| Revision as of 08:18, 14 July 2012 view sourceSpacemanSpiff (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators53,520 edits →Oakley77: topic ban enacted← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:26, 8 January 2025 view source ActivelyDisinterested (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users50,421 edits →Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN: -1 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}} | |||
| {{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}} | |||
| <!--{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| <!-- | |||
| |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| |format=%%i | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | |||
| |age=24 | |||
| == Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from ] == | |||
| |index=no | |||
| ], 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) | |||
| |numberstart=756 | |||
| :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) | |||
| |minarchthreads= 1 | |||
| ::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. | |||
| |minkeepthreads= 4 | |||
| ::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) | |||
| |maxarchsize= 700000 | |||
| :::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) | |||
| |key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| As this page concerns INCIDENTS: | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| --></noinclude> | |||
| *:*:::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) | |||
| == Paid advocacy == | |||
| :Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway.] ] 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| At ] there is a request for someone to write a Misplaced Pages article on ], which we now have a page on. ] created the article and has been active up to five days ago. "Swdandap" is suspiciously close to "Swetha D." (), the person who was accepted to write the article. Personally I feel there is a connection but further comments would be appreciated. ] (]) 19:28, 8 July 2012 (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) | |||
| *Unless the article is written in violation of some policy or guideline, there is no consensus that a paid editor is doing anything wrong. Is it notable? Neutral? Properly cited? ]] 19:31, 8 July 2012 (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) | |||
| *Seconding what Monty said - this certainly looks like it might be editing for pay, but that's not strictly prohibited. What is prohibited is editing ''poorly'', whether for pay or not. At a quick look over the user's contributions, I'd say her articles have evidence of notability provided in them and are written in coherent English prose. Some of the sourcing is a bit weak and there's a word here and there that could be swapped out for neutrality, but overall I give it a "meh, no better and no worse than most of our articles". If the user's edits are problematic, or if they're editing in defiance of a block/ban/topic-ban/whatever, then we have a problem. If the sole problem here is that they may have gotten paid for making them, then it's sort of a non-issue. ] (]) 19:38, 8 July 2012 (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) | |||
| ::{{ec}}It is not notable, and while it is probably one of the less puff-ish pieces I've seen by a PR worker, it is still a bit POV ("legacy?" and half the sources are for the awards and environmental records sections). Funny, Swetha D's page on Elance.com says she's a Misplaced Pages article writer as part of her job description. I'd say that's well more than a connection. We do have rules against ]. ] (]) 19:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] yes, that's correct. ] ] 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please review ] of one of the most prolific Elance spammers, and consider the lengths they will go to (falsely attributing things, misrepresenting press releases as reliable sources, ''inventing'' references, etc) in order to harm Misplaced Pages for their own personal gain. These articles should be treated with absolute prejudice: just because they might look OK at face value does not mean they aren't total crap. ] (]) 19:51, 8 July 2012 (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) | |||
| ::::Not a fan of guilt by association. If this particular Elance writer is falsely attributing or misrepresenting then yes, action would be needed, but I don't think the article here is that bad. Scrutinize it if you want, but don't judge it based on the misconduct of others. ]] 19:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? ] ] 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm not suggesting guilt by association. I'm reminding everyone that where money is involved for some people, harming Misplaced Pages is an acceptable way of getting it, and that any articles created by paid editors should be closely examined. ] (]) 20:37, 8 July 2012 (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) | |||
| *There was more promotional trimming that needed to be done (so no, not neutral, not properly cited). Another thing: at ], I read of a ], now blocked and author of (now deleted) ]; claims to have written an article for ]--apparently this King person works for Bahamas Habitat. I wonder if anyone can run a CU, if the information is not stale, to see if there's anything there. Note that the "client" for that job is "skywagon5". Also flaunted on her page as having created is ], lest there is any doubt that the Misplaced Pages editor and the Elance worker are the same. ] (]) 20:42, 8 July 2012 (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) | |||
| ::I'll also note the user has added spam links to various articles: . ] (]) 21:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *::::When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I have no interest in editing corporate articles myself, but it's probably worth mentioning that this article's title itself is out-of-date. According to (currently linked as ref 3 in the article), after U.S. Corrugated was acquired by ] the new subsidiary's name was changed to KapStone Container Corporation. I guess the new bosses haven't wanted to shell out for a page update. ] (]) 21:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] Can you explain how my general edit history in wiki.pt is relevant in any way to an accusation of cross-wiki harassment? ] ] 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Would recommend that Darwin ''walk away'' from the general topic. This would avoid any need for topic bans. ] (]) 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *The diffs added by Albacore are quite damning and warrant, in my opinion, a spam ban. This is a paid editor whose prime interest is not improving the encyclopedia. ] (]) 01:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **I've just deleted ] (already prodded by Binksternet) as spam, and am having a look at the editor's other work. ] (]) 14:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Even after the extensive prior editing, I found I needed to give the article additional copyedits, including removal of both overlinking and elementary grammar errors. I would agree with a ban for the general good of both the encyclopedia and prospective article subjects. ''']''' (]) 03:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ;Clarification | |||
| :Could someone please start logging these, and the associated "enabling" sites, as I perceive no difference between this and other systematic and collusion based vandalism attempts. ] (]) 05:59, 9 July 2012 (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. | |||
| ::If you want to draft a proposal and put it out on the Village Pump, I'd probably support it. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *As for misgendering, I am one of the founders and former board member of ], which after 30 years still is the main LGBT association in Portugal, though not an active member for many years for moving away from Lisbon, where it's headquartered. For more than 30 years I've been on the fight against homophobia and transphobia, not specially in Misplaced Pages, but on the streets, where it was needed in the 1990s here in Portugal, when the whole LGBT thing was just starting and most people couldn't even tell the difference between a drag queen and a trangender woman. I was beaten up, lost my 2 front teeth on homo/transphobic street fights (the first one at 18 years old, for publicly defending from booers in the audience a trangender girl which was acting at a local bar )- and whatelse. I never had even the least impulse to misgender any of the many trangender people that always have been around me, and the few situations where that may have happened were online with people that I knew for years as being one gender, and took a while to sink they are another, because online there's not the ever helping visual clue. So it's kind of disheartening to be treated like this in a strange place by people I don't know just because I expressed an (harsh, agreed) opinion defending the age of consent for children, and condemning their parents interference on that. | |||
| :::I would too, without any reservation whatsoever. I have spent a long time dealing with this sort of thing by many editors and sockers from Elance, and it takes hours of volunteer time to clear up the work by those who are paid to harm Misplaced Pages. As far as I'm concerned, the work of any individual advertising their services at Elance should be deleted/reverted on sight by any administrator. I would also not object to an abuse report. ] (]) 17:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *The TBan is not very relevant for me, as I seldom edit here and despite the activism of my past days LGBT is not my primary interest on Misplaced Pages, but I'm considerably saddened by the misunderstandings, bad faith assumptions, false accusations that have been told here about me, though eventually the flaw is not in the whole group that has their own rules and culture, but in the newcomer which don't understand it well in all its nuances, as was my case here. | |||
| ::::I have proposed that a log be kept regarding poorly behaving paid editors who become subject to administrative action: ] | |||
| *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=== | |||
| * US Corrugated has enough reliable sources to be notable. And bad writing is not a policy violation. If the article needs to be cleaned up, clean it up. We have hundreds of thousands of others that also need cleanup, not to mention unsourced BLPs, articles about Myspace bands that got through NPP, etc. - ] ] 18:03, 9 July 2012 (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. | |||
| '''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) | |||
| ===Elance=== | |||
| Speaking as an admin who's not inherently intolerant of editing for pay (I think it can, and sometimes is, done well and with good intentions for the encyclopedia), it seems that a disproportionate amount of ''problematic'' paid editing seems to come out of Elance, in particular. This actually highlights an important (to me) distinction among paid editors - there are those who are editing on behalf of the company who already pays them (many of whom seem to ''want'' to play by the rules, since it helps their employer if they don't make them look bad, and many of whom find their way to ]), and then there are those who are freelancing or have been hired expressly to write an article. Elance editors fall into this second group, and because their relationship to the companies is short-term and piece work, it's no skin off their nose if the article is good and meets our guidelines, or if it's terrible, just as long as it stays long enough for them to get paid. And when an Elance editor shows up here, we pretty much always seem to get the short end of the stick, much more reliably than when other types of paid editors show up. Given this - and this is just sort of taking a rough shape in my mind, so I welcome suggestions for how this could work or how to word it - I wonder if there's any traction for some sort of ban on Elance-bought editing, in particular? Not because all other paid editing is fine, but because Elance editing seems to be particularly, and quite reliably, bad in a way that other paid editing isn't always, and so if we can trim off the reliably-bad, it leaves our resources more free for dealing with the maybe-bad-we-should-probably-look-into-this. ] (]) 18:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Well said. I unreservedly support a ban of all individuals soliciting work via Elance. Whatever one's views of paid editing are, edits by Elance contractors is consistently bad, facilitates disruption (usually in the form of socks so they can try and get their spam in undetected), and is a drain of precious volunteer time: time which I would much rather see spent cleaning up articles made in good faith, instead of articles which harm the project. ] (]) 18:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I would support a ban for all editors found to be editing from Elance. Though I would also support if, afterwards, they apologize and say they want to go through the proper channels and noticeboard, that we let them do so. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a ban on all editors working through Elance. The situation is out of control. ] (]) 20:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' As a freelancer myself, I find putting restrictions on editors on that basis alone to be inappropriate. Your comparison between a freelancer's motivation and a full-time employee is flawed; a full-time employee has job security and a motivation to keep that job, and he could easily be driven to long-term disruption, such as repeatedly slanting an article via sneaky POV pushing in the interest of maintaining his position. That's the very worst kind of disruption we face. A freelancer, on the other hand, has only his portfolio to find new clients and maintain his paycheck. As a freelancer, it's important to make sure your work is good, both for your reputation in the community to net future jobs, and so that you actually get paid and reviewed well. If a "freelance wikipedia editor" gets blocked, or put under increased negative scrutiny, that limits or ends his ability to find work and get paid. This issue is absolutely not about "freelancer vs full-time employee"; this is about "known paid advocates and unknown". Elance is public, and so we can easily track the jobs requested and writers who pick them up, which means we're naturally going to find a number of "bad apples" coming from elance. Full-time employees paid to write here are not so public, so when they get scrutinized or blocked, it isn't tied to paid advocacy at all. This discrepancy in disruption between elance writers and other paid advocates is an illusion, due to our ability to only see one side. Furthermore, ANI is '''absolutely not''' the place to be having this discussion. If editors are going to be blocked for something which is not currently against policy, then we need to adjust the policy, not arbitrarily decide they should be blocked here, and not tell anyone until they wind up with a big orange bar on their page. Please discuss this at the appropriate venue, and involve the whole community in the discussion. Thanks. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 20:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*What do you think would be the best venue for this, Jess? I can think of a couple of possibilities - VPP, WP:Paid Editing, WP:BLOCK ...probably a couple more beyond that. ] (]) 22:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're right that this issue isn't about "freelancer vs full-time employee". It's about the fact that a lot of spammy crap originates from Elance contractors, and my experience over the last six months dealing with them reveals that what's most important is not to make sure that their work is good, but to make sure it stays there, and if that means harming Misplaced Pages, that's OK for them. If they did truly care about the project's interests, then they would disclose their conflict of interests and work with us. ] (]) 22:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fluffernutter, I would suggest VPP or Block. VPP is probably best. Since the paid editing issue has been discussed extensively in the past, with a lot of heated opinions, advertising the discussion would probably also be appropriate. | |||
| ::::William, I get that a lot of bad content comes from paid editing. We should block editors who consistently make bad edits whether or not they are paid, such as we did here. Blocking editors who are public about their paid editing is not the solution, nor is basing our blocking decisions on the prior behavior of other editors who happen to use the same service, or happen to not be employed full-time and hence need to find work conspicuously. If the community decides that paid editing is bad, that's fine. In the meantime, paid editing is considered acceptable, and discriminating against editors on the basis that they freelance is a bad idea. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 22:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We block GNAA accounts rapidly, as their conduct tends to resemble one another. But lo! When a GNAA member edits in other ways, we accept them. Also, "paid editing is considered acceptable" is not the case, it is your fantasy of a contested situation. I might as well say, "Paid editors are scabs." ] (]) 23:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::For the third time: the issue is not paid editing. The issue is that a disproportionate amount of harmful material originates from individuals soliciting via Elance. A community ban of such individuals would be an appropriate way of dealing with a group of editors who demonstrate time after time that they do not wish to engage with the community, and that damaging Misplaced Pages is an acceptable means to their financial ends. ] (]) 23:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Fifelfoo, you are correct. It would have been better for me to say "paid editing is not considered unacceptable". We do not have a policy against it, and so outright blocking a certain portion of paid editors who may not have edited poorly would be in poor taste without first discussing it with the same community who rejected a paid editing prohibition. I did not mean to imply that everyone was for it. | |||
| :::::::William, I don't know how to express this better than I have... but I don't get the impression that you've understood me. You say you're talking about "''a group of editors who demonstrate time after time that they do not wish to engage with the community''". That's not true; it implies that we're discussing blocking a definite number of disruptive editors... that they are enumerable, and persistently harmful. That's not the case. We're talking about blocking editors on sight who may not have ever caused problems in the past, on the sole basis that they happen to freelance openly. This does not address the problem of disruptive editors generally, nor the problem of paid editors more specifically. It simply encourages paid editors who don't wish to be ostracized to be more discrete. You're suggesting blocking by associating, and rather than addressing the problem by targetting disruptive editors, you're simply targeting any editor you can lock on to. If that isn't more clear, then I'm probably just not capable of conveying my meaning properly. Anyway, it's a moot point if we plan to have this discussion in another venue. All the best, — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 00:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Who has the energy or time to debate with a paid editor? Even an obvious '''support''' some kind of restriction for obvious cases results in a wall of text. ] (]) 02:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The irony is that the community ''is'' willing to engage with paid editors. It's just that they are the ones not willing to engage with us. If they were, we would not be having this discussion. ] (]) 17:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' |
*'''Support''' -] (]) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| * |
*:I note that Darwin has agreed above to the IBan. -] (]) 18:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *''' |
*'''Oppose''' - He's already agreed to avoid that general topic area in future & Skyshifter. ''PS'' - If a t-ban is imposed? limit it to six-months. ] (]) 18:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *:Why should the community accept voluntary TBAN and IBAN which can easily be reneged on when we can impose it as a community sanction and ensure that any violation is actionable? '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Just in case my above grumpy comment is not sufficiently clear. While gold ''might'' be produced from lead, and a good article ''might'' come from Elance, we have to deal with what actually happens—time wasting promotional spin. ] (]) 04:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - |
*'''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) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above. Of course, ]/"Misplaced Pages Wizard" isn't the first banned Elance user -- see ]. Another discussion: ]. If this ban is enacted, we need a sanctions log page somewhere. ] 05:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I said above I would support this proposal if it was brought forward, and I do. ] (]) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Separate to a sanction specific log for any action regarding potential Elance bans, I have also started a proposal at ] regarding logging all serious administrative actions against paid editors whose payer can be identified: ]. This is so that systematic patterns of off-site abuse can be diagnosed. ] (]) 07:05, 10 July 2012 (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) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' As Jess says above, "ANI is absolutely not the place to be having this discussion." If you're going to make a blanket ban on editors just because they accept an assignment from Elance, you better get a little more community involvement than the few hotheads we're seeing here. I see very little evidence, and I see a lot of inflammatory and judgemental comments. This should be at a much larger and longer discussion, and not here, unless you can start producing a system here that protects due process. Decisions at AN/I are geared toward specific threats from specific editors at specific times. You are now talking about an entire class of editor. A community-wide Request for Comment, with specific details '''and evidence''', a specific plan (or plans) of action, with an emphasis on fairness and reason is the very least you ought to be doing. AN/I is not the place for a resolution of this issue. -- ] (]) 07:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's actually a fair point. -] (]) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. As per Fluffernutter ,WilliamH ,Mer-C ,Fifelfoo and further many of the main editors like are site banned ] .There has been little positive and the negatives far above outweigh the positives and further ] (]) 10:00, 10 July 2012 (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) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I'm all in favour of taking measures against ''bad'' edits, but I don't think there is such a strong correlation between "edits via elance" and "bad edits". Aren't we already able to apply sanctions to spammers and pov-warriors? If we are, keep on doing that. If we aren't, then we have a broader problem. ] (]) 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] You have been misjudging me - It was , actually, if it's worth anything. ] ] 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - not enough reserach/knowledge on where paid editors originate from / how good/bad they are, and banning this one particualr site seems a tad off to me. ]] 15:19, 10 July 2012 (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) | |||
| *'''oppose''' We can't block people through guilt by association.]·] 15:22, 10 July 2012 (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) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Appears to be as evidence-free a proposal as ever I've seen. --] ] 22:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::If they weren't before they are now... ] (]) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Who cares if an editor gets paid, as long as the content is good? Is there any evidence that Elane editors are more problematic than similar sites?] (]) 03:44, 11 July 2012 (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) | |||
| ::, . , but there you go. ] (]) 16:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.] (]) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Maybe I'm just tired and/or dense, but I don't see what's actually being proposed. Deletion of articles that stem from Elance? Banning editors who create such an article, even if they've been good contributors in the past? How will this new rule be publicized, if approved? ] (]) 19:54, 11 July 2012 (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) | |||
| ::A G5 ban of all those soliciting work via Elance, in light of the chronic abuse stemming from contractors based on the site. ] (]) 20:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC) <small>Not aiming to be disrespectful, but please don't assert a position on something if you aren't aware what that something actually is.</small> | |||
| ::::Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--] (]) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps I misunderstood something. Do you mean ]? That applies to pages, not people. If you'd like to ban people who've created G5'd pages, that's not totally unreasonable, but there's no need for such a proposal to be framed in terms of one particular website. Banning people who've used a particular website on the assumption that their content work is bad, just so that ban can be used to G5 content which was created by those people but hadn't already been nominated for deletion through our usual processes, would be impressively kafkaesque. ] (]) 11:53, 12 July 2012 (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. | |||
| :::I voted to oppose ''because'' as far as I could tell there was no clear statement, beyond "some sort of ban on Elance-bought editing," of what was being proposed; whether I personally understood the proposal is not relevant, because I am 100% confident that I am against enacting ''any'' suggestion if nobody can be sure of what is actually being suggested. And given that your clarifying statement of <strike>your</strike> the proposal doesn't completely make sense, as Bobrayner pointed out, my concerns are even stronger and my opposition is even firmer. (On the other hand, if you had pointed me to someplace I'd missed in <strike>your</strike> the proposal where it was made completely clear what people had been voting to support, I would have withdrawn my comment.) ] (]) 13:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :PS: The editor was mocking this discussion in the Telegram group while I was writing this. ] (]) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If or the comments from those in support of the proposal are anything to go by, it is quite clear what is meant by it, and when G5 is used in such a context, is not the obtuse and stupid suggestion that we use administrative tools to delete people. And Bobrayner, if you'd checked the links I included, you would clearly see that the notion of their content work being "bad" was not merely an assumption, but self-evident. All I can say is that I am sorry the community is more willing to accept this abuse than grant the remit to deal with it. ] (]) 16:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::::I remain opposed to a proposal that I find to be vague and poorly thought-out as well as probably inappropriate for this venue. If you don't find my concerns about publication and enforcement of this restrction to be legitimate, or if you think it's foolish to oppose a proposal because one has concerns that aren't addressed, you're free to consider me an idiot, which is a right that goes for all of us. I won't be discussing my vote further. ] (]) 20:25, 12 July 2012 (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. | |||
| '''Comment:''' The following claim in the first paragraph of this section is factually incorrect: | |||
| 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. | |||
| "''Their relationship to the companies is short-term and piece work, it's no skin off their nose if the article is good and meets our guidelines, or if it's terrible, just as long as it stays long enough for them to get paid.''" | |||
| 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) | |||
| Elance contractors can get feedback up to 60 days after being paid. If a Misplaced Pages article is terrible and only stays long enough for them to get paid, they will get bad feedback for that article, which means lower rates and fewer customers. --] (]) 21:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not see it ,am I missing something this is article done for which has deleted but the feedback is good job and same is the case with most articles.The article is posted only after the customer likes the job and gives the feedback to say the author is posting it without his/her consent is wrong.This is true for all not only Misplaced Pages assignment ,project,coursework only after the customer likes it after that they cannot object later they can of course ask for an change in the draft done by the customer .Note if a student purchases a coursework likes it and pays after that even if he fails he cannot comeback to the site and blame the author after he can ask the author to make changes before paying the final amount but not after.It is one off after the customer likes it and pays the relationship unlike wikiexperts which do maintenance also.] (]) 03:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| JardelW is a user who was banned from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages due to his detestable behavior. This individual used the same Telegram group that he is now criticizing. The editor was banned from this group due to his behavior, in which he called respected users of the community . And DarwIn is one of the administrators of the group where he is banned, so you can already imagine why he is here. Now, once again he is trying to destabilize the community by defending an editor who called the entire project a sewer and made unproven accusations against an administrator. At this point, the account is practically banned and the article that caused the discord has its deletion or merge defended by several editors. By coming here, JardelW and Skyshifter are, in a way, stating that the entire community is prejudiced. Yet another offense enters the list as proof of Jardel's destabilizing behavior. Furthermore, this user to carry out the same destabilization by contesting on meta the banning of IPs, a consensual decision among hundreds of editors. And when he was still blocked, in an attempt to intervene in the Misplaced Pages domain, where he is banned, simply because he did not agree with the deletion of an article. And this without presenting any evidence. It is clear that Jardel's objective here is to take revenge on the community, and he will be punished for it. ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Oakley77 == | |||
| :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) | |||
| {{Archive top | |||
| :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) | |||
| |result =] is hereby banned from '''all content review processes''', including, but not limited to GAN, FAC, FLC, DYK, ITN, AFC, any other mainpage processes, etc. At the end of three months from today, he can appeal this block at ] (the ban does not automatically expire at the end of three months), subject to not violating the terms of this ban in the meantime and demonstrating an understanding of these processes as well as Misplaced Pages policies. Any violations of this ban will be dealt with blocks. —]''']''' 08:18, 14 July 2012 (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. === | |||
| ''(Thread copied from ])'' ] has done several reviews that have been problematic, including passing three articles with copyright problems that are VERY, VERY obvious and passing articles that do not meet guidelines like ]. This comes on the heels of having been community banned from ] because of a failure to understand Misplaced Pages policies. It might be time to consider community blocking ] from this community process as he appears to be adding material that does not uphold community standard. and . --] (]) 23:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|1=100% affairs of other wikis. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :If we're angling for a community ban from this process, mightn't ANI be a better venue for this? I'm not sure, which is why I ask. :) ] ] 23:46, 8 July 2012 (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)}} | |||
| ::What exactly is your motive here? Do you wish to request a community ban from AfC or request that the user be community blocked? --]<sup>] - ]</sup> 00:04, 9 July 2012 (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. | |||
| :::Since there is no reviewer approval process or quality review process, I think ANI would be the place to go. ] 00:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry for the double-post, but a bit more digging reveals that this user appears to have accepted EVERY article that they reviewed. If there are that many good articles in AfC, then I'm a mouse. --]<sup>] - ]</sup> 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm migrating this here so we can have some community input on this problem. (Oh, and to answer your question, Nathan, fairly sure Laura meant a community ban) ] ] 00:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *<small>(thread migrated from original topic)</small> I'm not angling for a block for this user. This user can sometimes do very good content work when they work purely on content. They just have made some reviews that demonstrate a problem understanding notability and copyright issues. ], ], ] are I think the ones I recall. There was one that he passed that was subsequently speedily deleted. of problems. I mention this only because another article I hadn't looked at before that he passed was mentioned on his talk page today. Hence the timing. --] (]) 00:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Commenting again: He was community banned from GAN with out being blocked. You can probably do a community ban instead of doing a block as he just needs to stay out of reviewing without understaning policy. It doesn't need to go to ANI to escalate. --] (]) 00:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :It's not that I think he needs to be blocked, it's just that talk:AfC is a very quiet venue, and this is generally where we work out community sanctions, isn't it? ] ] 00:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :{{edit conflict}} I'm not trying to escalate the problem, I just don't think we can add and enforce a community ban being added by a three-person discussion on a quiet talk page. Bans are typically either added through large community consensus or order of ArbCom. On a smaller note, I have finished merging the discussion and blanked the original thread. Please comment here instead. --]<sup>] - ]</sup> 00:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Just a comment: I looked on Oakley's talk page and notice a couple of instances where they have told other editors that they declined their submission because it wasn't well "formatted" such as ] and ]. According to ] under "invalid reasons to decline a submission" it says "Declining an article because it contains easily solved formatting issues, such as no wikilinks to other articles or no sections, is not acceptable. Instead, fix it yourself, or accept and tag the article to alert other editors to the one or two issues that you believe are the most urgent issues." I wouldn't think it warrants a community ban, but just another demonstration that they may need help understanding some of the AfC criteria. —''<span style="background-color:#cfc;text-shadow:#67A -2px 2px 2px;">]•]•]</span>'' 00:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::By the way, I also notified Oakley about this discussion. --]<sup>] - ]</sup> 00:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I think LauraHale means topic banned from AFC - not community banned (though at the rate this editor is going, that may well happen). The move of this to ANI was premature and should be reverted. --''']]]''' 00:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Topic bans are also community-imposed, are they not (unless via ArbCom)? The reason this is ''here'' is to get some input from the community. ] ] 00:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Since this isn't exactly an "incident," isn't the proper venue for this actually ], not AN/I? Not that it matters much: its here now, it might as well stay. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 00:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not sure what we're trying to do here, or what sanction or block is asked for. But I have a proposal: Oakley77 should NOT be reviewing anything at all. Not GAs, not FAs, not DYKs, not AfCs, nothing of the kind. They simply do not have the reviewing skills, and they do not seem to understand or listen to directions. ] (]) 01:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Okay, if this is in the incorrect place, I take the blame and apologise. But it's here now, and wouldn't be a good idea to move it again, so I'd like to simply make the proposal. As demonstrated above by the examples Laura Hale gave, Oakley77, though well meaning, doesn't have a firm grasp of certain policies and has been active in the Articles for Creation area. Most recently, articles were reviewed and passed by them that contained obvious copyright violations. | |||
| She accused him of transphobia, a very harsh word, over some 5 edits on the same page, and all the other arguments in her accusation were from the ptwiki with absolutely no relation to the English Misplaced Pages, and she tried to "force" that it was a cross-wiki harrassment, when it wasn't. The sole reason for that AN/I is a beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. | |||
| :I '''propose''' that Oakley be placed under a 3 month ban from reviewing articles submitted via ]. After 3 months, the ban can be lifted if the user demonstrates that they have an understanding of article policies such as ] and, most importantly, ]. I think 3 months isn't too harsh and gives the user plenty of time to gain the experience and knowledge needed to continue to help out. How does this sound? ] ] 01:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. first, there is no point in moving it elsewhere. second, that the three month ban would be a good idea, with careful watching to follow. There are likely to be need for other such afc bans, and I think this page a perfectly reasonable place to discuss them. AN should be kept for more general problems. ''']''' (]) 02:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Or concurrently with ? Informal mentorship was tried but did not work well. : / --] (]) | |||
| ::Support - Keep it here, three month ban on reviewing as per OohBunnies proposal. --] (]) 03:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Support''' though I'd suggest extending it to all featured processes (FAC, FLC, etc). with delegates' input, as well as DYK. --''']]]''' 03:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Support''', I also suggest making sure Oakley can demonstrate an understanding of AfC reviewing guidelines, in addition to other policies, before lifting the block. Also, I believe it is important that all articles that Oakley approved get moved back into AfC for reevaluation. Also, I think all users whose articles were improperly accepted need to be informed of it. One article creator ] in a very confused state, as I had just denied his or her article for not being properly sourced, and Oakley had approved a similar article that was sourced in the same way. <span style="border:2px solid #808080;background:#C68E17;">]''']'''</span> 05:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Support''' I have removed the PROD from '']'' as it as a ] and on that basis meets the GNG. But by no means do I think this undermines what LauraHale has said about Oakley77's standards at AfC. I happen to be familiar the subject of the article and some of the more obscure guidelines surrounding it, but that's not something we can count on at AfC. When the article was accepted it had no independent sources and most of the text was copied directly from the journal's website. I think this highlights why it's really important to be diligent at AfC – if Oakley77 had declined the submission on these grounds, we as a project would have worked with the submitter to improve the article, get it accepted, and possibly gained a valuable long-term contributor to the encyclopaedia. Accepting submissions that only go on to get nominated for deletion gives a really bad impression to new editors (see ]' frustrated comments at ]) and risks scaring them off for good. | |||
| ::Looking at Oakley77's contributions, he has created other similarly awkward situations by accepting unsuitable submissions. I'm sure he's not alone, but it's time we tightened up standards at AfC. ''']'''<sup>''']'''•''']'''</sup> 08:58, 9 July 2012 (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. | |||
| * '''Comment'''. The problem with this user is BY FAR not only GAN. they created a one-line unsourced stub ALL information in which was in fact false (compare with the current version). At the time, they were creating several dozens such stubs per day. they replaced correct info in the article by wrong info. When I pointed out this at their talk page, I got no recation. My conclusion is that the user basically does not understand the basic policies.--] (]) 06:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *** @Ymblanter, same problem . Completely read a source completely wrong and put factually incorrect information in to address something in a GA review, where he is specifically blocked from participating and after having failed to consult me about doing that. --] (]) 07:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****I support a ban, but with these new findings I believe first a block and ''then'' a ban might be even more 'correct': this user has simply made too many problems to let him walking around and 'destroying' that project. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">]</small> 08:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *****My concern is that we're eventually going to have to ban him from every darn process if we can't get through to this editor... and then we probably will be left with no option but then to do a full community ban. I've tried talking to this editor and don't seem to be getting through. --''']]]''' 08:*29, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****** That's my concern too. He wanted to get back into ] and I agreed to mentor. I specifically spelled out what needed to be done. made me vaguely nutty. Fact added in club section did NOT belong there and was not supported by the citation. Then, we derailed as they then wanted to do stuff outside the conditions of mentorship and eventually went shopping for a new article. I had to ding back a number of articles to Cs because he thought poorly written wrongly assessed Bs were nomination close to ready. He should have known the criteria that suggested these were not going to GAN any time soon.--] (]) 08:36, 9 July 2012 (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. | |||
| Would there be any objections to an '''indefinite block''' on the grounds of ] and / or ]? Not something I suggest lightly, but this editor is either unable or unwilling to edit in accordance with the rules here. He is taking up too much time of productive editors like LauraHale and others who have to check anything that Oakley77 does, because he cannot be trusted. ]] 09:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :As someone else who's previously warned him about a completely unrelated issue (the mass removal of maintenance tags from articles without making any effort to fix the problems involved), and also had no reply from him - and who's witnessed his repeated malformed nominations at ] despite repeated explanations as to what he's doing wrong - I'd support this. Any block should be very clear that "indefinite" is being used with the meaning of "unspecified", not "forever" - provided he demonstrates that he understands what he's doing wrong, and promises to stop trying to run before he can walk in future, I'd have no problem with said block being lifted. ] (]) 10:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Despite some not-so-good arguments from DarwIn in the AN/I above, it is more than clear that the reason for the opening of the said AN/I was '''personal''' and for '''revenge'''. I'm open to any questions regarding this topic, as there is plenty of evidence to sustain my claims. All of this that she's doing would clearly fall under ], here called ] I think, and ]/], and in the AN/I above she's commiting ], repeating the eye-catching word "transphobia" over and over, without sustaining her argument accordingly, seeking to block a sysop at other 3 projects and rollbacker here, with the sole objective of tarnishing his block log, just for revenge and self-fullfillment. | |||
| *I support Oohbunnies! proposal and oppose Becherlite's. He's been constructive in other areas in the project, and I don't see why we have to block him for CIR issues. ] (]) 10:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I would '''support either proposal'''. Alas, when looking at edits in other areas, I don't think mass-creation of error-ridden unsourced stubs, mass-removal of maintenance tags, misreading of sources &c can best be described as "''constructive''". Everybody makes mistakes sometimes, but if an editor makes so many mistakes in different areas as to require constant supervision and cleanup by other editors, their contributions are hindering rather than helping the encyclopædia. ] (]) 11:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I '''support''' the three-month ban from AfC ''at the very least''. We have a GA ban already, and I've remarked on their talk page that they should stay away from FA as well (duh). What's odd is that we have an editor who is active and interested, and seems to be utterly incompetent at the tasks they have taken up themselves. Laura's mentoring advice is instructive: there's plenty of "yes, sure," and then no improvement. ] (]) 14:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Ban from all content review venues''' - This editor has already been banned from GAN, and now faces a ban from AFC. It seems reasoanble to expect they will simply move to another review process despite a demonstrated lack of competence. So why do it piecemeal? No opinion on an indef block, but frankly, that is the next step if problematic behaviour persists. ]] 14:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban on all content reviewing. I think Resolute has it right. This should explicitly include GAN, FAC, AfC, and DYK. I think it should be an indefinite topic ban until the user can deomonstrate competence, perhaps with more formalized mentoring required. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">]<font color="#0095c6">of</font>]</font> 14:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **What about ITN? Featured Sound/Image? FL? If you miss to include one, he/she will likely pick that one... <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">]</small> 14:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***Then use more general wording? "''All content reviewing and promotion, broadly construed. This includes ITN, DYK, AfC, GAN, FAC, Featured Signpost Article, Category Of The Day, Good AN/I Thread Nominations, and Portals for Creation.''" No? ] (]) 15:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****''"Includes but is not limited to..."'' - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 15:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *****"is not limited to..." is redundant. I trim that from articles all the time. Going forward, ] (]) 15:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ******Of course it's redundant. And good on you for trimming it from articles. But in this case, it's redundancy for emphasis, to make it absolutely clear that there's no loopholes; things we're leaving off the "includes" list are still in there. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 16:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *******I will grant you that we're dealing with an editor on who redundant repetition is not wasted, to head them off at the pass--but I detest that cliche. ] (]) 16:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ********"All Misplaced Pages content assessment processes, all discussions relating to content assessment processes, such as but not limited to…". Looking at his recent history, it looks like hijacking low-traffic WikiProjects is going to be his next move, so it may be worth shoehorning them into the proposal as well. ] (]) 17:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I would also '''support''' a ban from all reviewing processes until the user can demonstrate understanding of processes and policies, if that's on the table. I wouldn't support a block at this time, though. ] ] 16:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''' - I am voluntarily removing myself from the AfC process in order to stop wasting productive, precious time. The can still be placed as I see it, I just wanted everyone to now that I will not be reviewing anymore AfC articles. As for the GAN and me, I am learning as much as I can in order to hopefully be reinstated into the process as a nominator. I also will not review a FA, a GA, a DYK, or a AfC again until I fully comprehend the review process AND get an involved editors' permission. Sorry for any trouble I have caused, ] (]) 17:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I '''propose''' that if Oakley can successfully move all articles that (s)he approved back into AfC, the ban be shortened to 1 month. <span style="border:2px solid #808080;background:#C68E17;">]''']'''</span> 18:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::And what about his problems at ], ], ], ], ] and all the rest of the alphabet soup? The copyvio issue at AFC is a serious one, but it's certainly not the only disruption Oakley is causing. Despite the number of people who've tried to explain it to him, I don't think he realises just how many people he's irritating, or how much time is being wasted cleaning up his messes - while we don't expect perfection, we do expect people to have at least a vague familiarity with the relevant policies regarding whatever it is they're trying to do. If what happened following his ban from ] is any guide, he'll immediately move on to another project page and start disrupting that unless he's expressly banned from doing so. ] (]) 19:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::(ec) No. Moving articles back to AfC would create more mess and confusion and would not solve anything, nor prove that a lesser ban is needed. ] ] 19:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well the articles he accepted need to be re-reviewed, no question. <s>If someone can get me a list of them I will go through them.</s> Never mind, found them using . Also, I still support a 3 month (at least) ban. <span style="border:2px solid #808080;background:#C68E17;">]''']'''</span> 20:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| I'd like to open a proposal to ban Oakley from all content reviewing to January 1, 2013, to be lifted ''after'' the user goes through formal mentoring about Misplaced Pages policies. I'd also like to request the the topic ban from the Good Article process be extended to after the mentorship is complete. I formally '''oppose''' moving any content back into the AfC process, at the maximum those articles should be AfDd to avoid excessive ]. --]<sup>] - ]</sup> 00:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' new proposal by ]. <span style="border:2px solid #808080;background:#C68E17;">]''']'''</span> 01:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' all proposals to topic ban from all content review. '''Oppose''' indefinite block at this time. --''']]]''' 02:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' the broadly construed topic ban from content review processes. I supported the GAN ban, which doesn't lapse until November 25, 2012. I also currently '''oppose''' an indefinite block at this time, but I fear that one may be required in the end, so I harbor no prejudice toward such a proposal in the future. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' either topic ban or block. I also have to say that Oakley's new article creations are not exactly helping the encyclopedia. I have been going through his contributions for a while now just to fix obvious errors, adding a source here and there, etc. I was very surprised to see the above statement "Just need better format and structure and we could have an article" on the AfC seeing as most of their articles have many formatting problems, from to , and more importantly, very few of their one line stubs are referenced. It seems to me that and all the above concerns about GAN and AfC show a profound lack of ]. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">"]"</span>''' ] 14:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Awarding oneself two awards, for crying out loud! <span style="border:2px solid #808080;background:#C68E17;">]''']'''</span> 18:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a ban from reviewing processes (Featured content reviewing, GANs, DYKs, and ITN too). I think a block will be too much. ] ] ] 15:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' from ALL reviewing areas for, say, 3 months? Anyone able to mentor in the meantime? ]] 15:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Has anyone even read my comment?''' ] (]) 21:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I have, and I still support a ban followed by mentoring. Also, Oakley, I recommend you delete the barnstars you gave to yourself. <span style="border:2px solid #808080;background:#C68E17;">]''']'''</span> 21:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Okay then, I will do the following: | |||
| 1. Acknowledge the 3 month ban on reviewing anything on Misplaced Pages, and obviously not violate it, and work cheerfully and dutifully with my assigned mentor (if any). | |||
| </br>2. Delete my self administered barnstars ;). ] (]) 01:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|Eduardo_Gottert}} You need to provide evidence when opening an ANI thread, not on request. ] (]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Your commitment to quit disrupting Misplaced Pages's processes would have been considerably more convincing it if you hadn't immediately followed it by (a contest based on article assessment) and ] on a topic you have no apparent connection with, have never edited an article on as far as I can see, and which would only cover ]. (To go with the 17 other low-traffic WikiProjects you're already either tried to join or tried to start in the the last couple of months, presumably - , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . It's possible a user has a genuine knowledge of Puntland, Animals in media, Brazilian Antarctica, Australian music and the islands of St Pierre and Miquelon, but I find it unlikely.) ] (]) 16:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::'@] The evidences are above. I said if you need any '''further''' evidence, you may ask. All of the necessary evidence are on the request. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I really don't believe you have done anything to show us that you won't resume your behavior. I have nothing against joining or creating low traffic WikiProjects, but please stop creating ] and please don't resume content reviewing until this discussion is closed. --]<sup>] - ]</sup> 17:03, 11 July 2012 (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) | |||
| ::::: is a bit troubling that says "will work on ] itself to GA status. " since he is topic banned from GAN. --] (]) 21:17, 11 July 2012 (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) | |||
| :::1. I didn't sign up for the WikiCup, just its informative newsletter, two very different things. | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| ::::, , , , ... ] (]) 18:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::The reason for the AN/I opens is still the same, revenge. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Okay, I am passionate about soccer, geography, and culture. Oh, and I wanted to start my own WikiProject. Please explain why being active in numerous WikiProjects is detrimental to Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 21:29, 11 July 2012 (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) | |||
| ::::::To be a bit blunt, it seems to me like you're more interested in joining WikiProjects than editing articles. --''']]]''' 23:54, 11 July 2012 (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) | |||
| *What do you even base that on? I join WikiProjects, yes, but that doesn't mean I don't edit much either. Is that a joke, have you even looked at my recent contributions? ] (]) 00:54, 12 July 2012 (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) | |||
| *C'mon people, it clearly states at the top of this page: "Do not clutter discussions here with irrelevant side-discussions". This discussion ended a while ago. '''Oakley77 will receive either a 3 month ban or a ban until the end of the year from all reviewing processes. In addition, a mentor will ensure that Oakley77 can demonstrate his full understanding of any reviewing instructions for any review process he wishes to participate in after his ban has lifted.''' <span style="border:2px solid #808080;background:#C68E17;">]''']'''</span> 01:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::She opened an NI, ptwiki equivalent of AN/I against DarwIn with crazy arguments. You can see it ]. It was prompty closed, and she was very well aware of the consequences she would face, and of the opening of the block discussion, and clearly opened the AN/I because of that reason. The block discussion started at 1130 UTC, and the AN/I was posted at 1300, at a time that Skyshifter had already taken notice of the discussion, as you can see . <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 07:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I accept this ban on reviewing and can't wait to have a mentor. Again, I apologize for any time anyone feels was wasted. ] (]) 13:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment:''' As I understood this ban, he was to not be involved with community processes like ] but has been involved there today. Can some one formalise the ban, inform the user what it means and close this? --] (]) 02:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I didn't draw up the ban, but I lead it to believe I was banned from all reviewing processes until I show competence, and a designated mentor thinks as well. Nothing about ITN or Current Events was in there. Can whoever devised this ban please clarify? ] (]) 13:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::"...Then use more general wording? "All content reviewing and promotion, broadly construed. This includes ITN, DYK, AfC, GAN, FAC, Featured Signpost Article, Category Of The Day, Good AN/I Thread Nominations, and Portals for Creation." No?..." That was discussed above. Please stop doing anything in the category of content reviewing. This includes, but is not limited to: | |||
| **AFC | |||
| **ITN | |||
| **DYK | |||
| **GAN | |||
| **FAC | |||
| **Anything that involves the Main Page, such as TFP or Current Events | |||
| ::Thanks, ]<sup>] - ]</sup> 19:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Does promoting stubs count as reviewing? I thought it did but Oakley77 has done three today . ] (]) 23:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: At this point, I'm thinking he probably needs a block. No reviewing means NO reviewing. He can't identify qualities for GA. He can't identify what is needed for AFC. He shouldn't be involved with assessment period and that has been made clear. That he decided to re-assess three things today and be involved with ] despite knowing this going on suggests ] or possibly a complete lack of understanding how Misplaced Pages works. --] (]) 03:12, 14 July 2012 (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) | |||
| '''Question''' If he could be made a project coordinator till April 30 2013?] ] From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 05:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *: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 it involves any sort of reviewing, then no, not until the ban is lifted. <span style="border:2px solid #808080;background:#C68E17;">]''']'''</span> 06:44, 14 July 2012 (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) | |||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
| ::::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}} | |||
| == Continued Abusive Behavior from Ihardlythinkso == | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == ] reported by ] == | |||
| {{archivetop|status=Warning issued|BNL issued warning both editors <small>]</small> 02:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{atop|result=John40332 has been blocked sitewide. ] (]) 01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| While I respect ] for being a capable editor, his continued abusive, aggressive behavior makes editing chess articles both an irritating and laborious chore. Sadly, this is ] there has been a problem with this particular individual. He was eventually temp-banned for his behavior, including legal threats, but after a brief hiatus, he has resumed his behavior. | |||
| I have ignored it for a while, since I do feel he is an otherwise worthwhile editor who has something to contribute to the encyclopedia. For instance, ] he makes an unmotivated personal attack against me on an AfD page, tell me to "find some dignity", and decries the "slanderous fabrication" I supposedly made, "which you got away with at ANI". I calmly ignored him. | |||
| {{moved from|]|2=] (]) 14:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Unfortunately, this editor seems to be following me around lately, insulting and warring over the smallest thing. While initially civil ], his replies became more belligerent over time, until the end, when my research uncovered that he was, in fact, correct about the topic. | |||
| {{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) | |||
| Shortly after this, he wrote more very aggressive, often personal replies on ]. Again, I replied to him very civilly, and mostly overlooked his behavior. | |||
| :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. | |||
| However, his ] on this Talk page have been too much. I finally asked him to stop the personal comments (calling my views "shrill", "reckless", saying I have no facts or arguments, and that "your hyperbole is tiresome"). His reply? More insults. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::So CurryTime can throw random accusations until something sticks? ] (]) 18:54, 5 January 2025 (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) | |||
| :::::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}} | |||
| Again, this editor has been banned before, and has had several conflicts with other editors that have made it to the Administrator's Board stretching back to (at least) last year. While I believe he could be a valuable editor if he wanted to be, he displays a categorical unwillingness to avoid personal attacks or stick to the article at hand. As such, I think the negative he brings to the encyclopedia outweighs the positive. ] (]) 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :He was ], not ], which is something else entirely and which I do not want to consider here (Ihardlythinkso has been very productive). If I were you I would not ], which never ends well with Ihardlythinkso.--] ] 23:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, my mistake with regards to term. That being said, this is hardly me "poking a bear". Rather, this is a bear following and attacking me wherever I happen to go! I'm perfectly fine with leaving Ihardlythinkso alone, and have ignored him for a long time now. (His first personal attacks linked above occurred in February) However, he is not willing to extend me the same courtesy, and makes my attempts to edit anything related to chess a chore. While I'm a lowly editor, not an admin, I disagree that we should let editors be as abusive and disruptive as they want to be. Especially since I'm far from the only editor or admin affected by this. (You have had an ANI issue with him yourself, if I recall) ] (]) 23:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::You've had quite some heated arguments with him on the pages you linked. Did you ever consider just not replying at all?--] ] 23:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's precisely what I have done most of the time. In the first link, I ignore him altogether. In the others, I let him get "the last word" and ignore most or all of his personal attacks. Unfortunately, this hasn't worked. Also, I can't ignore him ''completely'' since those discussions are about content in the encyclopedia, and in at least one case, his revert of one of my edits. While I agree with your general attitude of "just ignore it and focus on the encyclopedia" and wish Ihardlythinkso would as well, it simply hasn't worked in this case. And if this was just an isolated incident with me, fine. But think of how many HOURS you have wasted of your life, Jasper, contentiously arguing with this guy either on the ANI board or on a Talk Page where he has started making personal attacks about you. Anyways, I'm okay with whatever the admins decide, but want to stress that this is a persistent problem that detracts from the encyclopedia.] (]) 00:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and removal of sourced information == | |||
| Um: | |||
| {{atop | |||
| * Above claim: "This editor has had several conflicts with other editors that have made it to the Administrator's Board stretching back to (at least) last year." | |||
| | status = no action at this time | |||
| * Let's see ... Besides *this* one, there's been exactly one ANI case involving me, it was a case I ''initiated'', as a result of a fabrication ChessPlayerLev made about me. | |||
| | result = Participants reminded to attempt communicating with other editors before reporting their behaviour to ANI. ] (]) 21:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| This seems to be an ongoing issue. | |||
| Um: | |||
| * Above claim: "He was eventually temp-banned for his behavior, including legal threats". | |||
| * Let's see ... I was blocked exactly twice, both blocks by the hand of admin ], neither of which mentioning anything about "legal threats". | |||
| {{Userlinks|Vofa}} has lots of warnings about disruptive editing in their user page and a block. | |||
| Is this representative of how you report the "facts" to others, ChessPlayerLev? ] (]) 03:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Most recent example of removal of sourced information: | |||
| Um: | |||
| * Above claim: "He wrote more very aggressive, often personal replies on ]." | |||
| * Like, can you point out even ''one'' "very aggressive, personal reply" in that linked thread? | |||
| I checked the source and the information is there on page 7. | |||
| Is this representative of how you report the "facts" to others, ChessPlayerLev? ] (]) 03:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Previous examples include: . Also see: ] ] (]) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Um: | |||
| * Above claim: "This editor seems to be following me around lately, insulting and warring over the smallest thing. While initially civil ], his replies became more belligerent over time". | |||
| * Let's see ... I have ] on my watchlist. You made an add of an unfounded quote assigned to Bobby Fischer, about something he never said. I reverted your add in accord with ], explained my revert and asked you to go to Talk, where I opened a section. In response, you reverted me, with this as edit summary: "It would be nice if you gave me a chance to respond on the Talk page before rabidly reverting the most minor of my edits." I did not revert you a second time, even though your re-add was counter to ]. So where exactly was it that I was "warring"? And ''who'' was warring? And if this was "the smallest thing" (and presumably not important at all to anyone, including you), why did you put up such a lengthy contest on the Talk, insisting on your change until disproven by the author of the source? And please show me ''one'' instance I was "insulting" over the entire thread. | |||
| :Just to clarify, I just noticed that there is indeed an unsourced paragraph. | |||
| Is this representative of how you report the "facts" to others, ChessPlayerLev? ] (]) 04:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :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== | |||
| :A rudimentary search reveals ]. There was also the whole fiasco with ] although admittedly, I don't know whether it became a case on an Admin board or not. Your also indicates an indefinite blocking for your behavior ]. None of those three cases involved me, either.] (]) 03:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ]'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: | |||
| Um: | |||
| * Claim: You seemingly are attempting to suggest, that the thread opened by ] at ANI was about some behavioral issue, which it was not. It was a content dispute, over whether policy permitted use of "hide/show" feature on chess problem diagrams. An RfC was opened by Elen, thinking I just didn't understand policy. The consensus at the RfC decided I was right, not her. As a result, MoS was changed to make the use of "hide/show" explicitly clearer for chess puzzles. As a result, we have beautiful chess problems protected for eyes not to see, so that others may enjoy working out the solutions, without the "answer" staring back at them when they begin, e.g., ]. I did a good thing by defending my side of the content issue to use "hide/show", it lead to improving the encyclopedia at least a little. (Can you tell how it is that you attempt to use that ANI as a disparaging remark against me now?) | |||
| Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills. | |||
| Is this representative of how you report the "facts" to others, ChessPlayerLev? ] (]) 04:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883 | |||
| Question for ChessPlayerLev: Is the ANI you opened here supposed to be about your complaints regarding thing(s) I said or did to *you*? Or thing(s) that you want to contend that I said or did to *others*? And second, in either case, are your complaints about thing(s) I said or did recently? Or about thing(s) going back as far back as you want without limitation? | |||
| WP:NPA | |||
| Because I'm not willing to go over with you everything including kitchen sink that you like to try and find to throw my way, for example, discussing with you the indef block I received from the hand of admin ], which Arbcom overturned without restriction. You really don't know what you are implying regarding the quality of that block and Arbcom's deliberations regarding same. You seemingly just like to use the existence of the block to smear me, to suggest: "if he was indef blocked, then for sure he is guilty of anything I want to complain about him". A fallacy. (Or, do you want it your way: Anyone and everyone who was ever blocked, especially indef'd, certainly deserved it, and it is perfectly civil to hold past blocks against them, as though they are bad editors and Misplaced Pages undesirables, especially if you feel like saying something disparaging about them to others at a free-for-all ANI. Right.) ] (]) 04:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324 | |||
| :The complaint is about your behavior towards me during the last week. However, if this was an isolated incident, I would be happy to submit this to the Wikiquette board instead, or even tolerate your abuse. Unfortunately, it's the same behavior you have displayed over many months here, towards myself and other editors. It's gotten to the point where it's an actual impediment to improving chess articles. Hence, why I mentioned that in my complaint. It's a shame too, because you do have valuable contributions to make when you're not needlessly raging at someone. ] (]) 04:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Profanity | |||
| ::No, you're not going to justify throwing every kitchen sink at me you can find. And, "if this was an isolated incident", implies that you are speaking facts, whereas I already started going over some of your "facts". (Did you even read what I wrote above? You certainly didn't respond.) I think it is *you*, ChessPlayerLev, who is being aggressive, abusive. (How else do you account for the smearing fiction that you propogated above?) Our first interaction "during the last week" was at ], and, you've made several accusations about me regarding following you around, "warring", insulting you, being "belligerent" and uncivil. I've asked you above, to show one instance of any of that. Meanwhile, I showed how you treated the ] situation, and how you warred, I didn't. (And on the article Talk, ''who'' was acting belligerent?! Me? Where? Because I find several instances of you acting that way, not me, starting with your edit summary, quoted above.) ] (]) 05:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966 | |||
| :::It's hard for me to reply to everything you write, considering you edit your comments after I have already replied to them, adding a bunch of new material in the process. I don't have all day to closely monitor this page and edit it non-stop. It's also difficult since you continually ignore everything I write and instead keep repeating "you have shown no instances/facts of me doing anything wrong!" like a mantra. This, despite direct quotes in my initial complaint as well as corresponding links where you made them. I guess telling me to "find some dignity", calling my views "shrill" and "tireless hyberbole", etc. is perfectly civil on your part. (Keep in mind that this was all out of the blue; I made no abusive comments towards you, and in the first instance, wasn't communicating with you at all) | |||
| Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor | |||
| :::Again, it's a shame you continue behaving this way. Had you simply written "okay, no more personal comments, I will stick to chess", that would have been fine by me. But your only reply is more and more insults. Anyways, I would like to hear from other editors on this. If Ihardlythinkso's conduct was simply rude, abusive, and/or limited to me, I would have ignored it. But it's also tremendously disruptive to building a better encyclopedia, incredibly discouraging to other editors, and part of a pattern of behavior that has gone on for many months and affected a number of other editors and admins. This is my last reply on the subject before an admin weighs in.] (]) 06:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877 | |||
| ::::If you're going to quote me, ChessPlayerLev, please be accurate. I never wrote "tireless hyperbole", what I wrote was that the hyperbole "was tiresome". (Big difference. The first asserts that you persist in hyperbole without end; the second asserts the hyperbole you were generating was taking a toll on me.) You said the ANI is about things "the last week", but there you go again, complaining about something said months ago. You say you made no abusive comments this week, but you haven't made comment on our first interaction of the week where you wrote in edit summary after my ] revert: "It would be nice if you gave me a chance to respond on the Talk page before rabidly reverting the most minor of my edits." I asked you on the Talk what you meant by "rabidly". (No response from you.) You've accuse me of making "personal comments" and "personal attacks" the last week. If I find your content dispute rationale questionable or confusing and ask for clarification or challenge it, you consider those "personal attacks"? If you say a contention is "laughable" or "silly" or "bunk" or "ridiculous" but give no rationale for that opinion in a content dispute, and I point out those are not arguments but shrill opinion in place of argument, then I'm making "personal attacks" and giving you "insults"? | |||
| Unicivil | |||
| ::::I really want to know something from you, ChessPlayerLev: Please go back to ], read the interactions between us this last week, and point out something specific, even one thing, that you think or wish that I had done better. (Alright? Or is that asking too much?) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027 | |||
| ::::I wish you had come to my User talk instead of ANI, but, I can see your intentions were not to resolve anything between us, but rather, to "get blocked", with arguments like "continued misbehavior" after "past blocks including indef", "the negative he brings to the encyclopedia outweighs the positive", and etc. That's really aggressive in my book, ChessPlayerLev, and you should have two legs to stand on when attempting things so serious as that, rather than generalities without specifics, accusations without facts, and so on. (To me, your serious endeavor here, seems to rely on generating prejudice, which in fact quite mirrors your argumentative style in the content disputes you've linked, where you've used disparaging comments in place of argument, for example: "that's ridiculous", "that's silly", "that's bunk", "that's nonsense", "that's laughable", and so on.) Try to do better, and next time please come to my Talk. Ok? ] (]) 12:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441 | |||
| ::::* you were claiming ] (a respected ProjChess member) was being hostile, "ridiculous", biased, and "blatantly dishonest". ] (]) 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Contact on user page attempted | |||
| :::::... and you call *my* behavior "a shame"?! (I think there's been enough aggressive hypocrisy from you!) ] (]) 13:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795 | |||
| ::::* you accused me of name-calling two editors "idiots" and "asshats", names I would never use against anyone at WP, ever. I never received any apology from you, only a fake, flippant one at the ANI. (The difference between you & me, ChessPlayerLev, is that I don't fabricate or intentionally distort or exaggerate. You do. I consider it more than uncivil, it's unethical. I don't care if you call me any name your imagination can muster; it's sticks & stones. But fabrications are a particularly underhanded dirtiness in my book, and IMO you swim in it. It's one of the reasons I love chess, because ChessPlayerLev, you can't *cheat* in a chess game, can you.) ] (]) 14:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}OK, ChessPlayerLev and Ihardlythinkso, ''both'' of you need to back away from each other and from this thread. You're not 10 year olds on the playground anymore, and you shouldn't be acting like it. So here's the deal; we can let this go, and if I see ''any'' continued asshattery I'll start with the blocks. Both of you seem like otherwise quite reasonable editors, so I genuinely think that you're capable of preventing it from coming to that; I sincerely hope you'll both decide to take the high road instead. ] (]) 02:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| ===Reopening=== | |||
| {{archivetop|result=Ihardlythinkso, The Blade of Northern Lights, and Toddst1 are highly encouraged to just cease discussing this and moving on. <small>]</small> 11:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| *Reopening this; see and the ensuing discussion on ]. I think a block for Ihardlythinkso would probably be the best solution at this point. ] (]) 16:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the accusations on ] and ] are clear indications of ]. I've indefinitely blocked IHTS before for this type of behavior and s/he was unblocked after appeal, but it's unfortunate that it has continued. I'd support a block for ] / ]. ] <small>(])</small> 16:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::2 weeks or 1 month sounds like a good length - he did not have any justification in calling Todd his "undesired nemesis", which clearly matches TE and BATTLE.--] ] 16:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Deng, I don't write things, I have "no justification" for. Toddst1 took extraordinary measures against me, that were unjustified. Those things weren't done in a vacuum. ] (]) 16:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've read time and time again, ANI is to be used as "last resort" only, after all other venues over an issue have been exhausted. Apparently that was misleading, and ANI can be "plopped into" whenever it pleases the purpose of the opening editor? ] (]) 17:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<sub>Ooh, the fire is cooking... Be calm - snarky comments never helped anyone. </sub> '''] '''</font><sub><small>]</sup></sup></small> 17:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<sub>Am calm, just taken aback. </sub> ] (]) 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Can I make an observation or two here? Surely, everyone will be upset afterwards, but I wouldn't have it any other way. First, Ihardlythinkso, I think you are being a bit oversensitive in the whole event. Not discounting your feelings, but I think you might be wearing them on your sleeve just a bit and it isn't helping you, and may get you in trouble. I only ask you trust me just a little bit here, you are being snarky and it doesn't suit you. And everyone one else on the block button, I don't see how blocking is going to do anything but antagonize the situation and serve as punishment rather than to prevent disruption. Yes, we are admins so NPA doesn't apply and all that, but this is one of those situations where it is better if everyone just backs away from the dead horse, because nothing anyone says is going to make the other side agree. ANI happened, feelings got hurt, a few jabs were thrown, now lets all go back to writing articles and staying off each other's talk pages for a few days. ] - ] ] 18:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd probably agree to that were it not for the fact that this is ''hardly'' the first time Ihardlythinkso has had serious battleground issues, including multiple blocks for it. Given the latest round of wild accusations towards me and Toddst1, I don't see that he's learned anything at all, and I certainly don't think the problem is just going to go away; that's what I tried last night, and it lead to the aforementioned threads on each others' talkpages. ] (]) 19:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with you in principal, that Ihardlythinkso went too far and got emotionally involved and over the line. I've been on the exact same side of the stick, with the same editor, I fully understand. I'm not ignoring or excusing it. Blocking is an option, but I don't think it is the best option because it is likely to antagonize the situation rather than resolve it. This makes it a no-win scenario, and I don't like to block if it isn't going to really resolve anything. It just feels dirty. That doesn't stop you from doing so, but I would encourage everyone to accept that some editors are a little more emotional but worthwhile contributors, and for us to try just a little harder to work it out, that is all. I've added a note to a conversation that Ihardlythinkso and I are having on my talk page, and just consider my intervention as one last effort to try to find resolution peacefully. I'm not going to interfere, I only hope to find a better solution '''if''' it is possible. ] - ] ] 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent | |||
| ::Let me understand: suggesting MO that Blade & Toddst1 are "admin-friends", constitutes "wild accusations", is emotional and "over the line", and is valid basis for a block? Also, my two past blocks keep being referred to here, as they are some sort of Gold Standard, when they were both from the hand of ], the second of which was overturned by Arbcom, in addition to other actions taken by Toddst1 against me (removal of my WP Email access while blocked) that were extraordinary and unjustified. And Dennis, my purpose of our past dialogues was to show that you are "not perfect" in case there was any danger in your thinking you were (because, everybody seems to compliment you, and as human being, that can easily cause a puffed-up self-image). That is not the same kind of thing here, where I'm defending, where ] seems to be hard bent to hang me high. ] (]) 19:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For the record, my indefinite block of IHTS for "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" was not overturned - ] after a month. Upon being unblocked, IHTS was noticed that '''"nobody has taken back the finding that you were engaging in "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" and "repeated personal attacks and quick and consistent disregard for civility in the face of conflict." ''' This is an important fact that IHTS seems to have lost and would do well to take to heart instead of fabricating conspiracies and projecting repeated problems onto others. ] <small>(])</small> 22:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557] (]) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Toddst1, first, I was not "noticed" what you quoted. (What you quoted is news to me. Did Arbcom say this? Can you give me a link on my Talk, please.) All I was told, a day or so after my appeal, was that I was "free to edit". Second, for the record, the month time duration you mention, was my choice, no one else's. Third, please drop any notion of accusing me of "fabricating conspiracies", ok? (Unless you want to get into that, I don't, in which case I'm likely to ask you to specify what multiple conspiracies you are talking about, etc.) Thanks for your consider. ] (]) 02:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::p.s. To be clear about this, you indef'd me, I appealed to Arbcom, I was not noticed, I was told a day after my appeal that I was "free to edit" (no restrictions given). That is what I meant by your indef block being "overturned by Arbcom". (Is there some kind of "Misplaced Pages legalese" going on here re term "overturned". Because if so, I didn't and don't know about it.) ] (]) 02:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::One of the reasons I took a month before appealing, is that I wasn't sure I wanted to return to WP at all, back into what I perceived an abusive environment. My unblock appeal contained my contention at the outset that IMO your block was excessive and inappropriate. You also removed my Misplaced Pages Email privilege while blocked, a measure that I understand is done only under the most extraordinary of abuse circumstance. There was no abuse by me of Email to any degree at any time. ] (]) 02:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I will reply below to keep this somewhat readable. ] <small>(])</small> 03:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::And I still think you could have chosen some of your words more carefully and are creating problems for yourself by not admitting it. Blade is a good guy, he is human, so he is fallible, but I've always known him to try to do the right thing, and he is likely frustrated because you have been more than a little rude to him. I also know you are good guy, fallible, and a bit oversensitive at times. My goal here is simply to lower the drama level and deal with the issues, which looking over the previous ANI, is due in part to a sharp tongue. We don't have to agree with each other. Hell, we don't even have to like each other. We DO have to get along with each other, and you know that. ] - ] ] 20:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}Another way to look at this would be to figure out ] IHTS is repeatedly exhibiting for multiple admins to separately develop the inclination to "hang him high." (as he put it) Then comes the question ]?" 20:19, 12 July 2012] <small>(])</small> | |||
| ::::{{ec|2}}And on that note, which I fully endorse, can everyone please ]? Perhaps tossing ] of ] ] and quantities around first? - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 20:27, 12 July 2012 (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) | |||
| ::::Well Dennis, if ''you'' think Blade is a good guy, that is good enough for me. To Blade: I'm sorry that I got snarky with you. I didn't enjoy being compared to a 10-yr. old, and decided to hit back with snarkiness. Sorry. | |||
| ::Would I be the person to provide you with that {{tq|further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions}}? I did think that it would be more than a ], since that's for {{tq|one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior}} and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern ]. ] (]) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. ''Hob should know better'', and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to ]. But I would ''caution you'' about ] and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your , , and it seems like you're having a problem handling a ] and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith. | |||
| :Furthermore it does appear that you might be ] because your attempts at ] for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. , , , , , , and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding ] and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards ]. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. ] ] 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address ''unique issues'' as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. ({{tq|All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution.}} ]) Thank you for your time and input. | |||
| ::] (]) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hope the editors who read this will notice the ABF here: {{tq|trying to report other editors in bad faith}}. ] (]) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{OD}} | |||
| @]: Jay brought something to my attention with . It looks like there is ] (ChatGPT) text about "COVID-19 Natural Immunity" copied and pasted on there. What in the cheeseballs?? What made you think {{!tq|hmm, let's prompt ShatGPT to churn out 700 words about this random out-of-pocket topic, and I'm gonna post this on my Misplaced Pages user page for no reason!}} I'm confused. This specific revision also ] about IP editors, and here's the rich part: just as you copy-pasted text from ChatGPT about COVID to your user page, you go on to write a section that addresses use of AI. {{tq|Quoting from an AI chat bot without attribution is plaigiarism.}} I'm just confused with what you are doing here. So I'd like to ask you, ], what in the sam hill is going on here? If there is a reasonable explanation for this goofiness, I suggest you produce one, '''not from a prompt entered into ChatGPT''', in your own words. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It is an old version of their user page, and it is not plagiarism to quote from a chat bot even without attribution, so we must assume that you are attempt to detract from the OP's complaint. The issue at hand is an experienced editor who joins talk page discussions without understanding the topic at hand (which they admit in one instance ), and are frequently use derogatory language and tone towards other editors. This behavior does not seem like a new thing for them and they clearly know how to skirt the edge of what would be considered a personal attack by an admin, so this merits a formal warning. ] (]) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Dennis, if you now tell me that the additional admin also deserves apology, I will draw the line. (Because that admin, took pains to "bury me six feet under", and "tighten screws to my coffin". The measures were extraordinary, and reversed with the help of Arbcom. It was an experience that is hard to forget. | |||
| ::look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @], you should familiarise yourself with ]. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. ] (]) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a ] slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|BarntToust}} You're being ] and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. ] (]) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::well, I tend to get concerned when someone with LLM text pasted on their userpage comes up from the water. If that's considered bite-y to reiterate my concerns in intentional lighthearted analogy in order to seem less hard-headed, then I guess we're done here. @], I invite you to weigh in on whether you think a '''formal warning''' or a ] slap is what needs to happen to Hob. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :That content from ChatGPT was meant to go in my sandbox as experiment or for assisting with research into a future article. The LLM can generate wikitext with links to articles that already exist. ] (]) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are ] and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @], I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? ] (]) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@], I'm pointing out questionable content on someone else page. for ''context'', in which they copied ChatGPT text without attribution, then said that using ChatGPT without attribution is plagiarism. That contradictory stuff is what I was questioning. please click on the diff for context. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I use it more like a (really good) search engine or a thesaurus. It can give a lot of suggestions for a human writer, but ultimately you use your own mind and RS to formulate the facts and how to present them. ] (]) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks! *curtsy* ] (]) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *The lack of civility in this contentious topic is significantly hindering editing efforts, especially since most issues concern neutrality and tone, which requires a careful and nuanced approach. ] (]) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Dennis, I'll even agree about being "oversensitive" to someone crossing me with unfair stuff. (But you know what? That is relative. That is relative to the current environment here at WP. A nasty & hostile environment that evolved to its current state, long before I came along as 1+ years editor. I am not responsible for the environment here, where false accusations fly overhead like a busy airport, nor am I trying to "correct it" . But I have a hard time too, just "sitting and taking it". ) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::::Yes, in British slang, "thick" = "stupid". ]] 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| There is not enough context for the examples of impatience from Hob Gadling which the OP offers. For example, Lardlegwarmers, do you really expect a warm welcome for your 'attempted contact on user page' ]? Or for your puritanical reproaches about HG's use of "profanity" (which normally turns out to mean using the word ''bullshit'', which is by no means banned from Misplaced Pages, nor is its expressiveness easy to replace with something more flattering). Considering what they're replying to, of another editor's intellect and reasoning skills"]] seems pretty temperate. And so on. ] | ] 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| :I'm not suggesting we should wash anybody's mouth out with soap. The editor's consistent uncivil behavior is more than just the occasional salty diction here and there. I mean, look at ] where an editor is asking for a discussion on why Hob Gadling reverted his edit. It seems as if the person was trying to do it on the talk page and was ignored. Hob Gadling gruffly tells the other editor to get lost. ] (]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Dennis, what's troublesome here too, is there is a bias to look first, and usually *only*, at the "behavior" of a lowly user. And not the behavior of, say, the admins. (Implication: IMO, a good case, a very good case, could be made against the admins involved here, for incivilities, for "crossing the line", for rudeness, for snarkiness, etc. But, that seems to ... not count at all in the world of English WP. Admins we're told, are just other editors, with extra tools. Not true. They are given more rope to be ... anyway they wish to be ... with *much* less incentive. Because, to block an admin is against the admin-corps motto. It is a stacked deck for the typical editor, producing a demeaning, intimidating environment. I am not the only one who has made these observations. Specifically, when blocks are given, there is some sort of assumption, that the block is always valid, and the blocked user must "confess" or be slaughtered. It is one of the most abusive aspects of WP in existence, IMO, and colors even the dialogue here.) Sincere, ] (]) 20:29, 12 July 2012 (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) | |||
| :::::I accept that there is some bad blood between you and Toddst1 and allow for it. I haven't looked into it, but frustration from an admin that blocks someone (particularly if it is overturned) is not uncommon and I have no desire or need to inject myself in that history. We still have to get along or avoid each other when possible, which is likely the best solution. Blade's comments in closing the previous ANI were a bit strong but not altogether unfounded as there was plenty of snark before the close. I see a lot of positive attributes in you, but I'm not blind and I see a degree of defensiveness and bitterness that I think sometimes clouds your judgement. It does not serve you well. As for admins who err, all I can say is they don't go unnoticed. They may not get drug out in ANI, but I can promise you that they are not ignored, and I take a personal interest in them and have reviewed every case that has been dropped on my talk page. In this case, however, abuse clearly isn't an issue, and everyone just got a bit oversensitive, including Blade, Todd and you, after a frustrating ANI report. I would conclude that you all need to just drop the stick and stay off each other's talk pages for a long while. We're all good people here, we just piss each other off every now and then. ] - ] ] 20:59, 12 July 2012 (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) | |||
| ::::::Well, if you think you can handle this without blocking, I'm all for it. Hopefully it can work out. ] (]) 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I will continue to follow up with him, and appreciate your trust in this. ] - ] ] 21:32, 12 July 2012 (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) | |||
| ::::::Dennis, I'm not the one choosing to continue this. Toddst1 has made additional comments here, and at my Talk. Ok, ] (]) 03:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}Replying to your request () for the diff where you were noticed after unblocking, perhaps you were too busy telling Guy Macon to piss off to internalize what he said: | |||
| {{quotation|'''"nobody has taken back the finding that you were engaging in "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" and "repeated personal attacks and quick and consistent disregard for civility in the face of conflict." If you go back to your old ways you will be blocked again."'''}} | |||
| To which you told Guy Macon to get off your talk page. for no other reason that that you didn't want to accept his highly constructive comments. | |||
| : |
: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) | ||
| *'''Propose''' serving of trout to both. Hob likely may have acted a hair too strongly to a source of exasperation; but not enough for any warning. Lardlegwarmers provides a large helping of such and I would suggest a boom if not for BITE. Albeit, Lardlegwarmers’ knowledge of WP is beyond the average for an editor with 5x the posts. I would suggest a non-logged warning to Lardlegwarmers on the concept of collaboration for their own good. Otherwise, we are likely to see them back here given their attitude at both this filing and at ]. (Disclaimer, I have been involved.) ] (]) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:For context, ] is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. ] (]) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. ] (]) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Recuse{{smiley}} Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. ] (]) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. ] (]) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:If you click through the diffs, you’ll notice that many other editors have received the rude comments, so this is more than a 1-on-1 scuffle with me and Hob Gadling. I stopped compiling examples after finding 9 examples of visible hostility out of their most recent dozen diffs, but like I mentioned to ] above, I can go back further if you need me to, to illustrate the chronic pattern. And the handful of other editors who have spoken up here who have been aggrieved speak for themselves. ] (]) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *As a note, Hob Gadling without comment and has not responded here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It's important to note that Arbcom didn't endorse your behavior - it only accepted your appeal to terminate your indefinite block - and nobody here is standing up for your current behavior. | |||
| *:Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. ] (]) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Never said they weren't. Just noting that they clearly received the notice and chose not to respond here, which is a response in and of itself. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The conspiracy that you fabricated (and seem to have quickly forgotten) was Blade's reason for reopening this thread about your disruption. See the lines right under the reopening. | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :I fabricated nothing. Especially not any "conspiracy". ] (]) 05:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I think what you fail to grasp here is that ''your behavior'' has been and continues to be problematic. More concerning is you continue to not take responsibility for your actions, instead continuing to blame others for your outcomes. The question is, what does the community want to do about it? | |||
| :I disagree, regarding who's behaviors are poor here. And I have no problem with "responsibility". ] (]) 05:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I came to the conclusion months ago that ] to constructively engage others without "continued abusive, aggressive behavior" as ChessPlayerLev put it opening this thread. I remain even more convinced of that based on this recent fiasco. | |||
| ] <small>(])</small> 03:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :And I remain more convinced about you too, Toddst1. ] (]) 05:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I thought you meant that Arbcom "noticed" me, and there was a technical aspect about term "overturned" that I was unawares. But now you say the "noticed" was a message ] wrote. That editor was not involved in any way whatever with my appeal to Arbcom. His opinion about anything related has no weight, he does not represent Arbcom, only his own editor opinions, and, I've no interest in his opinions, sorry. (I see on his Talk you have now encouraged him to join the discussion here. What is the point, Toddst1? To bait me? I have had disputes with this user in the past, I'm sure you know. Is it your intention to inflame the situation?) Regarding responsibility, I have no problem with it. I have no idea what "actions" you feel I haven't "taken responsibility for". But I'm not interested at this point to continue the discussion, which everyone but you has been trying to shut down. ] (]) 04:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I would like to put above quote by me in context. I was responding to the following quite reasonable question: | |||
| :"''If CIV is *sometimes* enforced, isn't that a trap whereby blocking Admins will use when they "want" to, and a chaotic non-uniformity of enforcement results like a Wild West of favoritism and prejudice gone berzerk?''" | |||
| :My response was: | |||
| :"] should be equally applied. That being said, it looks like you are making a "He was uncivil and got away with it so its OK for me to be uncivil" argument. '''No.''' You are not allowed to be uncivil no matter what other editors do. If someone is getting away with something, report them. Do not respond with incivility. | |||
| ::That is not what I said at all. ] (]) 06:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Although arbcom lifted the indefinite block (and I agree; a 48 hour block would have been more appropriate) nobody has taken back the finding that you were engaging in "''persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing''" and "''repeated personal attacks and quick and consistent disregard for civility in the face of conflict.''" If you go back to your old ways you will be blocked again. If, on the other hand, you start taking ] seriously you will be in a good position to report anyone who isn't civil without fear of ] and ''they'' will get blocked." | |||
| :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) | |||
| :That was and still is good advice for Ihardlythinkso, or for anybody in a conflict. Be responsible for your own actions, and don't blame anyone else for them. Make sure your own behavior is squeaky clean before accusing others. --] (]) 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|Extended discussion}} | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::If I tell User:ExampleA that they did an "amazing fuckin' job!" with a ], that is different than calling User:ExampleB a "{{!tq|fuckin' wanker}}" because they botched a ]. Context is everything, and I get how we are all connecting through the two-dimensional medium of simple text and thus misunderstandings tend to occur, but tones like these aren't that hard to discern. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When ] shouts "fucking A!" after a job well done, that is not the same when he tells ] that he is a "fucking psycho murderer". <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Right, and there are no egregious uncivil diffs either. So, how is Hob acting like a pissy teenager, but you aren't? Catch my drift? This is a nothing burger report, and the reporter should get a boomerang. ] (]) 00:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hob's profanity is not amiable. It sours the collaboration with other editors. most importantly, it is undue. Mine is not undue, and is a statement of truth. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Provide a diff of something you believe is sanctionable. Your pile of personal attacks is making it unclear what you are trying to say. It's ok when you cuss, but it's bad if someone else does it? What? ] (]) 01:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Profanity has nothing to do with it. The attitude is the thing that's wrong. The word "shit" can be said in many different ways. Some good, some bad. Have you even looked through these diffs of Hob's comments that have popped up through this ANI report? I also invite you to create an account. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So, to recap, ]: It's not ''what'' it is said that causes problems, it's '''''how''''' it is said that matters, and in what context. I call a pissy editor pissy because it's great to ]. I can use profanity to describe someone's behaviour, and if I weigh words, I can even use it when addressing someone's contributions; i.e. "This is a really fuckin' well done article, User:Example". Hob calling someone's opinions {{tq|bullshit}} is not the right thing to do. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think you may refer to this as calling a spade a spade. When someone says we should ignore science because it has a COI with Covid-19, their opinion is bullshit. This is what you are defending. ] (]) 03:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Eh, you can say "That's ] and ] and does not constitute ] as the subject is discussed in ]". Calling a spade a spade is easy, while addressing content and user contributions in dispute should require more, IDK, poise. I can say "fucking awesome work!" to an editor about their ] and no harm can be meant by that in any feasible situation, but when addressing questionable content, it should be done with nuance, eh? You can call someone's work shit whose work ''isn't'' shit, but you pretty much can't call someone's work "fucking amazing" whose work isn't amazing, as calling work "fucking amazing" provides pretty much no point of contention, unless you were just bullshitting them for no reason or trying to be nice about a novice's contributions that in terms of quality, reflect their inexperience. | |||
| :::::::::This entire ANI report has derailed into pretty much every unrelated topic save debate over what ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 03:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm not worried about contexts when "strong language" is ok, and you can stop giving needless examples. I don't believe anything that violates our guidelines on civility took place at all in the diffs originally provided. Hob was reasonable in tone, and sometimes people are exasperated by nonsense. Being annoyed but mostly polite isn't actually against the rules. You will need better diffs to change my mind. ] (]) 06:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The COI pertains only to a few authors in particular with a personal stake in the outcome of the investigation. For example, the article uses several sources co-authored by Dr. Zhengliang Shi who {{tq|herself and the WIV itself have an obvious conflict of interest}}<ref> Nie JB. "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2020 Dec;17 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/</ref> This is a secondary peer-reviewed article, and several editors who call LL fringe stated it is RS.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#c-GPinkerton-2021-01-18T14:40:00.000Z-ScrupulousScribe-2021-01-18T14:27:00.000Z</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Shibbolethink-20250104081900-IntrepidContributor-20250103151400</ref> ] (]) 08:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| It should be noted that Lardlegwarmers, after only truly starting editing two months ago, has been actively pushing ] misinformation, particularly on Covid related pages. They have actively been making claims that the scientific community is trying to cover things up, such as ], and has been using poor quality sources to try and claim that major published scientific papers on the topic are false, such as ]. This entire thread just sounds like an attempt to silence another editor who has been actively dealing with fringe POV-pushers across numerous articles, such as those linked by Lardlegwarmers above. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think you understand how patronising that is. I have no problem with "responsibility". ] (]) 06:07, 13 July 2012 (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) | |||
| ::Thanks Guy. I hope with the diff I presented and IHTS response, it was well in context (which was my intent). | |||
| :*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) | |||
| ::Responding to IHTS comment "everyone but you has been trying to shut down" - actually, the only person that has suggested shutting this discussion down to date is Dennis. Blade, Jasper and I have each recommended blocking you for continued disruption - specifically TE and BATTLE. ] <small>(])</small> 04:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*:There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "]" in situations like this one. Misplaced Pages would be better off if people were more willing to ] and stop treating ]. ] (]) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*:The reason I cited numerous diffs was to substantiate, as I said in my post, that this is a ''chronic'' and ''ongoing'' habit of rude and uncivil behavior. I posted the diff of Hob Gadling's user page not to "brag" (and I don't understand how you inferred that), but rather to show that I followed ANI procedure to address conduct disputes first on the user page and that my attempt was dismissed without Hob Gadling addressing it except to blank the comment with the explantion that I wasn't welcome on his page.] (]) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not trying to silence anyone. See above, I recommend a stern warning about consistent uncivil comments and that’s it. If Hob Gadling has something substantive to say, they can say it without demeaning the editors as if this is a combat sport instead of a discussion about articles of text. I encourage y'all to check out the discussions linked to by Silverseren. I have been careful to use sources, present my suggestions in good faith, and stay neutral in personal interactions. I am genuinely trying to find consensus. I'll mention that Silverseren is also involved in the content dispute, providing sources that myself and several other editors believe do not verify an extraordinary claim in the article. (]) It's getting to the point where we should do a content moderation over that, since I am sure that the sources do not verify the claim but Silverseren apparently is sure that they do. ] (]) 03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed ''I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type''. As the Alien above said, you '''{{tq|Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning.}}''' now ]. ] ] 18:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to ], the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the ] contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ], as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the ''content'', not attacking the person (]). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.] (]) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For the record I do ''agree with you'' that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been ] you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing ] or ], rather we depend on ] and ] to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to {{tq|steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person}}. However, that is not what I read in that . Out of the gate you're calling Hob uncivil, their arguments are false, and then lobbing further accusations. You get the discussion wrapped up arguing over who said what, and what they meant by it, and why your positions are valid and theirs are not. As for bad faith, I'll invite to other editors to comment below if they agree that I'm the one presuming bad faith towards you. Cheers! ] ] 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (]) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.] (]) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think I understand what you're referring to about RS. Yes, there are times when a source is otherwise considered reliable (or even un-reliable) but consensus can be found with regards to a specific narrow aspect of it that might warrant it's inclusion or exclusions, or some variation on how it is presented or the weight afforded to it in the article. And that comes through talk page consensus as you mentioned and does not necessarily need to be unanimous. ] ] 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Being entirely blunt, if we have two visions of Misplaced Pages: one in which people are occasionally rude or incivil to people who tout pseudoscience concerning major diseases and one in which pseudoscience concerning major diseases makes its way into article space then I'll gladly sign up for the rude / incivil Misplaced Pages over the pseudoscience one. This is to say that being rude is most certainly a {{tq|lesser offense}}. ] (]) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Toddst1, I think you overlooked ]'s comments at 20:27. And it doesn't surprise me, the three editors you named, I've had disputes w/ Jasper, obviously you've blocked me twice, and Blade has been discussed earlier. (But it seemed, at least to me, Blade was interested to shut down too. By his remarks to Dennis. You seem to be interpreting differently.) ] (]) 05:43, 13 July 2012 (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) | |||
| :::Alas, Ihardlythinkso's comments like "you know what? That is relative." and his praise of another editor for "returning as good as he got" tells me that he has learned nothing and still believes that "He misbehaved so its OK for me to misbehave" is a valid argument. The problem is that we as a community cannot tolerate anyone who follows that principle. There will ''always'' be someone else who misbehaves. To be a Misplaced Pages editor requires a willingness to follow our policies even when other editors violate them. I just don't see how Ihardlythinkso can contribute unless he agrees to that. --] (]) 05:04, 13 July 2012 (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) | |||
| :::What you are describing is a different idea: ]. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus. {{tq|the World Health Organization is recommending in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe is required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. ]}} {{tq|The fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs.}}(]) ] (]) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. ] (]) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Beyond what @] said, ''for all parties'', it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil ]. ] ] 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Indeed. ] (]) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If Hob Gadling wants to "deal with" new editors who threaten Misplaced Pages, it should ''not'' be through aggression and insulting them openly, but through quality sources and discussion. Editors who sympathize with "fringe" ideas might be more cooperative if they didn't have to defend themselves against offensive comments in response to their suggestions. ] (]) 07:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::If this "old grievance" about the FTN exemption to CIVIL really has been thoroughly hashed out, could someone link the discussion from ] or something? Being up front about it would save time here at ANI, plus it's always heartbreaking to watch as earnest new editors learn about this the hard way. - ] (]) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. ] (]) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am in the diffs. | |||
| :::::I would still like a pointer to the discussion of why FTN regulars get an exemption from CIVIL, I honestly think that should be better understood. - ] (]) 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. ] (]) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above: {{tq|Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic.}}] ] (]) 07:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That diff certainly doesn't prove anyone is exempt from policy. I think it's interesting Palpable said he was following diffs instead of saying he was involved in the content dispute underlying this complaint. ] (]) 21:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, they're one of the pro-fringe editors in the linked discussion. ] (]) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Extended discussion}} | |||
| :::::How ironic that you would call out canvass, when you haven't contributed to this discussion previously, nor have you contributed to any prior notice board. See ], also please see ] if you logged out just to make {{tq|problematic edits}} here.... ] ] 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times, what are you talking about? IPs are only assigned for a few hours to weeks at a time usually. ] (]) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@]: Okay let me say it another way... | |||
| :::::::* never in this history of this subject has an IP editor contributed. | |||
| :::::::* since January 1, ALL of the IP's who have contributed to ANI aside from your are blocked or had their contribution reverted. | |||
| :::::::* in the last 50,000 edits to this notice board, not a single anon has commented more than 34 times and that user was in Romania, whereas your IP shows US/Mobile, and they are currently blocked. Followed up an IPv6 with 30 edits, last participated in ANI back in May. Followed by a handful from the UK and other countries. The first one who is US based that was mobile has less than 12 edits, not hundreds. | |||
| :::::::* when you choose to edit anonymously (which is your privilege) you accept the reality that people will question your constructiveness because of a lack of established history. | |||
| :::::::But beyond all of that, aren't you simply deflecting from the question brought up? Perhaps @] has been lurking anonymously. As they have logged at least 31 edits to ANI alone . ] ] 05:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There's a lot of strawmen there to knock down if I cared to derail this conversation, but I'm curious what question you think I'm deflecting? Your assumptions of bad faith are expected, but disappointing. ] (]) 06:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What I claim you are deflecting KETTLE: Somehow you feel like you can call out someone who hasn’t contributed previously as canvassed, which is a ''serious allegation'', yet that is exactly what your user account history appears reflect. When challenged, you claimed to have edited hundreds of time, which was rebutted with facts, you resorted to allegations. Interestingly they very closely mirror only one other person who liberally throws around terms like strawman and bad faith. And really only one person at ANI has ever held this view so strongly they would plainly say bad faith was “expected” from me . If your not that person, then my query is how did you get involved in this conversation, and when exactly do you proffer that you last edited on here as an IP constructively? ''However, '''if''' you are indeed that person, let me warn you, such activity is considered sock puppetry.'' (Of course editing while accidentally logged out is a human mistake. But persisting and pretending otherwise, is not.) ] ] 07:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Don't know what this thread is about, but point 2 and 3 seem wrong - none of my IPs have been blocked, and I am an anon that has, in the to this board I made 38 of them (all edits by IPs starting with 2804:F14), let alone in the last 50 thousand edits. | |||
| ::::::::Maybe I'm misunderstanding your claims. – ] (]) (]) 06:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I think my detail for you was accidentally edited out. You would be an IPv6 from a different country, so unless this IP user is claiming they have rotating IPs hourly because they’re using an international VPN connecting via various countries, I find their claim that they just stumbled upon this conversation dubious at best. ] ] 06:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Also in case you were not aware, while mobile IP addresses can and do change, they still remain with that mobile carrier. So while your ip address will change, who all of those addresses are registered to will not. What I mean is that will your current IP goes back to a US based cell network, you’re not going to get a new IP address that is registered in Japan or even one in the US that is through a completely different network (a few technical exceptions exist, but they’re nevertheless evident). Same with home internet as well. And of course, most work addresses are persistent. All that to say, a claim of “my ip address changes” does not mean that a persona cannot reasonably determine if you’ve contributed to ANI from the a network. ] ] 07:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::When did I say I stumbled upon this thread? Provide the diff. You are putting words in my mouth and casting aspersions. I said my IP changes as a response to you saying I was a new editor. You are creating an elaborate narrative and getting strangely defensive. ] (]) 07:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I will gladly provide the answe after you answer the two questions I have previously asked to you. First was about KETTLE, and the second asked you to substantiate your claim of {{tq|I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times}} by providing your last contrustive ip edit to this notice board. ] ] 07:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Please read ]. I'm not going to link all of my comments across IPs here for you. If you really believe I was canvassed, you need some diffs, or maybe you should strike your aspersions. ] (]) 07:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::All I can do is laugh at your replies. More KETTLE behavior. You claim don’t have to proof anything per SATISFY, yet in the same breath you demand such of others. More ad hominem, deflection. Zero actual replies. ] ] 08:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::What are you talking about? I asked one question, got one answer and it was done. It was you who started a long thread full of bad faith assumptions and no diffs. Provide diffs, or kindly stop bludgeoning. ] (]) 08:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| ::::You misread that, Macon. What I did write is that I differed with Malleus in his approach of "giving as good as I got", and that I don't myself follow that approach, when faced with incivility. I don't recommend Malleus's approach, I think it just enflames things. But ethically, Malleus has his point, too. (Malleus is a very smart man.) ] (]) 05:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Send to AE?=== | |||
| :::::So you fully agree with and promise to comply with ] even in situations where other editors fail to do so? --] (]) 05:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::::::Of course. The most that can be reasonably humanly expected. (But what about yourself, ]? Do you see yourself as "always civil"? Because I have an off-Wiki list of 15 things you've done toward this editor, now 16, that were far from civil. I can back up what I say, if you happen to be sometime interested.) ] (]) 06:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories". | |||
| ::::::Macon, please tell, is an example of your respect for ]? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :That matches my experience and I'm grateful to the people willing to say it out loud, but surely it would save a lot of drama and forum shopping if someone just wrote it down? - ] (]) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The IP made no such claim? - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I thought that was implicit in the request to move the civility complaint to a forum about fringe theories, but you're the expert. - ] (]) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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. | |||
| : about Guy after your offer appears to be a defacto rejection. Very creative and constructive offer though. ] <small>(])</small> 06:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Moreover, as others have also noted, because WP:CIVIL is a principle that at some point does get acted upon, we would all be better off if no one, on any side of any given debate, would minimize it. ]. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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 == | |||
| ::Toddst1, I've no idea who you're addressing, or what you're message is. (But I'm really not interested in clarification, either.) ] (]) 08:28, 13 July 2012 (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) | |||
| :28, ''of course'' I am interested in you to close this. It was never my desire or intent, to eat up anyone's time or attention here. ] opened the ANI, and started listing a series of false accuses. I started to respond to some, in self-defence. ] closed, at that point my only problem was with summary comments made by ]. It's my understanding the thing to do in that case is to go to the user's Talk. I registered my view there. Ever since, it's been a piling on here, with editors I've had past disputes with, calling for "hang him high". Toddst1 has instigated the continuation of the thread, and introduced further enflaming that is unnecessary and unhelpful. In addition, I'm still confused why admins did not object to this being at ANI in the first place. (] shows lack of experience with several WP practices including ], understanding ], civility, how to offer argumentation in content disputes, and even on this thead, how to write a section title. I've read time after time that ANI is to be used as "last resort" only when resolving issues. Why did no admin point this out to ChessPlayerLev?) Instead the opening has been used as a convenient opportunity for a piling-on, by editors I've had disputes with in the past. (Save Blade, whom I've just "met".) And this kind of thing, is not seen as aggressive and uncivil? There have been many things written in this thread that are completely irresponsible and unfair to me, meanwhile accusations of "bad behavior" and "irresponsibility" are comments and accuses I'm supposed to take at face value?! | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :You're asking me if I'd be "willing to pledge to stop commenting on other editors completely for the forseeable future". The way I translate that, is that you want to be sure if you close this, that, what?, I won't go to these users' Talks, and make comments? Or that I won't make comments elsewhere, about these users? Please let me make something clear. I don't initiate. I only respond. (The ANI was opened with false accuses. I responded. I had issue with Blade's summary remarks. I responded on his Talk. Toddst1 has contributed inflammatory material here, I've responded. ] has done ditto, I responded.) I have no interest in these users, to make comments about them. But when they initiate attacks on me, I've responded. Can you ask them to ... I think you know what! The environment at WP is an extremely hostile one, and, the thread here is proof for anyone to see. I have no interest in getting "into it" with any of these users. (I ''do'' have an interest in the quality of article ], which was recently rail-roaded into deprecated state by an overly-enthusiastic anon. ] seems to take a continued interest there against me, even though he never updated that article before he went there as a dispute resolution volunteer, and even though he wasn't a member of ProjChess until after that point also. He seems to want to defend the anon user at all costs, and explicitly against me, which IMO, is called at WP "enabling Randy". The environment at WP is quite dysfunctional generally, and small examples like this illustrate it vividly. I've been treated deeply uncivil my ], in 16 ways I can name, yet, this seems to mean nothing at WP. Is there any wonder, why good content contributors leave WP? I was only 1+ years editor here, and improving my contributions. This kind of hostile environment, so painfully obvious that it is, is something I can barely fathom. Please close this immediately. Thank you. p.s. Thanks to Dennis too. And thank you too, to an admin who ''never'' showed up to pile on me: ], whom I suspected might, but didn't ... so now I have a greater abiding respect of that admin! Ok, ] (]) 06:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::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}} | {{archivebottom}} | ||
| == TTTEMLPBrony and continued addition of unsourced/crufty material, zero communication == | |||
| == ]/formerly Miradre == | |||
| {{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 == | |||
| {{unresolved|waiting for admin close, see ] below ] (]) 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| Acadēmica_Orientālis has a history as an SPA pushing a pov that has it that certain races are biologically inferior than others regarding intelligence and propensity to commit crimes. Following an editing restriction he expanded his scope to articles generally related to question of biological influence on criminal behavior and intelligence. In the past month or so I have looked at his contributions to three different articles (two had him as main contributor) in which it has been painfully clear that he is not working neutrally but selectively choosing those sources that argue in favor of the the viewpoint that social behavior is determined by biology - completely ignoring opposing viewpoints (of which there are always many as the nature/nurture question is generally contentious, and particularly in the case of crime and psychopathology). The articles are ], ], ] (also note the relative weightinh og "environmental" and biological/genetic in the other article he has recently worked on ]) (see also his past contributions to ], ], ] and the related talkpages). | |||
| I am not arguing that this bio-centric viewpoint should not be represented in wikipedia, because it obviously should. But I don't think it is in the interest of wikipedia to allow Academic Orientalis to repeatedly create lopsided biased content related to this topic. I would like to assume good faith, for example assuming that Academica Orientalis is not familiar with the fact that the literature he repeatedly inserts into articles is only one side of a large debate, but unfortunately at this point this would not make sense since he has been told multiple times, and even sanctioned for tendentious editing. I think the only sensible course of action is to restrict him from editing in nature/nurture related articles broadly construed (his other recent interest is science and technology in China - I haven't heard of problems with his editing there). In my mind the issue is comparable to the time when a user had the unfortunate habit of writing articles about antisemitic canards without being able to write those articles neutrally. He was stopped from doing that and he was encouraged to start editing in other areas and has since been a useful contributor. I have hope that the same could be the same for Acadēmica_Orientālis if he is restricted from writing about the particular topic regarding which he is clearly incapable of giving a balanced coverage.]·] 00:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Maunus's argument is rather unclear. But I have repeatedly stated that I will avoid race and intelligence articles except some occasional talk page comments and so I have for many months. Maunus's strangely takes up a few not objectionable talk page comments on the racism page a long time ago as evidence for something. What is unclear. The question of nature/nuture in various other articles I have contributed significantly to is a content dispute where Maunus has a strong personal POV. It is unfortunate that Maunus tries to "win" his content dispute with me this way. No evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever has been presented by Maunus. ] (]) 00:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am not trying to "win a content dispute" - I am trying to avoid having to follow you around balancing your articles in the future, in effect preempting future content disputes, except its not really a dispute since you usually don't try to resist your articles becoming neutral you just don't help doing it.]·] 01:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What you are describing are content disputes. ] (]) 01:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::First, talk pages count. Second, what about , which actually succeeded a tug of war with others about your previous edits?--] (]) 01:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not sure what your point is. My talk page comments contained nothing objectionable. I have avoided editing R&I article contents for more than half a year now. Your diff is about a content dispute unrelated to R&I. The content dispute is currently discussed on the talk page and elsewhere. ] (]) 01:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The problems were summarised fairly well a year ago by EdJohnston and by Aprock ] at ]. Not much seems to have changed. The problems are not specifically with R&I. ] (]) 01:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::When accused of violating the ban, there appears to be a refrain (then and now) by AC that the material he is editing is not related to R&I. His response that Talk pages are irrelevant is similarly ban-evasive.--] (]) 01:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am not under any topic ban. As stated I do not want to participate anymore in the R&I dispute with Maunus, Mathsci, and other, and have voluntarily avoided these articles for more than half a year except some occasional talk page comments. Mathsci's links are almost a year old. I repeat that no evidence of any wrongdoing has been presented. This is an attempt to use ANI to win a content dispute. ] (]) 01:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Whether you are currently under a ban is only relevant in terms of the sanctions that may be imposed on you through this discussion. Your arguments are evasive and sly and don't really address the issues. If I, without any previous knowledge of you, can see that, you can imagine what others more familiar with your history will think. If you want to help yourself, I suggest you try a different approach.--] (]) 01:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{ec}} EdJohnston wrote, "Regardless of how one analyzes the topic of evolutionary psychology, Miradre's general approach to collaboration on Misplaced Pages is so poor that a lengthy block for disruptive editing would have been equally well justified. There is doubt in my mind whether Miradre's brand of zealous advocacy has any prospect of improving the encyclopedia. (The 3RR thread I cited above shows what happens when his edits encounter opposition). If Miradre's attitude remains unchanged when his block expires, which seems likely, the community will face the question of whether there is any value in letting him return to editing." Nothing to do with R&I, just ]. ] (]) 01:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Again, you are linking to one person's view which is almost one year old. I have not wish to be further involved in the R&I dispute with you and Mathsci which is why I have voluntarily avoided the topic. I will do so also in the future. I have instead contributed to many other articles for which I have received praise. I repeat. No evidence of wrongdoing has been presented. This is a content dispute. ] (]) 01:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I am not accusing Academica Orientalis of evading a ban, I don't think he is currently under one. I am accusing him of tendentious editing, which is very difficult to support with difs. But I have demonstrated on the talkpages of ], ] and ] that Academica Orientalis repeatedly selects only sources representeing a single viewpoint, frequently twists sources, and sometimes uses weasel phrasing to avoid describing critical views ("there has been criticism of this viewpoint" without describing the criticism or who made it). It really means that it is a huge job for other editors to supply the other half of the argument and rewrite articles to reflect all of the available scholarship. Civil tendentious editing is a huge time drain for other editors, especially when confronted with repetitive IDHT type arguments and total unwillngness to address the problems.]·] 01:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::You have not shown that. I cite sources accurately and include opposing views when I find them including describing the criticisms. You on the other hand have admitted claiming there are problems by citing sources you have not even read! . You have not produced any diff showing wrongdoing. Please do not use ANI for content disputes. ] (]) 02:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Diffs=== | |||
| * Academica Orientalis includes a statement that "Other see twin studies as reliable.". The context is that AO based the heritability section of the article on a single article by Alford, Funk and Hibbing that used twin studies to determine heritability of political orientation. He included no critiques of the study and did not mention any problems with the method used. There is in fact a large body of literature criticizing twin studies as a source of heritability estimates. I included several sources arguing specifically that Alford et al's conclusions were untenable because of methdological problems - two of them stating unequivocally that twin studies have been abandonded as a source of heritability estimates. When I looked in the article provided by AO in support of twin studies as a source of heritability estimates it said this: "Twin studies of heritability are suggestive of genetic factors in social and political attitudes, but they do not specify the biological or psychological mechanisms that could give rise to ideological differences. Recently, researchers have turned to molecular genetics approaches, which involve sampling subjects’ DNA from blood or saliva, and identifying individual differences, or polymorphisms, in a particular gene (Canli 2009)". Here the authors say the opposite of what AO make them say - they state that twin studies may be ''suggestive'' of genetic differences but that they are no longer used by serious researchers to provide heritability estimates. This shows two kinds of problematic behavior by AO 1. failure to attempt to provide a balanced view of the topic he writes about (he cannot claim that he didn't know of the problems with twin studies, or that he didn't know it had been criticized - he knows this very well from his time in R&I) (in essence cherry picking) 2. misrepresentation of sources.]·] 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::A complicated content dispute. Regarding heritability and twin studies in general I linked to the ] article which discusses the subject in great detail. To replicate all the arguments for and against in every article mentioning heritability is of course not possible. I added a secondary literature review to the section. I agreed on the talk page that some researchers argued twin studies are not accurate for exact numbers but they do have been important for showing that genetics play a role. My source started with "The heritability of human behavioral traits is now well established, due in large measure to classical twin studies." I therefore subsequently changed my text to reflect this which you do not mention. See also this review article for a different view on the subject: '']'': . ] (]) 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::The point is not the issue of content - the point is that: 1. you were aware that the study was controversial and did not state so untill someone made you. 2. you misrepresented the source you did present. If this was a single standing incident it would not be a problem, and i would assume that you would have learned that you ned to include also the opposing view in a major scholarly dispute like this, but unfortunately it isn't. It is a persistent pattern over several years. ]·] 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I stated what I was aware of. Regarding the heritability source, see what I wrote previously. Your unsourced claim of persistent pattern is incorrect. I could just as well claim that you have a persistent pattern of being biased in your editing on these subjects. ] (]) 18:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Then you need to be more aware. Especially since people have been making you aware of literature that disagrees with the basic viewpoint expressed in the source for the past several years. I don't buy that excuse -but if I were to assume good faith it would still be an issue of basic ]. A wikipedia editor needs to be able to have the mind to realize when a viewpoint is controversial nad requires a balanced treatment. Especially one who has spent so much effort editing controversial topics as you have.]·] 19:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I added a link the ] article discussing the arguments for and against in great detail. To replicate this in every article mentioning heritability is not possible. Regarding competence, how about you actually reading the sources you claim contain important information supporting you. Which you have admitted not doing: ]. That would seem to be a minimum requirement. ] (]) 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Please stop lying about those two sources. I have not claimed they support me. I have not cited them. I have suggested you read them since they might provide you with a more nuanced view of the fact, and might enable you to actually cite some of the criticism that your source mentions, but apparently doesn't cite.]·] 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::You were listing sources that supposedly should provide information that was supposedly missing in my source without actually having read your own sources! ] (]) 19:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Yes, I was ''providing you a service'' since you apparently suffer from some kind of handicap when it comes to finding sources that contain information you may disagree with. And I would do it again.]·] 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Nice tactic. So if you disagree with an article you will start filling the talk page with sources which you yourself have not read and demand that the other side must read them since there is a possibility that there may be something in the sources you have not read that will support your views? ] (]) 20:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::You refused to provide citations for the criticisms that your own article mentioned, I found articles that are clearly critical of biosocial criminology (indeed the title of one of them is "a critique of biosocial criminology"). But yes, if I happen to know that an article is leaving out significant viewpoints then I will at times provide sources that I believe express those missing viewpoints on the talkpage so that other editors may use them to improve the article, if I don't have time myself. That's not "a tactic" that is called writing a collaborative encyclopedia.]·] 20:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::I have certainly stated which review source I have used for my statements. You personally "think" that there are missing criticisms and you "think" that these missing criticisms may be in some sources you have actually not read. Since you do not have the "time" yourself to control your speculations, you demand that someone else should do the work for you. ] (]) 20:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::::The source you used apparently ''states'' there is criticisms, it is not just something I "think" - yet those criticisms are given no shrift at all in the article. That is the problem, and that is why I had to use google to findout what they might be after you refused to provide the sources that i am sure the review source cites. Very collaborative of you.]·] 14:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * AO adds a mention of the fact that "has sometimes been criticized for ignoring environmental influences". This is of course correct and it would be very useful for the reader to know who made this criticism and where, and based on what arguments. Instead of giving this basic information AO writes: "Biosocial argues that this is incorrect but that on the other hand many sociologically influenced criminological approaches completely ignores the potential role of genetic which means that the results is likely ]ed by genetic factors." That is the criticism is only mentioned so that it can be debunked, without giving the reader a chance to even know who is being debunked. When I placed a tag asking for who made the criticism AO said that it was already sourced (to the source debunking the criticism that is), and he did not offer to find it for me. When I googled crtitiques of Biosocial criminology I quickly found a few studies which I presented on the talkpage so that AO could use them to improve the article. Instead he argued that because I hadn't read them my assertation that the article lacked criticism was unfounded (in spite of the fact that he himself had mentioned the existence of criticism, and refused to provide the citation of the critique)]·] 16:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Another content dispute. I have on the talk page given the exact quote from which the statement was made. The source does not give further information than what I stated in the article. Have you not read what I wrote on the talk page? Regarding the sources you gave and claim contain relevant critical information, you yourself have admitted that you have not read them! . ] (]) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, it is not the specific content here that is the problem, but that fact that you knowlingly did not adequately represent opposing (mainstream) viewpoints. If you don't have access to mainstream sources about a topic don't edit.]·] 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I stated what the source stated on the subject. I have not "knowingly" excluded anything. I have read sources unlike you who have admitted claiming there are arguments missing by citing sources you have not even read! ] (]) 18:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So now you are verging into plain untruths. I admitted that I had not read two sources that I added on the talkpage - I have not cited those sources anywhere. Your own source mentioned there was criticisms - that didn't motivate you to look for it. That is at best a competence issue and at worst knowingly omitting the contrary view. You have not admitted to not reading the sources you cite, but if you read the review you introduced then you certainly read it very superficially.]·] 19:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The diff speaks for itself. You mentioned these sources you admit not having read as supporting for your views. I have read the Biosocial Crime source I cited carefully and not stated otherwise. ] (]) 19:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * to the above, in that he gratuitously mentions that there has "been various criticisms", but does not mention who made these critiques orexplain what they are, but instead sources the entire paragraph to an article in which the original authors of the controversial study make a rebuttal of criticisms (The study has been shown to be based on flawed data and statistical methods by Buller, David (2005). "The Emperor is Still Under-dressed". Trends in Cognitive Science 11: 508–510.) - but Ao doesn't think this is relevant for this article. | |||
| ::Content dispute. I did not mention any of the specific arguments either for or against since there is a very long Misplaced Pages article (]) dedicated to the subject which was linked to. ] (]) 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * is just blatant POV peacockery.]·] 16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Content dispute. What the sources states. ] (]) 17:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * AO removes the only mention of the fact that the mainstream view in criminology still is that most of the causality behind crime is explained by environmental factors. ]·] 16:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Content dispute. In fact, the article starts by stating "contemporary criminology has been dominated by sociological theories". This with a source unlike the completely unsourced material I removed. ] (]) 17:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * the claim that noone would have contradicted this claim "Traditional sociologically oriented theories explain relatively little of the variance" which basically states that all other criminologists have got it all wrong. Where is the "traditional" view (also known as mainstyream) represented? ]·] 16:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Content dispute. This is what the given source states. There was no "traditional" view there on this that I did not include. ] (]) 17:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Exactly. Writing a neutral article requires looking at sources written by...gasp... ''the other point of view''. Basing an article on a single biase source as you routinely have done producess... biased articles.]·] 17:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If I wanted to write a POV article I would not have mentioned this criticism at all. Your are assuming that there are counter-arguments without proof. Just like you assume that sources you Google contain relevant information without reading them. If there are in fact opposing view, then state them so they can be included. ] (]) 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * (but not IQ). Apparently religious Black people tend to vote liberal. It's probably in their genes. (Ok, this isn't really misconduct since its on a talkpage and he's actually using a maisntream source (but cherry picking a factoid out of table))]·] 16:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Content dispute. Secondary source. No mention of IQ. No mention of genes. Talk page comment. No cherry picking.] (]) 17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *] edited by AO recently. Notice how anthropology and sociology account for a paragraph each, whereas - evolutionary explanations account for something closer to three screens. One would think that social sciences would have more to say about altruism (of course they do). Ok, AO is not interested in social science and probably shouldn't be forced to write extensively about stuff he's not interested in. But then again isn't every editor responsible at least for maintaining articles in some kind of reasonable weight between viewpoints according to prominence? ]·] 17:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Content dispute. I edited the area regarding which I have most knowledge. Your description is misleading, there is also a long section on social psychology in the article. If more social science is needed, then please add this. ] (]) 17:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I could find a lot of similar stuff if i go a few months further back. For example AO's article on ] was stubbified a year ago after the consensus in an afd found the topic notable but the coverage completely lopsided. This apparently didn't deter Ao from writing a bunch of similar ones.]·] 17:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::See no concrete arguments here. ] (]) 17:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' "He included no critiques of the study and did not mention any problems with the method used." This is more than a solid screenful of text at ANI suggesting we should ban all newbies who don't write at FA or above ? serious ? how do these arguments about an experienced editor not also apply to every new editor that walks through the door ? <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 20:50, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Because AO has been told multiple times that wikipedia requires neutral article and that what he writes rarely is neutral?]·] 11:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *, where AO (then Miradre) got a 3 month topic ban for tendentious editing and editwarring in violation of the R&I arbitration restricitons. (This is the reason an RfC seems unwarranted). For Those who have requested diffs of old school disruption there are quite a few in that thread. Now AO has not been editwarring lately, but I don't see the fundamental change that might have been hoped for in his editing behavior after coming back from the topic ban.]·] 13:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I get the absolute maximum of 3 months for several reverts over a long time period while the person who reported me and who did more reverts during the same extended time period gets nothing at all. See the diffs given for that by me in the link if interested. It seem Maunus have found so little to object to in my current behavior, just the content disputes above, that he must bring up edits almost one year old in a topic I a long time ago stopped editing when he is asked for something more concrete. ] (]) 13:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::The previous topic ban is brought up, not as evidence of current wrongdoing, but to show that this is something that you have been made aware of before, and that an RfCU seems unwarranted given that this is not the first time by far that your editing has attracted negative scrutiny. ]·] 14:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have avoided editing this topic for a long time. No one here has accused me of edit warring. Yet you fail to see any fundamental change? ] (]) 14:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think you have avoided the topic of R&I (to some extent - except for example your recent tedious appearance at Talk:Racism, where, contrary to sources, you argued that racism should be narrowly defined only as racial discrimination based in a belief of racial superiority (so that the belief itself is not racist unless it motivates discriminatory practices)). But clearly your entire focus on theories that argue for biological determination of human behavior is closely related to R&I (although I do think its outside of the scope) - and your choice of literature is similarly onesided. Thats a quite close correspondence in behavior, although it does seem that you haven't edit warred. ]·] 14:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You are making false and defamatory statements. I have expressly stated that I am against racial superiority beliefs theoretical or practical. You are furthermore arguing that adding evolutionary psychology perspectives to, say, ], ], ], ], or ] is closely related to R&I? ] (]) 15:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You are not reading what I write, I made no characterization of your beliefs. You argued for a definition of the concept of racism that tied it only to racial superiority, in spite of the fact that most sources say that such a belief is not necessary for something to constitute racism. Your proposed definition would mean that for example white supremacy would not be classified as falling under the definition of racism, unless it actually argued for discrimination(which few white supremacists do today). This is obviously not evidence for you sharing any of those views , but it is evidence of you still being involved with the topic of race in a way that is closely tied with the problematics of the R&I arbcom case. I don't think adding material on evolutionary psychology to articles is necessarily related to R&I nor necessarily problematic - it depends entirely on whether the material added promotes the view that mental abilities and characteristics is determined by biology - which I think is clearly related to R&I even when not explicitly mentioning that debate. ]·] 15:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I have never argued for any "definition of the concept of racism that tied it only to racial superiority". To clarify, believing that populations may differ in traits is not equal to beliefs in superiority or discrimination. One may believe that populations differ in ] or ] without arguing for discrimination or superiority but rather simply argue that such knowledge will help the groups lacking the lactose or the alcohol tolerance. Regarding the content dispute at "Racism" you changed your own proposed definition numerous times in response to my criticisms demonstrating that it was very constructive. You are now actually arguing that all articles describing research on the genetics of mental traits should be under R&I? Thus also articles like ] or ] should be under R&I even if they do not mention race at all? ] (]) 16:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::No, I don't think that is what I am arguing. I am quite sure I am arguing that it depends on the kind of edit one does to that kind of articles - if the edit gives undue prominence to the hereditarian view then I think that does relate to the R&I dispute (I am not saying I am sure it falls under the sanctions, but the relation is clear). (your argument about lactose tolerance does not seem relevant to the issue at all since presumably no one is arguing that noticing genetic differences between populations is necessarily racist, I know I haven't.) ]·] 17:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Topic ban=== | |||
| *'''Support''' an indefinite topic ban of Acadēmica Orientālis from all nature/nurture related articles, broadly construed. There has been a relentless push by Miradre/Acadēmica Orientālis to use Misplaced Pages to promote the idea that many differences between groups can be explained by the biology of certain races. The relentless ] based on a commitment to use sources from only one side of the debate means it is not possible to sum up the situation with a couple of diffs. One of the many examples can be seen at ] (and following) to coatrack some R&I views into an article about a book that is only peripherally connected with hereditary effects (search for my comment dated "10:45, 23 February 2012" on that talk page for a quick overview of the book). The above was started by Miradre in July 2011, but related attempts were made by Acadēmica Orientālis in February 2012, see ]. There are ''many'' other articles where the above is repeated. This editor is interested in only <u>one side</u> of a complex issue, and is damaging articles by introducing POV. ] (]) 03:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::An infinite topic ban based on what? Some many months old talk page comments in one article? What exactly was objectionable except that I dared disagree with you in that discussion? Should not you also be banned since you were also involved in that talk page discussion if that is a crime? Yet another example of using ANI as a way of winning content disputes.] (]) 04:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::(To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)] (]) 17:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::The claim that I would have been biased regarding the ] article as stated by Maunus in the initial post is completely ridiculous and outright offensive. Before I started my recent editing there was NO section at all on environmental factors. The article contained statements like "parents cannot be held to fault for their offspring becoming psychopaths, for no amount of good parenting can fix the basic condition, which has genetic causes"! There was no mention of the studies finding that psychopathy can spontaneously improve with age in children. Or studies finding treatment effects. Or that the claim that psychopaths get worse with treatment is likely incorrect. And so on. ] (]) 04:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::And no change in behavior since the criticism of your actions 23 months ago.... — ] ] 19:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Did you miss that I have stated that I voluntarily avoid editing R%I articles and have not done so for many months except some talk page comments such as the above several months ago. ] (]) 20:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a topic ban, based on Miradre/AO's fixed POV and attempt to foist this POV on the encyclopedia, per Johnuniq. We cannot allow such POV-pushers to warp our articles. ] (]) 06:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Diffs showing objectionable behaviors in recent months? ] (]) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::(To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)] (]) 04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban. Misplaced Pages must be neutral, and those who ] seek to subvert that are ]. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 06:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Diffs showing objectionable behaviors in recent months? ] (]) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::(To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' There don't seem to be any problems with his edits related to China. But his addition of content related to biological differences/evolutionary psychology in a vast range of articles (eg ]) too often seems biased, unbalanced and undue. He argues interminably in circles on talk pages over these issues and that is a drain on volunteer time. ] (]) 10:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Diffs showing objectionable behaviors in recent months? ] (]) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::(To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)] (]) 04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Almost every comment in the thread is an example. I explained that your single source relating to ] was written by somebody without academic qualifications in the subject (he is a lawyer outside academia). You responded that my statement was an ''ad hominem'' attack on the author. You exhaust editors with this kind of circular ] argument. ] (]) 12:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You are misrepresenting, selectively quoting, and ignoring the many different arguments I made in this talk page content dispute. '''Again, show the diffs showing the need for an indefinite ban'''. ] (]) 12:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ec}} Here are examples from threads on talk pages of multiple articles covered by or related to ] (I have not picked out individual diffs): ] (]) 12:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, you have not showed any diff and explained what is supposed to be objectionable with it. You are simply linking to talk page content disputes most of which are very old '''without explaining what is supposed to violate any policy'''. Again, show the diff you think show objectionable behavior violating Misplaced Pages policies. '''You seem to be arguing for a purely political ban for disagreeing with your own POV'''.] (]) 13:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The pattern of repetitive ] edits seems clear enough, as others have written. It cannot be described by individual diffs. In the example from ], one article by a non-expert in the subject was used to produce the content. AO did not concede that there might have been a problem with the source. He. continued arguing in circles, as seems to be happening here. ] (]) 14:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::So no concrete evidence can be produced and no specific policy I have violated can be named but I should still be indefinitely banned? Regarding the content dispute with you regarding Honor killings, see the Honor killings talk page discussion. ] (]) 14:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Academica Orientalis ]. Not so long ago—barely a month—Roger Davies already commented that Academica Orientalis had spent a considerable amount of time vociferously supporting a blatant sock troll ({{userlink|Alessandra Napolitano}}) of a banned user. Their contributions here should be viewed in the light of that. ] (]) 21:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I have not supported anyone I knew was sock troll. ] (]) 21:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I became aware of the topic ] based on a post by another editor to ]. The editor Acadēmica Orientālis appears determined to push biased content which violates core policies (such as the section discussed here ] which is clearly based on unreliable sources, but which has not been removed ] because the editor Academica wants the content to stay and "''point out that there is controversy and refer to the main article''") and to frustrate other editors into submission. ] (]) 10:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''No one has produced any diffs showing any objectionable things I have done in recent months''' but are making accusations without backing. Seems to be a purely political topical ban for my views on a topic I have not edited for many months. ] (]) 11:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::(To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)] (]) 04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I can transform the above links into diff form if that is preferable. Considering I have not edited in this topic area before now, I don't see how my support could be political (I'm not sure what you mean by that). ] (]) 11:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, please show the diffs showing anything I have done in recent months showing the need for an indefinite ban. ] (]) 11:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *{{user|Emilioveh}} | |||
| :::::I can only respond with diffs corresponding to when I observed your interaction with me and another editor You have resisted the removal of a section based on a primary study of dubious quality (there is agreement in RSN that it's not reliable) based on some dubious arguments: | |||
| *{{user|Emnoé}} | |||
| ::::::Bringing in arguments that were never made: "''Do you have any evidence for scientific misconduct?''" | |||
| *{{user|Larissæ}} | |||
| ::::::Arguing that a Journal of American Political Science should be assumed to reliably discuss Genetics . | |||
| *{{user|Miguelinor}} | |||
| ::::::Arguing that newspaper coverage shows notability (I assume you mean weight) for primary sources in biology rather than coverage in secondary sources. | |||
| *{{user|Nose236}} | |||
| ::::::Denial that the topic is controversial | |||
| ::::::Arguing that even though acknowledging heritability methods are strongly criticized the section based on the primary study using that method should still be kept: | |||
| ::::::Arguing to have specific criticisms of heritability methods excluded: | |||
| ::::::Still want the section kept even though there is a "''large and complex controversy''" | |||
| ::::::Arguing that it has not in fact been discredited: but followed by acknowledgement of the non-quantifiable nature of twin studies: , despite exact figures been given in the section. | |||
| :::::In summary it's clear you are intent on pushing the source on to the article despite it not being reliable for the claims given. But I think reading the full discussion on the article and RSN demonstrates the point better. ] (]) 12:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You are grossly misrepresenting my talk page arguments as anyone can see by reading the diffs and the whole talk page discussion. You are NOT MENTIONING THAT I ADDED A PEER-REVIEWED SECONDARY REVIEW SOURCE to the section. I have not denied that the subject is controversial but claims of a large literature of scientific opposing views needed to be backed up by sources which is what I asked for. Notable scientific controversies are not disallowed from being discussed by any policy as you seem to be arguing. Talk page disagreements on contents are not disallowed. Thanks for making it clear that you want to ban me indefinitely for disagreeing with your own POV on what is a talk page content dispute. ] (]) 13:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This is also covered in the diffs that I have shown and the link to the article, the journal article itself also mentions why it's not suitable as well (as was already pointed out to you but you appear to have ignored ]). ] (]) 13:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You have shown no such things. You seem to think that "original paper" = "primary source". That is of course not the case. The peer-reviewed secondary literature reviews I added to the section does no primary research but is reviewing the existing literature. Thanks for again demonstrating that this is about a content dispute and not about violating any Misplaced Pages policies. ] (]) 14:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The review article from nature defends the concept of heritability, not the method of twin studies. In fact it mostly argues that heritability estimates should be based on genetic data even though "classical twin studies" have been useful. It is quite clear that they consider twin studies to be a pre-genomic era kind of method. So why you would include that to support twin studies is odd, and why you seem to think that you deserve praise for having added one more source in defense of the same controversial viewpoint without adding any for the opposite view is even odder.]·] 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I am talking about a completely different review article: Regarding the Nature article cannot see any criticisms of twin studies. Do you have a quote? ] (]) 21:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' where is the disruption ? certainly the editor has an opinion on the topic, this is perfectly ordinary, so they discuss and promote their opinion, this is also quite normal. Where is the edit warring, where is the disruption of process, in short, why is this even at ANI, is there a problem on wikipedia now that no editor may have an opinion ? Please be kind enough to diff some disruptive behavior, so we can all get to the point please. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 13:23, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am not claiming "disruption" I am claiming persistant failure to edit neutrally. Everyone is entitled to having an opinion, but when editing we are expected to edit neutrally and balancedly, not merely promote one view on a topic (even though perhaps it is a common occurrence - which doesn't legitimize it). Ani is not just for disruption, it ios also for making decisions about how best to direct community resources, in this case a lot of community resurces will be spent patrolling AO's pages for neutrality if he is allowed to continue editing in this field. Whereas if he is allowed to edit only on other topics community reseources (including AO's efforts) will be directed at something more productive.]·] 20:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::No, '''promoting your own opinion is not what wikipedia is for'''. The disruption is evident in the links I have shown and has effected the articles in real terms, the heritability section has been kept in the article despite the study being completely unreliable and unsuitable. Also see Mathsci's link for example. The editors substantial edits, based on primary studies and newspaper coverage of the studies, pertaining to his POV are clear evidence of actual damage to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 13:45, 25 June 2012 (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. - ] (]) 05:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Having an opinion is to be human, being surrounded by people with the same opinion leads to a lack of awareness that you do, indeed, have an opinion. Tolerating other people's opinions when they are civil, articulate, and following the rules is what wiki is about. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 20:39, 25 Jun 2012 (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 == | |||
| :::You are still NOT MENTIONING THAT I ADDED A PEER-REVIEWED SECONDARY REVIEW SOURCE to the section and you are grossly distorting my talk comments. There is not policy against discussing notable scientific controversies. ] (]) 13:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @] has removed an RFC tag from ] now within . | |||
| :::::You added a peer reviewed source supporting your original view after you had been shown that you had failed to include a large body of contradictory views. In short your adding the review article after the initial artciel had been challenged only continued the same biased direction that you had begun. At no point did you say "Oh, I guess its right I left out important criticism, let me correct that" what you said was "but I have a counter criticism to all those critical studies". The tendency is clear.]·] 17:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I did not leave out any important criticisms of which I was aware. I linked to heritability article which discusses the concept in great detail including arguments for and against. Replicating this long article everytime heritability is mentioned is not possible. Since the source was challenged, I added a secondary review source I had used elsewhere in the article but not in this particular section. ] (]) 20:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''Oppose''' a topic ban. Despite the queasiness I feel in supporting an editor whose views so strongly conflict with my own, I cannot see anything in the diffs so far provided which give grounds for a ban. Civilly arguing a point, however fringe or oddball, is only disruptive when it moves into repetitive, wall 'o' text trolling which this has not. I see no evidence of unjustified edits to articles, no incivility, no vandalism. This editor may be annoying and frustrating to the majority of editors on articles s/he visits, but that's not sufficient reason for a block, in my opinion. ] ] 14:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::The issue here is not his views but the fact that he persistently writes biased articles that do not take into account opposite viewpoints. This kind of persistent tendentious editing is very difficult to show in diffs, but I'll be posting a collection of interpreted diffs. Also no one is talking about a block, but about a topic ban so that the fact that he is unable to edit neutrally n this topic will not create problems for the encyclopedia's coverage of this sensitive issue.]·] 16:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] provides a list of circumstances under which you can stop an RFC started by someone else, and disagreeing with the question or wishing that it contained additional information is not in the list. | |||
| ::Civil POV pushing is still POV pushing. Arguing a point beyond what is reasonable, and onwards is disruptive and does effect article content (the section based on the unreliable source on heritability is still there, he reverted it back in twice without consensus, his POV push has retained it despite no editors agreeing with his edits). Only after another editor performed significant research did academica indicate there actually was a controversy with the section, his original edits mention none: . All his edits to the page are of this type and will take a lot of work to try and fix, made the more difficult by the editor himself. Topics bans aren't given out just for incivility and vandalism. Civil POV pushers also face topic bans. ] (]) 14:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, as usual, lots of claims most of which are not supported by any diffs. Sweeping claims regarding all my editing based on a single edit. You are still trying to ignore the reliable secondary review source I added. Heritability is by no means dead today, see this review article in '']'': Heritability is controversial, but so is also, say, other scientific debates or political views on various issues and there is no need and possibility to repeat the whole controversy every time the issue is mentioned since we have wikilinks to the main articles. Heritability, including both the general arguments for and against, are discussed in the ] article I linked to. Regarding claims that I would generally be biased I will repeat my earlier comments regarding the psychopathy article: Before I started my recent editing there was NO section at all on environmental factors. The article contained statements like "parents cannot be held to fault for their offspring becoming psychopaths, for no amount of good parenting can fix the basic condition, which has genetic causes"! There was no mention of the studies finding that psychopathy can spontaneously improve with age in children. Or studies finding treatment effects. Or that the claim that psychopaths get worse with treatment is likely incorrect. And so on. I urge those interested to examine the article before and after I edited it. ] (]) 14:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * Miradre/Academica Orientalis is sort of the canonical ]. That sort of behavior isn't obvious in a diff, or even in a single thread, so it's hardly ever deemed "disruptive" in an AN/I setting. I disagree with Kim: I think that if an editor is consistently annoying and frustrating the majority of editors on articles s/he visits, then s/he needs to stop editing those articles. This is a collaborative project, and we don't have unlimited reserves of constructive, cheerful editors to step in and replace those burnt out by dealing with this sort of behavior. I don't see a loss to Misplaced Pages if AO stops editing the topic in question, and I ''do'' see a benefit: namely, decreasing the burnout rate among the constructive editors dealing with him/her in that topic area. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::So no concrete evidence can be produced and no specific policy I have violated can be named but I should still be indefinitely banned? It seems like a purely politically motivated ban. I have added a very large amount of material, sourced to secondary academic sources, to numerous evolutionary psychology related articles these past months. Without any objections except on a small minority of them. I deeply resent the claim, given without any evidence, that my editing on the whole is not constructive.] (]) 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's a difference between a ] and a ]. Also, it's entirely possible to be a disruptive influence without breaking a single policy, guideline, law, or anything. For instance: let's say that your neighbour buys a shotgun and then sits on his front porch every day holding it, right next to your house and yard where your dog and kids play every afternoon. He hasn't broken a single law, but he's clearly creating a rather uncomfortable environment... - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 17:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am not holding a shotgun. Another comparison would be a dictatorship where people with opposing views are punished without any evidence of wrongdoing. If you have any concrete evidence of misdoing, then please give the diffs. ] (]) 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is is a purely political ban without any supporting evidence for other wrongdoing, should not this be stated clearly in the policies? Like "genetical/neuroscience/evolutionary psychology views are not allowed regarding certain topics such as politics or crime"? ] (]) 18:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Shotgun ? could we please remain on planet Earth, this is civilized editing, not even socking or reverting, it appears more a case of someone who doesn't look like 'we' do, and, on a worldwide project, that is hardly in harmony with policy. Can anyone show me a disruptive diff, such as reverting or some such ? <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 20:45, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You seem to be confusing a civil POV pusher with someone who engages in edit wars, see a description here of the characteristics: ]. That's why he is constantly asking for diffs, because it's hard to impossible to show civil POV pushing in a diff, you need to look at the long term behaviour. ] (]) 21:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, please look at my long term behavior regarding articles such as the Psychopathy article where I have as stated above greatly reduced the genetic arguments. ] (]) 21:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I take very seriously the careful arguments against my '''oppose''' above. I completely concede the point that this editor is tendentious and uncollaborative, but manages to stay well on this side of the line of civility, edit warring etc. A good example is the set of exchanges ] wherein AO stonewalls all attempts at discussion. In all the talk pages I've viewed, I don't see AO acknowledging that s/he is doing anything wrong or could in any way improve their approach. The same is true of this discussion, wherein AO characterises the whole problem as an extended content dispute. So I fully accept the ''facts'' of what folks are complaining about here. I guess my problem is with the ''remedy''. I've had occasional brushes with similar editors and have longed for them to become abusive or start to edit war, just so we can reasonably block them. Usually they do, but what if they don't? Others here are arguing that the disruption AO causes is sufficient to merit a topic ban. I'd take the view that AO's nuisance value is the price we pay for accepting a wide diversity of views here, but if the consensus is that the price is not worth paying I will quite understand. ] ] 21:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::That is a very well argued deliberation, and I find your oppose on those grounds to be entirely reasonable.]·] 21:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I would like that I have added a great deal of evolutionary psychology material to many articles and there have been no opposition to this except in a small minority. The Biology and Political Orientation article seems to have caused an enormous controversy considering the AfD and this ban proposal. If it would help I promise to avoid this article and concentrate on other articles where I think I have added much valuable material without opposition. ] (]) 22:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::It would help if you were to admit that you have failed to give a balanced coverage of topics related to nature/nurture, and that you will take steps to remedy that in the future. And no, I see the same problems with your EP edits - EP is a similar controversial field where a large body of critical literature exists, which I have never seen you take steps to include in your writings.]·] 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Sweeping generalizations without giving evidence. I could just as well argue that you biased in your edits regarding these topics. See the ] article which I thinks is much better after my edits and which, yes, includes evolutionary psychology criticisms added by me and from which I removed much incorrect pro-biology material. ] (]) 22:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. All of the diffs above show content problems, but AO seems unable to stop adding questionable material supporting his POV, and deemphasizing material opposing his POV. or to understand what he's doing wrong. All his statements at ] show this problem, although there, the entire article represents nothing that does not support his POV. — ] ] 17:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Could you give a diff and explain what was unacceptable? ] (]) 18:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I couldn't find one that was ''acceptable'', I see no need for additional diffs. — ] ] 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you do not produce any diffs and explain what policy is violated, then how do we know there is a problem and how do I defend myself. An absurd situation. ] (]) 19:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|Collapsed trolling by sockpuppet of banned user Echigo mole}} | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban on all topics remotely relevant to human biology. This user has consistently supported an extreme point of view which can be usefully described as pseudo-scientific racism -- attempting to import into numerous articles material which is favorable to the view that human races exist and that there is some scientific backing for a notion of racial superiority. This point of view cannot be tolerated on Misplaced Pages. Ordinary editing mechanisms are not adequate to address this issue, and otherwise productive editors are exhausted by the prolific and incessant POV-pushing. One editor alone, ], has had to follow this user to ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] -- think of how much useful editing he could have done instead if he had not had to battle this racist claptrap. No, there is no viable alternative to a wide-ranging topic ban, if not a complete ban from Misplaced Pages altogether for people who peddle this line. ] (]) 21:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have not edited any race articles for over half a year except some occasional talk page comments most of which were several months ago. Honor killings, Problem of evil, Causes of autism, Cognitive bias, NPR, Groupthink, and so on are not about race. You seem to be arguing for a politically based ban for editing in an area I have avoided for many months. ] (]) 21:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, I'm arguing for a ban based on your continued and continuing pattern of edits, which are promoting a political point of view which is consistent with and a continuation of that older unacceptable behaviour. Of course it's politically based, in that sense, and the overwhelming consensus of opinion is that productive editors ought not to have to waste their time dealing with it. It's just that some editors are shy about admitting it. ] (]) 21:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| *'''Oppose''' screen after screen after screen of nonsense at ANI, this is why there are bright lines drawn, so this doesn't happen. The user is causing annoyance by discussing a long list of different new material and many editors are frustrated that this editor doesn't stop trying to add material to articles. It's called wikipedia, and this is what it is for, take up golf you lot, or write a book. Like many things I've seen Johnuniq come up with, this proposal is lacking in any solid foundation and is nothing beyond ], I have come to expect no meat from John unique. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 21:14, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is not Johnuniq's proposal but mine. And the problem is not that he adds material, but that he only adds one kind of material and shows no interest in improving his editing to conform with Wp:NPOV. That is not how wikipedia is supposed to work no. | |||
| *'''Oppose''': I do not see disruption and I for one am not going to lower the bar for a topic ban to the level of having an unpopular belief system--and the occasional expression of such on talk pages. It would send a chilling message if this becomes the standard threshold for a topic ban.– ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are misrepresenting the reasoning here. Any and all kinds of beliefs or faiths are completely acceptable for editors to have and argue, but a basic requirement is that we at least demonstrate a willingness to work towards NPOV in collaboration with others. ]·] 22:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::* The topic ban was proposed not because of AO's beliefs, but because of the tactics s/he uses to promote those beliefs. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Most of my edits have not caused any objections. Much of the criticisms is about a single article and in particular a single section and source. Or regarding my prior editing many months ago in a topic I now avoids. That is hardly evidence for any general current pattern. Again, I urge those interested to look more broadly at other articles I have edited recently. ] (]) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@Maunus: saying that I am "misrepresenting" is tantamount to calling me a liar. As you can well imagine I take exception to that. Are you sure you want to go down that road ''at this venue?'' – ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, I take exception to you attributing me an opinion that I have not expressed, that is what I would call misrepresenting my stated opinion, which is what you do in your comment above. That is incidentally mentioned in WP:CIVIL as an uncivil thing to do, if done on purpose. If you didn't do it on purpose then I would have expected you to change your comment so that it didn't misrepresent my views (and those of other "support"ers, none of whom have argued that AO should be banned because of his views). I think you speak English well enough to be able to understand the difference in meaning between "misrepresent" and "lie". So which road is it you want to walk down with me?]·] 11:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}You are sorely mistaken. I have not attributed anything to you, nor to any other supporter. I am entitled to my own analysis of the facts. And what if I told you that my opinion was not based on the specific points you've raised but from other information? That would be a huge mouthful of crow for you to eat, wouldn't it? And to help further your understanding of our policies, it is one thing to '''''disagree''''' with another editor, it is a violation of WP:AGF to accuse an editor of '''''misrepresenting'''''. Hope this helps, and don't swallow the feathers--they make your poop look weird. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :In my idiolect the word "misrepresent" carries no assumption of intentionality and it is fully possible to misrepresent something unintentionally. I for one never attribute to malice what can be explained by flawed reasoning. So would you mind divulging what "other information" you base your assertion that topic banning AO would lower the bar to "the level of having an unpopular belief system--and the occasional expression of such on talk pages", given the evidence of persistent POv editing in article space?]·] 00:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| We have to be pretty strict about this, because an RFC is one of the few ways to attract the broader community's attention when there's an ] problem or a ] that needs outside attention. The fact that an editor doesn't welcome outside attention sometimes indicates that there is a problem. I'm ''not'' saying that these things are happening in this case, but the rules have to be the rules for all RFCs, not just for the ones we agree with, because these things do happen in ''some'' cases. We can't really have opponents of an RFC question/proposal, no matter how well intentioned or how justified they think it is in this one case, unilaterally deciding that the rest of the community doesn't get to find out about the dispute. | |||
| *'''Support''' So this is an editor, who ] as noted in diffs above, against ], has been previously sanctioned in a closely related area with a topic ban, with no apparent effect? Why shouldn't a topic ban be put in place? There would still be well over 3 million other articles for the editor to contribute to; it's about time we nudge the editor to edit in an area where they do not disrupt the building of this encyclopedia. ] (]) 02:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most the complaints are regarding a single source in one particular article. Aside from edits made months ago in a topic I now avoids. Would it help if promise to avoid this article in the future? No, my knowledge is regarding evolutionary psychology so I cannot contribute as well elsewhere. Most of my edits regarding this to numerous articles, adding substantial material, have received no complaints whatsoever. ] (]) 03:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I wouldn't bother with this here, except that it's already past my bedtime, so I need someone else to handle this. The proper way forward is to run the RFC, and for the loyal opposition to take the advice about how to respond that they'll find in the first two questions of the ]. See you tomorrow. ] (]) 08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre arbitrary break==== | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I have trouble saying that I would oppose sanctions based on the actions of the editor involved, but I cannot actively make myself support one. Yes, the editor is apparently incapable of even the most basic reasoning. Yes, the editor politely engages in stonewalling. And certainly his mindless repetition of "I don't see any diffs" and other comments above are almost enough to make one want to strangle him, if that could be done over the web. But I would procedurally prefer it if an RfC on the editor's behavior, with a recommendation to cease editing all articles in the basic topic area, were filed before a topic ban is placed. Based at least on some of the comments here, it may well be possible that the editor has some sort of mental dysfunction or inability and it is impossible for him to view his own conduct rationally. That sort of thing appears a lot in race-related material. The problem seems to be that the editor has recently returned to editing material which is somewhat related recently. For all of his own vapid repetition above, I have seen no reason given by this editor why he has chosen to end his so-called self-imposed ban now. If he at least seemed to have acknowledged his own mistakes earlier, as his repetition of that comment seems to at least strongly imply, how has time made them other than mistakes in the past few months? However, having said all that, there is a precedent for "exhausting the patience of the community," and I do get the impression that AO's behavior has crossed that line. On that basis, I cannot force myself to actively oppose a topic ban either, unless a saw a clear and unambiguous statement that the editor would voluntarily remove himself from all involvement on related articles indefinitely. ] (]) 22:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::The reason I didn't start an rFc is the fact that he has participated in an arbcom case and has been under editing restrictions for similar behavior in the past. This did motivate him to edit i other areas rather than being an SPA, and I think that it would probably be to the benefit of wikipedia if he would concentrate his editing on topics such as China-Africa relations, China-South American relations and Chinese science and technology.]·] 23:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have not ever been a SPA but edited a broad range of articles. Most of my editing and adding extensive material to numerous articles has not caused any objections at all. I would welcome a RfC so we could get a more fair overview of my recent editing which I think have been generally constructive. ] (]) 23:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think you quite clearly have, and you have also once stated that you had a previous account but rgistered "Miradre" exactly to be able to edit in "a controversial area" without it reflecting on your previous identity. I can find a dif to a previous ANI thread in which there was a general consensus that your account was an SPA dedicated to R&I. I estimate that less than 5% of the edits of {{User|Miradre}} have been outside the general R&I topic area. You clearly are doing good edits in other areas unrelated to biology and psychology, and I would encourage you to continue with that.]·] 23:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, please present evidence when you make claims and accusations. Many of my edits in biology and psychology have arguably been constructive such as regarding the ] article as explained earlier above.] (]) 00:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Well it is of course arguable - which is why we are arguing. The point is not so much that your edits are not constructive as it is about the quality of the construction and the amount of overseeing it requires of other editors to bring it in line with policy, and the fact that you appear to adamantly resist improving.]·] 01:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Most the complaints are regarding a single source in one article which cannot be taken as evidence for any general editing. Contrast that to the numerous additions that have received no complaints. ] (]) 03:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Evidence has been provided that this takes place on a large number of articles and their talk pages. AO was not a ]: the new account was created apparently because of a hard disk failure which also resulted in the user losing their password for the account Miradre. It certainly is relevant to look at AO's prior editing as Miradre, before the accident. The EP related edits and talk page discussions did not change much. Here for example are two threads on ]. AO unduly changed the thrust of the article by prominently adding content from poor sources. Here are similar kinds of discussions on ] from November 2011, on ] in October 2011, , etc, etc. ] (]) 05:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have asked for diffs because many have made general accusations without presenting evidence. Note that at the beginning of the case there were for a time no diffs at all but people still wanted me to be banned. To then ask for evidence when I am being threatened with an indefinite ban seems justifiable. Otherwise it looks like a political ban due to my editing of a topic I now avoids. I have not ended avoiding this topic. ] (]) 23:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most of the diffs that have been added are about my editing many months ago in this topic. Or regarding a single article and in particular a single source and section in that article. I urge editors to look more broadly than just at my editing months ago in a topic I now avoids or regarding this single article and section/source. I have edited numerous articles and added material without any objections except in a small minority. If it helps I promise to avoid this particular article (Biology and political orientation) in the future. ] (]) 23:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Look, I know that in the United states, where most people come from, there is no presentation of a case against the accused, for example, the president declares on TV that such and such somewhere in the world is a criminal, and that's the case closed, however, are we really so low as to deny obvious fundamental justice in this case by not providing a single recent diff or two, because I for one would like to see wikipedia hold itself just that little bit up out of the mud of mob stupidity, like a half arsed push-up by a fat slob just before he completely collapses back into the mud face down, so can somebody, for the love of god, provide a diff or two, hey, borrow something I did !!! there's an idea, call it puppetry for crying out loud, but lets see a little light shining in the basic ANI procedure department here ok ? This is not too much to ask. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 00:43, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::RFC/U is an excellent suggestion, John. This issue is just not clear cut enough to decide in a thread at ANI by tally of !votes. We use the topic ban hammer far too often here. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree. Take this to an RFC/U. Topic ban could be a remedy sought if AO can't understand the problem then, but I'd like to see wider discussion first. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 13:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And you are taking into account that he got a 3 month topic ban for the same behavior a year ago?]·] 13:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::A deeply unfair claim and comparison with editing almost one year ago. I have avoided that topic for a long time and I have not been accused by anyone here of edit warring. ] (]) 14:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I think the editing pattern you have displayed here at ANI as well is also troublesome. ] (]) 14:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Am I allowed to defend myself against a proposed indefinite ban? What are you objecting to concretely? Also, all of your criticisms have been regarding a single section in one article. Would it help if I promise to avoid this article in the future? ] (]) 14:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' When editors continually edit a small group of articles to insert bias, and argue their position on talk pages, they are hindering the improvement of those articles and wasting the time of other editors who wish to improve them or eliminate bias. There are rules related to neutrality and editors must attempt to follow them. ] (]) 18:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have edited many pages without any controversy whatsoever. The above criticisms concern just a couple of pages. Most are regarding a single section in one article. Cannot be taken as evidence for any general pattern. This ban seems politically motivated for old editing in an area I now avoids. ] (]) 18:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' on the basis of the tendentious behavior and disregard for community feedback displayed here. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort, not a place for defending blatant POV pushing against community consensus. ] (]) 20:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course not unexpected that you also would appear. Just to note, I received the maximum possible topic ban of 3 months for several reverts during a time period. None of these violated 3RR but I admit I should not have made as many reverts. I do think the punishment was excessive. However, Aprock did more reverts during this time period but received nothing at all! (See my 15:45, 11 July 2011 comments here: ) This is the systematic bias one encounters in this area. So of course I have avoided this area. Obviously this will not help. I will most likely get an indefinite ban. Many have cited the edits I did many months or years ago, in the area I have since avoided, thus making it abundantly clear that they consider I should be punished for expressing an unpoplar opinion at all in this area. The other criticisms regarding my editing concern a few pages. Most regarding a single section in one article which I have offered to never edit again. This can be compared to the numerous articles I have edited with no complaints. My expertise is regarding evolutionary psychology so I will no be able to contribute anywhere as effectively to other areas. So I will most likely retire once I get the indefinite topic ban. ] (]) 20:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::You have a narrow view of what is "the area" which you were to avoid. I'm not sure it should be all of "evolutionary psychology", but only those parts where you have a non-standard view and are not willing to go beyond it to report on the standard view. You would know what those parts are better than I. — ] ] 00:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Obviously I cannot edit any evolutionary psychology article, any article mentioning evolutionary psychology explanations, or any article mentioning the possible role of genetics under a ban against "nature/nurture related articles, broadly construed". ] (]) 00:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I suspect I may have been one of the more active users regarding adding substantial new article contents with 3,200 mainspace article edits since I returned in February. I feel it unfortunately increasingly clear why the Wikipeda Community is in decline and is reducing its active contributors by 7% each year. New Misplaced Pages editors are according to research "entering an environment that is increasingly challenging, critical, and/or hostile to their work". This does not explain exactly what these new editors are accused of doing. They are according to the link not of lower quality than earlier. One may instead suspect that the Misplaced Pages Community, as often is the case with groups, is becoming increasingly conformist and increasingly hostile and intolerant to views other than the "correct" Misplaced Pages view on the world. Editors with other views than the single "correct" Misplaced Pages view are being driven off the project. ] (]) 02:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. User gives no indication that there will be an improvement to the clearly demonstrated non-neutral editing. The proposed topic ban is necessary for protection of the wiki, but I fear it is only an intermediate step, that the user will have to be banned indefinitely. ] (]) 20:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::See the comments above to Aprock. ] (]) 20:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sounds like we both expect you to receive an indefinite topic ban. ] (]) 01:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' on procedural grounds. There are specific fora in which editors who allegedly violate arbitration remedies have their edits examined by experienced users for recentness, relatedness, and egregiousness. ANI is no place to short-circuit this necessary dispute resolution, unless the editor in question is being outrageously or obviously disruptive. The charges against this user seem to of civil POV pushing, and such a charge is difficult for laypersons in the community to investigate - it seems that those arguing for AO's ban have been involved in editorial disputes with xem for a long time. Also, AO's claims that xe has avoided the topic area for months now seem to be, at first glance, credible. ] (]) 14:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **The editor has not violated an arbcom remedy, a previous remedy was brought up to show a pattern of behavior. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Many editors above ARE citing my earlier edits and having expressed the wrong view in the R&I dispute, a topic I have avoided, except some occasional talk page comments, for more than half a year as reason for topic banning me. Just look at Johnuniq who started the topic ban discussing. This was before anyone had given diffs regarding recent behavior they disagree with. The only links he gives are to R&I topics on which he himself have the opposite view and have argued with me. Or Mathsci, also before anyone had given diffs about recent behaviors, who is linking to R&I talk page content disputes most of which are very old without explaining what is supposed to violate any policy and in which he personally has often been involved. This seems to be arguing for a political ban for disagreeing with Mathsci's own POV. ] (]) 17:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You are arguing a point I didn't make. That's not helpful. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Perhaps while they are misrepresenting themselves in such a disingenuous way (describing discussions from February 2012 as "very old", etc), Academica Orientalis could explain what exactly they think my "point of view" is? ] (]) 07:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::At ANI, last month ''is'' old, and February is Jurassic, this belongs at IAV as much as it belongs here. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 11:43, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Topic bans are usually issued for ''long term'' problems with conduct. If you are suggesting otherwise, then your edits amount to ]. ] (]) 20:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Come on, give it a rest. This topic is already long enough as it is. No need to engage in name-calling, particularly a redundant name (are there undisruptive trolls?).--] (]) 01:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Look, I apologize for getting up your nose on this one, I don't mean to, but to have a pattern at ANI, you need a few recent diffs to compliment the old stuff that you find, there may well be some pattern, but without a few decent recent additions the dots join up into a drawing of a dead end, where the editor has abandoned the behavior and moved on. Otherwise it's the wrong venue. | |||
| ::::::::Incidentally I wish didn't get deleted, with a general like that in charge of the charge of the critics, nothing can possibly go wrong. (oh how I wish it were really about me) <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 16:48, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That edit was removed after the user was checkuser blocked as a sock troll of Echigo mole, who has disrupted this thread at least three times. Are you also fighting for the rights of a community banned sock troll? ] (]) 22:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Reviewing the history of the articles ] and ], there doesn't seem to be behaviour which would warrant this extraordinary measure. This just seems to be routine difficulty with controversial topics and so ordinary dispute resolution should be used. My impression is that there has been inadequate recourse to standard processes such as ] and ] and so these ought to be tried. ] (]) 12:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|Collapsed trolling by CU blocked sock - please see ]}} | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban, and indeed outright ban from the project. This user is energetically perusing an agenda that can only be described as racist across numerous articles, and multiple editors are spending much valuable time tracking and confronting his spurious contributions. ''] for racists''. ] (]) 09:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>{{hab}} | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban, per discussion in this thread. I don't see many comments that AO's edits to these particular articles are ''not'' problematic. If the case is that AO really is staying away from the topic, and will continue to, then this topic ban doesn't hurt anyone, and simply formalizes AO's self-imposed restriction. Therefore, I don't find that rationale for opposing compelling. If the case is that AO edits well in other areas of the project, then a topic ban won't disrupt that activity. Therefore, I don't find that rationale for opposing compelling either. I do, however, find the pattern of disruption presented above compelling, and I see a topic ban as a good way to eliminate that disruption while allowing AO to contribute positively to the project in other areas. If AO adjusts to the project, and demonstrates a more collaborative attitude, and wants the topic ban lifted in the future, he has that option. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 13:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Seems to be a basic misunderstanding here. I am voluntarily staying away from R&I topics. The proposed topic ban is against "nature/nurture related articles, broadly construed" which is a much, much broader topic. This topic ban will prevent any edits regarding evolutionary psychology which is the topic regarding which I have most knowledge. Most of my thousands of edits across numerous different articles regarding this has not met any opposition at all. ] (]) 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your knowledge in this area is not helpful to us if you cannot apply it to articles in a neutral and balanced manner -- that is the issue. ] (]) 20:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban et al. Per the twisting sources to support a ] being a bad thing. see ]. {{mdash}}] (]) 15:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hm, not sure exactly what you are objecting to here? The version before your recent massive edits and deletions to the article described what the sourced chapter stated accurately. You have also inserted a quote not in the sourced chapter. Your edit summary here seems to indicate that you do in fact know that the sourced chapter support what you deleted. ] (]) 16:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban. This set of articles has seen far too much disruption. ] (]) 23:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you are talking about R&I I have avoided that topic for a long time. If you are talking about nature/nuture articles in general most of my thousands of edits have received no complaints at all. The couple of pages mentioned here is hardly evidence for any general pattern of "disruption".] (]) 00:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' topic ban and the suggested standard for tendentious editing on which it is based. '''An editor is not required to go out and find every source about a topic'''. An editor who has a reliable source in hand, and wants to add a description of its claims to the encyclopedia, should always be welcome to do so. If you believe that the ''source'' is wrong, or contradicted by others, then '''''go out and find sources with the opposite opinion and put them in the article'''''. Not merely is that faster than litigating cases at AN/I and ArbCom - it is ''better'' because your audiences are not coming in with virgin minds you must avoid polluting - they're coming in with preconceived notions based on the source with the "wrong" view that they've read decades ago. You need to state and refute fallacies, not hold Inquisitions into the heresy of Misplaced Pages editors. It's better to have an article that describes one point of view than one which describes none at all. Now I haven't understood every allegation above, and there are some things that you could show that would change my mind - for example, if AO had ''deliberately misrepresented'' sources, or deleted sourced, relevant material describing the opposite point of view. But I do not accept that a series of good edits can add up to a bad editor. Just because statistically an editor's positive contributions tend to favor one side over another over time means nothing. If we are to look at such things, we'd be better off going after the editors who repeatedly ''delete'' things and falsely allege violations of policy whenever an article describes views that contradict their own. ] (]) 16:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>Disclosure: I wrote the section regarding correlation of liberalism with higher IQ, having very strong and repeated statements of opposition to any mention of this material on Misplaced Pages as "too contentious" regardless of its sourcing. This definitely tinges my opinion of this proceeding. ] (]) 16:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::It is of course impossible to positively prove that misrepresentation is deliberate. What I can show and what has been shown previously is that misrepresentations are consistent and always in the same direction as his stated opinions on the matter - this is a pattern repeated over years of editing. You might be right that correcting his bias would be faster than litigating, but we are talking about years of having done just that, and being met with repetitive circular argumentation, making in effect any attempt at neutralizing Academica's writing as time consuming as litigation - he does not just write biased articles, he defends the bias with repetition ad nauseam, and refuses to acknowledge a responsibility for selecting and representing sources, and refuses to collaborate in writing neutrally always pushing the burden of removing bias unto the other editors. At least Noleander, acknowledged that he had a responsibility for making his articles less biased when he was faced with accusations of writing consistently non-neutrally. I also take exception to the idea that editors are not responsible for finding sources that are generally representative of the topic rather than presenting only one side - this is of course directly contrary to WP:NPOV.]·] 16:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's true that I made these same points when commenting on the Noleander case, but in that case the deliberate misrepresentation of sources became an issue. Misrepresentation of sources by someone for POV reasons is fully sufficient reason for action, because there's no good way to correct the damage this does. But when I see two people adding sources to an article, one adding sources for one side and one adding sources for the other, what I see is a ''team'', working together to improve Misplaced Pages. It's no more improper for editors to specialize in documenting certain points of view than to specialize in documenting certain types of sources or categories of information. The fact is, many many times an editor (myself included) simply sees a source, says, "hey, that's cool, let's mention it in the article so other people can read about it", and doesn't investigate any further. That's OK, even though it will reflect the editor's POV ''("that's cool")'' every time. There is ''no duty'' for a single editor to produce a comprehensive article. That duty lies only on the editors collectively when they seek to promote the article to a higher rank of quality. ] (]) 18:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::There's no duty for an editor to produce a comprehensive article, but there is a duty to produce a neutral one. The notion of two editors being a "team" is pretty ironic for anyone who has ever tried to do that kind of "teamwork" with AO. That is not the kind of team I want to be on - I would much rather be able to rest assured that new biased content is not being added to wikipedia by AO while I edit other articles. ]·] 12:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It sounds a lot less frustrating than the more common problem of working with a serial reverter. From NPOV: ''"Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."'' You've already acknowledged that the normal editing process is faster than AN/I, and it's what WP:NPOV says to use. If all he's doing is adding stuff, why can't you just add good sources criticizing the heritability idea to a few relevant articles and be done with it? ] (]) 13:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::With all due respect Wnt, you don't know what you are talking about. The quote from NPOV says what to do when an article is already biased, it does not say that this means that other editors are responsible for following pov-pushers around and neutralizing their articles. I and several other editors have struggled with trying to neutralize AO's editing for several years at this point, that is not an efficient use of otherwise content adding editors' time. At this point you are arguing that it is ok that certain editors refuse to follow policy because the problems they create can be fixed by others. Somehow I don't see you fixing a lot of articles around here so that is an easy argument to make.]·] 13:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - So far as I can tell, this discussion has been going on for about 2 weeks now. I count 15 votes supporting a ban, 6 opposing. I myself, as useful, waffled incredibly saying I would go with the majority. I really don't want to wish having to read this thread through on anyone, but is there any chance of it getting closed sometime soon? ] (]) 00:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **I counted 15 support, 5 oppose and named the editors so others could check. Since your numbers are different, would you mind searching for my post at "02:06, 3 July 2012" and saying what difference you see. ] (]) 07:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*Reasonable question. There only seems to have been one !vote made since that time, an "oppose", by ], at 16:14 on July 7. ] (]) 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Thanks, I have updated my numbers below. ] (]) 00:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC. | |||
| ===DoD Acadēmica Orientālis on behaviour=== | |||
| :I am perfectly happy to take instruction on that point if I am incorrect but the removals were undertaken in good faith. | |||
| The issue of a topic ban in this case is malformed for ANI, no bright lines have been crossed in the recent past, and the distant past is beyond the scope of this venue. There is little to no chance of any bright lines being crossed in the immediate future, and leaving the issue of a topic ban open in this case can only serve an ill purpose, that is, to topic ban Acadēmica Orientālis because of his obnoxious insatiable desire to answer every comment, which has nothing to do with the topic in question. (not an insult, I like the editor, I want to help the editor, it's just an observation which I can get away with because I'm on friendly terms with him, and it's what you're all thinking). The annoyance is not the issue of the topic ban, but it would assist Acadēmica Orientālis if he understood the minor issue of commenting a little better. He is too well educated and articulate to require mentoring, or, nobody can be bothered offering as it is not appropriate, and as this is not about misbehaviour no trouting could apply. | |||
| :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. | |||
| I would like to present the ] to Acadēmica Orientālis as something much less than a trout, to let him know that his commenting at ANI could use a little more restraint. I will present it as a complaint, because I think he talks too much at ANI, and I think there are other editors who feel he is somewhat verbose. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 21:51, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Your "analysis" of the factors behind the support !votes above is completely unprovable and amounts to a gigantic assumption of bad faith on your part. Since most of those editors have cited both specific and general behaviors on AO's part as the reasons behind their comments, ] requires you to accept what they say at face value, unless you have evidence to show otherwise. To make sweeping assumptions based on nothing isn't terribly helpful one way or the other. ] (]) 03:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I disagree with your analysis of what most editors have cited as reasons. Despite Penyulap's admonition I do think I should make a comment here about good faith. Maunus is accusing me of acting in bad faith and deliberately being biased regarding favor of biology in social behavior. Now, I certainly admits that I have sometimes have made mistakes in my edits. I have made thousands of edits to numerous articles in a rather short term period and some of them are most likely mistakes. I know that discover mistakes such as spelling and poorly written sentences when I reread what I have written after a while. But this has not been out any malice and I have not deliberately been withholding any information I know of. I have been acting in good faith. ] (]) 08:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Despite my objection to Penyulap's anaylsis of the reasoning behind those who have !voted against you, I do agree with one thinge he said: you'd be best advised to '''''shut up''''', your replies are doing you no good, and merely dig the hole deeper. ] (]) 09:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is what I was getting at Beyond My Ken, that is the precise undercurrent that I would like to separate and address so that the primary concern may be addressed upon it's merit alone. You do have a fair point that my computation of motives and tally of said motives is 'unprovable' that is true, but doesn't your second statement illustrate my accurate analysis ? | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::::On a side note, after the exchange on Acadēmica Orientālis talkpage, I find he is a good sport on my candour. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::::I think the Donut of Doom is a good, polite way to suggest someone talks too much and it 'dooms' them. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 11:32, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::''but doesn't your second statement illustrate my accurate analysis?'' No, not at all. Editors have given good, solid reasons for their "support" !votes, and to assume that they are, instead, a result of annoyance at AO's behavior here is, as I said above, a massive bit of ABF. These are two entirely separate issues, and, while a donut may well be an appropriate response to AO's AN/I overzealousness, his general editing behavior deserves a much more serious sanction. ] (]) 19:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''Proposal''': Because of Axad12's hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC, tag-team behavior with Graywalls on the Breyers article edits, canvassing each other on its talk page, and ], Axad12 and Graywalls should be ] from the Breyers article and its talk page. | |||
| *'''Support'''. ] (]) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've ] him. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 12:57, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **You need to notify Graywalls of this discussion. I have done so for you. In the future, remember to do so yourself. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Oppose''': I have reverted Zefr on 3 occasions on the Breyers article over the last few months. That was because the edits they had made were, at that time, contrary to talk page consensus. The fact that I had not contributed to the article is neither here nor there in that regard. | |||
| *:I have not {{tq|ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate}}, I have simply objected to Zefr's repeated attempts over a 3 month period to re-open a discussion where the consensus has always been against them. | |||
| *:Six different users have previously objected to the changes Zefr has been trying to make and that was clearly a majority of those who commented between August and December 2024. | |||
| *:I accept that the current RfC is going Zefr's way, however that fact should not be used to reinterpret events over the last 4 months where Zefr has historically been in a small minority insufficient to claim a consensus in favour of the changes they wished to make. | |||
| *:Also, the idea that I made a {{tq|hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC}} is untrue. As I have pointed out above, my actions were in good faith and it can be seen that I immediately volunteered to revert my removal of the template if I received instruction from an admin to that effect. | |||
| *:I cannot see that I was ever canvassed to appear at the Breyers talk page, I arrived there entirely independently back in November having been aware of the ongoing situation re: the various COI edit requests because the COI edit request queue is the volunteer queue that I spend most of my time here working from. I've probably read pretty much every COI edit request that has been made on Misplaced Pages over the last 6 to 12 months and there are a small number of talk pages that I look at from time to time. | |||
| *:Graywalls and I work on similar cases and sometimes we find ourselves working alongside each other, especially if material has been discussed at ], but occasionally ending up in the same place and on the same side of an argument does not entail tagteaming. ] (]) 22:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I was the one who suggested RfC in the first place. , because I felt it was not a productive disagreement anymore. Leading up to the RfC, there was rough talk page consensus to include a mention pf propylene glycol, but if consensus in RfC determines that it should be left out, I have no intention of fighting it. Someone raised a concern there was only one source, so I added another source. Other than this, I've not really touched contentious parts of this article recently. I'm not sure why Axad12 removed the RfC and I can't speak for their actions, but the accusation of Tagteam is unwarranted. I've taken deferent steps to not continue to engage in back and forth edit warring and I'd like to believe that I'm approaching this the correct way. I do want to bring up concerns about Zefr's civility though. Please see ] for some concerns I raised. I also find leaving snarky comment about being a PhD student who disagreed on contents troubling ]. {{re|Aoidh}} also felt Zefr was "weaponing" claims of edit warring to restore their "preferred version" earlier on in the dispute. Please see ] ] (]) 02:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *We need closure here. I count 15 supporting a topic ban (including OP) and 5 opposing.]·] 23:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:Graywalls, I think you were correct to recommend an RFC. Hopefully the RFC will reach a consensus. ] (]) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The question is in the numbers, but in ] ? is there a ] that he has done something wrong ? <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 23:38, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'd just like to echo that sentiment. I'm all in favour of consensus. | |||
| :::Apparently three out of four people who bothered to comment think so.]·] 23:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *::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. | |||
| ::::That he should be topic banned, yes, but that he has broken policy, well, those numbers are different. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 00:02, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *::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. | |||
| ::::::That suggestion amounts to an accusation of bad faith from a plurality of editors here. Are you willing to back it up? Obviously those who argue he should be topic banned are convinced by the evidence that he has broken policy.]·] 00:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'd welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that going forwards (i.e. without an article ban). ] (]) 06:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Some of those who have commented are citing very old edits and seem to be arguing for a political ban for having expressed an unpopular opinion in a topic I have long voluntarily avoided. Others seem to misunderstand basic issues such as the scope of the topic ban. I would like to again point out that I have made thousands of edits and contributed extensively to numerous articles with no complaints at all. This in contrast to the complaints here which, aside from very old edits, are about a couple of pages and in particular a single section in one article I have offered to never edit again. I would welcome a proper RfC in order to bring greater clarity. ] (]) 00:09, 3 July 2012 (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? | |||
| ::::::::::Yes that is why we need an uninvolved administrator to close to weigh the arguments against eachother. Of course you would like an rfc - but there is no reason to think that it would be any different from what has transpired here - so starting one now would be a huge waste of the community's time. Even if this is closed with no sanction against you I think you would do wisely in considering the fact that 15 out of 20 editors commenting think you could do a much better job of editing neutrally. If in the future you actually start reading an integrating critical literature into your articles and at least try to give a balanced coverage then for me this thread will have served a purpose.]·] 00:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *::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.}} | |||
| ::::::::::::::The comment about starting reading is somewhat strange from someone who has actually admitted not reading sources claimed to contain relevant information: . But yes, I will certainly follow constructive criticisms and and make every effort to improve my editing. When one makes as many edits as I do some are bound to be mistakes of various kinds ranging from spelling errors to more serious. But this has not been done out of malice. I have acted in good faith. I would like welcome a RfC so my editing in general can examined which I think will show that I have many valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:: | |||
| :::::::::::oh wait a second, hold on here, if it would fail at Rfc, which is what now ? the right place, then we just have to do it at ANI, otherwise we'll never shut him up, he'll just keep on talking on and on. No no, let's use ANI, yeah ! quick, get some puppets, no, wait, tried that, dammit, um, what else can we do ? <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 00:38, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *::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. | |||
| :::::::::::::That is ridiculous I am saying the opposite 3 out of 4 editors at ANI thinks he is editing non neutrally 3 out of 4 is also likely to be the result at an rfc (which is not the rihght place for someone who has already been subject to Arbcom sanctions for non neutral editing). And who are you accusing of puppetry? Speak up instead of making cowardly veiled accusations.]·] 00:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *::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 . | |||
| ::::::::::::::Let me make one thing perfectly clear and sincerely known, I am NOT accusing you, Maunus of puppetry, and I sincerely comprehensively apologize for accidentally implying that. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 00:53, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *::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) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I have not "been subject to Arbcom sanctions for non neutral editing". I was topic banned for making several reverts over an extended time period for which I received the maximum possible penalty. I agree I should not have done so many reverts but the penalty seems excessive. The editor accusing me made more reverts but received nothing at all which arguably demonstrates the systematic bias regarding this topic. ] (]) 01:08, 3 July 2012 (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. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Well, I can't see any cure, I think most of us were hoping, just hoping this whole thing would archive by itself. I can't see Acadēmica Orientālis ever shooshing up, so I suppose the only other thing we can do is, and this is a radical idea, accept the possibility people are allowed to talk, especially when they are the subject, and welcome to comment, and that's wikipedia for ya. Radical, annoying, but what can we do ? I'm guessing if giving him a Donut didn't work, lets give him the last word instead ? it's an outrage to our delicate egos, it's a sacrifice to me, you have no idea, but we've tried everything else. What do you say ? shall we give it a go ? <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 01:16, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:::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. | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::::"most of us" meaning who exactly? Who is it that your are speaking for? the 15 editors who disagree with you?]·] 01:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:::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) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::::that'd be the people who haven't commented today, and please note that I qualified the statement with 'I think'. | |||
| *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) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::::The alternative is for someone to find a policy suitable for ANI, and close it that way, It's possible, anything can happen at ANI, but it's looking like the longshot to me. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 01:42, 3 Jul 2012 (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. | |||
| ::::::::Oh god no he's back with that NUCLEAR powered mouth of his, oh this is just what we need. Acadēmica shut up and get out of here, can someone confine him to his userpage PLEASE before this gets totally out of hand. ZOMG !! <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 00:16, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *: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. | |||
| :::::::::See the problem here is that mouth of his, it's unstoppable, a force of nature, oh yes, these 15 swordsmen all cluster to do battle with this windmill, but the wind never stops, it just goes on and on and on. It reminds me or ], you know, the one with that tornado that comes and destroys some peoples house, and then they goto another house, and it comes and finds them, and then they get on a plane and fly across the country, and it comes and finds them and chases their car, yeah, I see the parallels here. How can we stop this guy chasing people around answering them again and again every time they make a comment or ask a question on the talkpage, it's got me stumped. (slow reply, phone call.) <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 00:32, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *: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. | |||
| ::::::::::Actually, your "mouth" is equally a problem. Shut up. ] (]) 05:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *: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) | |||
| ::::::::::Pen, you are ''really'' not helping his case here. You've mentioned you have this need to defend people's right to speak, but your repeated exaggerations are making things worse. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 13:59, 3 July 2012 (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 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". | |||
| *'''Comment/proposal''' IF Academica were to actually acknowledge what is obvious to all - even several of those who have voted oppose - namely that his edits in nature-nurture related articles fall short of our standard of neutrality by not including all relevant viewpoints aand ignoring bodies of literature that contradict one view, AND if, instead of simply arguing ''ad nauseam'' that he is pure and without fault and is being silenced by nasty political correctness, he were to state a will to try to follow our core policy of NPOV by better representing also those notable viewpoints with which he might not agree - THEN I would be content to not impose sanctions. But as long as Academica denies that his biased and one sided writing of Nature nurture related topics is in anyway problematic then I see no other solution - for the sake of wikipedia's integrity.]·] 01:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have already stated several times that I have made mistakes which is arguably not unexpected when one makes as many edits to as many articles as I have done. But this has not been done with malice and I have acted in good faith. The couple of articles presented here regarding my recent editing is not evidence of any systematic wrongdoing even assuming every single accusation presented is true. I will certainly make every effort to avoid mistakes in the future. Again, I would like to point out that I have made numerous substantial edits to many nature/nuture articles with no complaints whatsoever. Again, as discussed above, have a look at the ] article where I substantially reduced the incorrect nature arguments and introduced nuture arguments which were entirely missing before my editing.] (]) 01:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We all make mistakes, and surely there is room for that in wikipedia. But we are not talking about making mistakes but about consistently making a particular kind of mistake, and continuing to do so after having been made aware of it. ]·] 11:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Offers should come from Academica. There are 15 editors who have noticed this and taken the trouble to explain their support for an indefinite topic ban (Maunus, Johnuniq, Beyond My Ken, The Bushranger, Mathsci, IRWolfie, MastCell, Arthur Rubin, Yobol, TFD, aprock, Binksternet, Jess, ArtifexMayhem, Skinwalker), and <s>5</s> 6 editors who have explained their oppose (Kim Dent-Brown, Penyulap, Lionel, Shrigley, Warden, Wnt). The 15 supporters show there is a real problem, and if Academica has not recognized that problem after all this time and all the words (here and in many other places), a quick U-turn would not be convincing. The way to handle this kind of issue is simple: encourage the editor concerned to take a long break from the problem area and demonstrate by working on other topics that they understand why picking arguments from one side of a debate and relentlessly promoting those arguments in multiple articles is the opposite of what should be done. Such POV editing is containable in some areas like politics where advocates for one side are generally balanced by those from the other side, but standard editors do not have the emotional commitment to combat POV pushing in science articles. ] (]) 02:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC) <small>Updated numbers to include Wnt. ] (]) 00:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::Let me remaind you that you are one of the editors who voted to ban me before there were any diffs regarding recent editing and who argued that I should be banned by citing old R&I talk page comments. In articles in which you yourself had argued against me. Yes, I would call such reasons a political ban for daring to disagree with your own POV in the past in a topic I now avoids. Regarding my recent editing, see my reply to Maunus above. ] (]) 02:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course I considered recent history before commenting: I do not need someone else to gather diffs because I have seen the edits and the talk pages. I mentioned the old ''Guns, Germs, and Steel'' case to illustrate that the problem has existed for a considerable time. In the 82 comments that you have posted here, have any addressed the substantive issues raised by the 15 editors who support a topic ban? ] (]) 04:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Acadēmica Orientālis is making too many contradicatory statements. They talk about making many edits, but they have made just over 3,000 content edits with this account, which is not very many. They describe edits from February as being too old to be considered, but those edits are very recent. They stonewall on the talk pages of articles in a subject they claim they no longer edit, which is almost as obstructive as edit warring on the articles themselves. They have made claims during the recent arbcom review on ] that wikipedia is ] in that subject. They have sought to separate themselves from their past editing history as Miradre while giving misleading descriptions of the multiple reports at ], contradicting statements by regular uninvolved administrators at AE. The problems with this editor seem similar to those with Abd in ]: that editor found excuses to dismiss all those who criticized him and similarly chose to adopt a one-sided non-neutral approach to editing. Too much ]: the responses to Maunus in this section are not encouraging. ] (]) 05:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| * Note to '''AO''': ''if there's this many damned pages about your actions and behaviour, there's an issue. Period.'' (]''']''']) 00:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ===Fundamental policy is the fundamental flaw in this incident=== | |||
| I am not going to attempt to close ''at this point'' where I am so involved, but I would like to make a statement of closure, and lucky everyone, I can use more than three words because I'm not using the archive template. (woohoo!) | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| The issue is failing at ANI because AO has not crossed bright lines in the recent past. Whether people have had legitimate concerns in the past, or are grumbling because a previous matter was not addressed to their satisfaction doesn't change the inappropriateness of this matter being brought to ANI. AO agrees with the suggestion of Rfc/u, which likewise cannot proceed because it too lacks a recent incident or problem. | |||
| ::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 . | |||
| Claims over AO's 'failure to listen' is countered by the people calling for action 'failing to listen' to policy, failure to find the correct venue, and in some cases failure to inform themselves of the issues raised. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::I find your characterization of events inaccurate. "we have the resubmission of the request to remove the disputed material in a COI edit request thread here " | |||
| ::But this was not a resubmission. was to remove a list of ingredients (including propylene glycol) which was sourced to a blog and which the COI editor says is outdated and doesn't reflect current ingredients. Meanwhile, the link you give as an example of "resubmission" was the COI editor requesting the removal of . Both requests involve propylene glycol, but they are clearly separate requests concerning separate content. | |||
| ::We want COI editors to propose changes to talk pages. The fact that this COI editor, apparently frustrated by a lack of responses to their requests went to the to request someone look at their edits, and then went to an active participant of said Wikiproject and requested they look at their requests, is not suspicious or abnormal. And I think it's highly inappropriate how Axad12 argued at length on the talk page that User:Zefr was "cultivated" by the COI editor "to do their bidding". I support other editors in recommending Axad12 take a break from COI issues. ] (]) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd just like to stress here that I only linked to my post above because Robert McClenon asked for the background to the COI element. I was not trying to re-open that issue or to request that any action be taken on that issue. I have already accepted that there is absolutely no support for the position I adopted there. ] (]) 04:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::This doesn't answer my question. The link is to a conversation between ], ], and administrator ]. The links from that conversation show that there is antagonism between Axad12 and Graywalls on the one hand and ] on the other hand. They show that there is discussion of ], but they show no direct evidence of ] editing by any editor. They don't answer who is said to be a paid editor making edit requests, aside from the fact that paid editors are supposed to make edit requests rather than editing directly, so I am still not sure what the issue is. I haven't seen any evidence of abuse, let alone of {{tq|exceptionally serious abuse}} that warranted edit-warring to prevent an RFC. ] (]) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The paid editor is ] who is open and transparent about their COI. The edit request which began this episode was when Inkian Jason ] where they pinged ] about having uploaded a photo of the company's logo and asking if they would be willing to add it to the article. Secondary to that they also asked about the appropriateness of the recently added propylene glycol content. The COI issues centered around whether Inkian Jason "cultivated" Zefr by pinging him to remove the added propylene glycol text after they had ] about the various ingredients used in the ice cream (which included propylene glycol). ] (]) 05:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal 2: Article Ban of Axad12 from Breyers=== | |||
| A majority consensus which does not address policy, but in some cases claims personal dislike, in some cases claims disagreements over content, in some cases claims TLDR, in some cases claims 'that many people can't be wrong' and so on, is not a consensus that can be accepted as a genuine consensus that AO has done anything wrong which warrants action. Content issues do not belong here, and such issues are subtracted. Personal dislike does not belong here, and it is subtracted, TLDR bullshit gets Zero attention (rather than the punishment it deserves imho), and is subtracted, and so on, until it comes down to one issue. | |||
| (Proposal 1 has been lost up in the early postings.) I propose that ] be ] from ] and ] for six months. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Robert, I believe I have acknowledged and accepted my various errors in some detail above. I would be grateful for the opportunity to take on board and apply the very valuable input I have received from various more experienced users over the course of this thread. I'd therefore suggest a counter-proposal, that I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr and refrain from making any future comment on the matters under discussion in this thread (once this thread is complete). In addition, if I go back on any of those voluntary undertakings I would be happy for it to be upon pain of an indefinite site ban. ] (]) 04:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Axad12, I wonder what your intent is with your counterproposal. Robert McClenon has proposed an article ban for 6 months. Your counterproposal is, in effect, an indefinite ], an ] with Zefr, and a ] on the topic of propylene glycol in Byers, all without the usual escalating blocks for violations, instead jumping straight to an indef. While this would solve the issue, it's much more draconian. What's your reasoning for requesting harsher restrictions? ] (]) 04:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The purpose of the counter proposal was simply to indicate that I have only good intentions going forwards and I am happy to demonstrate those intentions upon pain of the strongest possible sanction. Evidently I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking, as I'm aware that eyes will understandably be upon me going forwards. | |||
| *:::As I've said before, I'm a good faith user and I'm amenable to taking instruction when I have erred. I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that without being subject to a formal ban. ] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I fail to see a distinction between what you proposed and a formal ban. Your proposal is on {{tq|q=y|pain of an indefinite site ban}}. "A rose by any other name" comes to mind here. Your voluntary adherence to the terms of the proposal would be indistinguishable from being compelled into adherence by threat of an indef. If you still want this course of action, fair enough, I just don't think it'll do what you're envisioning. ] (]) 05:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I really don't recommend that, Axad. Sure, take a break from that article if you want to. But it's really easy to forget about a dispute years later, or even for a company to change names and suddenly you're on that article without knowing it. ] (]) 04:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::For clarification, I would be happy to undertake voluntarily any measures that the community may suggest and upon pain of any sanction that the community may suggest. I believe that there is value to undertaking such measures voluntarily because it allows one to demonstrate that one can be trusted. | |||
| *:::Also just a brief note to say that in about an hour and a quarter's time I will have no internet access for the next 12-14 hours. Any lack of response during that period will simply be for that reason and not due to a wilful refusal to communicate. Hopefully I have indicated above that I have been happy to respond to all questions. | |||
| *:::No doubt matters will progress in my absence and I will find out my fate upon my return. ] (]) 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' as less stringent than what Axad has proposed above within this section, but still prevents further disruption. ] (]) 06:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <center>In the poker game of Misplaced Pages, a majority showing of people who don't like AO doesn't beat one fundamental pillar. </center> | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. I also oppose Axad12's counter proposal. --] (]) 10:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Given Cullen328's comment. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN=== | |||
| <center>'''Anyone can edit'''</center> | |||
| Clerking at COIN seems to have given ] the idea that everyone whom they don't know is probably a paid editor, and something has given them the idea that they can identify "exceptionally serious abuse" without providing direct evidence. I propose that ] be ] from ] for two months. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Robert, just a brief note to say that I do not believe that {{tq|everyone whom don't know is probably a paid editor}}. The overwhelming majority of my contributions at COIN are simple constructive contributions and the matter described above is highly atypical. ] (]) 04:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' because {{u|Axad12}} seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. ] (]) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. --] (]) 10:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Given Cullen328's comment. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Complaint against ]== | |||
| <small>You know, unless you get dealt a ].</small> <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 02:49, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| There was the opportunity recently to bring a RfC, but it was missed by bringing the matter here, and trying to argue it 1 to 1, which is not much of a dispute when it comes down to it, because absent of warring and absent of a 3rd opinion, it's just not a dispute. Manus, you need to find someone to work with so it's not simply your ideas versus his ideas, you need to ask someone who also disagrees with AO to take the dispute to a RfCu, that is the proper path, and actually he likes the idea, so it's not likely to fall flat. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 13:20, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| | 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) | |||
| :: If you had any kind of familiarity with the issue at hand or the background for this request it would be easier to take you seriously. You have zero clue about who I have worked with and against, or whose ideas against whose. It is completeæy ridiculous to tell the 20 people who m´commented here to now go make the same comments elsewhere - that would be a huige waste of the community's time as if enough hadn't been wasted already - not least thanks to you. Now please go find some other corner of wikipedia to play facebook in while I go write an encyclopedia.]·] 00:31, 13 July 2012 (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 . | |||
| :::Yes Sir ! <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span> (marches off @ 07:01, 13 Jul 2012 (UTC)) | |||
| Throughout the interaction, GiantSnowman has engaged in behavior that appears to contravene Misplaced Pages's behavioral guidelines, including but not limited to: | |||
| ::::]·is the primary editor who has expressed the problems with AO's edits and violations of NPOV; the number of editors who have had problems with his POV edits is not quite as large as with {{DELTA}}, but it seems to be close. — ] ] 01:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Future timestamp. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 23:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''Casting aspersions without evidence:''' | |||
| == Margofilop == | |||
| * 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:''' | |||
| {{archive top|1=OTRS to the rescue. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 22:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello, I'm not an wiki admin and this is my first time posting here, but the user {{User|Margofilop}} has been uploading and reverting copyvio images on the ] article even after being warned several times on here and wikipedia commons. Here is the edit log: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lisa_Gerrard&action=history | |||
| * 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 ]:''' | |||
| I suggest a temp block or something. | |||
| * 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. | |||
| Thanks very much. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] (]) 23:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44 | |||
| *I've left Margofilop a note on their user talk. Be careful, Tribal44, that you don't edit war yourself. I'm not saying you have but you need to be aware of the policy. ]] | |||
| :*My message failed to <s>impress</s> make an impression on the user. Blocked for 24 hours. ]] 23:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC) <small>My original wording was much more flip than I intended.</small> | |||
| Thank you for your time and consideration. </s> | |||
| :Oh, I'm being careful. Thanks again. | |||
| ] • ] ⚽ 12:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 00:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44 | |||
| ::Copyvios are explicitly an exception to 3RR. ] (]) 01:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Indeed, Nyttend, but there was bit of slap 'n tickle antecedent to the copyvio. Nothing egregious in my view, but it could've gotten sticky very easily. ]] 01:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I popped over to commons an put an OTRS pending tag on the image. I also left a note on the commoms OTRS board. The commons talk page on the image says that the email has been sent. Would the blocking admin consider an unblock if the editor agrees to not put the image back in until OTRS approval?--] (]) 01:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would only entertain an unblock discussion if the user exhibits an understanding of the situation combined with a confirmation that the OTRS team is actually working on the situation. Margofilop has zero talk page edits; this may not be the root of their problem, but not responding to messages is a significant alarm signal for me. ]] 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see your point. The email may not exist for the one image that is in OTRS. I feel you can close this admin section now. Margofilop may have had a quick education about wp and commons and I think we can just hint to them again if there are more problems. I myself am assuming good faith on their part that the email was sent. I added the file name to the OTRS notice board at commons in case they get a strange email from Aus.--] (]) 04:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Could admin pop over to the talk page an explain 'consensus' to the editors there? There seems to be an edit war going on without any discussion at all. ]--] (]) 17:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *{{done}}. The image is approved by OTRS now and all parties are happy with it.--] (]) 01:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| :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. | |||
| == Vandalism of Airport articles == | |||
| :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 === | |||
| {{archive top|1=Article protected, discussion now elsewhere. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 00:58, 14 July 2012 (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) | |||
| Hello, for some time, airport articles have been subject to vandalism by an IP editor with the address 180.149 and 58.97. One of the pages where this is taking place is ]. Let me give some background on what is going on. On every airport article, there's a section listing the airlines serving the airport and the destinations they fly to from that airport. This IP editor has been added a lot of made-up and non-existent destinations and also blanked a section in . See ]. Other editors including me have reported this IP user and the user 58.97 to ] and the page ] was semi-protected every time, but the user was never blocked. So as soon as the protection expired, the IP user continued his vandalistic edits like nothing happened. I request that an admin do a range-block for IP addresses within the range of 180.149.xx.xx and 58.97.xx.xx. Everyone in the Airports wikiproject will be so glad that somebody finally did this! Thanks for your consideration, ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:22, 11 July 2012 (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=== | |||
| : Range 58.97.192.0/18 (up to 16384 users would be blocked); range 180.149.0.0/19 (up to 8192 users would be blocked): There's lots of edits coming from both of these ranges; they're not all your airport guy, and lots of them are constructive edits, so range blocks will not be practicable. In my opinion the way to go would be to protect the individual airport articles that are being targeted. -- ] (]) 23:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{quote|] commitments to uphold by ] for a suggested one–two month period. Mentor: ]. | |||
| :: Please read my message again. Semi-protecting a page hasn't worked. Once the semi-protection expires, the user starts vandalizing the page again. In the meantime the user will just go and find other airport articles to vandalize, and it's impractical to go semi-protect all of them. Just block the user please. The reason why I was suggesting a range-block was because the IP address the vandalism comes from always changes slightly. But perhaps that's overkill. Again, I would like you to do nothing but block the user. Semi-protecting the articles simply does not work, but blocking will. Thanks, ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I appreciate entirely that it's long-term and very frustrating whack-a-rat for you guys, when you'd rather be contributing new content. But if the vandal skips over the ranges you describe, we'd have to long-term block over 24,000 addresses, and we just can't do that. We've no more power or insight than you do over who the individual is, all we see is the same IP addresses. -- ]'''ჷ'''] 02:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If this continues, I'd suggest requesting blocks on ]' talk page. Maybe some of the admins there can work together to manage these? In any case Shahjalal is now protected for a longer period of time. ] (]) 06:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please just block the IP addresses that have vandalized Shahjalal Airport page and others. Keep in mind that there are multiple pages that have been vandalized and it's impractical to semi-protect all of them because the user '''''will''''' find other pages to vandalize. Trust me, ''he will''. For the fifth time, '''just block the user!''' Enough with semi-protecting pages; ''block the user!'' As I said previously, go thru the history of the page and that of ] (another page that's been vandalized) and block all the vandalizing IP addresses. Block 'em! Thanks, ]]<sup>]</sup> 17:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Okay, so since Vegaswikian has brought this discussion over to the Wikiproject Airports talk page, let's continue this discussion there in order to keep the comments in one place. From now on, '''if you wish to comment on this discussion, please put your comments on the ].''' This will help to keep all comments in one place. Thanks, ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| # Abide by all policies and guidelines and ] to advise given to you by other editors. | |||
| == Anon IP with several IP addresses abruptly changes lede of article == | |||
| # 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) | |||
| {{archive top|result=Content dispute, editors working under BRD now, no tools needed. --] (]) 15:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| This pertains to an anonymous IP with a different IP each time this person edits the '']'' article. However,this is not a case of sockpuppetry. Today's IP is . Previous IP's are , , and . | |||
| :I agree to those principles and am grateful for the mentorship opportunity! ] • ] ⚽ 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This person inserts an OR lede usually without discussion , , . Then if this person is still around they will not allow a change in the lede (at all), , . You may notice that their justification in the edit history is not grounded in fact, policy, or guideline. It may this person accuses other editors of doing what they do , as well as focus on the editor rather than the edit . | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| ::::::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==== | |||
| The only time this person attempted a discussion (on July 2) they broke up the paragraph's of two editor's discussion in order to respond. I call it a shotgun scatter response . I went through all three responses to restore the original format and placed the group of this person's comments after the other two editors . It was a sequential order determined by time and a way to avoid confusion. This person did not believe this satisfactory. He or she admonished me on my talk page and on another editor's talk page . Today, I did try the IP talk page but to no avail . | |||
| *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) | |||
| *: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) | |||
| *::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) | |||
| *:::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) | |||
| *::::That's definitely OK with me. ] • ] ⚽ 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Mainly just everyone else at this point it seems. ] (]) 14:37, 5 January 2025 (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. | |||
| This person's editing today disregards discussions that have been taking place on the talk page for the last week or so. The problem of course is a different IP each time this person returns, and lack of communication on this person's part. It seems that person does not feel they must abide by guidelines, policies, consensus, discussion, and is free to disrupt both the article main space page and its talk page. I have run out of ideas and that is why I am here. Help! ---- ] (]) 00:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :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=== | |||
| : So ... following ], your next step would probably be ] to protect the page? (]''']''']) 00:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::Then again, it might just be a content dispute where '''multiple''' other editors (I am neither ] nore ]) have identified that the article lede is simply substandard for an encyclopedia such as WP. Steve Quinn is clinging to a false notion that there is a consensus version when there is no such thing. He evidently believes that he's a lexicographer and has a better definition for what ] is than any English language dictionary of repute. He just cannot handle the principal definition of the word in Merriam-Webster, American Heritage Dictionary, and the OED. For Steve Quinn, time cannot be a phenomenon, it can only be defined in terms of measurement which is extremely non-neutral POV. Anyone who doggedly clings to their POV of a fundamental concept like ], who cannot yield to the dictionary definition when their POV is challenged, has a problem regarding POV. Does not cut it with the ] ] of the project. ] (]) 04:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is not the place for content disputes. This pertains to editing behavior. ---- ] (]) 04:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :::For whatever my opinion is worth, I've been watching and discussing and now recently beginning to participate in this content dispute and have found nothing egregiously wrong with these anon IP edits either in the article or in the talk page, though several things strike me as wrong with Steve Quinn's edits; but none of it is anything serious enough to warrant escalation to ANI in my opinion. | |||
| :::The anon IP has a made well-written and well-cited edits to the article and Steve has flatly reverted them on insubstantial grounds like "consensus" (even as a very active discussion takes place on the talk page and Steve and other editors continue to make changes to the article reflecting that discussion); meanwhile Steve's own edits to the article have been haphazard and conversational in tone. Likewise, the anon IP's threaded response on the talk page is not at all an unprecedented format, and Steve has shown a misunderstand of the relevance of indentation to threading himself in at least one response. | |||
| :::This looks like crying wolf to me, an unnecessary escalation bypassing simpler steps of the dispute resolution process, and I would ask that RFPP or other admin action not be granted, at least not without consulting the other active editors on the page who are still hashing things out. Things are in an unstable state but certainly under control over there. --] (]) 04:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As shown by my initial complaint dispute resolution with this anonymous IP has been tried over and over and failed. This person seems to be unresponsive. This can be seem by the numerous recent threads on the talk page where the IP has not participated. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::::During this latest discussion the IP arbritrarily changed the lede while all the other editors have been working on it . The IP is not making well cited edits and uses undue weight instead. I am not sure what "haphazard" Pfhorrest is referring to. I have been consistently editing the Time article along with the other editors involved for about a week or so. My editing has been consistent (hardly haphazard). I have also actively particpated in the multiple discussions that have been generated on the talk page. | |||
| 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 would also like to point out that the IP seems to have some sort of agenda, but I am not sure what it is . The anonymous IP was also ] pertaining to this round of editing , , . Although I admit the last diff doesn't look like much. However, if it is combined with the diff at User talk:Pfhorrest and the other two it seems to be part of the canvassing effort. ---- ] (]) 05:41, 12 July 2012 (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. | |||
| :::::Your "dispute resolution" so far seems to consist of something halfway to an edit war; though I admit the anon IP could talk more at Talk, but edit comments count as discussion as well, and your counter-edits could try to integrate his material instead of just reverting. | |||
| :::::By "haphazard" I meant the quality and coherence of your edits, not the regularity of them; such as which appears to begin the article mid-thought in a longwinded way, and which seems to be making comments on the editing process ("supports a single point of view") as much as on the topic, and where you included a <nowiki><ref>Please see the other sources referenced in this article.</ref></nowiki> tag. But I don't want to go into too much detail on that because I'm not trying to write you up here at ANI. | |||
| :::::As for the IP's "canvassing", if you read the WP page you linked it explicitly excludes notification on WIkiProjects and involved editors (such as Stevertigo and I) from the definition of canvassing, and considered them acceptable practice. I still see no wrongdoing on the IP editor's part. --] (]) 06:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have aptly showed my attempts to communicate with this Anon IP in my original complaint. I have also shown the attempts at bullying by the IP by comments left in the edit history and on my and other's talk page. This person's editing behavior is uncivil and non-communicative. The person appears to edit with a battleground mentality. I do not agree that edit history comments take the place of talk page discussions. Also, Pfhorrest has an opinion on my editing but this is not an accurate representation -- not nearly an accurate representation. Also, the IP is obviously capable of spewing comments on their own as shown by my evidence above and their comments here. And WikiProjects and involved editors are not excluded from "canvassing" when there is a bias involved as has been shown. ---- ] (]) 18:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: {{gi|This is not the place for content disputes. This pertains to editing behavior.}} So are you willing to hold up your behavior to scrutiny? Or just others? | |||
| :::::::: {{gi|I have aptly showed my attempts to communicate with this Anon IP in my original complaint.}} Like , right? The problem with your attempt to communicate is not with your ability to transmit information, but is with your inability to receive and heed information. | |||
| :::::::: {{gi|I would also like to point out that the IP seems to have some sort of agenda, but I am not sure what it is...}} So let's see, what would your agenda at ] be in my deletion of what is clearly ] (in the form of ]? It doesn't yet rise to the level of wikistalking, but some editors might think that following the contribs of a user back to other pages (that one never edited before) and reverting their edits solely because you didn't like their edits on a page you thought you owned, ''might'' be a form of wikistalking. It '''is''', at least, an indication of an agenda (an agenda to undo whatever this other editor does, regardless of justification). Notice how fast your reversion there was reverted (by one editor and affirmed by another). This shows '''clearly''' that you reverted an edit, not because of content (because you apparently hadn't the foggiest idea), but because of who made the edit. | |||
| :::::::: So Steve, I am happy and willing to put my editing behavior under a microscope, . ] (]) 19:40, 12 July 2012 (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. | |||
| :::::::Do I misunderstand the function of ANI? Is this supposed to just be you accusing and him defending, and other involved parties keep out? I see someone making constructive edits being accused of unconstructive behavior and I want to stand up for him. I admit that he could talk more, but for the most part I think he has been constructive and we should not bite the newcomer by throwing admins at him. | |||
| :::::::Here is what I think is relevant history, with diffs: | |||
| :::::::*April 27th: Anon IP added new lede sentence | |||
| :::::::*Almost a month later, May 19th Stevertigo requests citations with expectation that they will support it and then adds one himself . So far the new contribution seems generally supported. | |||
| :::::::*Over a month after that, June 22nd, after standing for almost two months without complaint and with some support, Steve Quinn reverts it , takes it to talk, where a large discussion on the lede begins, in which the anon IP participates, albeit not much. | |||
| :::::::*Only July 1st, amidst that discussion, the anon IP reinstates a better-sourced version of his edits and over the next four days a slow semi-edit-war occurs; this is the only thing that looks problematic to me, but not egregiously, and is past now. | |||
| :::::::*Over the next week other editors, including Steve Quinn and at least two others, both continued to discuss, and made edits to, the lede , apparently breaking with BRD and everyone being OK with that. | |||
| :::::::*Then yesterday, July 11th, the anon adds his new first sentence again, with sources , without undoing any of the other improvements that have been made meanwhile. Steve Quinn makes some rather incoherent modifications to it , Anon (rightly IMO) restores the intact version which actually agrees with the sources it cites , Steve Quinn reverts again , and I decide it's time someone explicitly supports this guy, and revert Steve and call for further discussion before any more reverts. Steve and I are now discussing his complaints about it on the talk page. There is no edit warring going on, though we were close to it briefly for a while. The anon is not behaving flawlessly nor do I agree with his edits entirely, but I don't think he's done anything that requires admin intervention. --] (]) 19:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] • ] ⚽ 16:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Pfhorrest's last response appears to be a balanced view of the situation. I was not aware of any strong suppport for this lede in any form until I began to interact one on one with Pfhorrest. No one said they explicilty supported the IP's lede until I noticed that Pfhorrest seems to a couple of days ago. Originally, three or four other editors and I were developing a different (agreed upon) version when it seems User:Stervitigo (not sure if he was working with us or not) jumped the gun and placed an unsupported lede . This was reverted a few edits later . This is when the Anon IP jumped in . JimWae tried to save the lede we had been working on for a week . The anon IP wasn't having it and stuck in their lede , so I tried to diplomatically copy edit the Anon's lede -- and so on. As Pfhorrest said he finally stepped in. He set it up so we should follow BRD and discuss the lede along with proposed edits. And here we are. ---- ] (]) 06:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for this. ]] 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Also, I am close to withdrawing my complaint. I think there were six or sven editors involved (including the Anon) and not everyone was commincating (something like that). ---- ] (]) 06:35, 13 July 2012 (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 withdraw my complaint=== | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I think my last description of events is comical in retrospect. It's funny how there was so much tension behind the editing that one perosn (User:Stertivigo) inadvertantly touched off a chain reaction. The good thing is that it ended peacefully and now we are sifting through proposals in the talk page , , . Therefore, I withdraw my complant. Unless there are objections, I request the Admin close this discussion. Thanks ---- ] (]) 15:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Please keep ] off my talk page . See also . --] (]) 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| == SPA pushing joke to disruption == | |||
| :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 == | |||
| {{Resolved|Troll blocked. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocktannia rules the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{Hat|]}} | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| ] is a recent SPA on ]. Renato is a character played by ] as a private joke that's recently gotten some publicity on youtube. This user is trying to push that joke onto the article talk page and an ongoing AfD. There is no way to possibly mistake this character as a real person; we have sources documenting the joke by the author of the youtube videos, the actor, his associates, and so forth, on top of his wild and obviously fabricated claims. This kind of disruption to the article has been common since its creation (, , ). I've warned this user a few times, but he's taken to edit warring; he's simply not here to build an encyclopedia. Can we please have a block for this SPA? Thanks. <small><s>I'll notify him of this thread momentarily.</s> </small> — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 02:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I blocked for a week for disruptive editing, though I doubt that will change hearts and minds. ] (]) 16:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I pointed out on the talk page how the internet rumors about a martial arts instructor not being real were wrong and that there is no proof for them. Instead of providing proof, Mann_jess deleted my talk entry. So I tried to be forthcoming and created a new talk entry and provided proof myself that he in fact is real (I also stated that I attended a seminar of his so I know that he is real first hand, there should even be videos of his seminar). Instead of reacting to the proof I provided, Mann_jess just deleted my talk entry again. I might be new around here, but is this how things are supposed to work on Misplaced Pages? Do I have to fear that he will delete this here as well? I usually don't like to be involved in such heated arguments, but in this case I have to. You are spreading fake information about a well- respected martial arts instructor. What if this false information is hurting him financially? Did it ever occur to you, that he might be holding less seminars because you /think/ he is fake? Also you say the disruption has been common, why do you think that is, what if people notice the false information and it's you who is reverting the correct information back to false? ] (]) 03:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == New Family Family Rises Again == | |||
| I asked him not to refactor others comments on his talk page. ] (]) 03:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC) (not an admin) | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :While I'm open to constructive criticisms, templating me for violating ] was probably not incredibly helpful. TPO explicitly mentions that removing or refactoring trolling is allowed (which is in addition IAR, of course). This editor is claiming to know someone, and to have taken classes from someone, who does not exist. He's an SPA trolling for attention. While this isn't AIV, I was hoping for a quick block to end the disruption. He's now engaging with more editors at more venues... — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 04:49, 12 July 2012 (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) | |||
| ::Yes you would like your way and just delete anything that you don't like. Why do you have to insult me by calling me a "troll"? When did I say I was taking classes from Professor Renato? I said that I attended one of his seminars. I can try to digg up some picture of it, but I really don't feel like I should share private material with people like you. If you would do your research, you would know that he does in fact hold seminars and probably makes a living from it. Why don't you just provide proof for your claims, like I did for mine? I thought that is how Misplaced Pages worked. Can someone with authority look at this case please? I suspect that Mann_jess is a martial-arts practitioner from a rival association of Professor Renato and has bad intentions by keeping this article the way it is.] (]) 10:30, 12 July 2012 (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) | |||
| :::New contributors may be socks, trolls or simply new editors unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies. Best reaction is to assume the latter and react minimally and calmly. This will help new editors become familiar with Misplaced Pages practices and become productive editors and will tend to make trolls escalate their behavior to get the attention they seek, making it be more obvious they are trolls, so it's a win-win situation (and way less work than starting ANI threads). I've restored Inverted omoplata's comment on the Afd with a SPA annotation -- it's not a vote so we trust the closing admin will properly factor the editor's comments based on their knowledge of policy and experience. Suggest a close here -- '''not''' as a boomerang -- this ANI was opened with good faith -- but simply a ''this is really the best way to deal with a new editor unfamiliar with WP policies'' <small>]</small> 11:00, 12 July 2012 (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}} | |||
| ::::: Here is Professor Renato holding a Seminar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_SmuqlzK8s, look at the comments "He did at 1.5 hour seminar after this and he's totally legit. Showed us a ton of passes and a major detail on the Marcelo Garcia north/south choke that is so critical, I think it should be renamed the Renato Laranja N/S choke." That wasn't the seminar I was attending, so he is holding seminars after all. I also talked to my BJJ friends. It seems that there is an online joke going about having him be 27-Time World champion and it seems he just goes with it. One thing is going with a joke, another is labeling a legit BJJ blackbelt as fake and not real. He might not be 27-time World champion, but he defiantly exists and gives seminars. ] (]) 11:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == MAB Teahouse talk == | |||
| ::::I really don't think there's any way to assume he's a "new editor unfamiliar with wikipedia policies". He hasn't ever edited an article on this account; his only contributions are to talk pages and AfD, proper formatting and all, to claim that he has a personal relationship with a character that doesn't exist. If we got a new account who's only contributions were to ramble on talk pages about how he had a personal relationship with ] or Neo from the matrix, would we say it's possible he's just "not familiar with our policies"? I'm not worried about him swaying consensus. I'm worried that he's an SPA here only to cause disruption and troll, and so far he's been able to do that. Shunning will work fine for now, but this is going to continue until the disruption escalates and he's blocked, or he loses interest before then. I really don't think that's the best way to handle this. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 16:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Do you even read what you write? You are 100% sure that he is not real at all and why? Because you THINK so. But If I think he is in fact real, I am trolling. By your definition you are trolling as well. Now actually, I am not trolling by your definition, since I provided proof that he is real (Interviews, News coverage, videos of his seminar). Mann_jess, did you provide ANY proof for your claims? No. This is a conspiracy Theory unless you prove otherwise. It insults a real and legit BJJ blackbelt.] (]) 11:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Troll blocked. | |||
| {{hatb}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Time for interaction ban? Users SplashScreen, Tomica and Status == | |||
| :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) | |||
| *{{user|SplashScreen}} | |||
| ::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) | |||
| *{{user|Tomica}} | |||
| :::OK, I've fixed that. — ] (]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{user|Status}} | |||
| 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> | |||
| == User:Moarnighar == | |||
| These three editors have been in a state of constant dispute for some time now. The first ANI thread is ], where SplashScreen got into a revert war with Tomica. Since then I've kept an eye on that particular area of Misplaced Pages to watch out for further disputes, of which there have been many. It seems that now these editors can't get into any sort of communication without it instantly devolving into bickering. | |||
| *{{userlinks|Moarnighar}} | |||
| * pinging editors from ]: {{ping|Rsjaffe|Callanecc|Spicy}} | |||
| I'm proposing an interaction ban between SplashScreen and Status/Tomica (not a ban between Status and Tomica, as they appear to be friends). It's clear they can't get along at all, but wherever SplashScreen goes, both Status and Tomica spring up, and SplashScreen has started many AfDs on articles one or the other has either created or worked upon, and recently today an AfD resulted in another revert-war (there is a thread on the ]), which has now stopped. There have been been lots of veiled accusations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry and similar silliness. See threads ], ] and (lucky me) on my talk, ]. Telling them to stop arguing didn't work, and I doubt it will, so I'm proposing an interaction ban. | |||
| * 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) | |||
| That Tomica and Status are now appearing on most of SplashScreen's AfDs to disagree with him is obvious, and the fact that SplashScreen's conduct at AfD is needlessly aggressive is also obvious (in my eyes), but I'm really just trying to focus on the interactions between these editors. I welcome any input. ] ] 01:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Just a note - I originally suggested such a block on OohBunnies!'s talk page. ] (]) 01:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>It's a ban, not a block. Technical difference. ] ] 01:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC) </small> | |||
| == Kosem Sultan - warring edit == | |||
| :I understand the issue with Status and Tomica, but my real problem is that I strongly suspect that SplashScreen is a returned user that isn't making a good clean start. I haven't been able to identify precisely who he is yet, but it has been apparent to me from early in his editing career that he had an issue with Status and other Rihanna editors from some prior interaction. I feel very uncomfortable supporting an interaction ban without a corresponding topic ban on pop music articles unless and until I know what the prior interaction was and can factor it into my thinking.—](]) 01:32, 12 July 2012 (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 | |||
| ::Well, maybe SplashScreen will divulge a little information when he's back (it's early morning here in the UK). I agree Splash seems to be a returned editor of some kind, and it would be good to know if there were some past issues affecting this dispute. I wouldn't want to put the blame for all this entirely on him though, bad clean start or no. The behaviour of Status and Tomica has added to this "us v. them" mentality that we can see here. All I've really tried to do is remind the involved users to calm down and not make accusations, before one of them ended up blocked. I don't like to see users blocked. Although, if there ends up being consensus for a block of some kind then that will be that. But it would be really good to get some uninvolved eyes on the behaviours of all the involved editors here. ] ] 08:43, 12 July 2012 (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. | |||
| ::I personally think that an AFD ban on SplashScreen would be much more effective. Seeing as he clearly doesn't quite understand the process of nominating articles for deletion. For example, he nominated ] and ] for deletion as being "Non-notable concert film release" and revealed a few hours ago that he did so because they were . I have been keeping an eye out on his AFDs for a little while now, due to what seems to be a lack of knowledge in opening them. He seems to fail to understand ]. He also feels the need to reply to everybody who disagrees with him; which has been pointed out by several users (and not just this little "clique", as he calls it). It should also be noted that, although according to him, I don't vote against him in every AFD he opens. I !vote the way that is correct. For example, I voted delete on , which he created. <font face="Arial" size="2em">] (])</font> 01:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Also note - the longest oppose I have ever seen on a RFA. --''']]]''' 04:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am not a returning user with a bizarre vendetta (as I made clear on Bunny's talk page). Of course Status is going to want me to be banned on AfD, because his articles ], ] and a series of perfume articles were all deleted because of my nominations. Other successful nominations that have nothing to do with Status include ]. That some of those articles have been resolved with keep outcomes is not a reason for me to be banned from AfD. "I have been keeping an eye out on his AFDs for a little while now" - indeed, and that's where this problem has started. At every turn I've received personal attacks and a barrage of keep !votes on AfDs (many of which are on articles that the group have never involved themselves with before) from Status, Tomica, {{user|Hahc21}}, {{user|Till I Go Home}} and all the other "friends" who leave talk page comments to each other asking the other to come on Facebook or GTalk. Often, Status will go out of his way and even oppose arguments he's made in the past to make sure that AfDs I start will fail (compare to , where he does a complete U-turn on his assessment of ]). My constructive edits have been reverted (and sometimes marked as vandalism) because I haven't "discussed things with them first" (going against ] and, when I do instigate a discussion, the most frivolous of excuses are put forward to oppose my edits. Other users have commented on this bizarre group mentality. | |||
| :::In short, it seems that WHEREVER I go on Misplaced Pages, Status and his troupe and sure to follow. This is why I have requested this ban. I am sick to the back teeth of them bitching about me on their talk pages, I am sick to death of receiving rude and explicit comments on my talk page when I make edits that they don't "like", I am sick of this pathetic one-up-manship that has occurred simply because I'm an editor who sees things differently to their little clique and who doesn't believe that the ] page should list every time she's ever done a ] or that we should have long articles on who JLo has slept with. A positive of all this? A lot of the pop music articles are looking lot better and much less ]y; partly due to my own edits, but partly because my AfDs have caused other editors to improve the quality of articles. However, I can't deal with this feral campaign any longer and I would welcome an interaction ban with gusto. ] (]) 09:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with KWW. It appears there is more than meets the eye going on here and it's not good. When an editor's is to ], you have a problem. | |||
| ::::To Bunny's point, there is a group of editors that tend to scrum on these pop articles and the general dynamic is problematic. While I think Splash needs to be addressed, the general ownership of articles, edit warring and disruption by the others is also a major issue. ] <small>(])</small> 13:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Actually, the impression I always got from SplashScreen was that they had done a fair amount of IP editing before they registered, which would explain odd patterns. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 13:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}I think that may be possible, but there appears to be a grudge and other problems have resulted. My observations are that the other editors in this cluster are at this point, in varying degrees less problematic (previous behavior notwithstanding): | |||
| *{{user|Till I Go Home}} seems to have cooled off a bit but still pursues edit wars rather than other measures (see ]). | |||
| *{{user|Calvin999}} appears to be working very diligently to stay within his voluntary 1RR after his last block. | |||
| *{{user|Hahc21}} seems to have some of the best intentions but has had some issues in the past. | |||
| ] <small>(])</small> 13:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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: | |||
| ::::::It's not edit warring if I'm removing poorly sourced info from the BLP. Per ], "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring", and ] says: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons" is a 3RR exemption. ] 05:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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). | |||
| @SplashScreen What series of perfume articles have been deleted? You took it upon yourself to redirect them, which we actually came to an agreement on. As for personal life and Bennifer, why must you keep insisting that I'm some how upset about this? I was upset about personal life at first, since I didn't have a back-up of the information, as a lot of it was not in her main article. But I got that now. I accept if an article gets deleted, it gets deleted. You were right in the sense of both those articles. I don't notice myself !voting on either of them, do you? You seem very paranoid people are talking about you behind your back, which isn't the case. You clearly seem to be talking about this comment Till I Go Home left on my talk, in which he was asking for some Wiki assistance. Please direct me towards where any user has personally attacked you. You seem to be the one attacking other users, as seen in almost all of your AFDs. And I've already told you this, you've got to stop bringing up shit from almost a year ago. People are not entitled to change their opinions on things in a span of a year? ]. I will say this one last time, I have never asked anybody else to comment on any of your AFDs. As I've already told (which you brought an ANI about it, for some strange reason) since we are all "friends" here, we often look at each other's contribs and see what each other are up to. I have '''not''' commented on all your AFDs, and have '''not''' voted keep on all of them just to "spite" you. I have voted the way I feel is right. I've repeatedly said this to you, and you don't seem to care enough to respond, yet you keep saying it. <font face="Arial" size="2em">] (])</font> 19:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ===IBAN Proposal=== | |||
| Per KWW, the proposal is "interaction ban with a corresponding topic ban on pop music articles" for SplashScreen, Tomica, Status. | |||
| *'''Support:''' per my comments above. ] <small>(])</small> 13:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| *'''Question''': What exactly does this type of ban involve? <font face="Arial" size="2em">] (])</font> 19:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **An "interaction ban" generally means the following: Neither editor talks to the other. Neither editor mentions the other. Neither editor edits any article or discussion that the other has edited. There is usually an exception for people bringing up a violation of the interaction ban. Otherwise, violations lead to blocks. In this case, it should be noted that the proposed iban is SplashScreen-Tomica and SplashScreen-Status; Status and Tomica are not problematic in their behavior towards each other. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 19:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == SPA User:Muzaffarpur1947 and persistant removal of negative information about ] == | |||
| ::* "Neither editor edits any article or discussion that the other has edited" seems problematic to me. <font face="Arial" size="2em">] (])</font> 19:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Muzaffarpur1947}} | |||
| :::* Which is one of the many reasons many people dislike I-bans. But the thing is, there's no way to prevent interaction without banning one or the other party from editing the same article, and there's no way to do that fairly without banning both from editing the same articles. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 01:49, 13 July 2012 (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. | |||
| Diffs are pretty much . ] 15:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Evading Article-Ban == | |||
| *'''Partial support''': I support an iban between SplashScreen and Tomica based on what I've seen. If Status and SplashScreen wish an iban between them too, I'd support it, but I don't support an involuntary one there - they don't like each other, but they're usually civil. I do not support a topic ban, but the iban would mean that both Tomica and SplashScreen would have to stop editing articles the other has ever edited. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 19:55, 12 July 2012 (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) | |||
| * ] is a humungous AFD started by ] which is getting no traction. This user seems to be over-reaching and so limiting his actions would be sensible. I have no opinion about the other users mentioned here. ] (]) 22:13, 12 July 2012 (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 forgot to mention this. Thanks for bringing it up. He claims that we come into his AFDs to vote keep, so they are kept. It appears none of us have commented on that AFD, but they are all keeps. Weird. <font face="Arial" size="2em">] (])</font> 23:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm pretty sure discussion in their user talk page does not count as evasion. – ] (]) (]) 17:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Nevermind. Looking at it again, two of the users involved seems to have commented on it. I must not have seem it in between all of the other keeps. Still makes his claims of us stalking his AFDs and making them all kept outrageous, eh? <font face="Arial" size="2em">] (])</font> 23:22, 12 July 2012 (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) | |||
| :*'''Oppose''': Much for the same reason as Kww. Tomica has worked on Rihanna articles along with Calvin and other users for quite a long time. If an topic ban is enacted, then Splash may edit all Rihanna articles and then leave Tomica out of the topic on wich he edits the most, and probably he will end up retiring the 'pedia. I '''Partially support''' banning both users to talk each other directly on talk pages or discussions, but not editing the same pages, unless it is clearly an edit war or content dispute. {{small|PD: I had no internet connection and no power supply, thats why i didn't commented before.}} Regards. —]] 13:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :*'''Oppose''' per Kww. I'm not a fan of ibans to start with, as the success with them is a mixed lot and enforcement is always a drama-fest, but in this case it poses real world problems that are going to be hard to work around. I also share his suspicions that there is more than meets the eye going on. ] - ] ] 16:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == NOt here account == | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :A list of the still-tagged AFDs can be found at ]. I'll work on a few of them as I get the chance this morning - but any help is appreciated. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 12:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::The rest should now be cleared. ]] 15:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Should Splashscreen be restricted from creating new AFDs, or perhaps restricted to creating them under the mentorship of an experienced editor? He failed to notify the creators of the 246 or so articles in that mass nomination, and claimed that if anyone else notified the creators, it would constitute canvassing. His deletion reasons were mostly very much off-point.He didn't even tag all the articles he listed in the AFD, omitting tags on ], for instance. It seemed like a disruptive nomination, or that he has not familiarized himself with the basic information at ]. ] (]) 17:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ec}}A good point. Yes, I think a trout and perhaps a ban from creating AfDs is in order. I '''propose''' the following restriction: ''for three months, if SplashScreen wants to create an AfD, they have to ask another editor (who is in good standing) to do it for them.'' That way, they'll still be able to use the process for valid candidates, while learning more about how to do it properly. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 17:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I support Jorgath's specific recommendation. A 3 month period sounds reasonable. ] (]) 21:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That sounds reasonable to me (and thanks y'all for the help mopping up). - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 22:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I also support the proposal. And btw Bush, i have been clearing some of them from the tag, do you know how much are left? I will be cleaning more today in a couple of hours. Regards. —]] 07:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Not an account; already blocked for a month by {{u|Bbb23}}. ] (]) 18:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Stodieck aka Amphorus == | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Transphobia in my talk page by 136.57.92.245 == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| {{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 am getting nowhere in an ongoing dispute of some months, which approaches edit warring, because the other user's behaviour precludes any kind of resolution. This is way beyond a joke now, it has been one-on-one almost all the way and I cannot hold this guy back without some solid admin support. My apologies for the ragged air about this post, please bear with me. | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| This person has been using two different accounts: | |||
| *{{IPlinks|103.109.59.32}} | |||
| *Main user account: ] (]). | |||
| 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) | |||
| *Alternative account: ] (]) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ;I must stress that this request is about the user's behaviour, and not about the content of Misplaced Pages. The user's behaviour is getting in the way: (see box below for my earlier effort to explain you guys, where I failed to get this message across) | |||
| == User:CNMall41 is Removing reliable sources and contents == | |||
| I am also coming to believe that my antagonist is now ] by, for example: | |||
| {{Atop|I blocked OP as a sock at SPI.--] (]) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *Using sockpuppets. Then, when rumbled, wriggling round the evidence - ''''''. | |||
| *{{userlinks|CNMall41}} | |||
| *Retailating to the sockpuppet issue by accusing me of ] - '''''' and ''''''. This is ludicrous, as I made no such alleged personal remarks - it's Misplaced Pages that tracks this sort of IP connection, and the user who chose those account names - names that appear so close to each other in the page Histories. | |||
| ] 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--> | |||
| *Repeatedly accusing me of vandalism in edit comments '''''', '''''' and ''''''. It seems to me that at the very least this violates ] and ]. | |||
| :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) | |||
| I could go on. Do I need to? | |||
| :: {{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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :::::Yes, specifically and . Glad you saw that without me pointing it out. --] (]) 19:06, 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. --] (]) 19:04, 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. ] (]) 19:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == IP persistently removing sourced content. == | |||
| ;Again I stress that this is about the user's behaviour, not about the content dispute. When you read the conversation below, you will understand why I so want you to bear this in mind: If anything I have said in the above still leads you to think that this post is about the content dispute, please explain in clear and simple terms where I have gone wrong. | |||
| So I appeal to you for the second time. Please, please can somebody resurrect this issue and check out this user's behaviour? — Cheers, ] (]) 20:22, 12 July 2012 (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) | |||
| ;That earlier attempt, recovered from '''''', is reproduced below. | |||
| :<small>Courtesy ping, {{ping|Cassiopeia|KylieTastic|p=}} also have tried to warn this IP user.</small> -- ]-'']'' -- 19:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="margin:1em 2em 1em 2em; border:1px solid silver; padding:0em 1em 0em 1em; background-color:#F3F3FF;"> | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| {{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 have been doing battle since 16 May (It all started '']'') with ] (]), who has a technical PoV about aircraft that he is trying to stitch into several articles, including ], ] and ]. He is abusive, does not listen to reason or accept the majority consensus of other editors. He has most recently taken to misinterpreting sources, which has started to confuse other editors. The main evidence of this may be found on ]: see my posts from 5 June downwards for diffs and other links. I notice that this user has been censured before on ]. Please help, I am at the end of my tether. — Cheers, ] (]) 12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | 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) | |||
| :Hi again, | |||
| :Stodieck is again making edits without prior discussion or consensus. Diffs: | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :And also going back and editing a previous discussion comment that I had replied to, making an IP edit: | |||
| :* | |||
| :while logging in to make new comments, e.g. these two new comments were made respectively before and :after the IP edit of the old one: | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :Please, at least tell me why nobody is responding to this request? Am I doing something wrong or missing something out? I'm not asking for a technical judgement, just a call on this editor's behviour. 20:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Comment''' The reason you are getting little traction here is that primarily this is a technical content dispute. I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you are mostly wrong on this. A control surface ahead of the wing will act as a positive feedback mechanism for pitch instability, so calling it a stabiliser is Orwellian or lazy terminology at best. As to the behaviour of the other party, yes, it can be very annoying if one is a technical expert in something and wiki policies are repeatedly used to frustrate the clear expression of fact. So I suspect he is frustrated by your obtuseness. ] (]) 01:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi, thanks so much for responding. Yes of course there is a technical dispute going on, but that's not why I am asking you guys for help. My problem is the other party's behaviour - riding roughshod over etiquette as I have tried to document. We cannot resolve the technical issue until the parties involved are behaving in a civilised manner. I am carefully avoiding technical issues here and focusing on the behaviour (so I'm not going to respond to your technical comments here). Why is that not working? Do you need more diffs of bad behaviour repeated here as well as on discussions I have linked to above, like when I got insulted on my own talk page, or should I be posting on ], or what? — Cheers, ] (]) 19:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}I realize that you are dealing with multiple issues here, and I acknowledge that you have kept ] while attempting to get things sorted. This is just the wrong venue for most of the issues you have brought, and that's why so little traction. It helps (here at AN/I) to bring actionable items with specific requests that require administrator intervention. You may want to re-review ] and (if necessary) start a thread at ]. Note that DRN has it's own guidelines for what works best, so be sure to review them. Copied from header (above): | |||
| {{Navbox | |||
| | name = Are you in the right place? | |||
| | state = {{{state|collapsed}}} | |||
| | title = Are you in the right place? | |||
| | navbar = plain | |||
| | listclass = vlist | |||
| | style = border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; | |||
| | titlestyle = background-color:#AAD1FF; font-size: 90%; | |||
| | groupstyle = background-color:#CAE1FF | |||
| | liststyle = text-align: left; | |||
| | list1 = * Permanent '''] of sensitive personal information''' → ]. Please '''<span style="color:red">DO NOT</span> make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone.''' | |||
| | list1 = * '''Vandalism''' or '''spamming''' → ]. | |||
| | list2 = * ''']''' → ]. | |||
| | list3 = * '''Page ]''' → ]. | |||
| | list4 = * '''Edit warring''' → ]. | |||
| | list5 = * '''Suspected sockpuppetry''' → ]. | |||
| | list6 = * Improper '''usernames''' → ]. | |||
| | list7 = * '''Administrative backlogs''' → please add {{tlx|adminbacklog}} to the backlogged page. | |||
| | list8 = * '''Cut and paste moves/history merge''' → ]. | |||
| | list9 = * '''Review''' of a '''deletion''' or '''undeletion''' of a page → ]. | |||
| | list10 = * Assistance in resolving disputes → ''']'''. | |||
| | list11 = * Issues not requiring administrative tools (content concerns, naming conventions...) → ] or ]. | |||
| | list12 = * Evasion of ''']''', abuse of ''']''', or other '''incidents''' → ] (''']''') | |||
| | list13 = * If you are '''blocked''' → place the code: <tt>{{tlx|unblock|Your reason for unblock}}</tt> – on your talk page. You may also contact the blocking admin via email (navigate to their userpage and click "E-mail this user"). | |||
| | list14 = * Issues regarding Wikimedia projects '''other than the English Misplaced Pages''' → ]. | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| *{{userlinks|The Lord of Misrule}} | |||
| --] (]) 16:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| </div> | |||
| ::Yes, the articles should be deleted, bu I would like to additionally propose a week-long block. ] (]) 20:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Need assistance with WP: Harassment === | |||
| ''Posting of personal information WP:OUTING Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. Personal information includes legal name, . . . . Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Misplaced Pages. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Misplaced Pages permanently.'' | |||
| See ] - Incident involves attempt to establish new private ID, needs permanent deletion of text. | |||
| The sockpuppet allegation is false and easily disproven. The post violates "Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Misplaced Pages permanently." This is the request for permanent deletion. | |||
| Offending editor is (]) | |||
| See line below i.e. "Stodieck aka Amphorus" in this forum which is the 3rd violation of WP:OUTING in 2 days. --] (]) 03:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| . | |||
| :I don't see any attempted outing. Pointing out a connection in behaviour between two active accounts is not inherently outing; the sockpuppetry report appears in good faith. If the issue relates to your username, then I don't see where you've made any attempt to change it. —''']''' (]) 04:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == TheIrishWarden == | |||
| I am requesting help. The users: EggCentric, Gareth Griffith-Jones, 83.119.142.202, 2.123.157.246 for the last 4 days they have hanged up on me calling me a troll and really making me feel threatened. It all started as the IP: 83.119.142.202 added gay pimp into an article this was previous reverted for vandalism by cluebot and then I reverted it again. Then I start getting malicious notices from EggCentric saying he was going to prove things while not telling me what was wrong. Then I looked at EggCentrics edit history and saw this group of 4 were talking about me in a nasty manor. I stepped in and then they all ganged up on me, the ip 83... Says anything I do is vandalism and the other ip is possibly operated by EggCebtric. I have sent many messages saying lets leave it and they keep talking about me, I'm not having that happen. I have sent reasonable msgs to them and they are still dismissed. I really feel threatened, please help. ] (]) 20:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that this is more of a case of ] than ]. ] (]) 21:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: what should I do now? ] (]) 21:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Put a personal note on their talk pages explaining yourself and linking them to ]. ] (]) 21:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think the situation here deserves some further consideration at AN/I. While TheIrishWarden erred, the response seemed way overly hostile, and I would like to know if there is a reason for the level of hostility that isn't immediately apparent from the talk page histories. ]] 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't agree I was at all hostile. I cannot speak for the other parties. In the last half hour TIW has left two messages on my talk page - erroneous, threatening. I asked him to desist after the (for the record, I never, ever used the world 'troll' or variant) and he just went ahead and did it again. Look at this from the start. He bit hard on a diff of mine for highly spurious reasons and ''he's'' playing the victim card? Something is not quite right here, that much is obvious. I don't believe this editor is new to wikipedia. John --] (]) 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :What utter nonsense this is. Go through the guy's contributions - heck just the history of his user and talk pages will do. I'm not even going to waste time commenting unless anyone seriously, after '''properly looking at what he's been doing''', seriously thinks there's a case to answer. He is almost certainly a returning troll, and if he isn't then he simply lacks the ] to contribute here. <span style="background-color:#C0C0C0">] ]]</span> 21:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Guys, he is not trolling. Please seem ]. ] (]) 21:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I never said he was trolling (see above). Not sure how you would define the messages he's been leaving on my talk page - when asked not to do so - but I never used the word. Huge alert for 'politics of the playground', but I did not start this. Please also note, despite significant provocation, that I have not once left a message on TIW's talk page. John--] (]) 22:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::ELectriccatfish2 rather than ] this editor to "Template the regulars" <s>you would have done better to let them know that they "'''must notify''' any user who is the subject of a discussion" here at ANI. I will go and fix that oversight now.</s> ] | ] 23:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My mistake and apologies for making it. TIW edit summary lead me to believe that they had left a template for biting and not a notice about this discussion. Though that is a bit odd on the face of it. Again apologies for not being more thorough. ] | ] 23:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'' He is almost certainly a returning troll, and if he isn't then he simply lacks the competence to contribute here. '' As I and another admin habe been endeavoring to explain to Egg, it is often hard to tell the difference. Which is why we assume good faith barring '''actual evidence to the contrary'''. Present that evidence or STFU. ] (]) 00:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: I am not going co-operate with this as I have been wrong persecuted. I stand by my ideas. Au revoir to all if you, I am going ff to become a good editor and have been invited the CVUA twice this week, what does that say? Anyway I don't really care wha you say or what you do, I'm not going to reply to anything involving this. I am rightly UN co-operative. ] (]) 07:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: I ''have'' STFU. I have only responded to his forum shopping, and minimally at that. Since he's flouncing off again, I see no reason for this thread to be open. The evidence will be his block log in a few months' time. <span style="background-color:#C0C0C0">] ]]</span> 11:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)` | |||
| ::: unbelievably aggressive and volatile reaction and they should be punished for it. No wonder so many users don't come back if they are bing treated in an awful way. I will still remain UN cooperative ] (]) 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: We don't do punishiments here at Misplaced Pages-en ] (]) 20:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: No, but Egg Centric is being highly uncivil and failing to assume good faith without any evidence to back up their failure to assume good faith. They deserve an entire ice-bucket of trout, and should probably apologize for incivility. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 20:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Accusing someone of being a sock without providing proof is indeed uncivil, and can be harassment (it's my own userpage that says "file your SPI or STFU"). Of course, if someone ''is'' a sock and pretending not to be, they're an unethical dick. TIW is not helping their own case, one must agree. Also, remember, you cannot make someone apologize for anything (]''']''']) 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I have made it clear on several occasions that I simply cannot be bothered to provide said evidence given that it is based on behaviour and gut instinct. I have also made it quite clear I am prepared to STFU. I am not however prepared to retract the accusation or apologise for it, '''yet''', as I am convinced I will be proven correct, and rather quickly at that. I have also made it clear it will be retracted after a few months of TIW editing trouble free (or perhaps before hand on my own initiative) and that TIW has nothing to fear if he isn't up to no good. | |||
| :::::::I would however like some clarification on one point: If I do start to accumulate evidence in a subset of my userspace that TIW is a troll, would this be a violation of ATTACK? <span style="background-color:#C0C0C0">] ]]</span> 20:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::(And another point - why is that users like Badmachine are blocked for the slightest imagined offence, yet I am having to waste time explaining that it's not unreasonable to have a ''teeny weeny bit of suspicion'' about a user who within 24 hours of joining was asking Wikipedians to leave messages on his talk page about whether they agreed with him that Hitler was the best politican ever ?) <span style="background-color:#C0C0C0">] ]]</span> 20:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Just to clarify, I did '''not''' mean that you should be forced to apologize, merely that, in my opinion, you ought to do so of your own free will. As for the rest of it, 1) ], and 2) there's far more evidence for "troll" than for "returning." Also, in the spirit of "comment on the edits, not the editor," it's far better to say "User:Example is trolling" than "User:Example is a troll," if you see what I mean. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 21:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::<nowiki><digression></nowiki>That's an interesting point - obviously no one need be a troll for life (although I do enjoy Daniel Brandt's characterization of one our ] who I'm certain won't mind and indeed would be amused by me mentioning it, something involving troll blood, I'm sure you've read it...) - then again I think that just saying the account is trolling isn't quite strong enough in this case either. Perhaps "User:Example (is created|is here) to troll" as a compromise? {{=)|wink}}<nowiki></digression></nowiki> <span style="background-color:#C0C0C0">] ]]</span> 21:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::<nowiki><digression continued></nowiki>Or perhaps "User:Example appears to have done nothing but troll so far" as an alternative? Either way is better than implying trolling-for-life, I guess. That's all I'm trying to say.<nowiki></digression></nowiki> {{P|shade}} - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 21:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I wouldn't suggest that TIW has done nothign but troll, fwiw. About the most one could say in that vein is that every edit he has made has been directed towards a troll goal. But I wouldn't sugggest that either, actually... <span style="background-color:#C0C0C0">] ]]</span> 22:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***On a point of order, EggCentric has had it explained to him/her (more than once) that Badmachine was finally blocked by Arbcom for something way more serious than just sticking a GNAA userbox and a piccy of a ] on their userpage. If he's decided in response to start carrying out random attacks on new users without providing any evidence, that could be considered disruptive behaviour. ] (]) 22:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Two points: The first is that I have made no such decision - that's ridiculous. This case has nothing to do with anything else. I also note that I am not the only user who is suspicious of TIW (indeed he has decided that one or two IPs and Gareth and I are socks of one another, although I'm not sure who). Also, I have not altered my beahviour one jot because of badmachine, at least not intentionally (it does make me less confident in wikipedia's leadership but that's by the by) I just mention it as the case seems pertinent as it's about trolling, as was badmachine's. Secondly, '''I haven't had that explained to me even once''', never mind ''more than once''. I even emailed arbcom about it and had no reply. <span style="background-color:#C0C0C0">] ]]</span> 22:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Request experimental lifting of edit restriction on Esoglou == | |||
| *{{userlinks|Esoglou}} | |||
| I would like to propose an experimental lifting of the edit restriction on Esoglou wrt Eastern Orthodox doctrine. | |||
| Aside from a general desire to tap Esoglou's extensive knowledge of Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, the specific motivation for my request is that I wish to ask Esoglou for help in reviewing and improving the orphaned article ]. I will, of course, also consult Orthodox editors such as ] and]. However, I wish to include Esoglou in my efforts to improve this article and I will be able to benefit more fully from his knowledge if he is not under edit-restriction. (NB: His edit restriction is only in article space and not in Talk Page space). | |||
| In May 2011, ] and ] submitted to voluntary edit restrictions where Esoglou agreed not to edit text regarding Orthodox doctrine and LoveMonkey agreed not to edit text regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. That agreement was more or less effective in reducing the conflict between the two users. However, as of Dec. 31, 2011, LoveMonkey has . He may come back. He has left and come back before. However, he's been gone over 6 months this time around. | |||
| LoveMonkey is not the only editor that Esoglou has been in conflict with in this topic area but the other conflicts have been much less contentious. With LoveMonkey gone, I think there is a good chance that Esoglou can contribute usefully to Misplaced Pages articles on Orthodox doctrine. | |||
| So, I propose that we lift the edit restriction on a probationary basis with myself acting as Esoglou's mentor, working to mediate any disputes that may arise. If serious conflict occurs, then we will have to consider reimposing the edit restriction. | |||
| --] (]) 22:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The present editing restriction can be seen in ] where you can search for 'Esoglou'. The intention was to confine Esoglou to Catholic articles and LoveMonkey to Eastern Orthodoxy to prevent edit wars. <s> So long as LoveMonkey is inactive, there is no need to keep the restriction in place. Since this was imposed as a community ban, it needs to be at least mentioned on a noticeboard before being lifted. Please comment if you see any problem with lifting the ban. Thanks, ] (]) 23:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)</s> See revision below. ] (]) 21:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| The purpose of the editing restriction was simply not to avoid disagreements beween LM and Esoglou; it was to stop both of them from making personally motivated edits which pushed their theological POV, which is what was causing the conflict in the first place. I see no evidence that Esoglou has ever ceased to do this, and he can be consulted without this restriction being lifted. The additional fact that this proposal is being made by an editor who did little or nothing to discourage Esoglou from POV pushing (even when he acknowledged that's what was happening), does not incline me to support it.] (]) 06:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * Is he currently permitted to edit related talkpages? To me, opening this up would be a valid first experimental step (]''']''']) 17:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*I was thinking the exact same thing. Let 2 or 3 months pass on the talk page with no problems and it would be very easy to be open minded on the rest at that time. ] - ] ] 17:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually his talk page restriction was lifted in May, 2011 (see the wording in ]). Now that I review from 2011 I can see the logic of keeping the restriction in place. Esoglou can still propose changes to Orthodox articles using the talk pages so he can make his contribution that way. If the present thread were going to actually lift the restriction, there are a bunch more people who ought to be notified. Their names can be researched out of the original ban discussion. Cody7777 and Montalban should be notified also, since they are described above as Orthodox editors. ] (]) 21:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I'm a bit offended by Taiwan boi's characterization of me as having done "little or nothing to discourage Esoglou" but this is not the forum for an extended discussion of that so I will simply register my objection and move on. FWIW, the top of ] is the most recent example of my attempting to improve Esoglou's style of interaction. | |||
| Returning to the matter at hand, given Taiwan boi's objection and EdJohnston's revised position, I withdraw my proposal. As has been noted, Esoglou can comment on the Talk Pages and someone else (such as myself) can serve as a filter to add the worthwhile contributions to the article text. --] (]) 22:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I must agree with Taiwan boi wholeheartedly on the matter of Esoglou. Even when I offered sourced material I found what I wrote re-edited or rather slanted to fit a particular POV. I had no sense of fair play in these edits. I found Pseudo-Richard however attempting to find a middle ground even though I suspect he probably agrees with Esoglou. He did at least act in good faith | |||
| ] (]) 01:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == IP hopping vandal, committing BLP violations on ] == | |||
| Hello. | |||
| I found no need to warn the IP hopper given IP hopping combined with the fact that the user is deliberately violating policies. Page protection may be warranted, and I am requesting deletion of the revisions under criterion RD3. Thanks. ] (]) 23:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Requested protection ]. Also, you '''must''' notify the user. Notify them on the last ip they used. It doesn't matter that the user is deliberately violating policies, most of the people being reported here violated policies, and it is still a requirement that you notify them. <span style="border:2px solid #808080;background:#C68E17;">]''']'''</span> 23:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Notified per requirements, even though I disagree with this. I feel that the notification may constitute ]. Thanks. ] (]) 00:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::It just looks like standard vandalism from someone who probably couldn't get a date; nothing to break out RevDel over. ] (]) 00:06, 13 July 2012 | |||
| ::::Given Janssen's {{facepalm}} inducing comments today, I suspect it is standard vandalism by a series of annoyed hockey fans. ]] 00:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It seemed to me to constitute purely disruptive material, which would be eligible for removal. ] (]) 00:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've also indef blocked {{User|Hayhaytaytay}} for abusing multiple accounts, vandalism, etc, who is obviously the same as the IPs. ] - ] ] 19:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Hundreds of possible hoax edits by 24.159.181.208 == | |||
| Not sure if this should go here or to ] or both. I think I found a nasty case where not only does an IP need to be blocked for a while, but someone ], possibly an admin or experienced rollbacker, should attempt a rollback of this IP's edits wholesale, and then someone is going to have to go back through the edits that can't be rolled back because of reverts, and find parts of the vandalism that weren't completely reverted in each case. {{User|24.159.181.208}} has been making hundreds of edits to television-related articles, changing years and false claims of hosts leaving. The edits have neither references nor edit summaries; in fact, several of the edits remove existing references. The account appears to ignore warnings, and after being blocked once, appears to have simply continued after the block expired. In some cases, the same claim was applied not only across the same article uniformly, but to multiple articles consistently: See, for example, {{Page history link|Let's Make a Deal}} and {{Page history link|Wayne Brady}}, in which the IP persistently re-edited the articles, in April 2012, to claim Wayne Brady had left the show. The revert-thrashing left a navbox at the bottom of ] that (as of now) still says that Wayne Brady is not the incumbent host. I suspect this has happened in more cases. --] (]) 03:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :When patrolling ], I see edits like this all the time, and I always revert such edits. This is very common, but I wonder how the IP evaded notice for hundreds of edits. Sometimes editors overlook such changes as "normal" or "insignificant" as I did before an admin discreetly told me that such edits are bad. Very peculiar. Anyways, I think the right choice of action is to block and rollback, as Closeapple said. ] ] ] 03:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I notice this user has been blocked for this previously, a few months ago. So I have placed a lengthy block on the account. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 14:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::But how does that stop the IP from continuing to add false hoax edits when the block is done? ] ] ] 19:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) - violation of topic ban == | |||
| {{archive top|Multiple violations of terms of known topic ban - blocked 60 hours}} | |||
| {{User|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )}} had a topic ban applied in December 2011 that applied no creation of new articles, or redirects. he was informed of this . and was blocked in January 2012 was blocked for violating this and it was noted that . Given Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) block history he has a record of pushing the boundary to see how far he can get away with. only a few days he creates a and a . I seek community and admin consensus on what to do. ] (]) 04:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : The diff makes no mention of a topic ban. ] (]) 04:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * - Users article creation looks like a clear violation of the users edit restrictions to me - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 04:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: thanks Youreallycan ] (]) 04:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ec}} - so this is part of my voluntary agreement to only make a single comment in regards to ANI reports and not to open any reports of my own - Is it disputed that ] is not allowed to create new articles at this time? - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 04:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @YRC. Maybe I'm just tired, but that diff (to me at least) sounds like it falls short of a ban. It was suggested he not create articles, but didn't go far as to say he was banned. ] (]) 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : nvm. I didn't see the top part where he acknowledged restrictions. ] (]) 05:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::This seems a bit stale. What good will blocking him do? Also, is there some problem regarding the article he added? If RAN is willing to create articles that are not a problem, are we to insist on the letter of the ban? Seems shortsighted to me.--] (]) 05:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also shortsighted is saying "well, he was banned, but we'll wink and nod because he's not causing problems despite violating his ban" - should we not give somebody a ticket for going 120 in a 55 zone just because they're driving a Ferrari built for that speed? - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 06:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We're also not the police. We're an encyclopedia, and we don't destroy good content simply to enforce some rule. No, he should not create articles. Yes he did create one. The Misplaced Pages servers will not crash if he is not indeffed. Every incident is judged on its own merit. That doesn't mean I think he shouldn't be blocked, and saying that doesn't mean that I think he should. But arguing from a point of blind adherance to the rules for the rules sake, without regard for the effect on content, is in direct contravention of Misplaced Pages's core values. If you want to argue that he needs to be blocked, fine, but find a better reason than you came up with there. Merely stating he violated his restrictions doesn't necessarily follow that he ''must'' be blocked without discussion. Maybe you think he needs to be blocked, but that doesn't preclude people from discussing the matter, or even arriving at the conclusion that this violation doesn't merit a block at this time. --]''''']''''' 06:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think you make some excellent points. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 07:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Bah. is the topic ban. Black and white. The community simply does not trust RAN to create new pages, at all. He knows this. If he thinks that this consensus may have changed, he should suggest that the ban be lifted, not simply start ignoring it again. This is not "blind adherance{{sic}} to the rules for the rules sake"; it is uncontroversial enforcement of a popular decision made to protect the project. I'm inclined to block for a week, per the standard procedure of escalating blocks (the last was 31 hours, although in a depressingly familiar manner was shortened to time served after merely two hours on a technicality). ] (]) 08:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll reply as soon as I get my head around blocking someone for creating good content (assuming, of course, that it is such).--] (]) 09:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've just reviewed this users recent new articles and redirects and find them problematic. YMMV. ] (]) 10:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * Obvious, and based on the short discussion above it is problematic. RAN ''probably'' could have asked for a removal of his topic ban at this very forum - it may or may not have been successful. However, he merely thumbed his nose at it and broke it. I have been generous and only provided a mere 60hr rest from the project so that he can re-read his topic ban. His chance of having it removed/reduced just dove like ] (]''']''']) 10:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == User:Veyangoda Central College == | |||
| {{archive top|1=Article deleted, user blocked. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 00:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] has created a page about a college of the same name. The page contains obvious promotional material so I nominated the page for ] twice and both times had the templates removed by the author. I then nominated the page for deletion where it is currently being discussed at ]. During this process the author has removed the discussion templates three times and has been warned three times, but still continues to make disruptive edits. I don't know if a block is appropriate but the user blanked their talk page so that none of the warnings show up. Some help would be appreciated. <span style="border: 1px solid #CC3333">]]</span> 06:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The article in question has been deleted as copyvio, and I have blocked the user with {{tl|softerblock}}, which might have been a bit generous, but we'll see. ]] 10:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Has archiving on this page been turned off? == | |||
| {{archive top|1=Yet more fallout from ], which so far includes a SPI case and a discussion on the BLP noticeboard. {{tag|nowiki}} is now around all of the URLs. ] (]) 16:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| The last time the archiving bot ran was 13:46, 11 July 2012. There certainly appear to be sections with no postings in more than 24 hours, those titled "User:Nenpog" and "Intolerable Behaviour" to name two. | |||
| Also, the top of the page says that sections are archived by MizsaBot II however looking at the page history the last few archiving actions were done by ClueBot III. | |||
| Requested actions, in case it is not clear, is to clarify which bot does the archiving and update this page if needed, plus to get the thing running so that some of the at current count 56 sections, not counting subsections, can be cleaned up. Thank you. ] (]) 13:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :MiszaBot was malfunctioning recently, so ClueBot was activated instead temporarily (the message in the header had been changed as well, I'm not sure who changed it back). I'm not sure why ClueBot is lagging now, but since Misza seems to be running alright on other pages I've now switched back to it. Give it 12-24 hours and it should clean things up. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">] <small>]</small>''' 14:04, 13 Jul 2012 (UTC)</font> | |||
| ::The bot however there was a blacklisted link (worldpharmacyverification dot com) which prevented it from writing the page and I can't restore it because of the blacklisting. The link may need to be temporarily removed from the blacklist in order to restore the threads and then the url could be mangled to allow proper archiving.<br /> — ] ] 14:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::They really aught to make rollback exempt from the blacklist. I've run into problems where you can't revert vandal blanking because of it. Anyway, an admin will just need to handle it, as they are exempt. ]] 15:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Had a similar problem on man AN page, see ] <small>]</small> 15:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As far as I can tell, as an admin I am not exempt from the blacklist; if I try to include a blacklisted link my edit gets blocked like anyone else's. ~] <small>(])</small> 15:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I restored the material removed by Miszabot, and removed the http leader from the URL, so that the blacklist won't get triggered. The next time the bot sees this page, it should work. ~] <small>(])</small> 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| <small>P.S. ClueBot III was failing to archive for the same reason, however, it won't pull sections from the main page until they have been persisted on the archive page. -- ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 22:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == User:Greczia == | |||
| *{{userlinks|Greczia}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Tirgil34}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|62.143.41.82}} | |||
| User Greczia violates ] and ]. He is a sock puppet of ]. The evidences for that are ] and . He continues behavior of Tirgil34, just compare contributions. | |||
| The main reason of my report is his behavior. Some cases: | |||
| *Edit warring and misleading in the article {{pagelinks|Göktürks}}. (, , , ) | |||
| *Violation of ], ], ] and ] in the article {{pagelinks|Balkars}} | |||
| **Evidence for edit warring: , , , . | |||
| **He continues POV pushing citing pseudoscientific theories about ] and ] and even modern songs from YouTube. See talk pages of articles Balkars and ]. | |||
| That is from his recent activity. I request admins to infinitely block Greczia. | |||
| P.S. All his known accounts are already blocked in German Misplaced Pages for the same behavior.--] (]) 15:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Beside the fact that ] is making sense of my contributions, the same ] which was also opened by User ] ended with following ]: "''Insufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion. Feel free to refile if there is new evidence.''" | |||
| :I don't know how many times ] tried to block me, but I think this would be the 3rd or 4th unsubstantial attempt. I am just fed up with his conspiratorial behavior. | |||
| :@Bouron: It would be nice to have a short look at ] and ]. Regarding German Misplaced Pages I wrote following: "''Otberg and Koenraad got to know to my new account (Greczia) and that's the reason why they wanted to close my account again. They mentioned some past incidents to strength their fake-report. In short: they did the same as Bouron did. The problem with the dewiki is that there are many admins who are abusing their administrative rights to solve their private problems. I've protested against this decision on dewiki per e-mail. I hope to resist against this harassment on dewiki as well as on enwiki.''" | |||
| :So please stop it now. --] (]) 16:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think Greczia understands the concept of ], as he his identity. Thus, I don't believe that he violated ], seeing how he basically invited scrutiny. Also, you can't really "violate" ], only ] and ].—] ]/] ( 偉特 ) 17:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah. I don't see a real problem here. Greczia made a less-than-competent attempt to ], which is not an offense, just a failure. Either accept that you didn't succeed at ] or try again and do better at it next time. I haven't seen any evidence that s/he's socking. Boroun is not harassing Greczia, as Boroun had a good-faith misunderstanding of what it means to fail at a clean start. Unless anyone has real evidence to the contrary... - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *This has already played out and been explained at the SPI that Bouron filed May 30, here , and where I already said there wasn't any way to connect to the other socks and there wasn't abuse, the person admitted the previous accounts. I suggest Bouron might want to ] as this looks much like forum shopping. ] - ] ] 18:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :* Indeed, it's bordering on Harassment now. So it's not clean start, it's merely close down one account and move to another - as long as the previous one was not blocked, it's fine unless behaviour changes to poor (granted, if it's not cleanstart, the accounts should likely be formally linked). Indeed, any restrictions on previous accounts automatically transfer to new ones - so unless there's something else this is open and shut - and time to move on (]''']''']) 18:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::*If Greczia were to ask, I would happily indef block the old account "per user request, moved to new account" without mentioning the new account, which would reduce some of this and then linking wouldn't be needed. Not sure if that is exactly how the policy says to do it but seems like a common sense solution. ] - ] ] 18:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *This editor is not attempting a clean start in the usual sense. He wants to continue fighting the same battles in the same topic area, but he doesn't want anyone connecting his current account with his poor behavour in the same area using ], ], etc. I believe that is not permitted by ], and the accounts should be linked in the usual way. ] 00:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == POV pushing by ] == | |||
| {{archive top|Disruptive POV pusher blocked for 3 months ] (]) 18:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] has a ] of vandalism and unconstructive edits, as well as a block. Recently, he or she has begun editing ] with POV language about the Tamil Tigers conflict. ] and I have reverted these edits. The IP has now reverted thrice within a 24-hour period, and given the POV nature of the edits, I don't see any value in waiting for ] to be violated. I request a new block or other sanctions against this IP. --] (]) 16:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Seeing as how the IP lacks a clean block log, and violated ] (as well as ]), I believe that a block is warranted. I'm not quite sure if indefinite would be appropriate, however, although it may come to that. Perhaps a month?—] ]/] ( 偉特 ) 16:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*I'd support a month. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 17:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*We don't indef IPs, even static IPs. Typically one year is the longest. The last block was one month, and there is a clear pattern of abusive behavior here, so a block of 1 to 3 months may be warranted. I'm debating it, but if someone beats me to the punch, I would hardly blame them. ] - ] ] 18:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Yeah, the last one was a month, so I've gone for 3 months this time. The pattern of contributions suggests the IP is static. Watchlisted the article as well in case it isn't. ] (]) 18:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == ] is disrupting a discussion and straw poll @ the Beatles talk page == | |||
| I am attempting to conduct a discussion and straw poll , and ] is attempting to disrupt it. Please see , , , , , , and . Please, we need an admin to stop the disruption caused by ] so a proper discussion can occur. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 21:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Recently they have unilaterally declared a consensus at ] despite an open RfC with little to no discussion, please see . ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 23:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :There is an ongoing poll , (Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band), which ] is trying to demolish by placing a new fake poll on .--] (]) 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :There is also a request on (which ] started), to not comment until the RfC on "Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" has finished.--] (]) 21:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The result of the mediation page was: | |||
| :"'''Suspend'''. Pending completion of an on this subject. This request may be evaluated at another time, after the RfC concludes. Please bring your discussions there. If the RfC does not result in consensus, the filing party should leave a note on my (or any other mediator's) talk page to reconsider opening this case. For the Mediation Committee", ] (]) 12:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)] | |||
| :Because ] is not satisfied with how things are going, he is trying to create a diversion. It really is a sorry state of affairs when an editor has to stoop to such tactics.--] (]) 21:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I propose that both editors be barred from interacting on the Sgt Pepper talk page. Enough is enough. ] (]) 21:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not the best approach at the moment, there is a lot of talk of sockpuppets, so placing tbs would punish the innocent, I'd suggest instead that we take your understandable desire to see the problem solved and put it into specific fixes for specific issues one by one, like similar polls for a start. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 02:50, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::This editor, ], is a fervent supporter of the complainant. He has insulted me on my own talk page . Enough is enough.--] (]) 22:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::How am I a "fervent supporter"? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I support him. ] (]) 22:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Because you insulted me and did not mention one single negative word about ]. It's quite simple, because it was '''not neutral'''.--] (]) 22:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But I don't support him. Stop being a child, already. ] (]) 22:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hey hang on a minute, you can't say that, it's a personal attack, and believe me I know, I been blocked for such nonsense before (good block btw) anyhow, you should say you're sorry for that, or someone will tell their mommy on you, I mean it. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 02:55, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] and ] are edit warring on ] and ] and their constant sniping at each other is disrupting ] and ]. This has already . They should be barred from interacting on any of The Beatles article pages and, if this carries on, they should both be topic banned. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 00:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : FTR, I havn't made ''any'' snipes in several days, it is Andreas who continues to snipe at ''me'', and it is Andreas who is driving editors away from Beatles related articles, not me. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 01:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::What is the sound of one hand clapping? No, it's both of Andreasegde and GabeMc. Each should just make the ''best possible'' argument they have ''once'' and cease the back and forth. They're not going to change each other's minds and there's no benefit to Misplaced Pages to sort out which editor is more disruptive. If intervention turns out to be required, Richerman has the correct idea. <small>]</small> 02:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> that issue has become much larger than it need be; we're talking about the letter 'T', for Christ's sake. This has dissolved into edit warring, the bickering and personal attacks which are linked to above, and (for which the reporting party apologised, which I accept). The genesis of this SPI can be seen ]. | |||
| :::If you follow GabeMc's comments at the SPI, you see that he acknowledges that he doesn't know if I'm a sock of the IP in question and then accuses ] of not only being the sock, but of having a "fake dialogue" with himself as the IP. Unfortunately the SPI was closed without establishing whether the was any socking taking place at all. This one incident by itself is well beyond the type of treatment to which the community or any of the individuals involved should be subjected. | |||
| :::I also support topic and interaction bans against ]. The abuse of process and of other editors has to be stopped now. <b>]</b> ] 02:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: A topic ban for me? Are you serious Radio? I just got ] (admittedly with much of help from others), and you suggest banning me from editing all Beatles related articles? How convenient for you, an editor who "the". FTR, I ''have'' made my best argument at ] talk page, and I pledge to uphold whatever outcome arises from this process, while reserving the right to take this to a higher-level if needed. I have reason and grammar on my side, and I trust a mediator will choose wisely should it come to that. BTW, this thread is about disruptive editing by ] however, not the "The/the" debate. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 03:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The FAC doesn't negate your behaviour here the past few weeks. You have antagonised and alienated several editors with which you formerly had a good rapport. Your attempt at subverting ''your own'' request for mediation shows at least that you have no respect for the way things are done here and that you'll stop at nothing to impose your lower case 'T' on everyone else. Some of ] suggest something other that a collaborative spirit. <b>]</b> ] 03:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I support full topic ban, and interaction ban for both editors AND the 99. IP editor who got into this whole mess. It's God Damned ridiculous! It's <BIG><BIG>'''CAPITALIZATION'''</BIG></BIG> FFS! It's not gonna make a damned bit of difference on the article. ] (]) 03:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC) ] (]) 03:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{ec}}I see you getting a block long before that happens, and I see Andreasegde coming out looking like a saint in all of this. I also see lots of work for the ] to do in these polls, oh yeah ! they'll feed the family with this haul. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 03:29, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Mythpage88, you want to ban me from editing all Beatles pages, really? You do realize that it was Andreas and ip 99 that dragged this out and forced my hand. See: and . Please reconsider your radical position. I havn't even cursed at anyone. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 03:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Yes, I do. You blame him at every opportunity. You even did in your response. The both of you need to take a time out. ] (]) 03:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :And Gabe, two edits is nothing when you take into account how much has gone on. ] (]) 03:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 12/24 hour block for both of them if they don't calm down. According to RM above they are both causing disruption. A short time out (or longer) might be helpful. ] (]) 03:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * FTR, I am not causing disruption I am combating it. Please look deeper before you suggest a block for both parties. This is what drives editors away from wikipedia IMO. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 03:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :How dare you assume that I haven't looked into it. How '''dare''' you! Arguments like ''this'' drive users away from Misplaced Pages.! ] (]) 03:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: Lol, okay right, you got me, my bad, good one Mythpage88, I'm sorry. (with tongue in cheek) Please, please, pretty please allow me to continue to donate several hours per day of my time to the project, please!!! I need it!!! Maybe we should all have a laugh and relax huh? ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 03:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Absolutely not. Your actions are beyond the pale. ] (]) 03:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| My advice to all is this: I doubt any admin is gonna touch this and come down on only one side at this point. If blocks are enacted, I see at least 2 of them being made. Your conduct on this thread will probably make the admin say "you two need a timeout" and force one on you. ] (]) 03:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, I thought admins wanted us to report disruptive edits to help them protect and improve the culture of wikipedia. I've reported seven above, all from today. I really believe that I have never made one single intentionally disruptive edit ever at wikipedia, not even once. If I get a block for reporting this kind of wikistalking, wikithreats, harrassment on my talk page, defamation of character and bullying, then so be it. I am not the problem here, I represent the solution to the problem. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 04:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Can you make one comment without blaming Andreas for something? ] (]) 04:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : I do see an awful lot of childish behaviour that is bat-blastingly baffling to be honest. Damn childish, ''in toto''. Get a grip and stop playing such stupid, childish games (]''']''']) 04:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I too agree with a ''temporary'' topic-ban, this is extremely sophomoric and has gotten way out of hand. Seriously, 99.99% of our readers don't care how it is capitalized, and especially not to this extent. ] (]) 04:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : (ec) I disagree, grammar is grammar, and to intentionally disregard our MoS, and at least 8 others is silly IMO. What's really silly is that a simple decree from ''above'' could end all this once and for all. This is only going on because no one will give a clear directive; a 1RR situation. So don't blame the soldiers when they disagree because the general won't/can't/refuses to give a clear order that all can follow. This could all end with one decision from a mediator, do we follow our MoS, ignore our MoS, or change our MoS. If wikipedia took a firm stance on this we would never have to hear about this nonsense ever again. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 04:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's an argument over which shape of a letter to use. Give it a fucking break. ] (]) 04:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *My experencies with Andreasegde have been extremely unpleasant at the Beatles-related ] article talk page ; so much so that ''I was indeed driven away from working on the article.'' The talk page link speaks for itself, in terms of aggressive hostility and violations of good faith and article ownership guidelines, and I challenge anyone to conclude otherwise. I was so disgusted I decided even a complaint would just make me feel sick at heart. This ANI complaint by GabeMc is utterly justified, in my view, and the fact is that I was unaware of this ANI complaint until just now and discovered it by way of the poll. I strongly suggest steps be taken, up to and including a block or topic ban, to inform Andreasegde that this type of combative editing is unacceptable at Misplaced Pages, which is about collaboration, not ownership. My experiences with GabeMc, in contrast have been cordial, and I salute his willingness to bring this matter to ANI. ]]] 04:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks for the support. I concur completely! I've watched Andreasegde bully myself and others for over 2 years! This needs to end now. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 04:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, I feel that any objective look at how I was dealt with at the Pete Best page indicates who the disruptive, hostile and deliberately offputting editor was. In the end, I did not feel that further interaction was worth my time. It would restore much of my shaken faith if the community would agree on where the problem lies. ]]] 04:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ;Patterns? | |||
| * From the ] talk page, (Andreasegde's most recently edited page before this edit war broke out) at ], keep reading there are several parts. | |||
| * From the ] talk page, they wikihound/wikistalk an editor for adding a RfD tag (look at the very bottom). | |||
| * they wikistalk an editor for adding an AfD tag. Ibid | |||
| * At ] , and . | |||
| * At ] they attempt to defame an editor who disagrees with them. and they attack an editor and their comments are so outrageous they are removed from the record for that reason, I'm sure the admins will know why. since 2006. Ibid. , and . I of course could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, like the "The/the" debate, ''or'', someone could step-up, mediate this, and put an end to it once and for all. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 05:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===full topic and interaction ban=== | |||
| *'''Support and nom''' I suggest full topic ban to any and all Beatles related articles, and interaction ban for both editors AND the 99 IP editor who got us into this whole mess. | |||
| It's God Damned ridiculous! It's CAPITALIZATION FFS! It's not gonna make a damned bit of difference on the article. ] (]) 04:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''support''' - the users involved should write apology letters imo ] (]) 04:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban for Andreasegde only''' - per my comment and link above. My experiences have made me avoid anything this person has to do with. ]]] 04:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Since I was asked to comment, I suppose I'll submit to banging my head against a brick wall once more. The reason I quit the wikiproject was not in protest of Gabe's behavior, or even of that of andreasegde. I quit because the wikiproject has been in dispute over this issue for years, and no one in a leadership position at this site (*cough*ArbCom*cough*) has cared enough to impose a solution for it. This is a major issue, as I see it, and fundamentally comes down to whether or not the MoS matters. When it managed to get before ArbCom, they declared it (in their words) "silly", in the process effectively delegitimizing every MoS-based argument that ever has been made, is being made, and ever will be made. Consensus has not solved this issue so far, and I see no reason to acquiesce to the delusion that things are going to be different this go-around. Until consensus is reached (and at this point I care little what that consensus is -- even though I firmly believe that the MoS, the English language, and reality itself is on the "small T" side, I would take a consensus for "big T" over no consensus at all), I cannot edit Beatles-related articles and remain a sane and productive editor. It's an either/or decision for me, and I believe in the goals of Misplaced Pages too much to take part in this nonsense any longer. | |||
| :If it matters, I think andreasegde has been more unreasonable and taken this to greater heights of incivility than Gabe has. He made comments at ] that were absolutely incongruous with logic, and with the type of contributor I have always known him to be. But I don't for a second believe that he, or almost anyone else on the "big T" side, is acting in bad faith. IP 99 is clearly the exception to that statement; s/he came to this site to start shit, as should be clear from his/her editing history. Blocking him/her will not bring this dispute to a close (not by a long shot), but it will at least be one fewer troll defacing the project. | |||
| :<s>I unconditionally '''oppose''' topic bans and bans/blocks of any kind for both Gabe and Andreas, provided they both act with the utmost decorum going forward. But please do not assume that I am condemning both equally; I am not. Andreas has been unreasonable and uncivil to multiple editors, including me, but blocking for relatively minor infractions during the course of a major discussion is not going to solve anything. Let the conversation run its course.</s> ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 04:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Consider my vote changed to '''oppose''' for any kind of action against Gabe and '''support''' for a topic ban against andreas. is ], and his comments at ] are reprehensible and inexcusable. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 05:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, is that the correct diff ? I opened that diff two times, and I'm seeing changes to text for "band" and "group" ? <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 06:04, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::He does have ownership issues with Pete Best so ] is a good idea. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 06:19, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, that's the right diff. It's an issue that has never, I believe, been raised anywhere else, ever, and he just happens to bring it up during a high-profile FAC led by someone he's had disputes with in the past. I don't know what ] he was making, but that's the only viable explanation I can see. and show that he does not understand (or, at least, does not care about) ] and ] with collaboratively working on content and accepting criticism to content he was worked on. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 06:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::These additional examples of ownership and bullying by Andreasegde do not surprise me one bit after my experience at ]. They indicate a systemic pattern of abuse at Beatles-related articles and as such, do not call for a Wikiquette board discussion but a topic ban by an admin, at the very least. The Beatles are a huge entry area for editors, and the hostility and threats by Andreasegde are unacceptable. ]]] 08:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*Agreed on IP 99. Maybe he's a sock, maybe he's just a professional troll who came along at the right time. Either way, he's ]. <font color="green">]</font> (<font color="green">]</font>) 05:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also agree. Something very odd about IP 99 doesn't pass the smell test. ]]] 08:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' Canvassing is already taking place for this. I was canvassed at my talk page. This proposal and thread is a fucking joke and Gave,Andreas and Mythpage should be blocked for 48 hours for ratcheting up the bullsnit at ANI instead of other venues.] (]) 04:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' and '''Propose a strict ] standard''' for all involved editors. If editors cannot "always treat each other with consideration and respect... keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia... help maintain a pleasant editing environment" and "behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates" then immediate blocks should be imposed. Civility is a part of Misplaced Pages's code of conduct, and one of the pillars. Trying to enforce topic bans or other half-measures does not hold editors to our code of conduct; this is core to the project. --] (]) 05:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' interaction ban, '''support''' topic ban for andreasegde (or just a plain old site ban), '''oppose''' topic ban for GabeMc. I started copyediting the ] article during the FAC, after some light contributions to Beatles content over the years. Shortly before and after it was promoted, andreasegde and several others provoked arguments over issues like and . Worse, andreasegde has made blatant personal attacks on GabeMc, called him a liar ''repeatedly'', accused him of ulterior motives, and has otherwise shown gratuitous incivility to GabeMc and others. andreasegde is acting like a petulant child, screaming and stamping his feet when things don't go his way. As for GabeMC, he isn't 100% innocent; he has assumed bad faith on andreasegde's part and allowed himself to get into edit wars with him, though not without provocation. Yet GabeMc's presence on articles related to the Beatles and other music topics is a net positive, especially with his successful efforts to bring McCartney and other articles to featured status. <font color="green">]</font> (<font color="green">]</font>) 05:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC) (P.S.: I would also urge that ]'s part in all this not be overlooked. Though the recent SPI went nowhere, he's tried sockpuppetry before.) | |||
| :::Well I'm looking at those diffs and getting all excited that maybe I have the chance to give out a grump award, but this guy is not even a patch on Andy, who we all know and love, because he just doesn't let fly with the dictionary definitions like Andy does, andreasegde is too quiet and restrained if anything in those diffs, he is holding up better whilst under attack. But I'm keeping my eyes open on this one, because not everyone can measure up to Andy's level of grumpiness, he's a hard act to follow, so I'm looking for 20% Andy or so. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 05:57, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Opposed''' to any action against GabeMC and generally '''support''' action against Andreasegde WRT topic bans (or more). While I am not uninvolved w/ Gabe I find it absurd in the extreme that we would insist "both sides do it" in absence of any real evidence. Just because two editors appear at ANI and make a case doesn't make it "a pox on both your houses" each time. ] (]) 08:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Hey, what do you call this kind of thing ?=== | |||
| I had a look at ] to see just who was doing the canvassing if anyone, and wow, did I ever place my bets correctly. Anyhow, I'd be happy to hear what this continuous slab of contributions from GabeMc is about, because I love stories !!! | |||
| <small>I'm half arsed with the diffs, only a few are diffs, the others point to the sections and then just search for the name if you like, any editor in good standing can polish this up I give permission to uninvolved editors and whatsisname I placed my bet on, they can edit my text here directly to fix the diffs if they like to.</small> | |||
| 23:26, 8 July 2012 Koavf (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) | |||
| 23:25, 8 July 2012 LessHeard vanU (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) | |||
| 23:25, 8 July 2012 Catfish Jim and the soapdish (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) | |||
| 23:24, 8 July 2012 Metalello (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) (top) | |||
| 23:24, 8 July 2012 Leahtwosaints (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) | |||
| 23:23, 8 July 2012 Y2kcrazyjoker4 (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) (top) | |||
| 23:23, 8 July 2012 Ericdeaththe2nd (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) (top) | |||
| 23:22, 8 July 2012 comment only Hula Hup (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) | |||
| :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) | |||
| 23:17, 8 July 2012 Anthony Winward (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) | |||
| :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 === | |||
| 23:16, 8 July 2012 Ohconfucius/archive23 (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) | |||
| {{atop|1=Retaliatory. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|Bbb23}} has removed legitimately sourced information regarding the subject's involvement with the ]. Cheers ] (]) 21:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :What subject? ] (]) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@], see the directly above discussion. '']''<sup>]</sup> 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Tendentious editor == | |||
| 23:15, 8 July 2012 F4280 (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) (top) | |||
| 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) | |||
| 23:15, 8 July 2012 Nigelj (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) | |||
| :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 == | |||
| 23:14, 8 July 2012 Cresix (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) | |||
| {{Userlinks|Aidillia}} | |||
| 23:14, 8 July 2012 Jmcw37 (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) (top) | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| 23:12, 8 July 2012 Tearaway (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) (top) | |||
| Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. ] ] 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 23:12, 8 July 2012 Joefromrandb (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) | |||
| :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) | |||
| 23:11, 8 July 2012 Freakmighty (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) | |||
| ::] you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::] i upload as per their official social media. But rather used a poster version, and in the end i revert it. Same like what u did to me on ]. I don't know what is this user problem, first upload the incorrect poster than re-upload again with the correct poster which i already uploaded, then need a bot to resize it. (So unnecessary) <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I reverted that because it was too early to say that the poster is indeed the main one at that time when it was labeled as . You know that we rely more on ] ] ] rather on official website or social media accounts as they are ], so I don't know why you were offended by a revert. ] ] 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] and ]. I have other ] in real life. ] ] 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you're that busy, please stop reverting my edits/uploads without any clear explanation. Just like what you did on ]. You will just engaged in ]. I've also seen you revert on ]; someone reverted it to the correct one (which I uploaded), but you still revert to your preferred version without leaving an edit summary. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 08:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have partially blocked both of you from editing filespace for 72 hours for edit warring. I think an IBAN might be needed here. ] (]/]) 03:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Support''' an indefinite two-way interaction ban between D.18th and Aidillia. They've also been edit warring at ]. Also look at the move log there, which is ridiculous. These people need to stop fighting with each other. ] ] 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === User:D.18th === | |||
| 23:10, 8 July 2012 ] Penyulap (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) | |||
| {{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) | |||
| 23:09, 8 July 2012 WestwoodMatt (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) | |||
| <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) | |||
| 23:08, 8 July 2012 Support (I don't need any link here it's my Auntie Pesky who will wash my mouth out if I tell a fib) ThatPeskyCommoner (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) | |||
| :{{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 == | |||
| 23:07, 8 July 2012 Alarics (→Sgt. Pepper straw poll: new section) (top) | |||
| {{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) | |||
| was interesting as far as the summary goes... | |||
| ::Pinging @] who was involved in the prior ANI and performed the block. ] ] 04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Suggest these accounts to be blocked as soon as possible if sockpupperty is confirmed. ] (]) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], yes, that's how that goes. ] (]) 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 {{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'd also suggest it's worth 2 days outright, but this is more for turning down the equaliser in the middle, and bringing up the volume everywhere else, so the fishermen can do their business. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 05:38, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Request an immediate and extended range block for {{User|49.145.5.109}}, a certified sock of LTA ] from editing ] and other related pages pending a result of a protection request, the second to have been filed for that page after the first instance of sockpuppetry by the same account was deemed not serious enough. See also ]. ] (]) 07:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I call it the fallacy of selective observation. If you had been honest, you would have included that I pinged Andreas and several other editors known to oppose "the". Also, the bulk of the pings were to editors that have edited the page this year, and which I have absolutely no way of knowing how they would !vote. Did you also post Andreas' pings? Anyway, most of those links show me compromising and building a popular consensus, so thanks. Also, I pinged every registered user that has edited tha ''Pepper'' article this year. See Andreas' pings: , , , , , and , and . ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 06:07, 14 July 2012 (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) | |||
| :So you don't deny that this is one single slab of edits straight from your contribution list ? I just want to make that part easy for everyone first, then I'll get to the other. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 06:56, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm looking at a lot of diffs you are posting which are absolutely fine, what is wrong with post anyhow ? <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 07:07, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== VZ Holding == | ||
| {{atop|1=OP has been pointed to ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{archive top|This started with a content dispute with one editor claiming that an article should be merged due to a rule in an essay. The other editor said it should not because the rule didn't describe this particular situation. A discussion was started and the result was that there was no consensus to merge the particular article in question. All editors involved will remain civil going forward and try to reach consensus prior to any major changes (such as merge/redirect) to the article. -- ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{articlelinks|VZ Holding}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| Neutralhomer likes to ] | |||
| :It is nearly six months since they made an edit. ] (]) 12:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *] against claim that I am vandalizing page without looking at referenced sources | |||
| ::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) | |||
| **the article is tagged refimprove and Unreferenced | |||
| **vote for merger: 4 -- against: 4 | |||
| **] - ]: Subcarriers - Services carried over the same bandwidth as the broadcast signal, such as closed-caption news tickers, SAP audio programs, or digital radio and television subchannels, '''''generally do not merit separate articles''''' and should be covered in the station's main article. | |||
| ** but is clearly ] | |||
| ** "I'm sorry, but you don't know as much about television stations and naming conventions as you think you do and the snarky attitude isn't going to get you what you want." | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ** - that I don't know any thing about TV stations dispite my showing int the ] | |||
| ** over the vote (claims kept to delete is 5 to 2 dispite it being 4 to 4) and that there is anything more to discuss (the keep side still needs to show notability) and another personal attack to boot | |||
| **Here are various discussion at ] that indicate that they should be in the stations' article not general in their own article: | |||
| ***] | |||
| ***] | |||
| ***] - in effect indicates that subchannels are a part of the TV Station and are not another TV Station | |||
| ***] - again subchannels are not generally suppose to have their own article | |||
| ***] - another subchannels are not generally suppose to have their own article | |||
| ***] - 3 to 1 vote against subchannels recieving their own article with Neutralhomer for. | |||
| ***] - ignore earlier discussion, it comes up again. 3 to 2 against them having articles. With editors pointing out that Neutralhomer is talking nonsense and Neutralhomer wanting to close discussions. | |||
| ***] - once again subchannels are legally apart of the TV Station - "My view is, if the subchannel is significant and different enough to have a subpage, then it should, otherwise, it should remain on the primary page." NECRAT | |||
| *] another editor for removing unproperly source material. ANI for which I can not find in any archive. | |||
| *Threatens another editor over a request not to mention an ANI report that doesn't have to do with the thread dispite Neutralhomer's claim. | |||
| ** | |||
| **(cur | prev) 20:56, 12 July 2012 DreamMcQueen (talk | contribs) . . (21,393 bytes) (-515) . . (→Style and formatting issues: Keep your beef with me off the project page. Thank you very much.) (undo) | |||
| **(cur | prev) 20:51, 12 July 2012 Neutralhomer (talk | contribs) . . (21,908 bytes) (+515) . . (Reverted 1 edit by DreamMcQueen (talk): Don't do that again. (TW)) (undo) | |||
| **(cur | prev) 20:47, 12 July 2012 DreamMcQueen (talk | contribs) . . (21,393 bytes) (-515) . . (→Style and formatting issues: Neutralhomer, please keep your personal beef with me off this page. Let's stick to the topic. Thank you very much.) (undo) | |||
| **(cur | prev) 20:13, 12 July 2012 Neutralhomer (talk | contribs) . . (21,908 bytes) (+515) . . (→Style and formatting issues) (undo) | |||
| * about his behavior | |||
| *] with a newbie warning over an edit consistant with above TV Stations' subchannel discussion as and ] then | |||
| * and stalking me by looking at my sandbox collecting the above information | |||
| ] (]) 21:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I will jot it down. many thanks ] (]) 14:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *The above is hilariously funny coming from someone who is dwelling on something that ended a little over 2 months ago, back in May! A little over 2 months ago a Move/Merge Request Discussion was ended at ] with no consensus for move or delete. The discussion was started by ], and was closed by ], an admin. Today, I receive on my talk page (a little over 2 months after the discussion was closed) saying I was attacking users and gaming the system. Spshu tried to get consensus, failed, came back 2 months later with ] (what you see above) and more edit-warring at . Now we are here. This is someone who is dwelling on something that is ''long'' been closed, hell I completely forgot about, to continue to ]. Requesting this ANI thread be closed, Spshu admonished and the horse given a nice burial. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 22:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::] is completely unsourced so the ] on the editor that place it there. Notability has not been established. ] (]) 22:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::NO, Neutralhomer, you have been an ongoing Gamer of the system and WVIR-DT3 makes it current. Second through the discussion at ] you claimed that all discussions at WP:tv stations where in favor of subchannels getting their own page. I request that you point them out to me but you just repeat your statement. I thus did the research and find you are lying to game the system. ] (]) 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == SeanM1997 == | |||
| -- | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub>}} | |||
| Ok, Spshu, there was a merge/deletion discussion that didn't go your way. There has been some hostility from both camps, but it seemed to have cooled down. Let's ]. Also, please do not revert other people's talk page comments. -- ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *{{User|SeanM1997}} | |||
| ::Sorry, but I never reverted anyone's talk page comment, but Neutralhomer accused me of doing so during the WNEM-DT2 merge discussion and could not show me were I did that. Second the ] status is that subchannels do not general get their own article. So Neutralhomer needs to ]. ] (]) 22:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :By the way, let me be clear, I expect both of you to cool it. There's been some antagonism on both sides (templating regulars for example). Just stop, it's very easy to do. -- ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I have to agree with Selket. This escalated to ANI ''way'' too fast. The vast majority of the diffs are from a month or more ago. Here's what I see from recent history. Spshu redirected a page. Neutralhomer undid the redirect. Spshu left a note on Neutralhomer's page citing an event from May and that wasn't a problem as Spshu stated. Spshu then gathered up a history of virtually every edit of Neutralhomer that Spshu disagreed with. Neutralhomer "templated the regular" and Spshu went to ANI in response. This is entirely unnecessary. ] ] ] 22:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *{{EC}}: I am about as cool as I could get, I had completely forgotten about the WNEM discussion and about Spshu as I had taken the WNEM-DT2 page off my watchlist right after the discussion had been closed on May 9. I no longer have a horse in the race as the race is over and the horses are at the stables (to keep the "horse" metaphor going). Spshu came to me today, 2 months and 4 days after the fact, to continue something that had been closed and forgotten. I can't be any cooler, but obviously he is still dwelling on the subject. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 22:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :So your current attacks (]) and ) didn't then just accur? Nor his attacks on DreamMcQueen in the edit over his ANI when he was acting fine in ] nor 99.136.254.195 in ] removing unsourced material. ] (]) 22:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| This is about a pattern of behavior on Neutralhomer's part. ] (]) 22:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ryan please read the material, he has been attacking people as vandals back to 2007 and two other editors resently. ] (]) 22:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}}Your first diff is a warning. A warning is not considered a personal attack. It may have been a poor decision to use a template though. The second one didn't mention banning, it mentioned blocking and he didn't threaten you with it. He just expanded on the template and pointed that continuing in a similar behavior could get you blocked. Let's throw these sticks away now. I'm finding this entire ordeal disruptive. ] ] ] 22:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{EC}}: Oh, they did happen, but after 2 months and you are still dwelling, a warning to you was necessary. DreamMcQueen's behavior was dealt with by an admin (two actually) and found to be in violation of the rules and policies of Misplaced Pages. If you wish to continue to beat a dead horse, fine, sure, whatever, I'll saw you down a tree for sticks, but I was done on May 9. Go argue with someone else. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 22:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::You previously lost the argument over subchannels then claim false that they when your way. | |||
| ::::Ryan -- read this from that argument. "Hi Spshu, | |||
| Thanks for your note. I've sent NH the external link, and asked him not to give out vandalism warnings to good-faith contributors like yourself. "Firsfron of Ronchester 16:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)" | |||
| ::::A blocking or banning does it really matter what term he uses. | |||
| ::::That is interest that you have changed your tune now that it is at ANI. You already lost your argument here: ] - 3 to 1 vote against subchannels recieving their own article with Neutralhomer for. So you didn't follow ] from that argument to the WNEM-DT2 discussion. ] (]) 22:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This appears to be a content issue to me. Take it to the talk page of WENY-DT3 not here. ] ] ] 22:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| ::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 == | ||
| 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) | |||
| :{{userlinks|Fastballjohnd}} | |||
| : 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 == | |||
| Note- This account also has two socks, {{userlinks|Drjohndacquisto}} and {{userlinks|Johnd34}}, plus an IP {{userlinks|98.167.164.178}}, which has been used for the same purpose as the main account. A sock puppet investigation, resulted in the indefinite blocking of Johnd34 and Drjohndacquisto and a two day block on Fastballjohnd. | |||
| *{{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 == | |||
| Fastballjohnd has exclusively done edits involving former Major Leauge Baseball player ]. The editor has on more one occasion, here most recently, claimed to be the retired athlete. | |||
| In the 1990's(after his playing career was over) John D'Acquisto had several run ins with the law. They are chronicled in the article with supporting references. Here, here, and here. Beginning in August 2008 Fastballjohnd began editing the John Acquisto article. Part of his edit was the following | |||
| *{{userlinks|BittersweetParadox}} | |||
| '''He was sentenced to prison in 1996 for trying to pass off a forged certificate of deposit and was also indicted on charges of defrauding investors of about $7 million and on 39 counts of wire fraud and money laundering. In that case it was found that D'Acquisto was not responsible for any of the charges in the 39-count indictment and out of the 39 counts 37 were dropped and two were taken with no additional time, for misrepresentation. It was later found that the people who perpetrated the civil lawsuit and criminal investigations as well as the convictions against John D'Acquisto were arrested and are still serving jail sentances in Europe. The consensus is that John D'Acquisto was set up and used to cover up a larger scheme by others; according to the court documents in his sentencing memorandum , he never stole any money or committed fraud.''' | |||
| This user is persistently ]ing throughout most of their edits that aren't dealing with categories or redirects, see for example: | |||
| That edit was reverted. In January 2009, Fastballjohnd again edited the article giving a version of events that noone has been able to verify. I, and I only became aware of these edits about a month ago, have tried verifying the claims of Fastballjohnd using Google News archive, High Beam Research(which thanks to WP I have a subscription), and Newspaper Archive. My searches have found nothing verifying fastballjohnd's edits. | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * (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: | |||
| From Jan 2009 to May 2012 other edits were done to the John D'Acquisto article. I won't run them all down, just the highlights. | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| 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) | |||
| * Feb 2009 claim that news article was incorrect | |||
| * edit by Drjohndaquisto account putting in liks to court documents.(link is dead) | |||
| * Johnd34 putting in link to google documents.(link is dead) | |||
| * Additional commentary added by IP account. This was reverted here. | |||
| * IP blanks the part of the article referring to John D'Acquisto's legal problems. Then the IP edited in a new version. Again this was reverted. | |||
| ==Repeated pov pushing == | |||
| It was shortly after that I got involved. Note '''I did make edits''' to the article before June 2012 but they were not involved in any way with Fastballjohnd's or his sock's edits concerning John D'Acquisto's legal problems. If you want to see them, click here and 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. | |||
| Then on June 16 2012 I became aware of information edited in by fastballjohnd and did edits here and here. I made one last edit here. | |||
| After becoming aware of Mr. D'Acquisto's edits, I brought the matter to the attention of the Baseball Project here and asked for WP administrator The Bushranger to advise us. Which he did and he wrote '''As for his editing his own article, both ] and, given he's used three accounts, ] might be applicable.''' | |||
| So I took it to the COI board and got no response. As I stated earlier, I instituted a sockpuppet investigation. When I did each of these, I left messages on Fastballjohnd's talk page to notify him. | |||
| On June 29th, Mr. D'Acquisto aka Fastballjohnd responded on his talk page, I wrote back one day later. | |||
| Fastballjohnd edited the ] article again making claims again which I reverted because they can't be verified. I asked The Bushranger for advice again asking if I should come to ANI, The Bushranger replied that he thought it had risen to that level. So I brought it here today.] 14:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :As this user has not yet been notified, I have done so. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 14:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Now that I've done that, I want to weigh in. On the one hand, you have a whole bunch of COI edits. On the other hand, he ''is'' sourcing them; by the same principle that allows us to take sources under a paywall, we should be taking these. I guess the problem is that the COI makes it harder to just ] and take his word for it. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 14:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| See also, talk with ] ] (]) 19:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::My apologies. I did mean to notify him but forgot. In his last edit he claims a 1999 San Diego Union Tribune article would back up what he's say. The SDTU archives are behind a pay wall and I'd be willing to put up the small amount of cash to peek at the articles but the words I used for the search don't give me much confidence that I'll find anything verifying what D'Acquisto is saying. Plus If he was exonerated, this would have made news outside the SD area. His pleading guilty made the news wires.] 15:15, 12 July 2012 (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. | |||
| :::His sources are always broken links or like here inaccessible. Their inaccessibility I pointed out to him but got no reply. He instead changed his tune to it being reported in the newspaper. It's very hard to AGF considering the COI plus broken links and shifting edits.] 16:02, 12 July 2012 (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 ] == | |||
| ===Proposed remedy=== | |||
| I propose that '''all other accounts being used by Fastballjohnd be indef blocked if they haven't already, that Fastballjohnd be formally restricted to a single account (no legit alternates), and that they be banned (not just discouraged) from making edits to articles in which they have a ].''' Fastballjohnd is still permitted, of course, to make edits to talk pages of articles in which they have a COI, as long as those edits do not violate ] or any other relevant policy or guideline (such as ] or ]). - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 04:33, 14 July 2012 (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. | |||
| *<small>Restored from archive with post-dated datestamp. ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 22:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| 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): | |||
| == Likely sockpuppeting from banned user XB70Valyrie == | |||
| About a month ago ], was for highly volatile behavior, personal attacks and violating ]. He specifically was active in trying to to the political activities of the koch family page and was attacking administrator Arthur rubin, going as far as creating and posting a youtube video about rubin with nothing but personal attacks. He was banned for those reasons and for sock puppeting, and has a . Most of the sock puppets start with 99 and a few are 99.181. | |||
| 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). | |||
| Since this happened I've been on the lookout for more IP's with similar activity because when he was banned, he threatened that he would use multiple IPs to continue to harass Arthur and disrupt Misplaced Pages: "I can have a different IP every night, if I like". I noticed this IP () that popped up has been constantly reverting Arthur rubin on multiple pages (, , , , ) and has been involved with the political activities of the koch family again (, ). In this section of the the IP is involved in a discussion with Arthur. Looking at the discussion, there are 9 different IP addresses that respond as if they are all the same person. These are the IPs: , , , , , , , , . Each of these IPs are very similar to each other and also very similar to the . If you look at the contributions of each, you'll find even more similarities. It seems ] that these IP's are XB70Valyrie and he's using them to continue disruptive editing. Since he was banned indefinitely and has threatened that he would do this with multiple IP's, I think these IP's need to be blocked and added to the list of his sock puppets. Is this enough evidence to do that, and is there some way to block that 99.181 ip range as well? ] (]) 22:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Is it possible Arthur had some other sock or editor with a vendetta against him? ] ] ] 22:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's possible and I'm sure and Arthur could weigh in on that, but I think based on the fact that the IP ranges here are so similar to the ones already in the list of suspected socks for XB70Valyrie strongly suggests that it's the same user. That is coupled with the fact that he basically stated that he would be using multiple IPs to continue to harass Rubin. I noticed some more evidence: On he had multiple IP's post to the talk page talking about Arthur. The majority of those IP's started with 99.181 or with something similar to the one's listed above. It seems that he was talking to himself on his page. ] (]) 22:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::A checkuser would have have to have checked XB70Valyrie's IPs, but I really don't think these 99.181 IPs are XB70, nor are they the same person as the one who caused his stable base IP (97.87.28.188 at the Kalamazoo Public Libary) to be blocked for 5 years. They are disruptive, but I notice none of them have restored the particular statement which XB70 had insisted on creating. My sock-sorting skills (both here, and in real life) are not great, so I could be wrong, but I think (most of) the ] are improperly tagged. That being said, I did block some of them this month, but I think that was wrong, also. — ] ] 23:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I see. Was there no checkuser done on XB70 after he was banned to check for the IP's he used? If not, that would probably be a good idea. I just think it'd be tough to call it a coincidence that so many IP's with such similar ranges would be posting in the same talk pages. ] (]) 23:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: There were one or two IPs which were clearly XB70 (same edits, some articles), but I don't recall what they were. ] was analysing my data (those IPs which I'm sure are the same people) for ranges to block, but I don't recall which IPs were clearly XB70 (making the same edits ''before'' XB70 did, although XB70 has been around for a while). — ] ] 00:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Checkuser will not disclose relationships between registered users and IP under almost all circumstances. Sometimes a CU can check their old logs and roughly match up, but that varies from CU to CU as it is as much art as science, but ] would be the place to file rather than here. ] - ] ] 02:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Or, as they say, {{magicpixiedust}}. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 05:56, 14 July 2012 (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. | |||
| == User Writegeist is Wikihounding either me or user Collect == | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] is ] either me or ] because he/she knows an edit I provided to User:Collect that he/she cannot have known about unless he/she was Wikihounding either me or Collect. The edit I made was admittedly a rather crude statement about a user's behaviour, I have since apologized to that user for it, here is the apology: . If you at the noticeboard wish to take a reprimanding action against be for making that uncivil remark about that user, I will accept your judgement. However there is a conflict of interest between Writegeist towards me. | |||
| This one is easily one of the strangest situations I've ever encountered on Misplaced Pages. ] 20:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Important background info:''' First of all Writegeist and I are not on good terms, our tensions began when at the WQA noticeboard, I went there to seek assistance to resolve a dispute between user Collect and ]. Writegeist as a WQA volunteer insulted another WQA volunteer, and if I remember correctly he told that WQA volunteer in a condescending manner to get a desk job. I got angry that Writegeist as a WQA volunteer was insulting another WQA volunteer rather than helping resolve the issue, I told her/him that I thought he/she was behaving incompetently for insulting that volunteer. The volunteer reported Writegeist for uncivil behaviour - particularly trolling. And after some aggravating comments later, our relations with each other since then have been hostile to say the least. I did get very uncivil with him, as he did with me. I have told this user to leave me alone and stay away from me. However Writegeist continued to make condescending remark about me, after our discussions ended, to other users. Writegeist has also has made condesending remarks about user Collect to other users, after discussions with Collect ended. | |||
| :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) | |||
| '''Now then:''' Writegeist knows about an edit I made to Collect's talk page even though Writegeist has been inactive on both of our talk pages for at months. Since Writegeist has bad relations with both Collect and me, why does he/she know about the edits that I have made on Collect's talk page? The only answer I clearly see, is that he is Wikihounding either Collect or me. I am asking for necessary action to be taken to stop Wikihounding either me or Collect, or both of us. The location for the comments by Writegeist are here: --] (]) 00:35, 14 July 2012 (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. ] 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :How about we take this off of ANI, of all places? ] (]) 21:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, this feels quite appropriate considering your abusiveness and that your retaliation involved damaging some articles. I said there I was asking a policy question and was happy to let it go, you've edited over 100 articles from my edit history in direct sequence in response to that question, which is just strange behaviour for an editor. ] 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Obviously, if there's someone who's making bad decisions on Misplaced Pages (You), I want to check if he has messed up articles. Please tell me what articles you think I have damaged. ] (]) 21:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, I'd appreciate if you would stop casting aspersions about me being an LLM. ] (]) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I said then, and as I'll say again: If there's not an LLM involved in this situation, then I'm sincerely sorry. It was a combination of clearly assisted editing and the verbiage used that looked concerning. ] 21:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There was no assisted editing. Stop spreading that blatant falsehood. This is why I say to take this off of ANI. It is stuff that is made up in your head that has no basis in reality. ] (]) 21:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<s>Unless you're doing regex with your eyes, clearly you're using assistance. And the fact you're (still!) doing something that fixes the same type of typo almost as fast as I can click "Random Article" indicates you're doing more than just regex. You're finding these articles somehow.</s> <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 22:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I am doing an "insource" search using regex. ] (]) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I learned about insource searches recently and was able to find spam by the boatload immediately. It is a great tool. ] (]) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Ah . I wasn't aware one could do that. I retract. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 22:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And, I would appreciate if you would stop calling my edits strange and odd. ] (]) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You had over 100 edits in a row directily in chronological sequence, from newest to oldest, of my exact edit history excluding wikiprojects and talk pages. I'm allowed to find that a little strange. ] 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why shouldn't someone call strange and odd edits strange and odd? ] (]) 21:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I suggest you stop with the personal attacks before you get blocked. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe I'm a little less forgiving than Tarlby, so I would suggest that {{u|KMaster888}} should be blocked/banned already. Knowing how to write regular expressions doesn't give anyone the right to ignore policy about such issues as civility and hounding. ] (]) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have not ignored policy on either civility or hounding. The fact is, there are no automation tools that I have used, and this has been constructed as a theory entirely as a falsehood. It is annoying that one Misplaced Pages user constantly spouts falsehoods about me. ] (]) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll just ask you straight up.{{pb}}Do you feel any remorse for this statement? {{tq|remove asshole}} {{pb}}Could you explain why you felt it was best to choose those two words when blanking your talk page? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And again: {{tq|@The Corvette ZR1 @Tarlby stop clogging up ANI with your comments.}} ]<sup>]</sup> 22:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::, , , , , ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And this: and this: ] (]) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That was because Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. I would say the same to you as I said to the other editor: get off my back. ] (]) 21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You have to abide by the rules like the rest of us. And cool it with the hostile edit summaries. ]] 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are clearly ]. Attacking other editors instead of backing off, inappropriate edit summaries, what next? ]<sup>]</sup> 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There ought to be a gossip noticeboard that doesn't clog up ANI. ] (]) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I will dispute what you said. I AM HERE to build an encyclopedia. Why do you think I would have given 10,000 edits worth of my time if I didn't care? ] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I would say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, ] and ] tell me the contrary. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Regardless of their editing or otherwise, KMaster888's comments in edit summaries ''and here'' indicate they're ] in a way that indicates an inability to participate in a collaborative encyclopedia. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The product of Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which is a body of written and visual work. It is first and foremost about the product, not the community. In this sense, it is indeed a collaborative encyclopedia, but it should not be considered an encyclopedic collaboation. ] (]) 23:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: ] over what "collaboration" is doesn't help when you're in blatant violation of ] of the ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'm not Wikilawyering. I would also encourage you to come to a discussion on my talk page over small potatoes instead of at ANI. ] (]) 23:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: is wikilawyering. And this is at ANI, so the discussion is taking place at ANI. Answering the concerns about your conduct that were raised here on here is how you resolve the issue, not "don't talk about it on ANI", as the latter gives the impression of trying to sweep them under the rug - especially since your edit summaries MrOllie linked above make it clear this is very much not "small potatoes". - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's some more diffs of KMaster888 being uncivil. From my user talk page. . I think these are forgivable if in isolation since KMaster888 may be frustrated by false accusations of being a bot, but if it's a pattern, it may need addressing. | |||
| :The ] and ] of my user talk page and of this ANI is also a behavioral problem that, if a pattern, may also need addressing. It is disrespectful to interlocutor's time and brainpower to dominate discussions by replying to everything. –] <small>(])</small> 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unless there are specific discussion rules, I should not be penalized for responding to comments that involve me. ] (]) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The problem isn't you responding to those comments. It's about HOW you responded to those comments. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are, in fact, {{tqq|specific discussion rules}} - ] and ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Propose indefinite block=== | |||
| :Examine WGs UT page - which has ''for over three years'' now been heavily devoted to me - with over 3500 words. Or WGs posting history on noticeboards, which show a marked propensity to find threads in which I participate, with a likelihood of him disputing me of 105% or more <g>. Or his "remarks" to another editor clearly referring to me - which comprise a ''huge'' percentage of his UT posts. Wikihounding requires that he have some chance of driving me off Misplaced Pages - which he has thus far failed to do. He is thus more of a gnat than anything else - but his posts indicating that he is following ''your'' edits as well is ''disturbing'' and quite contrary to any Misplaced Pages policies at all. Cheers. ] (]) 01:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked and TPA revoked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::This tool might be handy, which shows the 109 pages you both have edited, and the 26 in common with WG and R-41. I don't have time to go through them myself, but wanted to provide that for you. ] - ] ] 02:44, 14 July 2012 (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) | |||
| (ec) R-41's post is a bit short on diffs. | |||
| :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. | |||
| WQA thread (R-41 reporting editor Bryonmorrigan for "being combative and uncivil towards User:Collect"), which R-41 refers to above: | |||
| :] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 03:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ===Investigating the hounding claim=== | |||
| Writegeist/R-41 interaction at User talk:Bryonmorrigan, where R-41's threat "if I ever saw you in person I would let out my excess liquids from my kindneys onto your feet" is one of my most treasured Misplaced Pages gems. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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. | |||
| Writegeist's comments re. R-41 at Writegeist's UTP, which R-41 refers to: | |||
| :Sorry for the drama, by the way. ] 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *R-41/Writegeist interaction at Writegeist's UTP | |||
| ::Ah that makes sense. I didn't think of the multiple edits to a page thing. No worries about the drama. –] <small>(])</small> 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please don't apologise for this. Nobody should have to put up with such behaviour. ] (]) 09:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:FMSky == | |||
| *ANI report which R-41 refers to: Report alleged "trolling" and kind of fizzled out. R-41 added numerous other allegations, including that I and another editor "have had long-term relations". Fortunately Mrs. Writegeist has a sense of humour. | |||
| {{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. | |||
| *R-41's personal attack on editor The Four Deuces at Collect's talk page: | |||
| 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 ). | |||
| *R-41's personal attack on The Four Deuces at DRN: | |||
| 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) | |||
| *Writegeist advice to R-41 at DRN: | |||
| :@], 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) | |||
| *R-41's response: (hope this is the right diff, he posted about ten different iterations of the same post, with different comments in each). | |||
| 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) | |||
| *Writegeist's response to R-41's response: | |||
| *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 ] == | |||
| *Writegeist's comments addressed to R-41 at Writegeist's UTP: | |||
| *{{userlinks|Bgsu98}} | |||
| Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.<br /> | |||
| *R-41's response (which I subsequently removed): | |||
| 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. | |||
| Please note, I have not "had relations" with my dear old friend Collect or R-41 (I'm not into water sports anyway, and (s)he has expressed a desire to urinate on my feet, which is a deal-breaker for me). Or any other wikiperson whatsoever. Not even a peck on the cheek. I do wish R-41 would stop these salacious and totally groundless allegations. Note (2): the bulk of the 3500 words on my talk page that Collect claims are "about" him comprises a dialogue with him that I copied from his talk page--in which he made really quite spectacularly unfounded and unsupported allegations against me. Why did I copy it from his page to mine? Because he doctored the thread by removing contributions from me that did not serve his agenda of giving the allegations a semblance of veracity, and I wanted the thread accurately documented. Oy vey, thread-doctoring by an old friend! Who can you trust these days? ] (]) 03:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :''{Comment removed by me due to advice by other users)'' Yes, you are sure right I was uncivil then, I was very angry at you. I do not want to talk to you, nor have any interaction with you since I saw your snotty patronizing insult against that WQA volunteer who was trying to help out users. Most of what you did there as a WQA volunteer, was say cynical remarks, and you had a bias against Collect when you said that you didn't care about what he said while you backslapped and joked with Bryonmorrigan, you were supposed to help the two resolve a dispute between them, but you didn't take it seriously. Your behaviour there was incompetent and disgusting to me. That WQA volunteer you insulted, reported you - it was your own fault for being reported for that. I despise you, and I have told you to leave me alone because I desire no further contact with you to avoid another confrontation like this. You have not complied. You have spoken about me and Collect on your talk page to other users after our discussions ended. Why are you telling your friends about TFD's edits in a condescending manner? If they are not in the discussion you've had with Collect, it is none of your business to tell them what he said, so you have violated Collect's personal privacy. Your entire purpose for posting at the dispute resolution noticeboard was about your vendetta against me.--] (]) 03:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please edit your posts offline and then post them here when done. Repeatedly re-editing and reposting them here makes for unneeded edit conflicts. So, anyway. I can't be right about something I haven't said; your threat was too hilarious to be "uncivil". About anger, someone advised: "When angry, count to four; when very angry, swear" -- quite good, I think. ]'s books on non-violent communication might also be helpful despite the wooden prose. (I think he's brilliant.) And your assumption about a vendetta is mistaken. I have robustly defended Collect in the past, and I don't see it as beyond the realms of possibility that I might defend you likewise in the future. To me, R-41 is just another avatar on a website, and I take each post on its merits. And anyway I'm not Sicilian. Vendetta? Mama mia! I'm done here. Have at it! ] (]) 04:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::''{Comment removed by me due to advice by other users)''.--] (]) 04:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK I'll bite. I feel sad for your partner. But I hope you won't mind me saying a Misplaced Pages noticeboard isn't really the place to discuss her suffering. Just a thought. ] (]) 05:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::While I, too, feel sad for your partner, I feel compelled to point out that...um...you're on the Internet. Which means it's very hard to avoid sexual references/humor. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 05:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And you are on a very highly watched page on a one of the Internet's most popular websites. ] process info is at the top of this page.--] (]) 05:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And you can't be raped by your partner! - ] said at 05:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::''{Comment removed by me due to advice by other users)''.--] (]) 05:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::My daddy told me not to be smart with strangers, but he had consent if he was her partner! I'm gonna need a citation needed on that one, ha ha ha! - ] said at 05:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Can someone please get this laughing psychopathic user ] blocked from Misplaced Pages for what he has just said.--] (]) 05:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{ec}}Consent does not work that way. Blocked for personal attacks for 24 hours. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 05:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Hey, R-41, no personal attacks and no legal threats, please. ] (]) 05:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::<small>What legal threat? - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 05:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::::::::::I will take down the comments where I mentioned my partner earlier here shortly, it is true, but I didn't need to bring it up here. But I will leave this comment here for a bit of context, I get very frustrated and saddened when I look out at the world and think of the kind of comment that the user ] just said about the situation that my partner had been in with her ex, I don't know what kind of human being would say that. That makes what I am frustrated with Writegeist about, mild in comparison. That statement by that user really has put me off, I'm leaving this conversation, talk with the user Collect, he/she says that Writegeist has been abusively tracking his edits for three years.--] (]) 06:08, 14 July 2012 (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. | |||
| It is not mysterious why Writegeist would pay attention to a dispute filed against me by R-41 about Fascism at DRN that mentioned Collect. Writegeist, R-41, Collect and myself have all been active on the Fascism article for over 3 years. Writegeist is also active at DRN. Writegeist has also conducted discussions with both Collect and R-41 on their talk pages. So when R-41 launched what he admits to be a personal attack against me at DRN, Writegeist may have seen the other personal attacks on his watchlist or may have looked at R-41's recent edit history to see if he were making attacks elsewhere. None of this amounts to wikihounding. | |||
| 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. | |||
| I notice that Collect has asked R-41 to e-mail him about possibly starting an RfC/U against me. Collect writes, "I was victim of an "orchestrated" one ] with 14 people CANVASSed for it." Collect also asked R-41 to e-mail him on May 31st, after R-41 brought a WQA against me. | |||
| 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) | |||
| My suggestion is to close this thread and go back to discussing the content dispute at DRN. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ] (]) 07:06, 14 July 2012 (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) | |||
| : This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. ] ] 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] claims to be polite, yet wrote : ''"random people at AfD don't care about actually checking the notability and just vote "delete per nom"''. Pinging ] who also found that comment objectionable. I have made an effort to thank editors who have participated in my AFD's, regardless of whether they have always agreed with my findings, because AFD's that end in "no consensus" do nothing but waste everyone's time. | |||
| :He has been adversarial and confrontational in every communication to me. From ]: ''"By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD... Like, you nomitated ] 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale... Are you planning to nominate it 100 times?"'' | |||
| :I always appreciate constructive feedback when it's delivered in a courteous and professional manner. ] seems incapable of courtesy or professionalism. ] ] 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*C'mon, ], civility goes both ways. We can discuss the value of these articles and the AFD process without attacking each other. Flinging mud doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*:I apologize, ]; I am just at my wit's end with this editor. ] ] 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Here's my take, ]. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:As I have been pinged on this discussion I thought I would 1 confirm I did find @] to be somewhat rude and condescending in their repeated assertions that those who vote on these skating AFDs do not do any research and are basically sheep just voting delete and 2 most of these nominated bios are a few sentences or just a table of stats copy and pasted so @] I doubt anyone spent hours putting them together. Finally I feel @] is now looking to use any procedure they can to try and besmirch @] and derail their valid efforts to remove some of the seemingly thousands of sports bios that do not meet current Misplaced Pages guidelines and are of interest to few, if any, general reader. If anyone is in need of reprimand or sanction over this matter (which has been blown out of all proportion), it is @] ] (]) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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? == | ||
| {{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 == | |||
| * {{userlinks|99.90.197.87}} | |||
| *{{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) | |||
| It is just plain gibberish today from this user. I first noticed at ], but the user's history is littered with warnings and a half-dozen blocks going back to Nov 2011 for the exact same thing. Is it time for something lengthy/permanent? ] (]) 05:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:26, 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
- AI-generated images depicting living people
- 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)
Category: