpupperty is confirmed. ] (]) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I recall from last spring, Amithani and his puppets basically wanted the article to either be the way he wanted, or to be deleted. He lost that argument, and is apparently now engaged in subterfuge of some kind, as you noted. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], yes, that's how that goes. ] (]) 13:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here's some discussion from last May. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Regardless of SOCK, suggest that Azar receive another block of at least a week for continued disruption shortly after the block was lifted. They were reverted twice (as noted above) for the same edit by two different editors (Laundry and Melik). Their most recent edit summary was {{tq|Stop discriminating by violating Misplaced Pages rules.}} when MOS was specifically mentioned in the prior edit summary and they are abundantly notified about edit warring and not reverting-reverts. ] ] 05:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Sockpuppetry in Philippine articles == | |||
| ::I suggest that you, and others do what I did with the DETC document (now available ): save it to your harddrive. Its nice to see how sources change contents, and I think it is nicer to see that the reliable source is differing from what has been posted on several forums and blogs around the internet (, , ). --] <sup>] ]</sup> 20:38, 12 December 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) | |||
| :::An SPI is called for here, at the very least. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:08, 13 December 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) | |||
| == VZ Holding == | |||
| ::::Having followed the ] situation for some time, I concur with Beetstra's diagnosis of meatpuppetry involving Mistro12 and Supercopone. I don't think these are the same person, but they are both ] accounts and they are definitely working together. | |||
| {{atop|1=OP has been pointed to ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::::As for ], the University of Atlanta saga (wherein the DETC accredited this school at a time when the only other known evidence of the UofA's existence was the UofA website -- and posts on some online forums) and a few other recent accreditations had already raised red flags about its integrity and credibility as an accreditation organization (notwithstanding its recognition by CHEA and the US Department of Education). However, the evidence that DETC changed the text of its fall 2008 newsletter (after the fact) at the request of UofA leads me to think that I should be contacting ], the US Department of Education, and my Congressmen about DETC. For Misplaced Pages, I have doubts about whether DETC should be treated as a ]. --] (]) 03:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{articlelinks|VZ Holding}} | |||
| *Note that ] is requesting unblock. ] <small> ]]'''</small> 11:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Also ], but via a not-enabled unblock template. I will recuse from the unblock decision and not take any further administrative decisions regarding the editors who are involved in U of A, though I still have many questions, and am still looking for more data on the U of A / Barrington. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 11:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| VZ Vermögenszentrum - this user named after their ] is heavily editing their bank wikipedia page. should be banned or warned at least. --] (]) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Block requested for Cathar11 - Persistently pushes personal views in an article == | |||
| :It is nearly six months since they made an edit. ] (]) 12:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::yes, you are right. If I see something similar in the future, where should I drop a notice? ] (]) 14:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Usernames for administrator attention (WP:UAA, I think), would be the first place to go, followed by WP:COIN, then depending on user response either to the renaming page or to AIV. ] (]) 14:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I will jot it down. many thanks ] (]) 14:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{user|Cathar11}} adds personal analysis based on sources which '''do not mention the topic at all'''. He picks some off-topic sources about Honduras and attempts to link them to the crisis in Honduras. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == SeanM1997 == | |||
| # I note that ''none of his sources talks about the crisis''. | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub>}} | |||
| # Cathar11 reinserts his personal analysis in the article. | |||
| *{{User|SeanM1997}} | |||
| # I try to and wait ''several days''. No response from him. | |||
| # Cathar11 . | |||
| # I kindly notify that he should participate in the talk page and remind him of ''no synthesis'' policy (now deleted by him). | |||
| # Cathar11 ''still without any participation in the discussion''. | |||
| User seems to think that sourcing is only clutter and keeps removing source requests and sometimes even sources. This despite ] and ]. Warnings and request completely fall on deaf ears. This is damaging the encyclopedia. See for example on Manchester Airport which show (in the edit summery) that he has no clue about what independent sources are. And where he removed sources for the connections with some unsourced additions and a source for the airline. | |||
| The user has '''persisently added his personal analysis''', violating ]. He also adds links to sites such as "", "" and "" (). | |||
| Combined with ], giving him a ], I think something has to be done. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 12:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Could some admin look at the Cathar11 case? Perhaps a short block would help. ] (]) 21:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Reading SeanM1997's talk page is a depressing saga. I have indefinitely blocked the editor for persistent addition of unsourced and poorly sourced content for years, despite being warned repeatedly. The editor can be unblocked if they promise to provide references to reliable sources 100% of the time. ] (]) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It should be noted that SeanM1997 has in the past posted a tweet to support something, then used a news story referencing his tweet as a source to insert into an article. Despite many years and many many conversations, they don't/won't understand the concept of independent reliable sources. ] ] 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Deegeejay333 and Eurabia == | |||
| :Also look at Cathar11's . ] (]) 21:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::] deleted en masse external links the links he quoted must be part of them. He also deleted links to BBC Photos etc.see dif | |||
| ::This is what he is calling WP:OR see which was discussed on the talk page and in the archive and in other places in the archive and is backed by another editor as relevant. This is a new editor/sockpuppet which has engaged in a whirlwind of edits (130 most since the 7/12/2009) since he started on 11/29/2009 including BLP attacks, raising me twice here etc. While trying to believe in his good faith it appears he has a severe POV problem and an agenda. See Alb28 on ANI instead of responding to this as a wiki lawyering attack and all from a "new" user] (]) 22:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Meh, I don't see anything wrong with removing many of those external links. '''] (] * ])''' 22:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Except for verifiable ones. What kind of external links did Cathar11 remove? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I didnt delete external links I restored them] (]) 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please see the subsection below for a defense of Cathar11 and my thoughts on the situation... ] (]) 04:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Much of the activity of the infrequently active user {{userlinks|Deegeejay333}} appears to be attempts to whitewash anything to do with the ], attempting to present it as "fact", despite the fact that scholarly sources have consistently defined it as a conspiracy theory (see , ). I think this makes them ]. ] (]) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===A measured defense of Cathar11 and my thoughts on the situation=== | |||
| : Notifed their talkpage . Despite their long periods of inactivity, their most recent activity is today . ] (]) 17:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The rest of their edits on unrelated topics seem unobjectionable. I think page blocks would get the job done in preventing further disruption (I can't get around to doing that right now, but that's my two cents). ] (]/]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really? You see nothing wrong with {{diff|Nathan Phillips (activist)|prev|879336081|these}} {{diff|Enhanced interrogation techniques|prev|871177370|edits}}? --] 17:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah. It does kind of look like this editor is ] except to do battle with the terrible forces of Misplaced Pages leftism. ] (]) 17:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I did a quick look; I didn't look at all of their edits. I agree that edit is also problematic. ] (]/]) 17:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::White-washing ] was also the very first edit they made at Misplaced Pages as well as their most recent. This is an ongoing issue. ] (]) 18:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Wigglebuy579579 == | |||
| Look, I have had my differences of opinion with Cathar11 in the past (, for full disclosure). Goodness knows that the Honduras coup related articles generate a considerable load of controversy and diverse POVs. However, I can testify to the basic fairness and fidelity of Cathar11 to the principles of Misplaced Pages. As to the specific accusations against Cathar11 by Alb28, let me address them in a point by point basis: | |||
| *{{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) | |||
| :*] 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) | |||
| == User:BittersweetParadox - Overlinking == | |||
| * I note that ''none of his sources talks about the crisis''. | |||
| ::A very general accusation which is patently untrue. I can choose one of several edits whose sources are intimately tied to the situation in Honduras, such as recent one adding content regarding a meeting between Lobo and Zelaya. | |||
| * Cathar11 reinserts his personal analysis in the article. | |||
| ::OK, look if you are going to level an accusation, you ought to be a tad more specific than that, and provide a diff that shows a clear example of what you are talking about. | |||
| * I try to and wait ''several days''. No response from him. | |||
| ::Barely two days have passed, not all comments receive an immediate reply (we do have lives in between editing WP), and <u>edit summaries are also considered part of the discussion</u> per ]. Meanwhile, other editors such as I have engaged in reply to those comments as can be seen on the ] page. | |||
| * Cathar11 . | |||
| ::Well, as I have in talk to this editor, this content is the result of continued discussion from the talk page. For this reason it has been restored by Cathar11, as they indicated in summary. I helpfully explained to the editor (in the above diff) that as a new editor to a set of articles, he/ would do well to reopen discussion on consensus content, rather than threaten older editors. | |||
| * I kindly notify that he should participate in the talk page and remind him of ''no synthesis'' policy (now deleted by him). | |||
| ::Users have control over the content of their talk pages, and again, the discussion is not between just him and Cathar11, but the community. Whether or not the edits constitute synthesis or indiscriminate information is a consensus, not unilateral, decision. | |||
| * Cathar11 ''still without any participation in the discussion''. | |||
| ::As I have indicated above, other editors and Cathar11 have participated in the discussion, both through edit summaries and regular contributions to the talk page. I would note that Cathar11 placed a comment regarding this content on the talk page on '''December 8th''' with edit, <u>2 days before Alb28's above referenced thread</u>--a comment, which as one can note from the ], <u>Alb28 never responded to</u>. So I find this continued harping on Cathar11 for not responding to ''Alb28's'' edit and supposed "no participation in the discussion" a tad hypocritical and in poor form. | |||
| Now Alb28, despite being a new user, is hardly a new editor, as is reasonable to assume based on his , a massive, multi-paragraph POV edit to a controversial BLP: ]. His edits have raised the concern of multiple editors (see ] and ]), and though we all are admonished to ] (a ''behavioral guideline''), we also have an obligation to make sure that articles, especially BLPs, are ] (''WP policy'', an overriding concern). Numerous edits by this user have employed opinion pieces, blogs, and self-published sources to support controversial edits to BLPs, such as which utilizes the blog/ezine HondurasThisWeek.com to talk about Zelaya's nephew Chimirri (see About page for information on lack of ]) or have been completely unsourced or failed verification, such as that same edit which added information on "Los Horcones massacre" by Zelaya's father, which relies on one completely unclear source (Robert Gregory Williams) and one source that does not mention the event at all (www.cidob.org). | |||
| *{{userlinks|BittersweetParadox}} | |||
| Add to that edits like edit (reverted by Cathar11), which is a wholesale deletion of external links, some of which are valuable image, video, and analysis links--all acceptable under ]. In any event, their acceptability is a consensus issue, and I would note that he has been reverted besides Cathar11 on this issue. | |||
| This user is persistently ]ing throughout most of their edits that aren't dealing with categories or redirects, see for example: | |||
| '''Alb28's suggestion of block of Cathar11, for what is essentially a content dispute, would be completely inappropriate.''' I would urge everyone to work together in the spirit of consensus, and try to find common ground on edits while still upholding the policies of WP regarding verifiability and Biographies of Living Persons. ] (]) 04:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * (unexplained citation removal as well) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| I have also ] regarding this, but they have seemingly chosen to ignore that warning, as they are still continuing with the same behavior: | |||
| == {{IPuser|78.148.83.28}} == | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| This is also not the first time the issue has been brought up to the user, as they were previously warned in ], where even after claiming to understand the issue/say they won't do it again, . With their ignoring of warnings regarding overlinking, it unfortunately appears that an ANI discussion may be the only way to solve this ongoing issue, apart from a block. ] (]) 17:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This user has edited several articles changing "valley" to "glen" , , , etc. In fact, this is the extent (with a few wikilinks dropped) of their contributions. I have attempted to contact the user but have received no response. Is reverting in this instance a content dispute? I'm in the market for some advice. Thanks ]] 00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :My read is that all glens are valleys, but not all valleys are glens, but in any event the word "valley" is in more ubiquitous use and is unambiguous. ] (]) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The IP is correct in its usage of glen in every instance. The translation is not 'lost valley' it is 'hidden glen', for example. In Scotland, glen is the correct word for this type of valley. Articles about Scotland should I think by preference use what few characteristic words of Scots English exist. --] (]) 01:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::In at least two of the articles the IP is referring to the well known "lost valley" which is not known as the "lost glen" but is sometimes referred to as the "hidden valley". Perhaps the IP doesn't like the common name of that specific place, but that's what Coire Gabhail is usually called by Scottish walkers and climbers. Not as simple as the IP seems to think. . ], ] 02:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: You'll notice that the words 'glen' and 'valley' are used interchangeably on the scottish sites.] (]) 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Showing that Scottish sources arenae very bothered about strictly using one term or the other, but you'll also note that the name used for Coire Gabhail is consistently the Lost Valley, and "Lost Glen" doesn't appear. Doubtless there will be some exception, but having climbed it and been in Coe earlier this year, that's what it's consistently called. Misplaced Pages reflects the usage of sources, and doesn't try to change what people call something to what some editors think it should be called. Other glens or valleys may vary. . . ], ] 02:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC) added 08:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My advice is to treat each edit on its merits, but the safe presumption is that the IP has been blindly making unnecessary and sometimes incorrect changes, so reversion when in doubt is reasonable. . . ], ] 08:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Repeated pov pushing == | |||
| == (Moved here) ] == | |||
| {{atop|This is a content dispute and ANI is not the venue to resolve those. {{U|Hellenic Rebel}}, you've had multiple editors tell you that you are not correct. Please take the time to understand why. ] ] 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] , despite the disagreements, continues to try to impose his personal opinion, for which he cannot cite any source that justifies him. Clearly original research. | |||
| {{resolved|frivolous complaint. ] <small>(])</small> 01:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| === Reporting Abusive Administrator === | |||
| :''This "complaint" was erroneously posted on: ]. I have moved here here for appropriateness.'' ] 00:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The ] ] is making deletions of content she does not feel are socially important. That is not her job. Apparently if she has never heard of something she feels free to delete its page. This is inappropriate behavior and she needs to be censured and informed that it is not her place to decide if another country's culture is important enough to include. Her powers need to be curtailed before she completely deletes the entire wiki simply because she's in a bad mood and/or has never heard of a thing. At the very least her deletions need to be reviewed by a multicultural board before being allowed to go through as she is clearly out of control. In fact I would suggest suspending her privileges for at least three months to give her time to think about her abusive, bigoted behavior. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I suggest you <s>either post some ] or</s> retract the accusation. ] <small>(])</small> 01:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looking over things, the IP apparently thinks Gwen ]. The fact that we never had an article on the podcast (at least spelled the way the IP has written) and that Gwen hasn't deleted an article since early November make me think our anonymous friend ''might'' be a little confused. ] 01:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, but it's all Gwen's fault! ] <small>(])</small> 01:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == I don't know what to do == | |||
| What should I do in case of ? ] 01:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :His message may have been a bit abrupt but I think one can forgive ] for being slightly annoyed. Although not exactly a prodigious contributor he has been here for over three years at least and to see a templated message talking of something which he thought was helpful to people wishing to cite sources more accurately in encyclopaedia articles as if it were a random editing test, would have been vexing to him. It might have been better, bearing in mind ], to have explained in more detail why you thought ] wasn't helpful to the encyclopaedia. ] (]) 01:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Out of fairness to Btilm, have you looked at what was tagged with CSD? It consists of nothing more than a single URL; not exactly what I expected to find in something labelled "Template:Cite list". Maybe the template note did not make the impression Btilm wanted to leave -- I would have left a note to the effect of "This template makes no sense, & for that reason I have nominated it for CSD" -- but anyone, no matter what their experience level (or membership status in the TINC seket cabal), who created a template like that would provoke at least one "WTF???" -- ] (]) 03:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| See also, talk with ] ] (]) 19:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Or he could have tried "Can I help you with this?" Oh, I forgot, admins don't do helping. ] (]) 03:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::AGF much? ] <small>(])</small> 04:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As much as I can bring mself to in the face of experience. ] (]) 04:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Replying since I've been tagged. I do think this is a behavioural issue rather than a content one. User has been repeatedly warned on their talk page by several users about edits to the article in question but has belligerently refused to engage in constructive discussion about said edits. | |||
| :::: Duncan, no one mentioned anything concerning admins here. Your comment simply makes no sense -- unless it is simply to find an opportunity to kvetch about your obsession. -- ] (]) 08:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :User was clearly warned about continuing this in the closure message of the last ANI discussion not to resume the edits but the response on the article's talk page was notably dismissive of said warning. | |||
| :Quite honestly I think this is a case of ]. The user in question has just plead that they have special knowledge we don't and has steadfastly refused to demonstrate in reliable sources the contents of their edits. Despite being informed of how consensus works they have resorted to counting votes and even in that case just dismissing the views of those against him for contrived reasons. ] (]) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: My friends, anonymous user and @], and also dear user and adminis that are going to see the previous POVs. The article had a specific version, which you decided to dispute by causing a correction war, that could easily be seen at the . The administrator in order to reach to a consensus, which obviously couldn't happen, and there was no corresponding participation. Four users in all, the two of us presented our arguments in favor of the original version, Rambling Rambler (and somewhat monotonously and without proper documentation, the anonymous user) presented yours for the version without seats. At the end, you threw in an ad-hominem against me, to top it off. You made a call, no one else did anything, time passed. What makes you believe that the article will remain in your version, while the original was the previous one and there was no consensus?<br/>P.S.: Rambling Rambler, please stop bombing links to wikipedia policies and then trying to interpret them and "fit" them to the issue. This practice resembles clickbait, you are simply trying to show that you are knowledgeable about politics and appear superior, and this is annoying. ] (]) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] an admin locked the page, and then anybody respond even if we make pings. That means that they just locked the page because there was an edit war, and and no one dealt with the article. The discussion ended weeks ago and also you've made a public call. If somebody wanted, they would have closed the discussion. So I don't think it's a case of IDHT, because the time intervals in which someone could engage (either to participate in the discussion, or an administrator to close it) had exceeded the normal. ] (]) 19:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not going to reopen the content aspect of this here. I have made you aware, '''repeatedly''', of our polices when it comes to including claims. You need to provide reliable sources and the burden is on those wanting to include challenged statements to meet consensus to include them. You have now just admitted there is no consensus yet you felt entitled to reintroduce challenged material. | |||
| ::::This is precisely a "I don't have to" issue. ] (]) 19:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also tagging @] as they probably have a view on this given their previous action. ] (]) 19:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] I will prove you that you actually interpret policies as you see fit, and you don't pay attention to what they say. ]:<br/> Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long '''after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive'''. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise. '''The community's rejection of your idea is not because they didn't hear you'''. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the others are telling you. Make an effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with".<br/>You can see the bold parts. It's obvious from those, that this policy does not refer to cases where four user with two different opinions participated. It refers to cases where one or a minority of users refuses to accept the community's decision because they believe their opinion is superior. In our discussion, my version never rejected from the community, it was rejected only by you and the anonymous user. In this case, either you believe that the majority or the community in general is you and the anonymous user, or you are simply trying to propagate your position. ] (]) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You were linked ] during the discussion and clearly acknowledged it. | |||
| :::::: So you are aware of it, which bluntly states: | |||
| ::::::''The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.'' | |||
| ::::::In your previous reply you have admitted that there isn't consensus. | |||
| ::::::You have broken policy and are just once again stubbornly refusing to adhere to it. ] (]) 20:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] There was a long time period in which we did not have any edit in the discussion. The original version was the one with the seats. The admins at that cases, lock the article at a random version (otherwise there should have been a clarification from the admin). So the lack of consensus concerns your own version, not the original one, to which I restored the article. Finally, I need to point out that you have made a series of problematic contributions, such as misguiding users by referring them to Misplaced Pages policies that are not related to the subject as I demonstrated exactly above, but also the ad-hominem against me which you proceeded together with the anonymous user in the article discussion. ] (]) 20:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This wall of text is the exact problem at hand here. You won't follow our site's policies but instead are just making up your own as to why breaking policy is now fine. The "discussion" was barely dormant and as you admit there was no consensus on including the material you demand be included. Ergo, per policy it can't be included. | |||
| ::::::::Frankly you are incapable of editing in a collaborative manner. I think the fact that you've been blocked repeatedly both here and at our Greek equivalent for disruptive behaviour and edit-warring demonstrates this very well. ] (]) 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::@] The problem here is that you don't understand the policy. The one who needs consensus to make edits, is the one that wants to make a change at the page. In our case, maybe the random version in which the page was locked was your version, but that does not change the fact that you were the one who wanted to make a change. You need consensus, you did not achieved it. Also, that is '''ad-hominem''' again, and now you checked and my greek WP blocks? ] (]) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It is not ad hominem to bring up your history of blocks for edit warring and disruption when the topic of discussion is your conduct. | |||
| ::::::::::The policy, which I quoted for your benefit, '''literally''' says the onus is on the person who wants to '''include''' the disputed content '''which is you'''. You want this claim to be on the article and myself and others have disputed it. ] (]) 21:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::@] there is not such as disputed content. The party has 5 members affiliated with it, and there is source about it. Your edits where those which need consnensus, because you are the one which want to change the original. ] (]) 21:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::The fact myself and others have said it's not supported and therefore shouldn't be there is literally a dispute... ] (]) 21:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::@] yes it is a dispute, but if there is not a consensus that your dispute is valid, the version that remains is the original one, that is also supported by source. ] (]) 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There has never been a specific version of the article. A few hours after adding the uncited 5 MPs, the edit was undone. It is also worth noting that the original contributor of the addition about mps, Quinnnnnby never engaged in an edit war or challenged our disagreements, as you did. ] (]) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I did, but you also did. So the only user to act properly at that case was @]. And guess with what opinion Quinnnnby agreed at the discussion... ] (]) 20:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Hellenic Rebel}}, Rambling Rambler is actually right: if you wish to include text which has been disputed, you '''must''' include sourcing. You cannot just attempt to force the content in, regardless of what consensus you believe has been achieved. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 21:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@] this is exactly why I am saying that the users propagandize: there was a source used! ] (]) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Then it's time to discuss that source on the Talk page ''instead'' of just ramming into the article. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@] there was a discussion on the page. The source states that 5 MPs of the Hellenic Parliament are in the new party. And the users, after their first argument that it should have a parliamentary group was shot down (as it was obvious that this policy is not followed in any party), they moved on to a logic that the source should say verbatim "5 MPs '''stand'''" for the party... ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@] I have lost hours of my life to "discussing" this at this point. They're entirely either refusing or simply incapable of understanding that because they have sources for Claim A that doesn't mean they can put a similar but still different Claim B on the article. They however insist they can because unlike us they're "Hellenic" and therefore know that Claim A = Claim B while refusing to accept this is ]. ] (]) 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Automatic editing, abusive behaviour, and disruptive(ish) wikihounding from ] == | |||
| == Abuse of multiple accounts? == | |||
| {{Resolved|Checkuser confirms they are all socks of ]. Looks like NuclearWarfare got 'em. --] (]) 10:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] appears to be making lightning speed edits that are well beyond the capacity of any human to review, in addition to article content that's coming across potentially LLM-like in nature. Since December they've made over 11,000 edits, many across multiple articles within a sixty second window. | |||
| {{User|Waltermelon}} is most certainly the same user as {{User|Meatwood}}, {{User|Meatwod}}, {{User|Afstuv}} and I think one more I don't remember. The editor has the habit of making a series of iffy edits (e.g. sloppy articles for non-notable episodes and characters), having those pieces turned into redirects, and then creating a new account to undo the redirects and then create more iffy content. Requests from multiple editors across his several talk pages asking him to abide by ] and ] go unheeded. He hasn't, as far as I can tell, vote-stacked or anything -- but, this looks to me a violation of the spirit of editing under multiple accounts. Second pair of eyes, anyone? --] (]) 01:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :] The activities you describe are prima facie blockable. Yell if you need a hand with the template. --] (]) 01:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I attempted to ask about the policies around this at ] and was met with a tirade of obscenities and abuse (which I want to give them a slight benefit of the doubt on, I'd be upset at being accused of being a bot if I wasn't): | |||
| ::*forehead smack* Oh, yeah. Thanks. --] (]) 03:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == 66.177.73.86 question == | |||
| As far as I can tell this peaked with a total of 89 edits in a four minute window between 08:27 to 08:31 on December 28, 2024. Most are innocuous, but there are content edits thrown in the mix and recent articles were written in a way that indicates it may be an LLM ( not definitive, though if you are familiar with LLM output this may ring some alarm bells, but false alarms abound). | |||
| {{Userlinks|66.177.73.86}} is currently blocked, the 4th time in the last month. A user added the IP information and repeat-vandal templates. The IP deleted them. I added them back, but I have some doubts: Who's in the right? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Is it just me or are these IPs who edit war to remove the SharedIP template from their talk page suddenly popping up left and right? Does anyone know of any organized online privacy campaigns or anything like that? ] (]) 05:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Solution to the problem. If it ''is'' a shared ID, grab a post-it note and write this down: "In two days, restore the repeatvandal and whois tag to 66.177.73.86" If its shared, the person who removed it won't be using this IP ever again. If it is static or semi-static, then you'll get the same behavior. Either way, this isn't a pressing issue RIGHT NOW. The best way to deal with this, if its important, is to let them win ''for now'', and then just take care of it when it won't generate a silly edit war. --]''''']''''' 05:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::FYI, it is ''not shared''. The ] is '''c-66-177-73-86.hsd1.fl.comcast.net'''. By the naming convention used by ], the "c" indicates ], e.g., their cable modem. It may or may not be static, but, the policy issues are (a) the "shared" IP templates should not be used, (b) one could use ], (c) per ], while shared IP templates are on the list of things that IP editors should ''not'' remove from their talk pages, non-shared IP templates (like whois) are not so listed, so can be removed. | |||
| :::*P.S. I did explain the non-shared nature of such host names to the editor who erroneously added this shared template here and to other non-shared IPs, but I did not succeed in convincing that editor. --] (]) 06:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Following the quite hot thread at ]'s page, it's quite clear that whoever is operating that bot threw my entire edit history into the mix, because the bot systematically edited ''every single article'' that I had edited, ''in reverse order'' (over 100 so far since this came up about an couple of hours ago), going back a reasonable amount of time. | |||
| == Roman Polanski article again. Editor refuses to stop inserting information to whitewash case == | |||
| :''moved from ] ] <span style="font:normal .9em Verdana">] 06:41, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)</span> '' | |||
| The problem is that it's clear that a bot was instructed to just make an edit, without concern for what those edits are, so you end up with , , or at a rate far faster than any editor could address. | |||
| This yet again. This was brought up before . You have an editor, Proofreader77, who argues nonstop, filling up a talk page, bringing up the same things constantly, and refusing to follow consensus. See the talk page here for him once again trying to edit the article to mention how old other people said they thought the victim looked. As I and others have pointed out a month ago, and several times already, Roman Polanski already said he understood she was 13, this in the Wanted and Desired documentary even, there no doubt whatsoever about this. To mention that she looked older has no place in the article, and continuously trying to re-add it for months now, and filling up one talk page after another arguing about it, is nothing less than an attempt to try to make his crime seem less severe. Can someone please block this disruptive editor from the article? Please look through the archives, he filling up one page after another with the same arguments time and again. ]''' 17:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : ] is the proper forum for incidents like this (asking for a block). On the other hand, Proofreader77 is pushing for in the last link of his first post in ]. The contentious sentence "On March 11, 1977, Polanski was arrested for the sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old (two weeks prior to her fourteenth birthday and described by the the police investigator as "looking between 16 and 18") Samantha Geimer, that occurred the day before at the Hollywood home of actor Jack Nicholson." seems blatant POV pushing to me, because neither of the documents the quoted statement (of the investigator, i.e. "looking between 16 and 18"). It's reasonable to propose a topic ban of Proofreader77 from that article and the ] given his long term disruption that violates ]<s>, and has a tint of pro-pedophilia advocacy.</s> ] ] 06:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd be very, very careful about saying an editor is "pro-pedophilia". That's a pretty serious charge. It is quite possible to be a Polanski supporter and not be pro-pedophile. In any case, pedophilia is the wrong word here. The actual term is ] or possibly ], as ] refers to a sexual attraction to pre-pubescents, despite its more common denotations. ] (]) 10:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Okay, struck that. I'm not an expert on deviant sexual behavior. ] ] 10:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Don't worry, I am... err, ah... not, either. ] (]) 10:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This one is easily one of the strangest situations I've ever encountered on Misplaced Pages. ] 20:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ;Above is misleading allegations/aspersions including falsehood (slander) | |||
| ;(] - which will be addressed at Arbcom or AN ) | |||
| (Let's see how the election turns out. lol :-) | |||
| :I'm flattered that you've looked into my activity on Misplaced Pages so closely. But if you'd be arsed, you'd understand that it is very simple to do an insource search using a regular expression to find a lot of stylistic errors, like no space after a sentence. If you love being on my back so much, good on you, but I'd wish if you got off. ] (]) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Links and diffs regarding current aspersions: | |||
| ::1) That doesn't explain how consistently abusive you have been | |||
| * Single edit added: | |||
| ::2) While I'm aware that an overwhelming percentage of the errors you're editing out are ones that can simply be addressed by regex, I'm very clearly raising the content edits as opposed to formatting ones. ] 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * My next edit reverts | |||
| :How about we take this off of ANI, of all places? ] (]) 21:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Archived talk re secondary sources ] | |||
| ::No, this feels quite appropriate considering your abusiveness and that your retaliation involved damaging some articles. I said there I was asking a policy question and was happy to let it go, you've edited over 100 articles from my edit history in direct sequence in response to that question, which is just strange behaviour for an editor. ] 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Ref for "between16 and 18" | |||
| :::Obviously, if there's someone who's making bad decisions on Misplaced Pages (You), I want to check if he has messed up articles. Please tell me what articles you think I have damaged. ] (]) 21:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ;(Show us the diffs of where I "refuse to stop adding" what I have never left in, Dream Focus) | |||
| :::Also, I'd appreciate if you would stop casting aspersions about me being an LLM. ] (]) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * ] was regarding article quality vs summary cramming (in context of NPOV contention) | |||
| ::::As I said then, and as I'll say again: If there's not an LLM involved in this situation, then I'm sincerely sorry. It was a combination of clearly assisted editing and the verbiage used that looked concerning. ] 21:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Strike slander immediately / wrap this slanderous topic up (Complex matter of contentious article and behaviors of specific participants to be addressed in due course with an accurate topic header in the appropriate venue) | |||
| :::::There was no assisted editing. Stop spreading that blatant falsehood. This is why I say to take this off of ANI. It is stuff that is made up in your head that has no basis in reality. ] (]) 21:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| -- ] (]) 08:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<s>Unless you're doing regex with your eyes, clearly you're using assistance. And the fact you're (still!) doing something that fixes the same type of typo almost as fast as I can click "Random Article" indicates you're doing more than just regex. You're finding these articles somehow.</s> <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 22:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I am doing an "insource" search using regex. ] (]) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I learned about insource searches recently and was able to find spam by the boatload immediately. It is a great tool. ] (]) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Ah . I wasn't aware one could do that. I retract. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 22:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And, I would appreciate if you would stop calling my edits strange and odd. ] (]) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You had over 100 edits in a row directily in chronological sequence, from newest to oldest, of my exact edit history excluding wikiprojects and talk pages. I'm allowed to find that a little strange. ] 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why shouldn't someone call strange and odd edits strange and odd? ] (]) 21:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I suggest you stop with the personal attacks before you get blocked. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe I'm a little less forgiving than Tarlby, so I would suggest that {{u|KMaster888}} should be blocked/banned already. Knowing how to write regular expressions doesn't give anyone the right to ignore policy about such issues as civility and hounding. ] (]) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have not ignored policy on either civility or hounding. The fact is, there are no automation tools that I have used, and this has been constructed as a theory entirely as a falsehood. It is annoying that one Misplaced Pages user constantly spouts falsehoods about me. ] (]) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll just ask you straight up.{{pb}}Do you feel any remorse for this statement? {{tq|remove asshole}} {{pb}}Could you explain why you felt it was best to choose those two words when blanking your talk page? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And again: {{tq|@The Corvette ZR1 @Tarlby stop clogging up ANI with your comments.}} ]<sup>]</sup> 22:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::, , , , , ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And this: and this: ] (]) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That was because Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. I would say the same to you as I said to the other editor: get off my back. ] (]) 21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You have to abide by the rules like the rest of us. And cool it with the hostile edit summaries. ]] 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are clearly ]. Attacking other editors instead of backing off, inappropriate edit summaries, what next? ]<sup>]</sup> 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There ought to be a gossip noticeboard that doesn't clog up ANI. ] (]) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I will dispute what you said. I AM HERE to build an encyclopedia. Why do you think I would have given 10,000 edits worth of my time if I didn't care? ] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I would say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, ] and ] tell me the contrary. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Regardless of their editing or otherwise, KMaster888's comments in edit summaries ''and here'' indicate they're ] in a way that indicates an inability to participate in a collaborative encyclopedia. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The product of Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which is a body of written and visual work. It is first and foremost about the product, not the community. In this sense, it is indeed a collaborative encyclopedia, but it should not be considered an encyclopedic collaboation. ] (]) 23:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: ] over what "collaboration" is doesn't help when you're in blatant violation of ] of the ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'm not Wikilawyering. I would also encourage you to come to a discussion on my talk page over small potatoes instead of at ANI. ] (]) 23:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: is wikilawyering. And this is at ANI, so the discussion is taking place at ANI. Answering the concerns about your conduct that were raised here on here is how you resolve the issue, not "don't talk about it on ANI", as the latter gives the impression of trying to sweep them under the rug - especially since your edit summaries MrOllie linked above make it clear this is very much not "small potatoes". - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's some more diffs of KMaster888 being uncivil. From my user talk page. . I think these are forgivable if in isolation since KMaster888 may be frustrated by false accusations of being a bot, but if it's a pattern, it may need addressing. | |||
| :The ] and ] of my user talk page and of this ANI is also a behavioral problem that, if a pattern, may also need addressing. It is disrespectful to interlocutor's time and brainpower to dominate discussions by replying to everything. –] <small>(])</small> 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unless there are specific discussion rules, I should not be penalized for responding to comments that involve me. ] (]) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The problem isn't you responding to those comments. It's about HOW you responded to those comments. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are, in fact, {{tqq|specific discussion rules}} - ] and ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Propose indefinite block=== | |||
| : The only that contains that quote is from LA Times of Sep 20, 1977, and was not cited in the wiki article version you appeared to endorse. Further, the actual quote is: ''One of the detectives in the case described the girl as "looking between 16 and 18 years old but acting as though she were 13 or 14 years old '' You've obviously {{tl|cherrypicked}} the part that didn't suit your purpose (acting as though she were 13 or 14 years). Further, including that quote from a 1977-source that was apparently never considered worthy of reproduction in any other report since then is ridiculously ], not to mention that it failed ] since you didn't cite the source. The fact that you first that statement, and then is a strange ] illustration, especially since you later seem to the version because you ''did not put counterbalanced in quotes in the actual text of your talk page message'', although you did put it in quotes in the edit summary. So no reasonable person reading the talk page could tell that you do not fully endorse that ridiculously POV version, unless one looked at the edit history of both the article and the talk page! Playing strange, duplicitous ]s isn't going to convince anyone of your good faith, so don't expect any apologies from me. ] ] 09:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked and TPA revoked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|KMaster888}} | |||
| They demonstrate a severe inability to interact in the collegiate manner this project requires. The edit summaries are not merely uncivil, but dismissive: ignoring colleagues is worse than just being rude to them. Their behaviour on Novem Linguae's talk pretty much sums it up.{{pb}}Whether they are actually a bot or running a scruipt doesn't really matter: WP:BOTLIKE is pretty cl;ear trhat "it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance". So 10,000 edits or not, the edits smack of being bot/script-generated, and may also be WP:STALKING.{{PB}}I also don't set any store by the excuse for "wiping ass with comments", "improve asinine comment" and "remove asshole" being that {{blue|Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly.}} WMF servers going down (or not) do not cause aggressive edit summaries, and we are not fools. The fact that the same attitude pervades through this discussion—"everyone, get off my back"—suggests that this is default behaviour rather than a one off. ]'']''] 23:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You're saying "they" like it's more than one person. I am one editor. ] (]) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not in that sense. We use they/them pronouns as to not assume an editor's gender. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above reasoning. ]] 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Looks like {{noping|Cullen328}} beat us to that indef. ]] 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per ] behavior. Their blank talkpage, on which they encourage discussion, has a nonexistent archive. ]] 23:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:That is not true. The archive page is at the subpage of the talk page, /archive. ] (]) 23:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support -''' While I wouldn’t have had the same suspicions about their editing as Warren, their extremely uncivil reactions to it and further questions here, along with the further attention they’ve drawn on to prior recent behaviour has effectively demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in meaningful interaction with any other editor who disagrees with them. ] (]) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Futher, reading ] makes it ridiculously obvious that you have been POV pushing for including the "looking 16 to 18" titbid in October, and you were also ] that he knew her to be 13. Your behavior there meets my definition of POV pushing: dismissive of the mainstream view, and giving equal ]ity to cherry-picked details. The fact that you switched to a ] stance after you couldn't get your POV through back in October, and continue to disrupt that article two months later is sufficient evidence for me that <s>you need to be topic banned from it.</s> if you're ]y enough people can take your illustrations for more serious disruption. (changed after reading answers to the two questions below) ] ] 13:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe revoke TPA too? This is beyond the pale. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wow… ] ] 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}I have indefinitely blocked KMaster888 for personal attacks and harassment, and disruptive behavior. ] (]) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :After their latest personal attack, I have revoked their talk page access. ] (]) 23:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. is beyond the pale. This is clearly a person that lets rage get the best of them, and is not responsive to feedback. Not sure if we should close this, or let it play out and turn into a CBAN. –] <small>(])</small> 00:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Good block''' and I'd have done same if you hadn't been here first. Regardless of whether the edits were improvements, no one has the right to treat other editors as KM888 did. ] ] 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Good block''' It'd take a hand-written miracle from God for them to change their ways anytime soon. | |||
| ===Questions for ]=== | |||
| :] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 03:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ;Short questions for the alleged outlaw ] (and his 100-word-max replies) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| To all who gather in this saloon today/tonight, grab a beer and listen up: As all Misplaced Pages cowfolk now, ANI is often wielded like a pair of sixguns in *content disputes* — and yep, that's jest what we got right here, friends. Bullshit, and even outright lies, often ride in with such improper topics. But if we must turn our Christmastime fellowship into a barfight, let's not continue ]. Now that I've presented my initial rebuttal, I will return to my "editing restriction" of 100 words per message. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to do the same. :-) <br> -- ] (]) 11:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Investigating the hounding claim=== | |||
| *'''Question #1''': Could you elaborate on what you meant by "counterbalancing illustration"? I'm a little confused about what you were trying to illustrate. Are you saying the current version of the summary needs more balancing? The reason I ask is that if you don't see a problem with the current summary, and don't actually plan to add the stuff in your "illustration", then there's really no problem here and Dream's concerns are just misunderstandings. ] <span style="font:normal .9em Verdana">] 11:13, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)</span> | |||
| Above, there is a claim that KMaster888 is ] Warrenmck by editing 100 pages that Warrenmck has edited. The suggests that there's only an overlap of 45 pages (42 if you subtract out my user talk, KMaster888's user talk, and ANI). {{u|Warrenmck}}, can you please be very specific about exactly which pages overlap? Maybe give a link to KMaster888's contribs and timestamps of where this range of hounding edits begins and ends? This is a serious claim and probably actionable if enough evidence is provided. –] <small>(])</small> 23:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Thank you, Equazcion (appreciate question+length:). No, there's no intent to leave (let's call it) Polanski-defense-POV information in as "counterbalance" to Polanski-prosecution-POV (to achieve NPOV). That diff was to illustrate to those wishing to insert preferred Geimer quote (from decades later) into 1977 events paragraph (between grand jury testimony, and charges selected) what happens if you try to achieve NPOV with dueling information. That shouldn't happen in the summary topic in the bio (perhaps in ]). The "counterbalancing illustration" was a response to arguments quotes couldn't be excluded if sourced. You've seen . That's good. ] (]) 11:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Okay, that makes sense. You could have just stated it on the article's talk page instead of being ]y about it. It certainly gave me the wrong impression, especially since you previously ] full quote "for real". ] ] 13:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question #2''': Do you think is anything but ]ing? ] ] 11:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:Let us first note topic title (by initiator):<p>"Purpose of this Misplaced Pages entry. (Claims of two sides, deleting content, mission of a BLP, asserting bad faith, unpleasant nature of the facts)<p>That long (and rhetorical) title was followed by an initiating comment of 606 words presenting, yes, the POV of initiator. While rhetorical sonnets may seem odd, full analytic reply was not appropriate or a good idea. Almost responded, ], but instead invested time to respond POV with POV of Geimer's attorney's oral arguments (with links) from 10 December Appeals Court hearing. A rhetorical choice chosen for that circumstance. ] (]) 12:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Well, everyone is soapboxing to a certain extent in that ] now, but as a skilled editor, you should try to improve the ]. ] ] 13:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Note that there are >100 ''edits'' across the pages, since they tended to edit in a spree. The number of pages you found seems accurate, even accounting for the possibility of a few outside of this exchange. I’m not sure what exactly I can do to show the relationship to my edit history beyond I guess go pull said histories and compare them? But I wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority of the interactions you see were from that narrow window after your talk page. | |||
| ;(note) | |||
| (offline/back@20:00) ] (]) 13:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry for the drama, by the way. ] 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Clarifying the issue (plus a response to it) === | |||
| ::Ah that makes sense. I didn't think of the multiple edits to a page thing. No worries about the drama. –] <small>(])</small> 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Based on Proofreader's answers above, I just want to clarify this issue, because Proofreader is frankly (no offense) not making his intentions completely clear. | |||
| ::Please don't apologise for this. Nobody should have to put up with such behaviour. ] (]) 09:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:FMSky == | |||
| that sparked this incident report was Proofreader's attempt to make a point, and he immediately . The idea was just to have a diff to link to and show everyone in discussions. The point he was trying to make with it was that that the section in question, which is just a ] of ], would get messy and long if evidence that the victim "looked 13" and "didn't look 13" were both added (possibly in addition to other contentious issues). He's trying to say that such things should be kept out of the summary altogether. He's not looking to add them. The original poster here seems to have been confused about this. ] <span style="font:normal .9em Verdana">] 13:26, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)</span> | |||
| {{atop|1=]. PolitcalPoint blocked for a month for BLP violations. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{Userlinks|FMSky}} | |||
| ] has been persistently engaging in ] by constantly reverting (see , , and ) in bad faith over the course of more than a week in order to prevent the insertion of sourced material that states that ] had "{{tq|touted working for her father’s anti-gay organization, which mobilized to pass a measure against ] and promoted controversial ]", which is a discredited, harmful, and ] practice that falsely purports to "cure" ].}}" backed by two ] cited (see and ) in support of the specific wording inserted into the article. | |||
| *The above having been said, if you're (Proofreader) going to use direct article edits to make your point, it's your responsibility to make sure no one gets confused about why you're doing it. Making a point by editing the article and then immediately reverting your own edit could prove to be a disruption, which would violate ]. This ANI report could be viewed as such a disruption. I understand what you were trying to do, and frankly I'm not sure there was any better way to do it. Nevertheless, I'd take great care in doing so in the future. Make sure to say explicitly what you're NOT planning on doing with the article. It might have allayed fears, for example, if you had said something like: ''"I am NOT advocating the insertion of any of the edits in my illustration. This is only an example of what COULD happen to the section if these kinds of edits are allowed to remain."'' | |||
| For my part, I have consistently maintained a strict self-imposed policy of 0RR, never even once reverting ], listening to his concerns and taking his concerns seriously, tirelessly working to address his concerns with two ] cited (see and ) in support of the exact same wording that ] originally objected to (see ), then, when reverted again by ], I patiently continued to ] and ] (see and ), which he ], then when reverted yet again by ] (see ), explained to him the entire series of events (see ), which ] replied to by blatantly lying that I had not addressed his concerns (see ), which, when I pointed that out and showed him the ] that I cited in order to address his concerns (see ), ] replied by saying verbatim "How is that even relevant? Just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean this exact wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia." (see ). | |||
| *As for : I think that response was in poor taste, and more of a violation of ] than the original post to that section. You say you didn't want to invest the time to respond to something so general and dubious (that's how I saw it anyway), and I agree with you there; it was not worth responding to. However that doesn't mean a cheeky retort is warranted instead. If you don't want to respond thoughtfully to someone, I would refrain from posting any other type of response in its place. ] <span style="font:normal .9em Verdana">] 13:26, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)</span> | |||
| I'm completely exasperated and exhausted at this point. If even using the ''exact same wording'' as the ] cited in support of the specific wording inserted into the article is ''still'' unacceptable to ], then I'm not sure what I'm even supposed to do to satisfy him. ] is clearly engaging in ] in bad faith and is ]. --] (]) 23:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *There are two opposing strong stances there at Polanski, has been since the arrest, you could say that one side exists to balance the other, there is constant content creep of single words day by day to attempt to change the expression of the content, Proof is one one side and other editor is on the other side, personally I prefer it if the article was stable after the quite encyclopedic rewrite that Benjiboi did, but they keep at it...I would be wrong to restrict one side and not the other from the article as without proofreaders resistance you would soon see the article swing to reflect the Polanski is a perverted child rapist, kiddie fiddler who should be hung by his balls until dead brigade. I think Proofreader actually doing a good job there, if you restrict his access to editing there you also should restrict his opposite editor, Tombaker321. Just have a look at the of the constant to and fro-ing between these two editors, as I said IMO it would be unfair and unwise to restrict one side and not the other. ] (]) 13:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :@], your for "discredited, harmful, and pseudoscientific practice that falsely purports to "cure" homosexuality" doesn't mention Gabbard or Hawaii or her father's organization. Have you read ]? ] ] 23:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::More the case that trying to assert conversion therapy as discredited is a COATRACK, unless there was appropriate sourced coverage that associated Gabbatd with supporting a discredited theory. We can leave the blue link on conversion therapy carry the worry of explaining the issues with it, it doesn't belong on a BLP.<span id="Masem:1736293194333:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::The wording does not "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" as the latter part of the wording, as supported by the second ] (see ), explains what ] is for the benefit of readers. --] (]) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you kidding me lmao. I didn't even notice that. That makes it even worse --] (]) 23:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Only commenting on this particular angle: {{ping|Schazjmd}} when dealing with fringe ideas, it ''is'' sometimes the case that sources provide weight connecting the subject to a fringe idea but which do not themselves adequately explain the fringe theory. If it's due weight to talk about something like conversation therapy (or creation science, links between vaccines and autism, etc.), we run afoul of ] if we don't provide proper context. These cases are rare, however, and this isn't a judgment about anything in the rest of this thread. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 02:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The user was previously blocked and was only unblocked after agreeing to 0RR on BLPs. This was violated in the 3 reverts here and the concerns weren't adressed: , , . See also the previous discussion on PoliticalPoint's talk page that I initiated -- ] (]) 23:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|FMSky replied by saying verbatim "How is that even relevant? Just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean this exact wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia.}} I love how you, in bad faith, left out the most relevant part that I added: "And the statements weren't even attributed to someone" --] (]) 23:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::As ] (see ), those were edits, not reverts, over the course of more than week, and as also ] (see and ) your concerns with the wording were in fact addressed with two ] cited in support with the ''exact same wording'' that you objected to, verbatim. You are blatantly lying again, as the statement is, in fact, attributed to Gabbard herself as it is she herself who "touted working for her father's anti-gay organization", which is backed by the first ] (see ). --] (]) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, these were reverts, as the wording I originally objected to was restored numerous times --] (]) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Those were edits over the course of over a week. The wording that you originally objected to was restored only with two ] that use the ''exact same wording'' verbatim. --] (]) 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you used the same wording as the sources without an attributed quote you've committed a copyright violation. ] (]) 00:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Restoring removed content even without using the undo feature is a revert. ] (]) 00:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::See above, Gabbard isn't even mentioned in one of the sources, which is insane and negates the need for any further discussion. This content should not be on her page & is probably the definition of a BLP violation. --] (]) | |||
| Besides removing obvious SYNTH, I notice that FMSky reworked unnecessary overquoting; looks like good editing on FMSky's part. ] (]) 00:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Block of Samou4-memorial-point== | |||
| Another thing I just noticed is that the article is special-protected: {{tq|"You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message."}} No such discussion was initiated on Gabbard's talk page --] (]) 00:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It is a abousoutley disgraceful not only to User Mcjakeqcool's memory but also to Misplaced Pages and the worldwide web as a whole that Samou4-memorial-point has been blocked. For goodness sake this is just plain wrong we are talking about someone's life here and did any of you even know User Mcjakeqcool?! He was such a kind, caring, outgoing, bubly, outspoken & arrogant individual. ] (]) 08:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I have blocked PoliticalPoint for a month for BLP violations, an escalation of their prior two-week edit warring block. I had originally intended to just p-block them from Gabbard but I am not convinced they understand the issue and that the problematic editing wouldn't just move to another page. Should they eventually request an unblock I think serious discussion sould happen w/r/t a a topic ban on BLPs or American Politics. ] ] 01:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating ] == | |||
| :It's no more disgraceful than it would be to remove from private property a memorial that was placed without the permission of the property owner. It's possible to be completely sympathetic regarding a person's death, and at the same time remember that Misplaced Pages is not a host for memorial webpages. There are plenty of websites that exist to set up memorials, and you are always free to set up your own. ] (]) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Bgsu98}} | |||
| ::]'s claimed death is ]. ] (]) 08:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Was there actually a confirmed death here? While I wasn't paying attention, this matter jumped from repeated socking to a memorial. ] (]) 09:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No there hasn't been a confirmed death as far as I can see. And I don't want to be rude if there really has been, but looking at the Mcjakeqcool account and this IP, they share the same unusual writing style and edit summary usage. Mr Mcjakeqcool was blocked indefinitely last month for disruptive editing and then reblocked for sockpuppetry and several IPs were subsequently blocked accused of being Mcjakeqcool socking around the block, including {{User|86.21.66.162}} and {{User|86.136.78.170}}, which is from the same ISP as the one this guy's using now. Also {{User|86.21.66.162}} was blocked twice in November as a Mcjakqcool sock and it was reblocked again today as Mcjakqcool after this ANI There's been a lot of really strange editing and socking and disruption going on around this Mcjakeqcool account and I really think this is just more of it. ] 09:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| There's a t-mobile IP involved as well ] who asked the current 86 IP to post the request to block Tan on ANI ] (]) 10:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.<br /> | |||
| Can the user page at ] be deleted. Is it a BLP vio to say someone is dead without any evidence for same? ] (]) 10:55, 13 December 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. | |||
| : I'm sorry, the "death" of the '''userid''' Mcjakeqcool and his sockpuppets is not worth a memorial. I have no doubt that the person behind them is very much alive and well. If I'm wrong, then it's not my intent to be insensitive, however, this smells like a very middle-school ploy, and the writing styles are very telling. (]<span style="border:1px solid red;">''' ] '''</span>]) 11:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. More information is here: ]. What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of ]. It seems that no one acted on this change until {{u|Bgsu98}} came. | |||
| :: I've deleted the userpage as not only an unsourced death listing (BLP vio), but entirely outside the scope of Misplaced Pages user pages per ]. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — ] ]</span> 12:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| P.P.S. As I stated on the WikiProject Figure Skating talk page I linked above, I think it was very unfair to change the rules. Especially since web sources tend to die out after some time. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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) | |||
| {{botlinks|Xqbot}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| Hi.. As far as I know, this bot was originally approved ], however, as you can see, the bot was only approved to resolve double redirects. It doesn't appear to have been approved for any other task, and yet, as their userpage says, it's task has been changed to fixing interwiki links. However, that is not all it is doing, it is also links to other versions of the page that are in different languages. Don't bots need to have new tasks approved before they are added? Also, I have notified the owner of this discussion, as seen .— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 09:38, 13 December 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) | |||
| :Xqbot is a global bot. ] ''allows the use of Global bots to update interwiki links'' --] (]) 10:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. ] ] 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::How is removing a link updating it?— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 11:07, 13 December 2009 (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. | |||
| ::: Maybe the linked-to article no longer exists in that Wiki? I haven't checked, but that ''would'' be an example. (]<span style="border:1px solid red;">''' ] '''</span>]) 11:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :He has been adversarial and confrontational in every communication to me. From ]: ''"By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD... Like, you nomitated ] 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale... Are you planning to nominate it 100 times?"'' | |||
| :::: We can marke this resolved, I just visited the relevant page, and it was up for CSD.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 12:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I always appreciate constructive feedback when it's delivered in a courteous and professional manner. ] seems incapable of courtesy or professionalism. ] ] 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: 1 was. Many others aren't. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 12:08, 13 December 2009 (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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Potential company editing? == | |||
| == Last chance to vote in the Arbitration Committee Elections == | |||
| {{atop|1=Closing by OP request. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Bouchra Filali}} | |||
| *{{articlelinks|Djellaba}} | |||
| The user ] uploaded ] to the page ]. They share a name with a fashion company and seem to have replaced the original image on the article with a product from their company (see revision 1268097124]). I reverted their edit and warned them, but due to my concern, and following advice from an administrator on the wikimedia community discord, I am reporting this here as well. I have also asked for advice on what to do with the commons file, and will be filing any necessary reports there. ] 04:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :They have only made one edit on this project which was adding an image to an article, it looks like they uploaded the image on the Commons. Have you tried talking about your issues with them on their Commons user talk page, ]? This doesn't seem like it's a problem for the English Misplaced Pages. We don't even know if they'll be back to make a second edit. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I asked the commons folks on discord and it seems that, since they uploaded an image that they own, all is well. I have to admit that I was a little hasty here, I've never used this noticeboard before. Feel free to close this if you feel there is nothing more to discuss, I'll monitor the user in question. ] 06:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:Smm380 and logged out editing == | |||
| This is a brief reminder to all interested editors that today is the '''final day''' to vote in the ] to elect new members to the ]. The voting this year is by secret ballot using the '']'' extension. All unblocked editors who had at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 are eligible to vote (). Prospective voters are invited to review the ] and the candidates' individual questions pages. Although voting is by secret ballots, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, you are invited to leave brief comments on the candidates' ] and discuss candidates at length on the attached talkpages. If you have any questions or difficulties with the voting setup, please at the election talkpage. For live discussion, join ] on ]. | |||
| *{{userlinks|Smm380}} | |||
| *{{IPlinks|195.238.112.0/20}} | |||
| I have this editor twice about logged out editing because they are evidently editing the article ] both logged in and as an IP. This makes tracking their edits more difficult since they have made hundreds altogether in recent months (and they are only focused on this specific article). The IP edits seem to come from ] (at least most of them) and they are often made shortly before/after Smm380 decides to log back in. See for example edit by Smm380 and edit by the IP a few minutes later regarding the same section. This is now especially a problem because they are deciding to make as an IP. | |||
| In general, they have not listened to prior warnings. I have given them multiple warnings about adding unsourced text, but they are still continuing to unsourced text without including citations first. But they have not responded to any of my warnings or explained why they are still doing this. ] (]) 09:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Update''': The voting period opened on 1 December and will close on 14 December 2009 as advertised. However, that due to the configuration of the ''SecurePoll'' extension, the voting period may not extend to the previously announced time of 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009. The software developers have been contacted and we are working to extend the voting period to the full two week period. This message will be updated to reflect any such changes, but barring intervention, votes cast after 00:00 UTC on 14 December 2009 (midnight tonight) will not be accepted by the software. | |||
| == Another not here IP == | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| {{User|2601:18C:8183:D410:1D8C:39C9:DCEE:1166}} is altering another users posts to insert political commentary ] as well as making PA's, with a clear statement they do not intend to stop ], and edit warring over it as well. ] (]) 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| For the coordinators, ] 12:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:13, 8 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 admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion Centralized discussion- Refining the administrator elections process
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
| 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 |
| 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
| 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 |
| 337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 |
| Other links | |||||||||
Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from User:DarwIn
User:DarwIn, a known transphobic editor from pt.wiki, is harassing me here after his actions led me to leave that wiki permanently. He has also harassed me on Wikimedia Commons. I don't know what to do anymore. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace. This is severely impacting my mental health. Skyshiftertalk 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You don't seem to have notified the other editor. This is mandatory and this section may be closed if you fail to do so. Use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ on that user's talk page. Additionally, you don't seem to have provided specific diffs demonstrating harassment. Please do so. --Yamla (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- On pt.wiki, DarwIn proposed the deletion of articles I created about transgender topics (Thamirys Nunes and Minha Criança Trans), using transphobic arguments, including misgendering and questioning the validity of transgender children. After translating these articles to en.wiki, he is targeting the DYK nomination, again focusing on his personal transphobic beliefs - as it shows, he doesn't even know how DYK works. He insisted multiple times trying to include his transphobic comment on that page and has just edited it again. On Commons, for extra context, DarwIn unilaterally deleted images related to these articles, despite being clearly involved in the dispute.
- Again, I just want to collaborate with trans topics in peace. Skyshiftertalk 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. However, context is important. This is harassment that began on pt.wiki, has spread to Commons, and is now here. The history has been provided, but, sure, I can provide the diffs instead. He has unilaterally edited the DYK page and put a "disagree", despite this being not how DYK works. This is because he really doesn't know, as he only sporadically edits here and only came back to harass me. His comment is explicitly transphobic and doesn't focus on the article itself at all. After his comment was reverted by me, he insisted saying that I shouldn't call it transphobia, despite it being transphobia. After being reverted again, he reincluded the comment. I asked him to stop harassing me, but he has edited the page again.
- I just don't want to be targeted by that editor here. I've left pt.wiki in great part for that reason. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace here. Skyshiftertalk 13:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like yet another cross-wiki troll by this user. Already blocked at the Portuguese Wikipédia and Wikimedia Commons, the account is now promoting their POV here, including spreading lies, hideous slurs and baseless accusations against me like "known transphobic", after two of their creations were taken to community evaluation at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for lacking notability. The user is also a known sockpuppeter, with an open case for sockpuppetry at the Portuguese Wikipédia. In any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this case in yet another project apart from the strictly needed, so do as you please. Darwin 13:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been blocked on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which you are well known for abusing whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. Darwin 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- And here's explicit transphobia. It's her daughter, no matter how much you hate the idea of trans children existing. The story you've told is also completely distorted. Skyshiftertalk 13:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which you are well known for abusing whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. Darwin 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been blocked on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I simply don't want this editor targeting me with transphobic stuff here after he target me on pt.wiki (and left it permanently in great part for that reason) and Commons. I am considering taking medication because of these events. Skyshiftertalk 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would suggest Darwin review MOS:GENDERID. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? Darwin 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn, the bottom line is that you don't get to question that. As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is not the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them any good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. Darwin 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We're here because this "questioning" appears to be bleeding into transphobic harassment. I would support an indef based on edits like this Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. Darwin 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn, the bottom line is that you don't get to question that. As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is not the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them any good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The story told above is completely distorted to fit the transphobic's narrative. Simon223, if you want to get the full story, read Thamirys Nunes' page or read its sources (with the help of a translator if needed). Skyshiftertalk 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. Darwin 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including MOS:GENDERID) - otherwise you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. Darwin 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just so everyone knows, the facts are being quite distorted here. It wasn't really an imposition — her daughter, did not want to play with "boy toys", even when being forced by her mom. That's why the mom said she plays with "girl toys" and everything else. The references on said articles weren't thoroughly read, apparently by everybody here.
- Adding to this too: DarwIn, in some edits to the article in the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, added "quotes" on the word trans and some other parts of the articly, as if was his duty to judge if the girl is trans or not. Anyways, I think what happened in ptwiki stays there.
- And I want to make clear that I'm only stating the things that happened so everyone knows. I do not support blocking him. Eduardo G. 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. Darwin 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Four year olds are generally not considered babies. You really need to drop this - and probably to avoid editing in the WP:GENSEX area.Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest a topic ban is imposed. GiantSnowman 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would support a topic ban from WP:GENSEX. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Topic ban from GENSEX and BLP, broadly construed, is fine for me. GiantSnowman 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do understand this Misplaced Pages rules on BLP. Isn't that not enough for you? Darwin 16:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. GiantSnowman 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed the part when I very clearly stated there that I retired myself from that DYN debate. Darwin 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. GiantSnowman 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman nice try, but I don't edit on that topic, anyway. Let's calm down and enjoy the Christmas season. Darwin 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. Darwin 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You fundementally misunderstand the scope of WP:BLP and the concept of topic area as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. Darwin 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it was a collective you. Darwin 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The collective you did not pursue you here either. Only the OP appears to cross over. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it was a collective you. Darwin 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. Darwin 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You fundementally misunderstand the scope of WP:BLP and the concept of topic area as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. Darwin 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would support a topic ban from WP:GENSEX. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed this yesterday but intentionally didn't mention it since I felt there had already been enough nonsense. But since DarwIn is still defending their offensive comments below, I'd note that the child was 4 years old in 2019. It's now 2024 and they've evidentally seen a medical professional. If at any time they express a desire for a different gender identity we will of course respect that whatever her mother says; but at this time BLP full supports respecting a 8-9 year old and not treating her as a baby. Nil Einne (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- None of this is relevant. We follow sources and MOS:GENDERID. There is obviously no Misplaced Pages position on when someone is or is not a "baby" and should have their self-identification reproduced in their biography. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest a topic ban is imposed. GiantSnowman 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including MOS:GENDERID) - otherwise you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. Darwin 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? Darwin 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would suggest Darwin review MOS:GENDERID. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- They cannot be trusted. Above they said "I'm retiring myself from this topic" and yet has continued to post. GiantSnowman 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've continued to post where? Darwin 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've already walked away from it yesterday, why you're insisting on that lie? Darwin 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? GiantSnowman 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have my own disagreements with that guideline, and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. Darwin 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? Darwin 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn This one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. Darwin 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn Easiest way to defuse this is to post a bolded and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" Darwin 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is not an appropriate statement, it has your bias/agenda throughout it. Very concerning. GiantSnowman 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" Darwin 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn Easiest way to defuse this is to post a bolded and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. Darwin 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn This one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? Darwin 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. Darwin 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have my own disagreements with that guideline, and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? GiantSnowman 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Heres the main point I can see RE "Cross-wiki harassment." If DarwIn claims they do not regularly edit this topic space and had not previously participated in DYK discussions how did they come to find themselves there just in time to oppose the contribution of an editor they had extensive negative interactions with on another wiki? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- that's old stuff, I already posted a note there retiring from that space yesterday. I'm really puzzled on what all this fuss is about. Darwin 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't about the transphobia, this is about the harassment (they are seperate by apparently related claims). So how did you find yourself commenting on that DYK? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I expressed my disagreement with that note, justifying with my opinion, and there's not even any misgendering issue there, AFAIK. Not sure if expressing that opinion here is forbidden or not, but in any case I've posted a note retiring from it already yesterday, so I've no idea what more do you want. Darwin 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- precisely because we are currently in the process of evaluating the notability of that bio and association she created at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, so it's just natural that related issues on other wikis get monitored too, that's part of the process. You don't agree with that evaluation, and that's perfectly OK. To each Misplaced Pages their own stuff 🤷 Darwin 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's the wikipedia articles created yesterday that we are evaluating, not any kind of DYK note. Darwin 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? Darwin 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because of edits like this . Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- answering an accusation of being a dictator after flushing away the copyviios she uploaded. What's the problem? Darwin 17:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that diff is the undo. Thats you edit warring apparent harassment onto someone's talk page on another wiki with a kissing face as the edit summary... In that context this does look like cross wiki harassment. Do you have a better explanation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just answered the troll there with another, as I was on the middle of something else. Yes, I know, not the nicest thing to do, but whatever. And why are we discussing Commons here now, anyway? Darwin 17:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We're discussing cross wiki harassment, that makes edits on any wiki relevant to the discussion. You appear to have been harassing them on commons and then followed them here to continue the harassment because a temporary block there (which you appear to have had a hand in) prevented them from being active there. You absolutely can not do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I answered a troll, if there was any harassment was from that account towards me, not the opposite. Please don't invert the situation. Darwin 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits on enwiki had nothing to do with trolling or other behavioral issues from that account, if your edits on enwiki were to address valid concerns informed by your experience on other wikis we would not be having this discussion. It was also you restoring your comment which they removed from their talk page, thats you trolling them and it makes their dictator claim look not like trolling but rather accurate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I confess I've no idea why we are still having this discussion, as they were just that. But for the 50th time, these interactions have stopped long ago, and for a similar amount of time I've devotedly accepted and committed to all your rules. Darwin 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion we're still having this discussion because you are stonewalling, perhaps its a language barrier but you don't come off as trustworthy or engaging in good faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I confess I've no idea why we are still having this discussion, as they were just that. But for the 50th time, these interactions have stopped long ago, and for a similar amount of time I've devotedly accepted and committed to all your rules. Darwin 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits on enwiki had nothing to do with trolling or other behavioral issues from that account, if your edits on enwiki were to address valid concerns informed by your experience on other wikis we would not be having this discussion. It was also you restoring your comment which they removed from their talk page, thats you trolling them and it makes their dictator claim look not like trolling but rather accurate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I answered a troll, if there was any harassment was from that account towards me, not the opposite. Please don't invert the situation. Darwin 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We're discussing cross wiki harassment, that makes edits on any wiki relevant to the discussion. You appear to have been harassing them on commons and then followed them here to continue the harassment because a temporary block there (which you appear to have had a hand in) prevented them from being active there. You absolutely can not do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just answered the troll there with another, as I was on the middle of something else. Yes, I know, not the nicest thing to do, but whatever. And why are we discussing Commons here now, anyway? Darwin 17:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that diff is the undo. Thats you edit warring apparent harassment onto someone's talk page on another wiki with a kissing face as the edit summary... In that context this does look like cross wiki harassment. Do you have a better explanation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- answering an accusation of being a dictator after flushing away the copyviios she uploaded. What's the problem? Darwin 17:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because of edits like this . Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? Darwin 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's the wikipedia articles created yesterday that we are evaluating, not any kind of DYK note. Darwin 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- precisely because we are currently in the process of evaluating the notability of that bio and association she created at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, so it's just natural that related issues on other wikis get monitored too, that's part of the process. You don't agree with that evaluation, and that's perfectly OK. To each Misplaced Pages their own stuff 🤷 Darwin 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I expressed my disagreement with that note, justifying with my opinion, and there's not even any misgendering issue there, AFAIK. Not sure if expressing that opinion here is forbidden or not, but in any case I've posted a note retiring from it already yesterday, so I've no idea what more do you want. Darwin 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't about the transphobia, this is about the harassment (they are seperate by apparently related claims). So how did you find yourself commenting on that DYK? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- that's old stuff, I already posted a note there retiring from that space yesterday. I'm really puzzled on what all this fuss is about. Darwin 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
|
John40332 reported by CurryTime7-24
John40332 has been blocked sitewide. Reader of Information (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved from WP:AIV – ToBeFree (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
John40332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Psycho (1960 film) (diff): account is being used only for promotional purposes; account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. User's recent edits have been dedicated almost invariably to inserting links in classical music-related articles to an obscure sheet music site. Behavior appeared to be WP:REFSPAM and WP:SPA. Personal attempts to curb this behavior or reach a compromise were rejected by user. Further attempts to engage with them at WT:CM resulted in WP:ICANTHEARYOU, despite three other editors informing user that their edits appeared to be spam or some kind of advocacy. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not a bot and not spamming, you just keep WP:HOUNDING me repeatedly, I cited sources to the publisher of the books in question. You appear to suffer from WP:OWN and act like I need your consent to edit the articles you feel that belong to you. You also know I'm not a compromised account, you spam Assume_good_faith on your reverts but you're mostly bullying other editors into submission.
- You've been asked to stop disrupting editing https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:CurryTime7-24#January_2025 , and continue to harass any edits that touch "your" articles.
- You also keep saying I add citation to obscure music sites, just because you don't know something doesn't make it obscure. Additionally, you are the only person raising this as an issue because you're extremely controlling of the articles, you don't own Misplaced Pages and hopefully some other editor or admin can remind you of that. John40332 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that SheetMusicX is a reliable source for these articles? If so then someone (it may be me but I don't guarantee it) should take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I note that several editors have queried this, not just CurryTime7-24. John40332 is clearly not a spambot or compromised account, so please avoid over-egging the pudding. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is reliable and listed with other respectable publishers, it's the homepage of the Canadian music publishing house Edition Zeza, their books are part of the National Library Collections, WorldCat.org shows their books in libraries around the world etc, I shouldn't even have to dig this far because 1 editor decided he WP:OWN Misplaced Pages. The links I had included provided relevant information about the articles I was editing (orchestration, dates, duration etc). Cited information from a publisher of said work, which is exactly what WP:SOURCEDEF suggests doing. John40332 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- The editor's history does seem suspicious. From 2014 to 2023 they made a total of 24 edits to article space, almost all of which were to Charlie Siem and Sasha Siem. Then after more than a year of no edits, in the last 5 weeks they have made 38 edits to article space, of which all except three added a reference to sheetmusicx.com. This is a commercial site that sells sheet music. As far as I can see, every reference added was a link to a page that sells a particular piece of sheet music. This certainly seems like WP:REFSPAM. CodeTalker (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- So is the problem that I'm actively contributing now, or that the cited sources aren't good enough? You guys are grasping at straws at this point.user:CurryTime7-24 added links to commercial sites diff1 , such as to Fidelio Music (to which he appears to be an affiliate) and yet no one raises a flag. Even when I added a source without removing his, he removed mine diff2 to keep only his link to Fidelio Music. John40332 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is no "you guys" here. You have exactly the same status, as a volunteer editor, as I do. I have no idea who CurryTime7-24 is, or whether that editor is an affiliate. I just know about reliable sources and that we should not be linking to any commercial site, except possibly to the original publisher of a work. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- So is the problem that I'm actively contributing now, or that the cited sources aren't good enough? You guys are grasping at straws at this point.user:CurryTime7-24 added links to commercial sites diff1 , such as to Fidelio Music (to which he appears to be an affiliate) and yet no one raises a flag. Even when I added a source without removing his, he removed mine diff2 to keep only his link to Fidelio Music. John40332 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that SheetMusicX is a reliable source for these articles? If so then someone (it may be me but I don't guarantee it) should take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I note that several editors have queried this, not just CurryTime7-24. John40332 is clearly not a spambot or compromised account, so please avoid over-egging the pudding. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:COIBot has compiled a page, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/Local/sheetmusicx.com of edits with links to this website. This list was not created by CurryTime7-24 but by a bot looking for instances of conflict-of-interests. All of the problems you are concerned about, John40332, would not exist if you would just stop posting links to this website. If you would agree to stop referring to sheetmusicx.com, you wouldn't be "hounded" or be defending yourself and we could close this complaint. Can you agree to that editing restriction? And, if you can't, then why are you insisting on linking to this particular website? Liz 02:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because it's a valid source according to:
- WP:REPUTABLE - "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources"
- WP:SOURCEDEF - The publisher of the work (and not only the first ever publisher, any reputable publisher of a work)
- WP:PUBLISHED - "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form."
Interestingly, "someone" (and I'm not saying it's CurryTime7-24) came to my talk page yesterday to write "kill yourself", I can only think of 1 person who is hounding me this much though, but that doesn't seem to be taken seriously. John40332 (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not "interesting", that's despicable; as is your insinuation. As for sheetmusicx as as source: for what? That they published some work? Why is that noteworthy? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a source for information about the work. Yes it's despicable, and as I said, no one takes it seriously, I'm not insinuating anything, admins can look into the IP themselves. John40332 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, you would prefer that this dispute continue on, which could lead to sanctions for you, rather than simply stop using this website as a reference? To me, when I see that kind of behavior, it's typically a sign of a paid editor. Liz 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no dispute, it's a reliable source and user:CurryTime7-24 makes a fuss about it because of his WP:OWN syndrome and potential WP:COI with his affiliation with Fidelio Music.
- Why are you against a source that complies with WP:RELIABILITY ? John40332 (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because your use of that source is pretty clearly intended as promotional. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's hard to understand how you can say "there's no dispute" when there is quite obviously a dispute; six editors in this thread alone have questioned your use of that source. You have invoked WP:RS to claim that the website is an acceptable source, but I'm not sure you have understood what that guideline says about commercial sites; they are allowed as references only to verify simple facts such as titles and running times. You have not used sheetmusicx.com for such purposes; you have used it to tell the reader where they can purchase sheet music (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc). CodeTalker (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I used it to add relevant information that didn't exist on Misplaced Pages.
- When I added "Psycho A Narrative for String Orchestra" diff that exists since 1968 and never mentioned on Misplaced Pages, but CurryTime decided to harass me there too.
- When I added the orchestration for Tambourin Chinois diff, which CurryTime decided to remove too.
- I used information by the publisher to confirm facts, as per WP:RS, if commercial sources are not allowed to verify contributions, then why is everyone so quiet about CurryTime's affiliation to Fidelio Music links ? So far these comments are a good example of WP:HUNT, first I was accused of spamming, then of being a bot, then that my account was compromised, then that the source used wasn't reliable, if you run out of ideas try my religion or ethnicity. John40332 (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you added the bit about Psycho - which included the link with the same phrasing as on the other edits where it was obvious "buy this music here". Your edits are either promotional or are indistinguishable from being promotional. That is why they are being removed. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly said that CurryTime7-24 is an affiliate of Fidelio. Can you show us your evidence of that? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here he removed my source to add Fidelio Music diff1
- Here again to make sure only Fidelio Music exists diff2
- And obviously here, deleting what I added to include Fidelio Music exclusively diff3
- Here he completely deleted everything I added about the piece as part of his WP:HOUNDING diff4 John40332 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- That may be evidence of something, good or bad, but it's certainly not evidence that that editor is an affiliate. But, anyway, the action that hould have been taken a few days ago has now been taken, so we can stop talking now. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, you would prefer that this dispute continue on, which could lead to sanctions for you, rather than simply stop using this website as a reference? To me, when I see that kind of behavior, it's typically a sign of a paid editor. Liz 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a source for information about the work. Yes it's despicable, and as I said, no one takes it seriously, I'm not insinuating anything, admins can look into the IP themselves. John40332 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be nice if an admin would compare the IP address 181.215.89.116 that told me to kill myself on my Talk Page, to existing users, now that would be fun to find out who is so against my edits, because so far the only action was a suspension. John40332 (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Checkuser is not for fishing. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- In any case the most obvious guess is: some unrelated troll who saw your name on this board. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Checkuser is not for fishing. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
It appears that there is consensus here and at WT:CM against linking to Sheet Music X. Is it possible for an admin to propose a resolution here? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The only consensus is your WP:OWN syndrome, the sources linked are reliable and fit for purpose. People have questioned my use of the source, not the reliability of it.
- You created this complaint stating that I'm a spammer, a bot or a compromised account, has that consensus been reached too ? John40332 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, John40332, you are wrong about the lack of consensus, and there is clear consensus against you linking to that commercial sheet music sales site. So, either you agree to stop doing so, or you get subjected to formal sanctions. Which will it be? Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So CurryTime can throw random accusations until something sticks? John40332 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, then. John40332 is indefinitely blocked from article space. The editor is free to make well-referenced, formal edit requests on article talk pages. The editor is warned that continuing to attempt to add links to Sheet Music X may lead to a sitewide block. The editor is advised to read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I made well referenced edits directly from a reputable publisher. Enjoy the power trip. John40332 (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please refrain from personal attacks which violate policy. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let me quote Misplaced Pages's page for Power Trip "(...) someone in a position of greater power uses that power unjustifiably against a lower-ranking person, typically just for display of dominance.", since you showed up just to block me when I haven't even edited anything else until this incident was cleared. I didn't spam, I'm not a bot, my account isn't compromised, I referenced a reputable publisher that due to CurryTime's WP:COI and WP:OWN made him start this issue. John40332 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Put that shovel down before you are indef blocked completely. increase indef block to all namespaces for battleground mentality. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let me quote Misplaced Pages's page for Power Trip "(...) someone in a position of greater power uses that power unjustifiably against a lower-ranking person, typically just for display of dominance.", since you showed up just to block me when I haven't even edited anything else until this incident was cleared. I didn't spam, I'm not a bot, my account isn't compromised, I referenced a reputable publisher that due to CurryTime's WP:COI and WP:OWN made him start this issue. John40332 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please refrain from personal attacks which violate policy. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I made well referenced edits directly from a reputable publisher. Enjoy the power trip. John40332 (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, then. John40332 is indefinitely blocked from article space. The editor is free to make well-referenced, formal edit requests on article talk pages. The editor is warned that continuing to attempt to add links to Sheet Music X may lead to a sitewide block. The editor is advised to read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So CurryTime can throw random accusations until something sticks? John40332 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, John40332, you are wrong about the lack of consensus, and there is clear consensus against you linking to that commercial sheet music sales site. So, either you agree to stop doing so, or you get subjected to formal sanctions. Which will it be? Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Vofa and removal of sourced information
NO ACTION AT THIS TIME Participants reminded to attempt communicating with other editors before reporting their behaviour to ANI. asilvering (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This seems to be an ongoing issue.
Vofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has lots of warnings about disruptive editing in their user page and a block.
Most recent example of removal of sourced information:
I checked the source and the information is there on page 7.
Previous examples include: . Also see: Talk:Finns#Vandalism_by_user:Vofa Bogazicili (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I just noticed that there is indeed an unsourced paragraph.
- The reason for removal of sourced information would then be "removed text not relevant to Chagatai Khanate and Golden Horde in introduction". However the source does mention
The first of the changes leading to the formation of the Turco-Mongolian tradition ...
and then gives Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate as examples. I don't see any WP:V or WP:DUE issues. - I am concerned about removal of sourced information that does not seem to have a rationale based on Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines Bogazicili (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi there. The matter seems to be resolved. I did remove an unsourced paragraph and general claims not relevant to the introduction. I do not see a problem with it. You seem to have linked three edits I made. In the first edit, I had to revert because I accidentally chose the minor edit option. In the second edit, I have restored the previous version, but without a minor sign. I did not remove any sources (based on what I remember) I hope to see through my edits and understand what I did or did not do wrong. Please, avoid making an ANI in bad faith. Vofa (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- You removed source information. The part that starts with
The ruling Mongol elites ...
- @Asilvering: from the editor's talk page, you seem to be a mentor. Removing sources or sourced material without explanation, or with insufficient explanation or rationale, such as "Polished language" , is an ongoing concern with Vofa. Bogazicili (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im not sure why I’m being stalked, but the edits you’re showing as examples of myself removing sources are more than two months old. I’ve stopped removing sources. Vofa (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: This issue is still continuing Bogazicili (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- And you previously spoke to Vofa about this where...? -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- asilvering, I hadn't talked about removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale.
- I did talk about this however . See: User_talk:Vofa#December_2024
- I don't seek or expect a permanent block over this. But as a mentor and an administrator, maybe you can comment on removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale. Bogazicili (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bogazicili, that's a threat, not an explanation. If you have a content dispute with an editor, which is what this appears to be, you need to be able to talk it out with them on the article's Talk page. @Vofa, please be careful to make sure your edit summaries explain what you're doing. I see that there was an unsourced statement in the link Bogazicili just supplied, so I presume that's what you meant by "unsourced". But the other statement you removed did have a source. It's ok to split your edits up into multiple edits if you need to do that to explain them properly, but you could also just give an edit summary like "removed unsourced; also, removed statement " that addresses both changes. -- asilvering (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Asilvering, I would not characterize this as a "content dispute". I was not involved in most of those articles. I got concerned after seeing edits market as minor removing sources or sourced material without any or proper explanation. That is not a content dispute, that is an editor conduct dispute. Bogazicili (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- What Vofa does at articles related to Turko-Mongolian history is not a content dispute but vandalism. It took me a lot of time to manually revert the hoax years and figures he added in Turkmens article to decrease their population and he also removed sourced basic info from the lede of the Merkit tribe which I had to restore. These are just some of few sneaky vandalism examples that I caught among the pages I patrol by Vofa. If you see his talk page, he has been warned a lot of times by many other editors for such mischief. Theofunny (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Theofunny, Vofa hasn't edited the Turkmens article since before they were blocked. That is obviously not an ongoing issue. As for Merkit, I also see no discussion of those edits. If you have a problem with how someone is editing, you need to communicate with them. -- asilvering (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Asilvering, my concerns were removal of sourced information or sources without proper rationale or explanation. Do you think that was communicated enough to Vofa in this topic, or do we need further communication? I'm asking in case Vofa continues this type of behavior. Hopefully that won't be the case. Bogazicili (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im going to repeat this again;
- I have not removed any sources since I was warned about it.
- I do not see an issue with my recent editing.
- You should communicate with me on any issues that you have with me. Vofa (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vofa, do you see any issues with this edit: Bogazicili (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you implying if I see an issue with this edit of mine or with your removal of said edit? Vofa (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vofa, the former. I am asking if you see any issues yourself with your own linked edit. Bogazicili (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not see an issue with the linked edit of mine. Vofa (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, really the issue was Bogazicili's, and it has now been solved in the usual way (by restoring only the sourced content). Apologies, @Vofa, for misreading it earlier. -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Asilvering, I disagree. I did miss the unsourced paragraph. However, removal of sourced content has been an ongoing issue with Vofa. They should not have removed sourced content to begin with.
- There was also a previous discussion in ANI:
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1170#User:Vofa
- Asilvering, again, is the threshold of communication met if removing sourced content by Vofa persists in the future? Bogazicili (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Basically, I'm not trying to get Vofa blocked, but they should be more careful in future when they remove sources or sourced content. They should have a reasonable rationale based in Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines, and they should explain that rationale properly. Bogazicili (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed they should. And you should not restore unsourced content once it has been removed. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- asilvering, the difference is I already acknowledged it multiple times. Is that not obvious? Bogazicili (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bogazicili, I'm going to close this report. No administrative action is required here at this time. You should make a habit of communicating on the article talk page when you get into a conflict with another editor, but you should always try to communicate with other editors before coming to ANI about their behaviour. This should be your last resort. If you make an earnest effort to communicate and are ignored, by all means report here. If there is edit-warring or obvious vandalism involved, please take that to the relevant noticeboard. -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- asilvering, the difference is I already acknowledged it multiple times. Is that not obvious? Bogazicili (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed they should. And you should not restore unsourced content once it has been removed. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Basically, I'm not trying to get Vofa blocked, but they should be more careful in future when they remove sources or sourced content. They should have a reasonable rationale based in Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines, and they should explain that rationale properly. Bogazicili (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not see an issue with the linked edit of mine. Vofa (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vofa, the former. I am asking if you see any issues yourself with your own linked edit. Bogazicili (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you implying if I see an issue with this edit of mine or with your removal of said edit? Vofa (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vofa, do you see any issues with this edit: Bogazicili (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Vofa (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Asilvering, my concerns were removal of sourced information or sources without proper rationale or explanation. Do you think that was communicated enough to Vofa in this topic, or do we need further communication? I'm asking in case Vofa continues this type of behavior. Hopefully that won't be the case. Bogazicili (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Theofunny, Vofa hasn't edited the Turkmens article since before they were blocked. That is obviously not an ongoing issue. As for Merkit, I also see no discussion of those edits. If you have a problem with how someone is editing, you need to communicate with them. -- asilvering (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This member often vandalises, in an article about Oirats he wrote huge numbers without backing them up with sources and tried to prove it was true. This is rabid vandalism. Incall 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Incall, vandalism has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages; an edit being unsourced does not mean it was vandalism. Do not cast aspersions on other editors in this way. @Vofa, you are edit-warring on Oirats. You need to stop doing that immediately. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have not edited Oirats. I have stopped edit warring. Vofa (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Incall, vandalism has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages; an edit being unsourced does not mean it was vandalism. Do not cast aspersions on other editors in this way. @Vofa, you are edit-warring on Oirats. You need to stop doing that immediately. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bogazicili, that's a threat, not an explanation. If you have a content dispute with an editor, which is what this appears to be, you need to be able to talk it out with them on the article's Talk page. @Vofa, please be careful to make sure your edit summaries explain what you're doing. I see that there was an unsourced statement in the link Bogazicili just supplied, so I presume that's what you meant by "unsourced". But the other statement you removed did have a source. It's ok to split your edits up into multiple edits if you need to do that to explain them properly, but you could also just give an edit summary like "removed unsourced; also, removed statement " that addresses both changes. -- asilvering (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- And you previously spoke to Vofa about this where...? -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- You removed source information. The part that starts with
- Hi there. The matter seems to be resolved. I did remove an unsourced paragraph and general claims not relevant to the introduction. I do not see a problem with it. You seem to have linked three edits I made. In the first edit, I had to revert because I accidentally chose the minor edit option. In the second edit, I have restored the previous version, but without a minor sign. I did not remove any sources (based on what I remember) I hope to see through my edits and understand what I did or did not do wrong. Please, avoid making an ANI in bad faith. Vofa (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2025 (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)
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)
- 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. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
| Extended discussion |
|---|
|
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)
- 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)
- I second to motion to bring this to WP:AE. BarntToust 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Taboo of archaeologists
This is fundamentally a content dispute, I see nothing admin-actionable here. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is about by Jahuah. They claim that an unprovenanced archaeological object is authentic. Bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss unprovenanced objects in public. It's a taboo of their profession. So, no bona fide archaeologist can give the lie to the authenticity of that object without losing their job. Since if they mention that object in public they get sacked. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol, reporting on me? Jahuah (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Give me an actual reason why the specific seal in question is not authentic? How about that? Quote me an actual scholar who does? If not, then your words mean jack. Jahuah (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- According to critical rationalism, the claim that such object is authentic is unfalsifiable. Since it is taboo to discuss such object in public. So only biased hacks could affirm it is authentic or inauthentic without losing their jobs. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think it’s inauthentic? Or not? Please do not be wasting my time here. Jahuah (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It think that claim is utterly unfalsifiable, so it cannot amount to science. See for details The Shapira Strips: What Are They and Are They Forgeries? on YouTube by Dr. Robert R. Cargill. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks for actually giving me an answer at least. Jahuah (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- What exactly are you asking admins to do there? This looks to me like a content dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who, me? I’m not asking anything. I just wanted to show how a seal dated by a scholar to the 8th century is indeed an 8th century BC Israelite seal of Hoshea.
- The guy up there has a problem with that and now apparently I’m on the naughty list. Jahuah (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: I have explained them at length why this is utterly problematic, previously. I had expected that they will behave. Misbehaving is a behavioral problem. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think I know how to behave, thank you very much. I’m not a petulant manchild. Jahuah (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- See User talk:Jahuah#December 2024 and Talk:Uzziah#Uzziah Seals. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol, I refuted you there. All you did was attack Dr. Mykytiuk and call into question his scholarship. Jahuah (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Besides, what does this have to do with the Hoshea seal? Jahuah (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't expect any of you to take my word for it, that why I had WP:CITED https://web.archive.org/web/20241209232716/https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/the-problem-with-unprovenanced-objects/ Suffices to say that unprovenanced objects are ethically and juridically fishy. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- So no comment on my refutation of your petulant behavior? Jahuah (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who’s “any of you” by the way? I’m one guy. Jahuah (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're (only you, not The Bushranger) promoting a claim that is unfalsifiable, unethical, and maybe even juridically problematic. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ooo, that’s a new one. Jahuah (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope, if you had read carefully what I told you in 2024, there is nothing new about my claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good. You guys represent scholarship only when it suits your ideology. Jahuah (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not about my ideology. It is about: bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss such claims in public. So no bona fide archaeologist could affirm that that object is authentic or inauthentic, because the next day they will have to flip burgers at Target. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fine whatever, I apologize. Jahuah (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not about my ideology. It is about: bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss such claims in public. So no bona fide archaeologist could affirm that that object is authentic or inauthentic, because the next day they will have to flip burgers at Target. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good. You guys represent scholarship only when it suits your ideology. Jahuah (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope, if you had read carefully what I told you in 2024, there is nothing new about my claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ooo, that’s a new one. Jahuah (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're (only you, not The Bushranger) promoting a claim that is unfalsifiable, unethical, and maybe even juridically problematic. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't expect any of you to take my word for it, that why I had WP:CITED https://web.archive.org/web/20241209232716/https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/the-problem-with-unprovenanced-objects/ Suffices to say that unprovenanced objects are ethically and juridically fishy. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- See User talk:Jahuah#December 2024 and Talk:Uzziah#Uzziah Seals. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think I know how to behave, thank you very much. I’m not a petulant manchild. Jahuah (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: I have explained them at length why this is utterly problematic, previously. I had expected that they will behave. Misbehaving is a behavioral problem. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It think that claim is utterly unfalsifiable, so it cannot amount to science. See for details The Shapira Strips: What Are They and Are They Forgeries? on YouTube by Dr. Robert R. Cargill. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think it’s inauthentic? Or not? Please do not be wasting my time here. Jahuah (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- According to critical rationalism, the claim that such object is authentic is unfalsifiable. Since it is taboo to discuss such object in public. So only biased hacks could affirm it is authentic or inauthentic without losing their jobs. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Demands to prove a negative are a nonsensical and puerile debating tactic. The editor must cite evidence that the item is considered authentic, or refrain from stating so in WP's voice. Simple as that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is the editor referring to me? Jahuah (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If so, here you go. Lawrence J. Mykytiuk, Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E. (Boston: Brill, 2004), 58., https://www.academia.edu/62900860/Iconography_on_Hebrew_Seals_and_Bullae_Identifying_Biblical_Persons_and_the_Apparent_Paradox_of_Egyptian_Solar_Symbols_ABSTRACT_ Jahuah (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss it, you win by default? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Elmidae, were you referring to me? Jahuah (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bona fide archaeologists will lose their jobs for merely mentioning Mykytiuk's claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was talking to Elmidae. Jahuah (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they were talking to you. Also both of you take a chill pill for a minute, please - this disucssion is already approaching WP:TLDR levels of length from the back-and-forth above. Tgeorgescu, you don't have to respond to everything Jahuah says esepecially when it's in response to other editors. Jahuah,
i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good.
is not an attitude conducive to cooperative editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Fine, fine, I apologize. I’m just angry that my contributions to Misplaced Pages get deleted. I just wanna leave some edits and then I’ll leave this site for good. I promise. Jahuah (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also want to make sure my contributions are kept before I leave. Jahuah (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fine, fine, I apologize. I’m just angry that my contributions to Misplaced Pages get deleted. I just wanna leave some edits and then I’ll leave this site for good. I promise. Jahuah (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they were talking to you. Also both of you take a chill pill for a minute, please - this disucssion is already approaching WP:TLDR levels of length from the back-and-forth above. Tgeorgescu, you don't have to respond to everything Jahuah says esepecially when it's in response to other editors. Jahuah,
- I was talking to Elmidae. Jahuah (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bona fide archaeologists will lose their jobs for merely mentioning Mykytiuk's claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Elmidae, were you referring to me? Jahuah (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss it, you win by default? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This editor appears to be edit warring across multiple pages to assert historical uncertainties as fact based on unconfirmed and speculative research from biblical archaeology blogs and the like. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh look, BAR society is no longer reputable because some Misplaced Pages mod said so. Jahuah (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, who am I edit warring with? That’s news to me. Jahuah (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- We don't have "mods" on Misplaced Pages. But you have only been editing for a month so it shouldn't be expected that you would know much about how Misplaced Pages works. Liz 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmph. I guess I’ll go then. Sorry for the trouble I caused. Jahuah (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jahuah, I wasn't asking you to leave the project, just pointing out that you are a newer editor. Misplaced Pages is chockful of rules and guidelines and it's not realistic to expect new editors to be familiar with them all. Liz 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, no. It’s ok. It’s clear that I have caused more problems here than solved. I just hope my contributions will stay, or at least be kept until new data comes. I’ll be out of your hairs soon. Jahuah (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jahuah, I wasn't asking you to leave the project, just pointing out that you are a newer editor. Misplaced Pages is chockful of rules and guidelines and it's not realistic to expect new editors to be familiar with them all. Liz 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmph. I guess I’ll go then. Sorry for the trouble I caused. Jahuah (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- We don't have "mods" on Misplaced Pages. But you have only been editing for a month so it shouldn't be expected that you would know much about how Misplaced Pages works. Liz 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, who am I edit warring with? That’s news to me. Jahuah (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh look, BAR society is no longer reputable because some Misplaced Pages mod said so. Jahuah (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
it's an unprovenanced object and likely a forgery it was not found in a licensed archaeological excavation it does not possess a credible chain of custody this is very much too good to be true but since people of faith want to believe it and since it's not against the law to use your free speech to make false claims like this forgers will make forgeries and antiquities dealers will put them up for sale and try to make as much money as they can but these kind of forgeries pollute legitimate biblical archaeology and it is why so many scholars myself included do not publish critical reviews of unproven objects once you give them credence their value is increased even if you put a little asterisk by them and designate them as unprovenanced and merely teach the controversy you are still giving them scholarly recognition and debate that the forger and the antiquities dealer so desperately crave publishing unprovenanced objects leads to looting and to forgeries it's that simple
— Dr. Robert R. Cargill, transcript
Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- tgeorgescu, this is becoming a detailed content dispute which means it probably should be closed as off-topic for this noticeboard. Liz 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, tg's hysterical talk about disgraced archeologists flipping burgers at Target is nonsense. There is vigorous controversy about unprovenanced objects, but no one's losing their job for breaking some alleged taboo. EEng 06:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
TTTEMLPBrony and continued addition of unsourced/crufty material, zero communication
Blocked. Now CU-blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TTTEMLPBrony (talk · contribs) has been active since late April 2024. They have a history of adding of unsourced and sometimes controversial material. They have been messaged and warned plenty of times, including by FlightTime, Doniago and LindsayH, but to no avail. Better yet, they haven't responded once on their own talk page.WP:COMMUNICATION is required and they do not seem to be willing or able to work with others. I've issued them a warning earlier this week, but looking at their talk page, I see they've been issued stern warnings plenty of times. And despite messages about adding sources, in late December 2024 they created List of second unit directors, which is barely referenced. soetermans. 12:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- They may be unaware of their talkpage, even though 8 months seems a long time for that. I have blocked indefinitely, with an informative message and a link to their talkpage in the log. Unfortunately that's sometimes the only way to get the attention of a non-responsive user. Bishonen | tålk 15:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
- They know about talk pages, Bishonen, because they have used one at least once; i checked when i first tried to communicate with them to no avail. That being said, i think this is a good use of a block, showing we are serious when we say communication is necessary ~ Lindsay 17:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked after only 5-hours, without the user even editing during that period? For a first offence? After only warnings of the lowest level? I'm no sure why User:Soetermans even created this request, as there'd been zero editing of the page in question since his talk-page warning 3 days earlier! Much of the edits seem to be merely content disputes. I don't see much repition after notification. And we don't even have rules about providing sources. There was no imminent risk of damage here, and I don't think the conditions laid out in WP:INDEF have been met. And WP:BLOCKDURATION most certainly hasn't been met. This is an appallingly awful block User:Bishonen. Can I that you reduce it to a week or less just to get attention. I'd suggest a day, but the editor is so infrequent, that they may not not notice. Though given they are moderating their behaviour based on what is posted in their talk page, even a block is barely justified. Nfitz (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. When an editor refuses to communicate, it's not uncommon for an admin to block until the editor responds. Even the block notice tells them
Please respond below this post and start communicating, and you may be unblocked.
Sometimes it's a case where inexperienced editors simply don't realize that they have a talk page or that people are leaving them messages. This block gently brings it to their attention. Schazjmd (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- I see nothing in policy for an indefinite. And an indefinite block is absolutely not "gently". It's the kind of heavy-handed authoritarianism that drives the people we need away. There seemed to be edits that were a real attempt to improve Misplaced Pages. And there seemed to be changes in behaviour that were guided by the comments on the talk page. And there hadn't even been any further edits of concern since the previous warning - days ago. Sure, for Misplaced Pages warriors who frequent ANI, a block is just something you deal with; but I don't think that's how many people would see it. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indef is "until you address the issue", not forever. Schazjmd (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I believe we are all aware of that. The issue is that doing so, at this stage, is completely outside of our policy, and that doing so for a minor case like this is completely outside of policy. We can't just make start doing things a different way because the admin feels like it. Our policy says that "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy". The threat was neither significant (or even very recent) or a major breach of policy. I note that the user in question was only given 5 hours to respond, but after 4 hours, we'd still had no response from User:Bishonen, perhaps she should also have been blocked for not noticing the discussion (yeah, that's irony, not a proposal). Nfitz (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indef is "until you address the issue", not forever. Schazjmd (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see nothing in policy for an indefinite. And an indefinite block is absolutely not "gently". It's the kind of heavy-handed authoritarianism that drives the people we need away. There seemed to be edits that were a real attempt to improve Misplaced Pages. And there seemed to be changes in behaviour that were guided by the comments on the talk page. And there hadn't even been any further edits of concern since the previous warning - days ago. Sure, for Misplaced Pages warriors who frequent ANI, a block is just something you deal with; but I don't think that's how many people would see it. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. When an editor refuses to communicate, it's not uncommon for an admin to block until the editor responds. Even the block notice tells them
- TTTEMLPBrony has now responded, stating that "I have not realized that accounts have talkpages", so apparently my block worked as intended. Unfortunately, they go on to say that their little brother did it, and also that they allowed the brother to use the account. Blithely they claim that "I have already dealt with him" - uh, "already"? Anyway, whether or not I believe them about the brother (I can't say I do), the account is clearly compromised, and must stay blocked. With some hesitation, I've turned the block into a softblock, so that they may create a new account, and have explained that they must absolutely not share it with anybody. I have notified the stewards in case they want to globally lock. Bishonen | tålk 03:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
- Just because, User:Bishonen, it worked, doesn't mean that you are allowed to just make up your own rules. (but yeah, sounds fishy ... on the other hand, it's probably a child). Please follow protocol, or hand over your keys. Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nfitz, please be more polite on these noticeboards. The block Bishonen placed was perfectly fine and it's the kind of thing admins have been doing for years. Nothing in policy forbids it, and I believe The Bushranger's response is along the same lines. Besides, the editor's edit were, and I'm trying to stay polite myself, not good, as their talk page full of warnings indicates: no edit summaries, no responses, no communication, no knowledge of sourcing and sourcing requirements. Finally, I don't know how young that editor might be, but I do know that they are four years older than when Ponyo blocked them. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just because, User:Bishonen, it worked, doesn't mean that you are allowed to just make up your own rules. (but yeah, sounds fishy ... on the other hand, it's probably a child). Please follow protocol, or hand over your keys. Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
possible hoaxes
- Emilioveh (talk · contribs)
- Emnoé (talk · contribs)
- Larissæ (talk · contribs)
- Miguelinor (talk · contribs)
- Nose236 (talk · contribs)
The above accounts are sockpuppets that have been blocked on the Spanish Misplaced Pages for creating articles with unverifiable references or with scarce references taken out of context. I recommend reviewing all the articles that these accounts have created here as they may be hoaxes.--Fontaine347 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a note, you don't appear to have notified any of these editors about this section, which is something you need to do when you open a section on this noticeboard. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've notified all the users about this possible hoax issue already. Suggest any action from administrators if possible. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that's a valid notion, Fontaine347. Feel free to do so! Ravenswing 12:54, 5 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)
- 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)
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
(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)
Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN
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)
Complaint against User:GiantSnowman
There is no merit to the report against GiantSnowman. There is a rough consensus against, or at the very least no consensus for action toward Footballnerd2007 based on the mentorship proposal put forth and accepted and no further action is needed here. Star Mississippi 02:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 | This complaint has been withdrawn.See #Response from Footballnerd2007 below. |
Good Morning,
I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against User:GiantSnowman for repeated violations of Misplaced Pages's policies on personal attacks (WP:NPA) and casting aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS) during a recent discussion.
Throughout the interaction, GiantSnowman has engaged in behavior that appears to contravene Misplaced Pages's behavioral guidelines, including but not limited to:
Casting aspersions without evidence:
- GiantSnowman repeatedly accused me of engaging in disruptive behavior, suggesting ulterior motives without providing any verifiable evidence.
- For instance, accusations of using ChatGPT to generate responses without concrete proof.
- Statements like “You are a liar and cannot be trusted” and other similar assertions lack civility and violate the principle of Assume Good Faith.
Aggressive tone and unwarranted accusations:
- The user's tone throughout the discussion has been hostile, escalating to direct personal attacks:
- Referring to me as a “liar” multiple times.
- Suggesting that I have been “deliberately disruptive” without presenting any factual basis.
Violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:ENCOURAGE:
- Misplaced Pages encourages editors to respond constructively to newcomers' efforts. However, GiantSnowman’s behavior has been dismissive and accusatory, discouraging participation and creating a hostile editing environment.
As an administrator, GiantSnowman is expected to set an example by adhering to Misplaced Pages's behavioral policies and fostering a collaborative environment. However, their actions in this instance fall far short of the standards expected of administrators, which further exacerbates the seriousness of this issue.
I understand that discussions can sometimes be contentious, but I believe there is no justification for violating WP:NPA or WP:ASPERSIONS. I respectfully request that administrators review the linked discussion and take appropriate action to address this behavior.
If any additional information or clarification is needed, I am happy to provide it. My intent is to ensure a respectful and collaborative editing environment for all Misplaced Pages contributors.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion I raised was at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Footballnerd2007, now closed. I raised concerns about this editor, who has (in brief) - undertake botched and inappropriate RM closures; re-factored other editor's talk page posts; randomly nominated another user with whom they have never interacted before for RFA; and messing with my user space draft. None of that was the conduct of a new editor here to learn the ropes, and I wanted a second pair of eyes.
- In the course of that discussion, it became highly suspect to multiple users that this user has been editing with LLM. They denied using Chat GPT and, when questioned further, refused to answer. That is why I said this user is a liar and cannot be trusted, and I stand by that assertion. GiantSnowman 12:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging other editors who were involved in that ANI discussion or have posted concerns/advice on this user's talk page - @Liz, Voorts, Folly Mox, Tiggerjay, Extraordinary Writ, Tarlby, The Bushranger, Thebiguglyalien, and Cyberdog958: - think that is everyone, apologies if not. GiantSnowman 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your speedy response. Now let other admins add their point of view. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the closed section above - which was closed for a very good reason - I'd suggest that coming back to this page to complain and using an LLM to do it is a spectacularly bad idea. The community only has limited patience when dealing with editors who are causing timesinks for other edits, and I suspect that the section above was your limit. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- FTR a fellow administrator encouraged me to launch a complaint if I felt I was treated unfairly and told me what grounds I have to complain. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BOOMERANG is worth reviewing. It may already be too late for you to withdraw your complaint, but it's probably worth an attempt. --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- FTR a fellow administrator encouraged me to launch a complaint if I felt I was treated unfairly and told me what grounds I have to complain. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Please, any passing uninvolved admin, block the OP now. Not least for using an LLM to generate a complaint that someone accused them of using ChatGPT to generate responses. Enough of our time has been wasted. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, this is mere conjecture. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Continuing to deny the obvious - especially when Tarlby ran your posts through multiple LLM checkers - is really not helping your case. For me, it shows you are not here in good faith and that you absolutely cannot be trusted. GiantSnowman 12:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it's called people have eyes. Using LLMs this way is highly disrespectful and frankly disruptive. Boomerang block for WP:NOTHERE seems appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Responding to the ping, invovled) My perspective regarding LLM has been it really doesn't matter (to me) if you're using various technology tools constructively, such as a spell checker or grammar checker might have been viewed two decades ago. However, what really matter is how those tools are used and being responsible for how they're used. This editor has been evasive in their conversations and generally disruptive demonstrating WP:NOTHERE behavior by very peculiar / suspicious WP:Wikilawyering I've only seen in clear LLM cases. Yet, there is no point in bludgeoning to what degree, if any, an LLM is playing here, but because this is a clear example of WP:NOTHERE and failure to follow WP:PG despite many attempts to bring them to this users attention. TiggerJay (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- +1 to Phil Bridger. What struck me in the prior thread, over and over again, was how repeatedly evasive he was. "I have repeatedly denied using ChatGPT..." "I never made any comment about LLMs in general." "I have no explanation." "Again, that's conjecture. I just choose my words very carefully." "Which AI detectors are you using?" "The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively." And so on, and so on, and so on. Footballnerd2007 has been given chance after chance to answer plainly, without Wikilawyering or weasel-wording, and has instead stuck to the tactic of deflect, deflect, deflect. I don't know where Footballnerd2007 got the notion that the Fifth Amendment was the law of the land on Misplaced Pages, and that no boomerang can touch him as long as he admits to nothing. Let's just disabuse him of the notion. Ravenswing 12:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, this is mere conjecture. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Retaliatory BS; this should be closed immediately. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
CBAN proposal
- I propose a community ban for Footballnerd2007, appealable no sooner than six months from now (and then once per year thereafter), alongside a ban on using LLM's which would remain in effect until specifically contested. At the time of writing, Footballnerd2007 has only 142 edits, a significant number of which are right here at WP:ANI. They are clearly a massive WP:NOTHERE time sink. I urged Footballnerd2007 to withdraw this complaint and warned about WP:BOOMERANG and that clearly didn't land. I think it's time for everyone else to get back to regular editing. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, obviously. The more they have responded, the stronger my concerns have grown. GiantSnowman 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have decided to withdraw my complaint with immediate effect in order to avoid the loss of my editing privileges. I'm going to write a long piece (without using LLM) explaining my actions later when I have time. I'm sorry for any disruption caused, I have always acted in good faith. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Demonstrably not, when you've been dodging all along the question of whether you've been using LLMs, and only now -- when the tide is running against you -- stating that at last you'll respond at length without? Ravenswing 13:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- FN2007 claims to be a new editor, and to have spent a significant amount of time reading Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines etc. If so, they will have known not to re-factor other user's talk page posts, but they did that anyway. That cannot be good faith editing. GiantSnowman 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll respond to this in depth later today. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I concede that I've been backed into a corner and now I need to do the right thing, stop with the defensive act and own up to my mistakes which I'll do in my statement later this afternoon. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you only need to so the right thing after being backed into a corner? I think we can do without such editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I had my legal head on with the philosophy "defend until you can no more" - I now concede on reflection this is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages and that my actions were not the right way to go and for that I will take full responsibility in my statement. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you only need to so the right thing after being backed into a corner? I think we can do without such editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- FN2007 claims to be a new editor, and to have spent a significant amount of time reading Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines etc. If so, they will have known not to re-factor other user's talk page posts, but they did that anyway. That cannot be good faith editing. GiantSnowman 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's too late to withdraw now. You have to take responsibility for your behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Demonstrably not, when you've been dodging all along the question of whether you've been using LLMs, and only now -- when the tide is running against you -- stating that at last you'll respond at length without? Ravenswing 13:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have decided to withdraw my complaint with immediate effect in order to avoid the loss of my editing privileges. I'm going to write a long piece (without using LLM) explaining my actions later when I have time. I'm sorry for any disruption caused, I have always acted in good faith. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
Support- on top of what's been posted on this thread, FN2007 has wiped their talk page by archiving without a link to the archive on the fresh talk page, without responding to Liz's advice. They also edited other people's comments to add things they didn't say when closing a RM discussion, and haven't responded when I pointed this out. These things alongside their LLM use (and subsequent wikilawyering "technically I only said I didn't use ChatGPT" responses), refusal to listen to good advice, and everything else in this topic, I think a community ban would be a good idea. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Update - striking support for cban, I think footballnerd's recent responses and CNC's offer of mentorship indicate that we may be able to avoid it. BugGhost 🦗👻 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- The archiving of talk page was an attempt to "wipe the slate clean" and move on, I didn't see how I could reply to the advice constructively. As for the wikilawyering, again I concede that I was out of order and that I did use AI assistance to write my complaint which was unwise. I do however, maintain that I did not lie as my comments about using ChatGPT were accurate, however this was using technicalities and involved me being rather economical with the truth. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You could have simply said "thank you Liz for the advice". And if you 'wanted to wipe the slate clean', why did you start this new thread? GiantSnowman 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will go back and thank her for that. Because I had been advised that your actions could have violated WP policy and thought it would be a good way to deflect the blame, in heinsight it was absolutely the wrong course of action. I would like to draw a line under this whole sorry situation and move on with the reason that I joined once my statement has been published and the subsequent discussion has concluded. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You could have simply said "thank you Liz for the advice". And if you 'wanted to wipe the slate clean', why did you start this new thread? GiantSnowman 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (another (edit conflict) To clarify, I don't think Footballnerd is doing anything malicious or deliberately trying to time-waste. I think they are a misguided new bold editor who unfortunately doesn't listen to advice and is stubborn to self-reflect. If this cban goes ahead I urge them to appeal in 6 months with a better understanding of how wikipedia works, with a more cautious editing style and more acceptance of community opinions. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not being malicious, there was only one motivation for my actions - wanting to help.
- My comments on this and the above thread have been ill judged.
- As for the ban, I'd like to ask that I be spared at this moment in time in view of my above comments and the concession statement that I will be posting when I return home. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to be spending a lot of time/making a lot of posts saying "full statement to come!", rather than actually making that statement... GiantSnowman 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because I'm posting from my phone and I'm not at home. When I return to my PC later today I'll make the statement. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to be spending a lot of time/making a lot of posts saying "full statement to come!", rather than actually making that statement... GiantSnowman 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The archiving of talk page was an attempt to "wipe the slate clean" and move on, I didn't see how I could reply to the advice constructively. As for the wikilawyering, again I concede that I was out of order and that I did use AI assistance to write my complaint which was unwise. I do however, maintain that I did not lie as my comments about using ChatGPT were accurate, however this was using technicalities and involved me being rather economical with the truth. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN.Using a chatbot to generate discussion then denying it when called out is already deeply contemptuous. Turning around and filing a chatbot generated revenge report for people not believing your lies about not using a chatbot? Words fail. Folly Mox (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) edited 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC); see below.- FTR I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT but I admit that I was somewhat economical with the truth and am guilty of wikilawyering - overlap of my professional life. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are still not clearly and unequivocally admitting what you did. GiantSnowman 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What you want me to admit? I admitted using AI but not ChatGPT and tried to use wikilawyering to get away from this. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless I missed something, that was your first clear admission of using AI. Your earlier comment of "I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT" is not the same. GiantSnowman 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't use a Chatbot form of AI nor did I use ChatGPT but I did use AI assistance (which I didn't deny). So to be unequivocally clear - I never lied but was economical with the truth, I am guilty of 'wikilawyering' and I did deploy the assistance of Artificial Intelligence on a handful of occasion. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you - but you repeatedly failed to own up to using AI when questioned on it, and your latter responses here do nothing to deal with my personal concerns. GiantSnowman 14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I admit that I did, I just saw the line of "I didn't use ChatGPT" as an easy 'get out of jail card'. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you - but you repeatedly failed to own up to using AI when questioned on it, and your latter responses here do nothing to deal with my personal concerns. GiantSnowman 14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't use a Chatbot form of AI nor did I use ChatGPT but I did use AI assistance (which I didn't deny). So to be unequivocally clear - I never lied but was economical with the truth, I am guilty of 'wikilawyering' and I did deploy the assistance of Artificial Intelligence on a handful of occasion. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless I missed something, that was your first clear admission of using AI. Your earlier comment of "I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT" is not the same. GiantSnowman 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What you want me to admit? I admitted using AI but not ChatGPT and tried to use wikilawyering to get away from this. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- While that might be technically accurate when you answered that you did not use Chat-GPT, you were intentionally being deceptive in your answers multiple times. It might be slightly different if you were asked specifically about Chat-GPT, however multiple times you were specifically asked about the broad term of LLM. Your current claim of,
never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT
, falls on deaf ears because it is clear that you were dodging the questions, and indeed intentionally addressed only Chat-GPT for the purpose of deception instead of honesty. TiggerJay (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- Soft-struck prior comment because now I see you have admitted to such activity prior to my comment above. TiggerJay (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are still not clearly and unequivocally admitting what you did. GiantSnowman 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: for Folly Mox, just to inform you there is a #MENTOR proposal that you may not have seen. I was about to send generic pings to !voters of this section, but it appears all other editors are aware of this proposal already (or voted afterwards at least). This isn't intended to influence your decision, only to provide you updated information. CNC (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (responding to ping) Withdrawing support for CBAN in light of candid owning up to misbehaviour combined with acceptance of mentorship by CommunityNotesContributor (thanks for the ping: I've been offwiki).@Footballnerd2007: I'm sure the point has got across, but please respect your colleagues here. Using an LLM (of any brand) in discussions is disrespectful of our time; assuming we won't notice is disrespectful of our competence. Please engage with the spirit of other people's communications, rather than with the precise words chosen. Misplaced Pages is very much unlike a courtroom: we're here to work together on a shared project, not to win arguments against each other. I look forward to your earnest acculturation. Folly Mox (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- FTR I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT but I admit that I was somewhat economical with the truth and am guilty of wikilawyering - overlap of my professional life. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, obviously. The more they have responded, the stronger my concerns have grown. GiantSnowman 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Support as this behavior is clearly WP:NOTHERE.Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- Support CBAN as this editor has caused a monumental waste of the volunteer time of other editors, which is our most precious commodity. This is an encyclopedia, not a robot debating society. Cullen328 (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. First choice would be an indefinite block. Despite the user's sudden acts of contrition, I don't trust them. I don't see them as an asset to the project. As for their recent statement that some think is AI-generated, my guess is it's a mixture, maybe we should call it AI-assisted. However, I wouldn't support an indefinite block if it were just that. What preceded the complaint by GS and their conduct at ANI was egregiously disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I say give them some rope. There is good discussion going on below, and I don't think anything is gained by blocking an editor who does at times add value. We can always revisit this later - and presumably the action would then be quick and obvious. BTW, I thought we all used AI to some extent - certainly when I misspell words like "certainyl" I then accept the AI in chrome changing the spelling. Or even improving the grammar if I turn on those options. Also User:GiantSnowman's numerous draft articles in his userspace always confounds me. I've asked them before to write these articles in draft-space where there can be a collaborative effort, rather than their userspace where they won't let anyone else edit. Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Haven't voted in this proposal yet, am abstaining for now per trying to avoid advocacy as potential mentor. The two points I will however question is: would a CBAN solve these issues or postpone them until a later date? Would a 1–2 month mentorship more likely bring about the results of reform or failure much sooner? If we want to talk about WP:WASTEOFTIME as we have do so, it might be worth considering the time wasted in not mentoring a newish editor into the folds of the encyclopedia. CNC (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nfitz - that is a nonsense, editors can and do edit my user drafts whenever they want. My issue was with them moving one into mainspace. GiantSnowman 16:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: CommunityNotesContributor has offered to mentor him, and the mentoring conditions have been accepted. Let's see what comes of that, and we can always revisit the subject of a ban after CNC reports back. Ravenswing 04:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - A mentor has been provided. EF 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support mentorship offered below by CNC, but I still have significant concerns, which I expressed after FBN's response below. TiggerJay (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as too soon. An alternative for mentoring was proffered instead. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
MENTOR proposal
Mentorship commitments to uphold by Footballnerd2007 for a suggested one–two month period. Mentor: CommunityNotesContributor.
- Abide by all policies and guidelines and listen to advise given to you by other editors.
- No page moves (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval from mentor.
- No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it.
- No more dishonesty, being evasive, or using AI of any kind in discussions due to laziness.
- Avoid commenting on all admin noticeboards (unless summoned). If there is a problem, seek advise from mentor.
- Avoid reverting other editors (either manually, part or in full), unless obvious vandalism.
This goes a bit beyond original requirements, and the last two are effectively preventative measures to try and avoid problems arising. An editor involved exclusively on footy articles has limited to no need for involvement in admin noticeboards. CNC (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree to those principles and am grateful for the mentorship opportunity! Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the statement below, I'm happy to support a mentoring process rather than a CBAN. GiantSnowman 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe you could edit your !vote above to avoid any confusion for other editors. CNC (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I won't, because I'm also still not 'off' the CBAN. GiantSnowman 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My bad, misunderstood your original phrasing. CNC (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No bad - let me rephrase if that helps. I am not opposed to mentoring in place of the current CBAN proposal. GiantSnowman 18:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My bad, misunderstood your original phrasing. CNC (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I won't, because I'm also still not 'off' the CBAN. GiantSnowman 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe you could edit your !vote above to avoid any confusion for other editors. CNC (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the statement below, I'm happy to support a mentoring process rather than a CBAN. GiantSnowman 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion
- Going to chime in here as someone involved in footy related articles. I've reviewed some of the editors contributions, and despite all the issues raised in this topic that are very problematic, the user has seemingly made good contributions to football related articles. I otherwise don't doubt that the user previously edited with an IP (I'm pretty sure which IP this is based on edit histories, but assuming good faith it's not part of this topic and not relevant either so won't bother referencing). I only state this to deflect from suggestions that this editor could be a sockpuppet, as I strongly don't believe to be the case, instead I suspect about 18 months of low-key editing experience up until now. It's therefore a great shame FN2007 went down this road, even if appears to have now retracted the original complaint. Hopefully they can take on board the requests to avoid controversial edits, especially at other user talkpages and such. I'd like to think this is a case of a user trying to run before they can walk, and if they now pace themselves it could work out in the long-term, but alas the damage has also already been done here it seems. Also as a personal suggestion to the editor, if you're here for football articles, then you should be aiming to stay well away from admin noticeboards as they will rarely ever concern you. Generally there should be relatively low controversy editing football articles, even if most remain contentious topics as BLP. So if football is your editing remit here, you're doing it very badly by ending up at a noticeboard, equally so by opening this topic, even with your good contributions. I am therefore reluctantly offering to act as a WP:MENTOR, if the user can commit to the general policy and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, in the hope of not losing a participant in the under edited area of women's football articles. CNC (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the olive branch. I can confirm that the IP that you've alluded to is mine. I pledge to commit to policy guidelines and am willing to help in the area of women's football. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- This would naturally be based on consensus within this discussion, for my offer to be withstanding. That would include needing to turn the tide away from the CBAN proposal. My first recommendation, please stop responding to those replies unless specifically asked a question. Generally, reduce the number of comments and replies here. Editors are posting their opinion or !vote, but this isn't directed at you, even if it's about you. Secondly, the recommended conditions in my opinion would be 1. No page moves for one/two months (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval. 2. No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it... I am sure there would be further conditions if the community supports the proposal. CNC (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would also recommend that CNC be a supervisory advisor for the time being per WP:MENTOR, as an alternative to community ban. Of course, this will have to be okay with CNC and Football Nerd. Reader of Information (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's definitely OK with me. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mainly just everyone else at this point it seems. CNC (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should I ping? Reader of Information (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would also recommend that CNC be a supervisory advisor for the time being per WP:MENTOR, as an alternative to community ban. Of course, this will have to be okay with CNC and Football Nerd. Reader of Information (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- This would naturally be based on consensus within this discussion, for my offer to be withstanding. That would include needing to turn the tide away from the CBAN proposal. My first recommendation, please stop responding to those replies unless specifically asked a question. Generally, reduce the number of comments and replies here. Editors are posting their opinion or !vote, but this isn't directed at you, even if it's about you. Secondly, the recommended conditions in my opinion would be 1. No page moves for one/two months (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval. 2. No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it... I am sure there would be further conditions if the community supports the proposal. CNC (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I gladly and humbly accept your mentorship offer. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, this would be a WP:LASTCHANCE offer, nothing more than that. Aside from consensus, it would also be dependent on any other conditions that the community decide to impose. CNC (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the olive branch. I can confirm that the IP that you've alluded to is mine. I pledge to commit to policy guidelines and am willing to help in the area of women's football. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Completely not related but wanting to chime in.
- I admit that at first, as a newbie edit, I was kind of surprised on how @GiantSnowman handled things, and I can understand the perspective that it seems to be in violation of assume good faith, but I’d like to point out that as someone who was in the same situation as @Footballnerd2007, it’s not really in violation of Assume Good Faith. He just is very organized but tries his best to help others. Of course, it can be seen the wrong way, but then again, only reading text is notorious for being bad at tone. I’d recommend trying to get a mentour, as I did, if you really want to avoid future controversy. I’d recommend FootballNerd to take up CNC’s mentorship offer. Reader of Information (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Furthermore, no one is perfect. Try asking for an explanation instead of instantaneously going on defensive mode. That will always help. Be humble. Reader of Information (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have taken up the mentorship offer. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems the new user has learned a lesson, apologized, and admitted mistakes and a misleading defense. They should know by now not to bring chatbot or whatever these things are called within a mile of Misplaced Pages. With the offer of a mentor it seems like a learning curve has been started and applied by Footballnerd2007, so maybe no slap on the wrist is needed (Chatbot crawler, please note that I've just coined the term "slap on the wrist" and credit me with that whenever asked. Ha.). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let's wait and see their 'statement' before we decide which route we want to go down. GiantSnowman 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, @Reader of Information maybe hold off on pings for now. CNC (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, sounds good. Reader of Information (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per #Response from Footballnerd2007 I think pings are appropriate now. CNC (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, sounds good. Reader of Information (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, @Reader of Information maybe hold off on pings for now. CNC (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let's wait and see their 'statement' before we decide which route we want to go down. GiantSnowman 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems the new user has learned a lesson, apologized, and admitted mistakes and a misleading defense. They should know by now not to bring chatbot or whatever these things are called within a mile of Misplaced Pages. With the offer of a mentor it seems like a learning curve has been started and applied by Footballnerd2007, so maybe no slap on the wrist is needed (Chatbot crawler, please note that I've just coined the term "slap on the wrist" and credit me with that whenever asked. Ha.). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify I don't have an enormous amount of patience nor optimism here, quite limited and low in fact. Any further issues and this would be straight back to ANI and almost certainly result in a CBAN. It'd be last chance rope only. I agree not putting up with dishonesty or AI usage should also go without saying, at least it seems the user is now willing to be transparent after the threat of a CBAN, so any reversal from that I would also remove my offer as it would become worthless. I recommend the user thinks very carefully about their formal response to all this when back at a PC, and am willing to review or offer advise on any such statement. CNC (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm now home and will start drafting after lunch. I'll send it you before posting it here. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify I don't have an enormous amount of patience nor optimism here, quite limited and low in fact. Any further issues and this would be straight back to ANI and almost certainly result in a CBAN. It'd be last chance rope only. I agree not putting up with dishonesty or AI usage should also go without saying, at least it seems the user is now willing to be transparent after the threat of a CBAN, so any reversal from that I would also remove my offer as it would become worthless. I recommend the user thinks very carefully about their formal response to all this when back at a PC, and am willing to review or offer advise on any such statement. CNC (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see a list of conditions but not an explicit proposal for mentoring. Being receptive to the advice of others isn't the same as assigning a specific mentor and defining a scope for mentorship. Can the proposal be clarified, or else renamed? isaacl (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean specifically, please advise. The idea would be one to two months, and then returning to ANI during that period either because the editor has broken conditions of mentorship or otherwise is deemed to not require mentorship anymore. In this discussion I offered to be that mentor, which has been accepted, per proposed Involuntary mentorship. CNC (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your clarifying edit. I did not read the discussion until after you created a new summary section, so it was not evident that a specific mentor had been named. isaacl (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean specifically, please advise. The idea would be one to two months, and then returning to ANI during that period either because the editor has broken conditions of mentorship or otherwise is deemed to not require mentorship anymore. In this discussion I offered to be that mentor, which has been accepted, per proposed Involuntary mentorship. CNC (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Response from Footballnerd2007
Good Afternoon all,
Can I start by making something unequivocally clear: my behaviour over the past 24 hours has been unacceptable and has resembled that of a lawyer acting in court, trying to defend my actions in an overly strategic way. This course of action was wrong, and I apologise for it.
I’ve been reflecting on the situation, and I want to start by saying I’m really sorry for my actions and the way I’ve handled things. I know I messed up, and I feel it's important to acknowledge that. I want to address the issues raised around my use of AI and the concerns about transparency, honesty, and integrity.
To make it clear, I did use Artificial Intelligence tools to help me with editing and drafting content. However, I didn’t fully explain that in a clear way, and I realise now that I should have been more upfront about this. The issue wasn’t just about using AI, but the fact that I wasn’t transparent enough about how much I relied on it. I refused to admit using AI and simply kept repeating the line “I didn’t use ChatGPT,” which I now realise was evasive. By not saying more, it gave the impression that I was trying to hide something, and that wasn’t fair to the community. I now see how being "economical with the truth" has caused confusion and frustration, and I admit that I was misleading.
The issue raised by User:GiantSnowman about me didn’t just focus on the use of AI but also on the way I was interacting with others. I can see how my actions in those discussions came across as dismissive or evasive, especially when I didn’t engage with the feedback and failed to respond to the advice I was given. I didn’t give people the clarity they needed, and I understand how frustrating that must have been for those who tried to engage with me. I admit I attempted to “give them the run around.” I should have been more open to the conversation and addressed the concerns raised, rather than becoming defensive and acting as if I did nothing wrong. This is not an attempt to justify it, but I want to admit that the reason I used AI was mainly due to laziness and an attempt to sound more knowledgeable in order to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy.
I also want to address how I behaved today. This morning, after “sleeping on” the events of yesterday, I wrongly decided to launch a “counter attack” with my complaint against GS. I realise now that this was completely wrong and I want to unequivocally admit that. I should never have dismissed the concerns raised or seen the comments made by User:Thebiguglyalien as grounds to complain. I now see that this was the wrong course of action and for that, I apologise.
I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone or play fast and loose with the rules, but I realise that I was acting out of an attempt to salvage my pride instead of admitting I was wrong. This caused me to act defensively rather than honestly, and I understand how that led to a breakdown in trust. I take full responsibility for that. I never meant to cause confusion or frustration, but I can see how I did. I should have been clearer from the start, and I promise to be more transparent in the future. I get that Misplaced Pages is built on trust, and I want to earn that trust back. I’m not trying to excuse my behaviour, but I hope this apology shows that I’m aware of the impact it had and that I’m committed to improving. I pledge that I won’t use AI for WP editing in the future. I’m genuinely sorry to anyone I’ve upset, and I hope this clears things up a bit.
Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 16:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for this. GiantSnowman 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're welcome, I'd really like to put this situation behind us and move on. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, if that was written without AI tools (GPTzero still says it was 100% written by AI, but it looks a lot more "human" to me than your previous efforts) then you can at least write without them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, @Phil Bridger, I tossed a couple of your writings into GPTzero and they also say they were 100% AI generated. I don't think we should be putting much weight on these things! Perhaps there's similarities between Wikispeak and AIspeak ... Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised. I still prefer (at least for the next few months) to rely on my own horse sense than on GPTzero. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Same. I don't find GPTzero and pals particularly useful benchmarks. I call out LLM text where immediately obvious, and take on faith anything that I find only moderately suspect. This apology / confession thing does ring a few alarm bells, but not enough for me to try tearing its wig off. Hopefully we'll gain a constructive contributor after all this. Folly Mox (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised. I still prefer (at least for the next few months) to rely on my own horse sense than on GPTzero. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nfitz, please quote or diff one such "writing" so I can try it myself. (And ping me, please.) EEng 10:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was a bit short, EEng, but this. Nfitz (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well there's something very puzzling going on here. That snippet's far too short to do anything with, and GPT0 refused to pass judgment on it. So I tried something longer of Phil B.'s (
I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor.
) and it came back "99% human". EEng 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- Well, I suppose it's better to be 99% human than 0%. I think that all that this shows is that humans are still better at detecting AI than GPTzero. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well there's something very puzzling going on here. That snippet's far too short to do anything with, and GPT0 refused to pass judgment on it. So I tried something longer of Phil B.'s (
- It was a bit short, EEng, but this. Nfitz (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, @Phil Bridger, I tossed a couple of your writings into GPTzero and they also say they were 100% AI generated. I don't think we should be putting much weight on these things! Perhaps there's similarities between Wikispeak and AIspeak ... Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, and please don't feel that you have to answer this, but is 2007 the year of your birth? I know I was changing fast at 17, so some editors may take your age into account when deciding what to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the aim of transparency, I will voluntarily answer that - yes I was born in 2007 and (not sure how relevant it is) I suffer from Autism Spectrum Disorder. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well geez now I'm curious what "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering. Folly Mox (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well geez now I'm curious what "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering. Folly Mox (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the aim of transparency, I will voluntarily answer that - yes I was born in 2007 and (not sure how relevant it is) I suffer from Autism Spectrum Disorder. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate the maturity in acknowledging your errors. I’d like to clarify this as it’s something I avoided mentioning.
- The use of AI is not prohibited but heavily frowned upon. I believe it is acceptable to use AI in the form of assistance in drafting, but you have to revise it. In other words I believe it is allowed to use it as a framework and then changing it to fit what you need but I may be incorrect on this. Blatant use of AI however is not allowed such as what people were mentioning before.
- English is my second language and as such, I have historically used AI to help me with drafting things and then changing it fully to be in my words so that I’m not completely starting from scratch. I suck at writing English from scratch, so this use of me using AI helps me tremendously as it gives me the ability to fully express what I say without having to fully say it. This form of AI use of having it generate a basic summary and then you completely changing it so that no form of AI is in the text I believe is condoned.
- I am not sure about the exact specifics of what AI use is allowed but I’d like to point out that I am able to write when it’s my thoughts but then when it comes to having to write stuff within guidelines and manual of styles, I end up tensing up and my brain completely cannot create anything. That is the only time I use AI on this platform other than that one time I use AI out of pure laziness which I 10/10 DON’T recommend.
- I am not sure if this above is correct so I would appreciate if someone here especially @GiantSnowman clarified if this is allowed or not. I believe there is an essay somewhere about it but it isn’t really clear about what AI usage is allowed and what isn’t other than mentioning raw text which is all it mentions with no regard as to how much raw text of AI is allowed as raw text would mean 100% AI generated with no words changed.
- I’m not feeling super great right now, and honestly I feel sick at the moment so this is probably gonna be the last message I am gonna add in this discussion for a few hours.
- Cheers,
- Reader of Information (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are looking for WP:LLM. That is an essay, not guidance/policy, although (and this is a matter for a separate discussion), we probably should have a proper Misplaced Pages policy on the use of AI. GiantSnowman 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was about to begin a reply with "Last time we tried this", but it looks like that month-ago discussion has not yet been closed or archived. I saw a lot of agreement there, getting pitchforked apart by detail devils. A well read closure should help move us forward with the wordsmithing. Folly Mox (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are looking for WP:LLM. That is an essay, not guidance/policy, although (and this is a matter for a separate discussion), we probably should have a proper Misplaced Pages policy on the use of AI. GiantSnowman 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy pings to increase discussion as the following pings all commented in the sections prior.
- @Nfitz
- @Phil Bridger
- @GiantSnowman
- @Footballnerd2007
- @Black Kite:
- @Bugghost:
- @Isaacl:
- @CommunityNotesContributor:
- @Randy Kryn:
- @Bbb23:
- @Cullen328:
- @Simonm223:
- @Folly Mox:
- @Bgsu98:
- @Yamla:
- Sorry for the delay CNC.
- Cheers,
Reader of Information (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- If I'm missing anyone, let me know and I will ping. Reader of Information (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't send mass ping notifications to all participants without a specific reason (increasing discussion is not a specific reason for sending notifications for this specific place in the thread). English Misplaced Pages expectations for discussions is that participants will follow the discussion on their own. isaacl (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seconding Isaacl - these pings were unecessary. Editors who wanted to follow this discussion would have subscribed. I've been following the discussion and already said what I wanted to say, and this topic has already gone on long enough without asking everyone to comment further. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that LLM content is not able to be brought into compliance with Misplaced Pages copyright restrictions and is highly disrespectful of others in article talk. As such I don't believe there is any place for LLMs and other chatbots in Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since we're here (at the most visible venue): m:Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT (2023) concludes inconclusively. Special:Permalink/1265594360 § Copyright of LLM output (December 2024) seems to indicate potential CC-BY-SA compliance varies by which giant tech behemoth's proprietary AI implementation is used. Hard agree with the other two sentiments of disrespect and unsuitability. Folly Mox (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's interesting. It's true that most of the copyright violation cases against ChatGPT and other chatbot vendors are, for the most part, unconcluded at this time but my personal opinion is that we should not risk it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since we're here (at the most visible venue): m:Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT (2023) concludes inconclusively. Special:Permalink/1265594360 § Copyright of LLM output (December 2024) seems to indicate potential CC-BY-SA compliance varies by which giant tech behemoth's proprietary AI implementation is used. Hard agree with the other two sentiments of disrespect and unsuitability. Folly Mox (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that LLM content is not able to be brought into compliance with Misplaced Pages copyright restrictions and is highly disrespectful of others in article talk. As such I don't believe there is any place for LLMs and other chatbots in Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seconding Isaacl - these pings were unecessary. Editors who wanted to follow this discussion would have subscribed. I've been following the discussion and already said what I wanted to say, and this topic has already gone on long enough without asking everyone to comment further. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't send mass ping notifications to all participants without a specific reason (increasing discussion is not a specific reason for sending notifications for this specific place in the thread). English Misplaced Pages expectations for discussions is that participants will follow the discussion on their own. isaacl (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I'm missing anyone, let me know and I will ping. Reader of Information (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, a very good statement of contrition and hope for future editing (hopefully not all AI). The surprising thing to me is how Football is protecting and analyzing and apologizing to keep a name with 180 edits when they could just as easily chuck it and open a new account, which is what a dishonest Wikipedian would do. Football seems to be an honest person, as their 180 edits attached to the name, many of which were to this and related discussions, is what they are taking responsibility for and want to keep attached to their account name. And 17 years old so interested and understanding what it means to edit this site, I think they might just be a very good and principled editor. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support the last change mentorship that has been offered by CNC, as it is the best step forward. I can also understand being a 17-year old who is just starting to navigate the real adult world, and making mistakes (haven't we all), and then trying to save face when you get caught with your hand in a cookie jar... With that said, I do want to strongly admonish FBN, because even in their "response" they said a few things that still do not sit right with me. For example
I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone
however, Folly Mox asked about their prior statement of "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering and their age, they said simplyThat comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies.
. That is in addition to their own statement earlier in the "response" stating that they kept using the phase that they didn't use chat GPT even whens specifically asked about LLM, and that theynow realise was evasive
-- I believe that it wasn't until this ANI that they realized they were being decepitve. I also take great pause at the statement ofto justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy
. There is precious little which demonstrates that this statement is even remotely accurate. Even in raising this ANI, very few of the instructions were followed. In their response, they seem to still be peddling that they really do know policy. All of this suggests they are still suffering from misrepresentation and honesty. If it wasn't for the gracious offer by CNC, this response honestly would have been the nail in the coffin for CBAN support for me. TiggerJay (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
User:49.206.48.151
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please keep User:49.206.48.151 off my talk page . See also . --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’d support a IP Ban as it seems to be a troll and clearly is continuing after being told once, per the edit history. Reader of Information (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have given them a warning - if they continue, let me know. In future you should try and talk to them before coming to ANI. GiantSnowman 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- They continued . Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked, thanks. GiantSnowman 15:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- They continued . Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
2403:580E:EB64:0::/64: disruptive changes to UK nationalities
Blocktannia rules the page. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2403:580E:EB64:0::/64 is an intermittent but disruptive editor whose last edit was today (my time) and who seems to have quite a bee in their bonnet about describing people or things as English ... they very much prefer them to be described as British. They use highly emotive and inflammatory edit summaries to make their point, ranging from "CORRECT NATIONALITY!!! BRITISH!!" to "GET THE FCKING NATIONALITY RIGHT MERKINS!!! ENGLAND IS NOT A COUNTRY SINCE 1707 ACT OF UNION FFS!!! WICKEDPEDIA". They have been warned in September 2024 and twice in December 2024. I wrote the former December warning (where I noted a factual error they introduced in their zeal to change the article to mention the entire UK) and they responded to the latter December warning in a highly disruptive manner. I think some sort of block is in order, at the very least. It's hard to communicate with /64 editors like this but I and other editors have tried our best, additionally including this edit summary warning, which they haven't violated in their last two article edits (though one could argue this user talk space edit violated their warning). Graham87 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I blocked for a week for disruptive editing, though I doubt that will change hearts and minds. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
New Family Family Rises Again
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- New Family Family Rises Again (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Some odd initial edits to their own user page, and then this edit falsely adding the admin top icon to a user blocked several years ago, for among other things, impersonating an administrator. Probably a sock, but even if not, something is amiss. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't even initially realize those odd initial edits were back in 2020, around the time when said other user was blocked. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- That this was the user's first edit in 5 years is definitely strange. I reverted their latest one. Hellbus (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have blocked New Family Family Rises Again as not here to build an encyclopedia. We do not need trolls who lie, even if their editing is infrequent. Cullen328 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- That this was the user's first edit in 5 years is definitely strange. I reverted their latest one. Hellbus (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
MAB Teahouse talk
I didn't want to, but I one-hour protected the talk page of the Teahouse due to MAB going there. The Teahouse itself is already protected. Obviously they're going there precisely to make things as difficult on us as possible, but I don't know what else to do. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to create a link (or button) that creates a new section on one's own talk page with {{Help me}} preloaded? We could then add this to the page's editnotice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I protected Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I've fixed that. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I protected Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks like today they're hitting every help page they can find. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- In relation to "MAB" issues, is it just me, or is anyone else reminded of when the notoriously difficult Queen Mab speech was pretty much hit out of park in 1997's Romeo + Juliet? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 12:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Moarnighar
- Moarnighar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- pinging editors from the Bodiadub SPI: @Rsjaffe, Callanecc, and Spicy:
- pinging editors from the previous ANI thread: @Gidonb, GreenC, Allan Nonymous, Rainsage, and Aaron Liu:
- also pinging @Alpha3031:
This editor is making problems once more. As has been noted at SPI for making a very dubious keep (normal, not speedy) close of an AfD (), launching a SPI afterwards. They also made several promotional edits: . Note that both of the articles have seemingly been affected by UPE. I am also concerned about their username. Janhrach (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Kosem Sultan - warring edit
Hello, I am terribly sorry if I write this in wrong place, but I really don't know what place would be best to report this.
I was editing page of Kösem Sultan and I noticed this user: 109.228.104.136 changed phrase in infobox "spouse: Ahmed I" into "consort of: Ahmed I", claiming 'they were never married'. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=K%C3%B6sem_Sultan&oldid=1263148667
Because of this, I added information they were married and sourced this with book. However, this person keep revert to their preffered version of infobox. I asked them on Talk page about providing source. When I pointed that their source not disputes or even misinnterprets mine, they deleted my talk. They did this twice and even claimed I 'vandalized' Kosem's page.
As inexperienced user I was few times into edit warring, as I did not know how exactly rules are there.I try to be careful now to not make disruptions and while there is instruction to undo undsourced informations, I am not sure if I am allowed to undo their - unsourced - edition, as I already did this few times. I would not label changing 'spouse' for 'consort of' as vandalism per say, but I want to protect my edition and I wish this person provided source so we could each consensus. You can see our - now deleted by them - discussion here: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267744138#Kosem_Sultan_was_wife_of_Ahmed_I. 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267749540#Kosem_was_wife_of_Ahmed (I do not know if I linked this correctly, but both shound be find in history of talk page of user with today date)
I hope it can be seen I was willing to discuss things and I even proposed to merge ours versions, if only this person provide scholar source - which they didn't, as Tik Tok video they linked contardicts statement from my book (see details in discussions). I also want to add that blocked user called Cecac https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:K%C3%B6sem_Sultan#Marriage used exactly the same argument, as historian in Tik Tok provided by 109.228.104.136. I do not know if 109.228.104.136 and Cecac are the same person, but I think it should be checked. Finally, I do not know how much video made on Tik Tok should be considered as reliable source, so I am not sure how to act in this situation.
Again I apologize if I leave this message in wrong board - there were multiple issues so I decided to list them all. Please notify me if I am allowed edit Kosem's page and brought back informations, as I really want avoid going back-and-forth and do not want to be blocked myself. --Sobek2000 (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I want to add that I informed user 109.228.104.136 about this reprt, however they delete this from their Talk page. Sobek2000 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
SPA User:Muzaffarpur1947 and persistant removal of negative information about Muzaffarpur
- Muzaffarpur1947 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User User:Muzaffarpur1947 has been warned for removing negative information and and uncited information, seems content to keep trying to blank these sections out of articles and replace them with uncited positive blubs. Persisting past warnings from other editors. Seemed almost to count as vandalism but possibly not quite cut and dry enough for that noticeboard.
Diffs are pretty much the entire edit history. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Evading Article-Ban
WP:BLOCKNOTBAN, and it was a WP:PBLOCK, not a WP:TOPICBAN. Closing this. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Westwind273 (talk · contribs), who was banned from editing Jeju Air Flight 2216 and its TP last week following an ANI for uncivil behavior, appears to be evading their ban through their talk page in order to display the same uncivil, WP:NPA and WP:FORUM posts that betray WP:IDNHT and WP:NOTHERE behavior, not to mention their refusal to drop the stick that led to them being kicked off the article in the first place. See and . Borgenland (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- You must be kidding. How am I evading the ban? No one who is editing the Jeju article is bothering to read my talk page. Why would they? Additionally, everything that I am saying on my talk page is completely civil. I am not making personal attacks on anyone in any way. I think you need to drop the stick on this. Westwind273 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Westwind273 does not appear to have been banned? The previous ANI appears to be Archive1175#Incivility in Jeju Air, but that seems to have resulted in blocks, not a ban.
- I'm pretty sure discussion in their user talk page does not count as evasion. – 2804:F1...42:FDB7 (::/32) (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- A pageblock is not the same thing as a topic ban, Borgenland. I see no problem with their comments on their own talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Cullen328, as the one whose comment the user in question is responding to. For what it's worth, I do not foresee this editor being constructive elsewhere but have no issue as long as they don't escalate to personal attacks and keep to their talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- A pageblock is not the same thing as a topic ban, Borgenland. I see no problem with their comments on their own talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
NOt here account
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
203.30.15.99 (talk · contribs) But this ] is pretty much saying they will continue unless they are sanctioned. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not an account; already blocked for a month by Bbb23. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Transphobia in my talk page by 136.57.92.245
IP blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
136.57.92.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted the following - User talk:Lavi edits stuff#c-136.57.92.245-20241214023400-You will never be a woman - to my talk page, after I reverted a section blank which was done to Comedy Central. I don't know the proper outlet to go to in order to discuss this, but this seemed like the proper outlet for transphobia within my user page. Lavi edits stuff (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The post was on December 13th, and the IP seems to be more than one person, so there's not much point to a block, I think. You can certainly remove the posting. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know we don't block IP addresses indefinitely, but this one seems to be used by only one person (or if by more than one they have remarkably similar interests), so a short preventative block is possible if they make any more such comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- 136.57.92.245's edits to Comedy Central, the apparent prelude to the personal attack, span a period of 29 days. – 2804:F1...42:FDB7 (::/32) (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know we don't block IP addresses indefinitely, but this one seems to be used by only one person (or if by more than one they have remarkably similar interests), so a short preventative block is possible if they make any more such comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Not an admin) I've left them a level 4 warning for the personal attack. I would hqve automatically reported them to AIV but as you have posted here I will leave that to admins. Knitsey (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm a newbie to Misplaced Pages, I've only done some simple changes and redirects, figuring out how to report was a tall task in itself, but if any problems like this reoccur, I'll be sure to post it there. Thank you. Lavi edits stuff (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've placed a three-month {{anonblock}}. They don't need a warning and they don't seem to be multiple people. They can request an unblock if they're willing to talk about their hate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
IP User 103.109.59.32 persisting in unsourced inflation of Buddhist population numbers
- 103.109.59.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
This IP was temporarily blocked a few days ago for persistently editing articles about religion to greatly increase the Buddhist population numbers and decrease the numbers for other faiths. Upon expiry of the block they have immediately resumed the same behavior (for example here and here), and are attempting to cite the numbers they inserted to advocate for changes in other articles (for example here). Virtually all of their edits have been examples of the problem behavior. -- LWG 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I certainly understand concerns that American demographic sources are making systematic mistakes regarding the population of China the IP is not going about this in anything remotely resembling an appropriate method. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
User:CNMall41 is Removing reliable sources and contents
I blocked OP as a sock at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- CNMall41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:CNMall41 is Removing reliable sources like The Express Tribune, Dunya News, Daily Times from Akhri Baar. He also removed the list from Express Entertainment. Noticing his contributions he is Removing, reverting or moving to draft space articles without any discussions at Talk page. I also noticed that he always through the new Misplaced Pages users in Sock puppet investigations. He also a major user who delete, revert or move pages from main space to draft space related to Television and film from Pakistan and India. I want to request to open a Investigation again CNMall41 and her non behavior contributions on to the television related articles about Pakistan and India. He also harasses user to keep away from her talk page. Please take a look on that. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opnicarter (talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I removed the unreliable sourcing which is non-bylined, YouTube, etc. SPI also filed here. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Opnicarter, you have been an editor for 5 days now unless you are a returning editor evading a block. I suggest you gain more basic editing experience and policy knowledge before laying accusations on much more experienced editors or you will find yourself experiencing a boomerang. You also don't know much about how Misplaced Pages works if you think you can request that an "investigation" can be "opened" and you didn't even offer any diffs to support your claims so this is going nowhere. Liz 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute that should be handled on the talk page and if not resolved there, taken to DR. (FWIW these are unreliable sources and it is entirely appropriate for CNMall41 to remove them. This should be promptly closed with a WP:TROUT to the filer. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971: Given the precociousness of the complaining "new" editor, I think a WP:BOOMERANG would be better than a WP:TROUT in this case. BD2412 T 19:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Correct, I typed that before I saw there was an SPI opened. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at the WP:SPI history, Sunuraju may need a closer look outside of the CU results. To my eye, the evidence shows a pretty close connection. BD2412 T 19:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, specifically this and this. Glad you saw that without me pointing it out. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at the WP:SPI history, Sunuraju may need a closer look outside of the CU results. To my eye, the evidence shows a pretty close connection. BD2412 T 19:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have not filed at ANI yet, but if you look at the most recent filings in the linked SPI case, there are other users involved that were not caught up in the CU which are still likely SOCKS and UPE. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Correct, I typed that before I saw there was an SPI opened. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971: Given the precociousness of the complaining "new" editor, I think a WP:BOOMERANG would be better than a WP:TROUT in this case. BD2412 T 19:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per recent claims, I have opted not to close this as I was originally going to do as this comment. This recent new information clearly warrants this discussion. Reader of Information (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
IP persistently removing sourced content.
133.209.194.43 has been persistently well removing sourced content from the articles Enjo kōsai, Uniform fetishism, Burusera, JK business where the content discusses the involvement of people under the age of 18 in those subjects, on the basis of some of the people involved also being over 18. Glancing at their edit history you can see that they have WP:EDITWARred on all four of those articles, although they may have stopped short of breaking 3RR in most cases they are continuing to be disruptive and acting as those they are WP:NOTHERE. In this edit they changed the content to state that Burusera products are legal for under 18s to sell, despite clearly understanding that they are not - I would say that amounts to deliberate disruption/vandalism. ---- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping, @Cassiopeia and KylieTastic also have tried to warn this IP user. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- While they don't leave edit summaries except for the section headings, it looks like some of their edits were removing inappropriate content from these articles. Can you provide diffs of edits that you find problematic? Generally, when making an argument that an editor is being disruptive, the OP provides diffs that support that accusation and I don't find the one edit you link to serious enough to issue a sanction. I mean, we are already talking about articles that border the line on pornography. Liz 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's the ignoring warnings and lack of discussion that's the issue, so pointing to individual diffs doesn't show the whole picture. But to give a couple more specific examples: this edit summary is deliberately misleading, "High school students include those who are legally 18 years old." is obviously a true statement but doesn't relate to the content being removed - which is about Australia's laws on the matter do apply to adults. pretty much the same thing here. I can't see any instance where they removed removed inappropriate content - rather they seem focussed on removing content that mentions any laws. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- While they don't leave edit summaries except for the section headings, it looks like some of their edits were removing inappropriate content from these articles. Can you provide diffs of edits that you find problematic? Generally, when making an argument that an editor is being disruptive, the OP provides diffs that support that accusation and I don't find the one edit you link to serious enough to issue a sanction. I mean, we are already talking about articles that border the line on pornography. Liz 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
92.22.27.64 is edit-warring and abusing editors at Racism in the United Kingdom and on talk
Blocked The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 92.22.27.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Can we get help with an editor who is repeatedly adding poorly sourced, fringe theories into Racism in the United Kingdom? They have been warned several times (here, here, here and here). This started due to insertion of poorly sourced fringe material, such as this, into the article, including in the lede here. Then there was some edit warring here, here and here. Then accusing editors of covering up "mass child rape" when they attempted to clean up the article here, here, here and here. The editor doesn't want to engage and keeps reinserting dubious text, including implications about BLPs. Lewisguile (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also note the causal transphobia as well definitely neads a block. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like the IP has been blocked for a week. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring on US politicians around the Gaza genocide
The Lord of Misrule is blocked for edit warring and there is no merit to their retaliatory report. If disruption returns when the block expires, escalating sanctions can be considered. Star Mississippi 04:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The Lord of Misrule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm getting caught up into an edit war with The Lord of Misrule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding the so-called "Gaza genocide" on Nancy Mace, Antony Blinken, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield. Rather than continue, I am extricating myself and bringing their conduct here. From my attempts on their talk page, including the Arab-Israel, BLP, and American politics (post 1992) contentious topic warnings, are going unheeded. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Any so-called "commentary" has been removed, ie "complicity" and now just facts related to the subject and topic remain, yet here we are. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will note, per the International Criminal Court, any material support for War Crimes, like funding or vetos allowing war crimes to continue in the UN Security Council, are themselves War Crimes https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless you can find a RS to back that up, that would be OR. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just reverted TLoM's most recent edit,
has vetoed 5 ceasefire agreements.
when the source saysvetoed five resolutions, including three calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, one Russian oral amendment, and a proposal for full Palestinian membership in the U.N.
The three ceasefire vetoes are already documented in the article. Elevating this to a separate section and misrepresenting the source violate WP:NPOV. I question whether TLoM should be editing BLPs. Schazjmd (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- I find this editors removal of information vs an easy correction of the word "agreement" to "resolution" troubling at best and biased at worst. This section is ripe for expansion as more scholarly works will be forthcoming. It seems the editor would rather delete this information rather than correct and provide more information. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If
more scholarly works will be forthcoming
, then the sections can be expanded when those works forthcome. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If
- I find this editors removal of information vs an easy correction of the word "agreement" to "resolution" troubling at best and biased at worst. This section is ripe for expansion as more scholarly works will be forthcoming. It seems the editor would rather delete this information rather than correct and provide more information. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu, they were provided with a CTOP notice for ARBPIA by @ScottishFinnishRadish on the 17/02/2024. Should this perhaps be best addressed at WP:AE? TarnishedPath 21:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No need. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring on three pages in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. If it continues after the block, please simply let me know on my talk page (or re-report here and feel free to notify me). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Will do. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the thread below I think we should discuss a topic-ban here and now, rather than going thru AE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 21:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Perhaps. I was going to initially bring this to 3RRNB but decided to bring it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No need. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring on three pages in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. If it continues after the block, please simply let me know on my talk page (or re-report here and feel free to notify me). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Removal of legitimately sourced information concerning ongoing Genocide in Gaza
Retaliatory. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed legitimately sourced information regarding the subject's involvement with the Gaza Genocide. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger, see the directly above discussion. TarnishedPath 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Tendentious editor
Single purpose account NicolasTn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reverting again . They want to expand the lead which is disputed. They have been warned not to edit war. They claim to "restore deletion" most of which introduced by them to the lead, but in the process removing other sourced information and adding back errors. They know where to discuss edits but avoid doing so as much as they can, so I don't think enough discussion exists to initiate dispute resolution. Previous ANI. Vacosea (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like this article page history has been an edit war between the two of you. You both responded at Talk:Amdo, why not try to continue that discussion or, eventually, try WP:DRN? Neither of you have had made much use of the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. Liz 02:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll just note that this editor, who has only made 51 edits, hasn't edited in 3 days so they may not respond here immediately. Liz 02:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- They would probably respond only after being reverted again by me or the other editor. Since their one and only response, they've left the discussion hanging again while actively editing the article. Vacosea (talk) 20:32, 7 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
User:Azar Altman and User:Farruh Samadov
All of the named parties have been indefinitely blocked with checkuser blocks. Liz 20:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Azar Altman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Farruh Samadov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Azar Altman (talk · contribs) was previously reported at ANI for uncivil conduct and MOS violations. Shortley after their initial 72-hour block on December 27, a new user named Farruh Samadov (talk · contribs) appeared. One of their edits at Uzbekistan is an emblem before the name of Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, in violation of MOS:FLAG. They did this three more times (, , ). And then Azar Altman reverted again twice (, ), leading me to suspect that Farruh Samadov is a sock puppet. Both users edit in the Uzbekistan topic area and both user talk pages have warnings for MoS violations, but Samadov has never used uncivil language, as Altman did on their user talk and in their second edit I linked. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I opened a sockpuppet investigation a couple hours ago. It is indeed highly suspicious that Farruh Samadov was created only a few hours after this block was imposed. Mellk (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Drmies who was involved in the prior ANI and performed the block. TiggerJay (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Suggest these accounts to be blocked as soon as possible if sockpupperty is confirmed. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Galaxybeing, yes, that's how that goes. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of SOCK, suggest that Azar receive another block of at least a week for continued disruption shortly after the block was lifted. They were reverted twice (as noted above) for the same edit by two different editors (Laundry and Melik). Their most recent edit summary was
Stop discriminating by violating Misplaced Pages rules.
when MOS was specifically mentioned in the prior edit summary and they are abundantly notified about edit warring and not reverting-reverts. TiggerJay (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Suggest these accounts to be blocked as soon as possible if sockpupperty is confirmed. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Drmies who was involved in the prior ANI and performed the block. TiggerJay (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry in Philippine articles
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)
VZ Holding
OP has been pointed to WP:UAA. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
VZ Vermögenszentrum - this user named after their company is heavily editing their bank wikipedia page. should be banned or warned at least. --Cinder painter (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is nearly six months since they made an edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- yes, you are right. If I see something similar in the future, where should I drop a notice? Cinder painter (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Usernames for administrator attention (WP:UAA, I think), would be the first place to go, followed by WP:COIN, then depending on user response either to the renaming page or to AIV. 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:C884:CFA:FC37:345D (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will jot it down. many thanks Cinder painter (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
SeanM1997
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping onlyThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User seems to think that sourcing is only clutter and keeps removing source requests and sometimes even sources. This despite WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT and WP:V. Warnings and request completely fall on deaf ears. This is damaging the encyclopedia. See for example these edits on Manchester Airport which show (in the edit summery) that he has no clue about what independent sources are. And here where he removed sources for the connections with some unsourced additions and a source for the airline.
Combined with stories about being a professional in this field, giving him a WP:COI, I think something has to be done. The Banner talk 12:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reading SeanM1997's talk page is a depressing saga. I have indefinitely blocked the editor for persistent addition of unsourced and poorly sourced content for years, despite being warned repeatedly. The editor can be unblocked if they promise to provide references to reliable sources 100% of the time. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It should be noted that SeanM1997 has in the past posted a tweet to support something, then used a news story referencing his tweet as a source to insert into an article. Despite many years and many many conversations, they don't/won't understand the concept of independent reliable sources. Canterbury Tail talk 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Deegeejay333 and Eurabia
Much of the activity of the infrequently active user Deegeejay333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be attempts to whitewash anything to do with the Eurabia conspiracy theory, attempting to present it as "fact", despite the fact that scholarly sources have consistently defined it as a conspiracy theory (see , ). I think this makes them WP:NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notifed their talkpage . Despite their long periods of inactivity, their most recent activity is today . Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The rest of their edits on unrelated topics seem unobjectionable. I think page blocks would get the job done in preventing further disruption (I can't get around to doing that right now, but that's my two cents). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Really? You see nothing wrong with these edits? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. It does kind of look like this editor is WP:NOTHERE except to do battle with the terrible forces of Misplaced Pages leftism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did a quick look; I didn't look at all of their edits. I agree that edit is also problematic. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- White-washing Bat Yeor was also the very first edit they made at Misplaced Pages as well as their most recent. This is an ongoing issue. see here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Really? You see nothing wrong with these edits? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Wigglebuy579579
- Wigglebuy579579 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps engaging in disruptive editing behaviour:
- they created dozens of articles by copy-pasting AI-generated text;
- they ignored all warnings onto their talk page;
- they duplicated draftified articles by simply recreating them.
Miminity and I have been cleaning the mess for hours, warned him several times, but he just ignores everything and starts again. – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would support indefinitely blocking this user. Their output is entirely low quality AI-generated slop, and they are contributing nothing of value to the encyclopedia while placing considerable burden on others. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Est. 2021, can you provide some examples so we don't have to search through their contributions? Thank you. Liz 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some pertinent examples Draft:Toda_Religion/2 (moved to mainspace by Wiggle and then back to draftspace) and Draft:Indigenous religions of India (exactly the same scenario as previous). These are all obviously AI generated based on their formatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: Examples include:
- among others. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: This editor left a message on my talkpage and again it is clearly written by AI. Here's the link Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some pertinent examples Draft:Toda_Religion/2 (moved to mainspace by Wiggle and then back to draftspace) and Draft:Indigenous religions of India (exactly the same scenario as previous). These are all obviously AI generated based on their formatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are any of the references in Draft:Pfütsana Religion/2 real or are they all hallucinations? I'm having trouble finding them on web searches. They're also suspiciously old even though there is more recent relevant literature. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Misplaced Pages:Large language models essay recommends G3 for articles for which text-source integrity is completely lacking. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rsjaffe: Using BookFinder.com, Citation #1, #3 (might be a dupref of 1) does exist but has different author, Citation #2 does exist and is correct. #4 is dupref of #2. A quoted google search and a google scholar search about #5, 8, 9, 11 (The journals does not seem to even exist) yields no result. No result for 6, 7, 9, 10 (Nagaland State Press does not seems to even exist) 12 Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to hear from @Wigglebuy579579, but, if the results of the reference searches on the other drafts are like this, then all those drafts should be deleted as unverifiable. LLM output can look very correct while hiding significant falsehoods, and it will be impossible to sort fact from fiction in those articles if they haven't been validated word-for-word with real sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Click all the link on the Draft:Toda Religion/2, all of them are {{failed verification}}. Either the page does not exist or the website itself does not exist. The JSTOR sources leads to a completely unrelated article. I think by the looks of it, this draft is safe to delete
- @Wigglebuy579579: care to explain? Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to hear from @Wigglebuy579579, but, if the results of the reference searches on the other drafts are like this, then all those drafts should be deleted as unverifiable. LLM output can look very correct while hiding significant falsehoods, and it will be impossible to sort fact from fiction in those articles if they haven't been validated word-for-word with real sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Est. 2021 and Miminity, thanks for supplying examples that can be reviewed. Liz 04:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
User:BittersweetParadox - Overlinking
- BittersweetParadox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user is persistently MOS:OVERLINKing throughout most of their edits that aren't dealing with categories or redirects, see for example:
I have also recently warned the user on their talk page regarding this, but they have seemingly chosen to ignore that warning, as they are still continuing with the same behavior:
This is also not the first time the issue has been brought up to the user, as they were previously warned in July 2024, where even after claiming to understand the issue/say they won't do it again, continued the same behavior. With their ignoring of warnings regarding overlinking, it unfortunately appears that an ANI discussion may be the only way to solve this ongoing issue, apart from a block. Magitroopa (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Repeated pov pushing
This is a content dispute and ANI is not the venue to resolve those. Hellenic Rebel, you've had multiple editors tell you that you are not correct. Please take the time to understand why. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Hellenic Rebel , despite the disagreements, continues to try to impose his personal opinion, for which he cannot cite any source that justifies him. Clearly original research.
previous reporting of the issue
See also, talk with User:Rambling Rambler 77.49.204.122 (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Replying since I've been tagged. I do think this is a behavioural issue rather than a content one. User has been repeatedly warned on their talk page by several users about edits to the article in question but has belligerently refused to engage in constructive discussion about said edits.
- User was clearly warned about continuing this in the closure message of the last ANI discussion not to resume the edits but the response on the article's talk page was notably dismissive of said warning.
- Quite honestly I think this is a case of WP:IDHT. The user in question has just plead that they have special knowledge we don't and has steadfastly refused to demonstrate in reliable sources the contents of their edits. Despite being informed of how consensus works they have resorted to counting votes and even in that case just dismissing the views of those against him for contrived reasons. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- My friends, anonymous user and @Rambling Rambler, and also dear user and adminis that are going to see the previous POVs. The article had a specific version, which you decided to dispute by causing a correction war, that could easily be seen at the page history. The administrator locked the page in order to reach to a consensus, which obviously couldn't happen, and there was no corresponding participation. Four users in all, the two of us presented our arguments in favor of the original version, Rambling Rambler (and somewhat monotonously and without proper documentation, the anonymous user) presented yours for the version without seats. At the end, you threw in an ad-hominem against me, to top it off. You made a call, no one else did anything, time passed. What makes you believe that the article will remain in your version, while the original was the previous one and there was no consensus?
P.S.: Rambling Rambler, please stop bombing links to wikipedia policies and then trying to interpret them and "fit" them to the issue. This practice resembles clickbait, you are simply trying to show that you are knowledgeable about politics and appear superior, and this is annoying. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- @Rambling Rambler an admin locked the page, and then anybody respond even if we make pings. That means that they just locked the page because there was an edit war, and and no one dealt with the article. The discussion ended weeks ago and also you've made a public call. If somebody wanted, they would have closed the discussion. So I don't think it's a case of IDHT, because the time intervals in which someone could engage (either to participate in the discussion, or an administrator to close it) had exceeded the normal. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to reopen the content aspect of this here. I have made you aware, repeatedly, of our polices when it comes to including claims. You need to provide reliable sources and the burden is on those wanting to include challenged statements to meet consensus to include them. You have now just admitted there is no consensus yet you felt entitled to reintroduce challenged material.
- This is precisely a "I don't have to" issue. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also tagging @Voorts as they probably have a view on this given their previous action. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler I will prove you that you actually interpret policies as you see fit, and you don't pay attention to what they say. WP:IDHT:
Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise. The community's rejection of your idea is not because they didn't hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the others are telling you. Make an effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with".
You can see the bold parts. It's obvious from those, that this policy does not refer to cases where four user with two different opinions participated. It refers to cases where one or a minority of users refuses to accept the community's decision because they believe their opinion is superior. In our discussion, my version never rejected from the community, it was rejected only by you and the anonymous user. In this case, either you believe that the majority or the community in general is you and the anonymous user, or you are simply trying to propagate your position. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- You were linked WP:ONUS during the discussion and clearly acknowledged it.
- So you are aware of it, which bluntly states:
- The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
- In your previous reply you have admitted that there isn't consensus.
- You have broken policy and are just once again stubbornly refusing to adhere to it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler There was a long time period in which we did not have any edit in the discussion. The original version was the one with the seats. The admins at that cases, lock the article at a random version (otherwise there should have been a clarification from the admin). So the lack of consensus concerns your own version, not the original one, to which I restored the article. Finally, I need to point out that you have made a series of problematic contributions, such as misguiding users by referring them to Misplaced Pages policies that are not related to the subject as I demonstrated exactly above, but also the ad-hominem against me which you proceeded together with the anonymous user in the article discussion. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This wall of text is the exact problem at hand here. You won't follow our site's policies but instead are just making up your own as to why breaking policy is now fine. The "discussion" was barely dormant and as you admit there was no consensus on including the material you demand be included. Ergo, per policy it can't be included.
- Frankly you are incapable of editing in a collaborative manner. I think the fact that you've been blocked repeatedly both here and at our Greek equivalent for disruptive behaviour and edit-warring demonstrates this very well. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler The problem here is that you don't understand the policy. The one who needs consensus to make edits, is the one that wants to make a change at the page. In our case, maybe the random version in which the page was locked was your version, but that does not change the fact that you were the one who wanted to make a change. You need consensus, you did not achieved it. Also, that is ad-hominem again, and now you checked and my greek WP blocks? Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not ad hominem to bring up your history of blocks for edit warring and disruption when the topic of discussion is your conduct.
- The policy, which I quoted for your benefit, literally says the onus is on the person who wants to include the disputed content which is you. You want this claim to be on the article and myself and others have disputed it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler there is not such as disputed content. The party has 5 members affiliated with it, and there is source about it. Your edits where those which need consnensus, because you are the one which want to change the original. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fact myself and others have said it's not supported and therefore shouldn't be there is literally a dispute... Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler yes it is a dispute, but if there is not a consensus that your dispute is valid, the version that remains is the original one, that is also supported by source. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fact myself and others have said it's not supported and therefore shouldn't be there is literally a dispute... Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler there is not such as disputed content. The party has 5 members affiliated with it, and there is source about it. Your edits where those which need consnensus, because you are the one which want to change the original. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler The problem here is that you don't understand the policy. The one who needs consensus to make edits, is the one that wants to make a change at the page. In our case, maybe the random version in which the page was locked was your version, but that does not change the fact that you were the one who wanted to make a change. You need consensus, you did not achieved it. Also, that is ad-hominem again, and now you checked and my greek WP blocks? Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler There was a long time period in which we did not have any edit in the discussion. The original version was the one with the seats. The admins at that cases, lock the article at a random version (otherwise there should have been a clarification from the admin). So the lack of consensus concerns your own version, not the original one, to which I restored the article. Finally, I need to point out that you have made a series of problematic contributions, such as misguiding users by referring them to Misplaced Pages policies that are not related to the subject as I demonstrated exactly above, but also the ad-hominem against me which you proceeded together with the anonymous user in the article discussion. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler I will prove you that you actually interpret policies as you see fit, and you don't pay attention to what they say. WP:IDHT:
- There has never been a specific version of the article. A few hours after adding the uncited 5 MPs, the edit was undone. It is also worth noting that the original contributor of the addition about mps, Quinnnnnby never engaged in an edit war or challenged our disagreements, as you did. 77.49.204.122 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did, but you also did. So the only user to act properly at that case was @Quinnnnnby. And guess with what opinion Quinnnnby agreed at the discussion... Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Hellenic Rebel:, Rambling Rambler is actually right: if you wish to include text which has been disputed, you must include sourcing. You cannot just attempt to force the content in, regardless of what consensus you believe has been achieved. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HandThatFeeds this is exactly why I am saying that the users propagandize: there was a source used! Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then it's time to discuss that source on the Talk page instead of just ramming into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HandThatFeeds there was a discussion on the page. The source states that 5 MPs of the Hellenic Parliament are in the new party. And the users, after their first argument that it should have a parliamentary group was shot down (as it was obvious that this policy is not followed in any party), they moved on to a logic that the source should say verbatim "5 MPs stand" for the party... Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HandThatFeeds I have lost hours of my life to "discussing" this at this point. They're entirely either refusing or simply incapable of understanding that because they have sources for Claim A that doesn't mean they can put a similar but still different Claim B on the article. They however insist they can because unlike us they're "Hellenic" and therefore know that Claim A = Claim B while refusing to accept this is WP:OR. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then it's time to discuss that source on the Talk page instead of just ramming into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HandThatFeeds this is exactly why I am saying that the users propagandize: there was a source used! Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Hellenic Rebel:, Rambling Rambler is actually right: if you wish to include text which has been disputed, you must include sourcing. You cannot just attempt to force the content in, regardless of what consensus you believe has been achieved. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did, but you also did. So the only user to act properly at that case was @Quinnnnnby. And guess with what opinion Quinnnnby agreed at the discussion... Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler an admin locked the page, and then anybody respond even if we make pings. That means that they just locked the page because there was an edit war, and and no one dealt with the article. The discussion ended weeks ago and also you've made a public call. If somebody wanted, they would have closed the discussion. So I don't think it's a case of IDHT, because the time intervals in which someone could engage (either to participate in the discussion, or an administrator to close it) had exceeded the normal. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- My friends, anonymous user and @Rambling Rambler, and also dear user and adminis that are going to see the previous POVs. The article had a specific version, which you decided to dispute by causing a correction war, that could easily be seen at the page history. The administrator locked the page in order to reach to a consensus, which obviously couldn't happen, and there was no corresponding participation. Four users in all, the two of us presented our arguments in favor of the original version, Rambling Rambler (and somewhat monotonously and without proper documentation, the anonymous user) presented yours for the version without seats. At the end, you threw in an ad-hominem against me, to top it off. You made a call, no one else did anything, time passed. What makes you believe that the article will remain in your version, while the original was the previous one and there was no consensus?
Automatic editing, abusive behaviour, and disruptive(ish) wikihounding from User:KMaster888
User:KMaster888 appears to be making lightning speed edits that are well beyond the capacity of any human to review, in addition to article content that's coming across potentially LLM-like in nature. Since December they've made over 11,000 edits, many across multiple articles within a sixty second window.
I attempted to ask about the policies around this at User_talk:Novem_Linguae and was met with a tirade of obscenities and abuse (which I want to give them a slight benefit of the doubt on, I'd be upset at being accused of being a bot if I wasn't):
As far as I can tell this peaked with a total of 89 edits in a four minute window between 08:27 to 08:31 on December 28, 2024. Most are innocuous, but there are content edits thrown in the mix and recent articles were written in a way that indicates it may be an LLM (diff not definitive, though if you are familiar with LLM output this may ring some alarm bells, but false alarms abound).
Following the quite hot thread at User:Novem Linguae's page, it's quite clear that whoever is operating that bot threw my entire edit history into the mix, because the bot systematically edited every single article that I had edited, in reverse order (over 100 so far since this came up about an couple of hours ago), going back a reasonable amount of time.
The problem is that it's clear that a bot was instructed to just make an edit, without concern for what those edits are, so you end up with questionable, misrepresented, or edits for the sake of editing at a rate far faster than any editor could address.
This one is easily one of the strangest situations I've ever encountered on Misplaced Pages. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm flattered that you've looked into my activity on Misplaced Pages so closely. But if you'd be arsed, you'd understand that it is very simple to do an insource search using a regular expression to find a lot of stylistic errors, like no space after a sentence. If you love being on my back so much, good on you, but I'd wish if you got off. KMaster888 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1) That doesn't explain how consistently abusive you have been
- 2) While I'm aware that an overwhelming percentage of the errors you're editing out are ones that can simply be addressed by regex, I'm very clearly raising the content edits as opposed to formatting ones. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- How about we take this off of ANI, of all places? KMaster888 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, this feels quite appropriate considering your abusiveness and that your retaliation involved damaging some articles. I said there I was asking a policy question and was happy to let it go, you've edited over 100 articles from my edit history in direct sequence in response to that question, which is just strange behaviour for an editor. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Obviously, if there's someone who's making bad decisions on Misplaced Pages (You), I want to check if he has messed up articles. Please tell me what articles you think I have damaged. KMaster888 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, I'd appreciate if you would stop casting aspersions about me being an LLM. KMaster888 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I said then, and as I'll say again: If there's not an LLM involved in this situation, then I'm sincerely sorry. It was a combination of clearly assisted editing and the verbiage used that looked concerning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was no assisted editing. Stop spreading that blatant falsehood. This is why I say to take this off of ANI. It is stuff that is made up in your head that has no basis in reality. KMaster888 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Unless you're doing regex with your eyes, clearly you're using assistance. And the fact you're (still!) doing something that fixes the same type of typo almost as fast as I can click "Random Article" indicates you're doing more than just regex. You're finding these articles somehow.closhund/talk/ 22:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- I am doing an "insource" search using regex. KMaster888 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I learned about insource searches recently and was able to find spam by the boatload immediately. It is a great tool. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah . I wasn't aware one could do that. I retract. closhund/talk/ 22:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I learned about insource searches recently and was able to find spam by the boatload immediately. It is a great tool. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am doing an "insource" search using regex. KMaster888 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was no assisted editing. Stop spreading that blatant falsehood. This is why I say to take this off of ANI. It is stuff that is made up in your head that has no basis in reality. KMaster888 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I said then, and as I'll say again: If there's not an LLM involved in this situation, then I'm sincerely sorry. It was a combination of clearly assisted editing and the verbiage used that looked concerning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And, I would appreciate if you would stop calling my edits strange and odd. KMaster888 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You had over 100 edits in a row directily in chronological sequence, from newest to oldest, of my exact edit history excluding wikiprojects and talk pages. I'm allowed to find that a little strange. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't someone call strange and odd edits strange and odd? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, this feels quite appropriate considering your abusiveness and that your retaliation involved damaging some articles. I said there I was asking a policy question and was happy to let it go, you've edited over 100 articles from my edit history in direct sequence in response to that question, which is just strange behaviour for an editor. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @KMaster888 I suggest you stop with the personal attacks before you get blocked. Tarlby 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm a little less forgiving than Tarlby, so I would suggest that KMaster888 should be blocked/banned already. Knowing how to write regular expressions doesn't give anyone the right to ignore policy about such issues as civility and hounding. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have not ignored policy on either civility or hounding. The fact is, there are no automation tools that I have used, and this has been constructed as a theory entirely as a falsehood. It is annoying that one Misplaced Pages user constantly spouts falsehoods about me. KMaster888 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll just ask you straight up.Do you feel any remorse for this statement?
remove asshole
Could you explain why you felt it was best to choose those two words when blanking your talk page? Tarlby 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- And again:
@The Corvette ZR1 @Tarlby stop clogging up ANI with your comments.
The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 22:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And again:
- I'll just ask you straight up.Do you feel any remorse for this statement?
- I have not ignored policy on either civility or hounding. The fact is, there are no automation tools that I have used, and this has been constructed as a theory entirely as a falsehood. It is annoying that one Misplaced Pages user constantly spouts falsehoods about me. KMaster888 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- , , , , , Tarlby 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And this: improve asinine comment and this: I wipe my ass with comments like yours. Cheers! MrOllie (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That was because Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. I would say the same to you as I said to the other editor: get off my back. KMaster888 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have to abide by the rules like the rest of us. And cool it with the hostile edit summaries. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Great answer. Tarlby 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Attacking other editors instead of backing off, inappropriate edit summaries, what next? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There ought to be a gossip noticeboard that doesn't clog up ANI. KMaster888 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will dispute what you said. I AM HERE to build an encyclopedia. Why do you think I would have given 10,000 edits worth of my time if I didn't care? KMaster888 (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, WP:CIVIL and WP:SUMMARYNO tell me the contrary. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of their editing or otherwise, KMaster888's comments in edit summaries and here indicate they're WP:OBNOXIOUS in a way that indicates an inability to participate in a collaborative encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The product of Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which is a body of written and visual work. It is first and foremost about the product, not the community. In this sense, it is indeed a collaborative encyclopedia, but it should not be considered an encyclopedic collaboation. KMaster888 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wikilawyering over what "collaboration" is doesn't help when you're in blatant violation of the fourth of the five pillars. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not Wikilawyering. I would also encourage you to come to a discussion on my talk page over small potatoes instead of at ANI. KMaster888 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is wikilawyering. And this is at ANI, so the discussion is taking place at ANI. Answering the concerns about your conduct that were raised here on here is how you resolve the issue, not "don't talk about it on ANI", as the latter gives the impression of trying to sweep them under the rug - especially since your edit summaries MrOllie linked above make it clear this is very much not "small potatoes". - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not Wikilawyering. I would also encourage you to come to a discussion on my talk page over small potatoes instead of at ANI. KMaster888 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wikilawyering over what "collaboration" is doesn't help when you're in blatant violation of the fourth of the five pillars. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The product of Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which is a body of written and visual work. It is first and foremost about the product, not the community. In this sense, it is indeed a collaborative encyclopedia, but it should not be considered an encyclopedic collaboation. KMaster888 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of their editing or otherwise, KMaster888's comments in edit summaries and here indicate they're WP:OBNOXIOUS in a way that indicates an inability to participate in a collaborative encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, WP:CIVIL and WP:SUMMARYNO tell me the contrary. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That was because Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. I would say the same to you as I said to the other editor: get off my back. KMaster888 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And this: improve asinine comment and this: I wipe my ass with comments like yours. Cheers! MrOllie (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm a little less forgiving than Tarlby, so I would suggest that KMaster888 should be blocked/banned already. Knowing how to write regular expressions doesn't give anyone the right to ignore policy about such issues as civility and hounding. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's some more diffs of KMaster888 being uncivil. From my user talk page. . I think these are forgivable if in isolation since KMaster888 may be frustrated by false accusations of being a bot, but if it's a pattern, it may need addressing.
- The WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:BADGERING of my user talk page and of this ANI is also a behavioral problem that, if a pattern, may also need addressing. It is disrespectful to interlocutor's time and brainpower to dominate discussions by replying to everything. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless there are specific discussion rules, I should not be penalized for responding to comments that involve me. KMaster888 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem isn't you responding to those comments. It's about HOW you responded to those comments. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are, in fact,
specific discussion rules
- WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless there are specific discussion rules, I should not be penalized for responding to comments that involve me. KMaster888 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Propose indefinite block
Blocked and TPA revoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- KMaster888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- You're saying "they" like it's more than one person. I am one editor. KMaster888 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not in that sense. We use they/them pronouns as to not assume an editor's gender. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above reasoning. MiasmaEternal☎ 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like Cullen328 beat us to that indef. MiasmaEternal☎ 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Their blank talkpage, on which they encourage discussion, has a nonexistent archive. Miniapolis 23:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is not true. The archive page is at the subpage of the talk page, /archive. KMaster888 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - While I wouldn’t have had the same suspicions about their editing as Warren, their extremely uncivil reactions to it and further questions here, along with the further attention they’ve drawn on to prior recent behaviour has effectively demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in meaningful interaction with any other editor who disagrees with them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe revoke TPA too? This is beyond the pale. closhund/talk/ 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- After their latest personal attack, I have revoked their talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. This personal attack against blocking admin Cullen328 is beyond the pale. This is clearly a person that lets rage get the best of them, and is not responsive to feedback. Not sure if we should close this, or let it play out and turn into a CBAN. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good block and I'd have done same if you hadn't been here first. Regardless of whether the edits were improvements, no one has the right to treat other editors as KM888 did. Star Mississippi 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good block It'd take a hand-written miracle from God for them to change their ways anytime soon.
Investigating the hounding claim
Above, there is a claim that KMaster888 is WP:HOUNDING Warrenmck by editing 100 pages that Warrenmck has edited. The editor interaction analyzer suggests that there's only an overlap of 45 pages (42 if you subtract out my user talk, KMaster888's user talk, and ANI). Warrenmck, can you please be very specific about exactly which pages overlap? Maybe give a link to KMaster888's contribs and timestamps of where this range of hounding edits begins and ends? This is a serious claim and probably actionable if enough evidence is provided. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that there are >100 edits across the pages, since they tended to edit in a spree. The number of pages you found seems accurate, even accounting for the possibility of a few outside of this exchange. I’m not sure what exactly I can do to show the relationship to my edit history beyond I guess go pull said histories and compare them? But I wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority of the interactions you see were from that narrow window after your talk page.
- Sorry for the drama, by the way. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah that makes sense. I didn't think of the multiple edits to a page thing. No worries about the drama. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't apologise for this. Nobody should have to put up with such behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
User:FMSky
WP:BOOMERANG. PolitcalPoint blocked for a month for BLP violations. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FMSky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:FMSky has been persistently engaging in disruptive editing by constantly reverting (see , , and ) in bad faith over the course of more than a week in order to prevent the insertion of sourced material that states that Tulsi Gabbard had "touted working for her father’s anti-gay organization, which mobilized to pass a measure against same-sex marriage in Hawaii and promoted controversial conversion therapy", which is a discredited, harmful, and pseudoscientific practice that falsely purports to "cure" homosexuality.
" backed by two reliable sources cited (see and ) in support of the specific wording inserted into the article.
For my part, I have consistently maintained a strict self-imposed policy of 0RR, never even once reverting User:FMSky, listening to his concerns and taking his concerns seriously, tirelessly working to address his concerns with two reliable sources cited (see and ) in support of the exact same wording that User:FMSky originally objected to (see ), then, when reverted again by User:FMSky, I patiently continued to assume good faith and attempted to engage with him directly on his talk page not once but twice (see and ), which he pointedly refused to respond to on both occasions, then when reverted yet again by User:FMSky (see ), explained to him the entire series of events (see ), which User:FMSky replied to by blatantly lying that I had not addressed his concerns (see ), which, when I pointed that out and showed him the reliable sources that I cited in order to address his concerns (see ), User:FMSky replied by saying verbatim "How is that even relevant? Just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean this exact wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia." (see ).
I'm completely exasperated and exhausted at this point. If even using the exact same wording as the reliable sources cited in support of the specific wording inserted into the article is still unacceptable to User:FMSky, then I'm not sure what I'm even supposed to do to satisfy him. User:FMSky is clearly engaging in disruptive editing in bad faith and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PoliticalPoint, your source for "discredited, harmful, and pseudoscientific practice that falsely purports to "cure" homosexuality" doesn't mention Gabbard or Hawaii or her father's organization. Have you read WP:SYNTH? Schazjmd (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- More the case that trying to assert conversion therapy as discredited is a COATRACK, unless there was appropriate sourced coverage that associated Gabbatd with supporting a discredited theory. We can leave the blue link on conversion therapy carry the worry of explaining the issues with it, it doesn't belong on a BLP. — Masem (t) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The wording does not "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" as the latter part of the wording, as supported by the second reliable source (see ), explains what conversion therapy is for the benefit of readers. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me lmao. I didn't even notice that. That makes it even worse --FMSky (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only commenting on this particular angle: @Schazjmd: when dealing with fringe ideas, it is sometimes the case that sources provide weight connecting the subject to a fringe idea but which do not themselves adequately explain the fringe theory. If it's due weight to talk about something like conversation therapy (or creation science, links between vaccines and autism, etc.), we run afoul of WP:FRINGE if we don't provide proper context. These cases are rare, however, and this isn't a judgment about anything in the rest of this thread. — Rhododendrites \\ 02:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The user was previously blocked and was only unblocked after agreeing to 0RR on BLPs. This was violated in the 3 reverts here and the concerns weren't adressed: 1, 2, 3. See also the previous discussion on PoliticalPoint's talk page that I initiated -- FMSky (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
FMSky replied by saying verbatim "How is that even relevant? Just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean this exact wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia.
I love how you, in bad faith, left out the most relevant part that I added: "And the statements weren't even attributed to someone" --FMSky (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- As already pointed out to you at my talk page (see ), those were edits, not reverts, over the course of more than week, and as also already pointed out to you at my talk page (see and ) your concerns with the wording were in fact addressed with two reliable sources cited in support with the exact same wording that you objected to, verbatim. You are blatantly lying again, as the statement is, in fact, attributed to Gabbard herself as it is she herself who "touted working for her father's anti-gay organization", which is backed by the first reliable source (see ). --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, these were reverts, as the wording I originally objected to was restored numerous times --FMSky (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those were edits over the course of over a week. The wording that you originally objected to was restored only with two reliable sources that use the exact same wording verbatim. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you used the same wording as the sources without an attributed quote you've committed a copyright violation. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those were edits over the course of over a week. The wording that you originally objected to was restored only with two reliable sources that use the exact same wording verbatim. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Restoring removed content even without using the undo feature is a revert. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, these were reverts, as the wording I originally objected to was restored numerous times --FMSky (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As already pointed out to you at my talk page (see ), those were edits, not reverts, over the course of more than week, and as also already pointed out to you at my talk page (see and ) your concerns with the wording were in fact addressed with two reliable sources cited in support with the exact same wording that you objected to, verbatim. You are blatantly lying again, as the statement is, in fact, attributed to Gabbard herself as it is she herself who "touted working for her father's anti-gay organization", which is backed by the first reliable source (see ). --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Besides removing obvious SYNTH, I notice that FMSky reworked unnecessary overquoting; looks like good editing on FMSky's part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Another thing I just noticed is that the article is special-protected: "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message."
No such discussion was initiated on Gabbard's talk page --FMSky (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have blocked PoliticalPoint for a month for BLP violations, an escalation of their prior two-week edit warring block. I had originally intended to just p-block them from Gabbard but I am not convinced they understand the issue and that the problematic editing wouldn't just move to another page. Should they eventually request an unblock I think serious discussion sould happen w/r/t a a topic ban on BLPs or American Politics. Star Mississippi 01:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating WP:BEFORE
- Bgsu98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.
I noticed an editor named Bgsu98 who had been mass-nominating figure skater articles for deletion. It is too obvious to me that he doesn't do even a minimum search required by WP:BEFORE before nominating. (I must note that most of the skaters he nominates for AfD aren't English, so a foreign language search is required. Sometimes you need to search on a foreign search engine. For example, Google seems to ignore many Russian websites recently.)
I have counted 45 articles nominated by him at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating. And it is worrying that people seem to rely on the nominator's competence and vote "delete" without much thought.
I should note that Bgsu98 doesn't seem to stop even when an article he nominated has been kept. He nominated Kamil Białas (a national medalist) two times with the same rationale (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kamil Białas (2nd nomination)). One can really wonder why he does this.
P.S. More information is here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Figure Skating#Notability guidelines. What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE. It seems that no one acted on this change until Bgsu98 came.
P.P.S. As I stated on the WikiProject Figure Skating talk page I linked above, I think it was very unfair to change the rules. Especially since web sources tend to die out after some time.
P.P.P.S. I would also like to note that I am polite, while Bgsu98 has already accused me of "bad-faith accusations and outright lies" (source). --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- as the closer of several skating AfDs, I have no issue with a DRV if @Moscow Connection or any other editor believes I closed it in error. However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules. That isn't grounds for a DRV nor a report against @Bgsu98 who is nominating based on community consensus. Star Mississippi 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Star Mississippi. But just to give some scope, this cleaning house, mostly of ice skating junior champions, is not recent, it's been going on for at least 6-9 months now, it was originally done through the use of PROD'd articles. But while there have been some objections raised over the past year, Bgsu98's efforts have mostly received support from editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Over the past two weeks, through the use of AFD, we have seen dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of annual national skating championship articles either deleted or redirected. But I just want to note that these AFDs wouldn't have closed as "Delete all" or "Redirect all" without the support of other AFD participants. Very few editors are arguing to Keep them all. Liz 02:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Potential company editing?
Closing by OP request. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Bouchra Filali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Djellaba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The user Bouchra Filali uploaded this image to the page Djellaba. They share a name with a fashion company and seem to have replaced the original image on the article with a product from their company (see revision 1268097124). I reverted their edit and warned them, but due to my concern, and following advice from an administrator on the wikimedia community discord, I am reporting this here as well. I have also asked for advice on what to do with the commons file, and will be filing any necessary reports there. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 04:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- They have only made one edit on this project which was adding an image to an article, it looks like they uploaded the image on the Commons. Have you tried talking about your issues with them on their Commons user talk page, Cmrc23? This doesn't seem like it's a problem for the English Misplaced Pages. We don't even know if they'll be back to make a second edit. Liz 06:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I asked the commons folks on discord and it seems that, since they uploaded an image that they own, all is well. I have to admit that I was a little hasty here, I've never used this noticeboard before. Feel free to close this if you feel there is nothing more to discuss, I'll monitor the user in question. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 06:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Smm380 and logged out editing
- Smm380 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 195.238.112.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
I have warned this editor twice about logged out editing because they are evidently editing the article history of Ukraine both logged in and as an IP. This makes tracking their edits more difficult since they have made hundreds altogether in recent months (and they are only focused on this specific article). The IP edits seem to come from 195.238.112.0/20 (at least most of them) and they are often made shortly before/after Smm380 decides to log back in. See for example this edit by Smm380 and this edit by the IP a few minutes later regarding the same section. This is now especially a problem because they are deciding to make reverts as an IP.
In general, they have not listened to prior warnings. I have given them multiple warnings about adding unsourced text, but they are still continuing to add unsourced text without including citations first. But they have not responded to any of my warnings or explained why they are still doing this. Mellk (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Another not here IP
2601:18C:8183:D410:1D8C:39C9:DCEE:1166 (talk · contribs) is altering another users posts to insert political commentary ] as well as making PA's, with a clear statement they do not intend to stop ], and edit warring over it as well. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Category: