| Revision as of 06:35, 15 October 2012 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 24h) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:46, 7 January 2025 edit undoScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators60,963 edits Undid revision 1267970921 by Ping909 (talk) rv sockTag: Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} | |||
| <noinclude></noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}__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 | |||
| }}<!--{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive | |||
| |format=%%i | |||
| |age=24 | |||
| |index=no | |||
| |numberstart=756 | |||
| |minarchthreads= 1 | |||
| |minkeepthreads= 4 | |||
| |maxarchsize= 700000 | |||
| |key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{stack end}} | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| <!-- | |||
| New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| As this page concerns INCIDENTS: | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | |||
| Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header. | |||
| == Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from ] == | |||
| ], a known transphobic editor from pt.wiki, is after his actions led me to leave that wiki permanently. He has also harassed me on Wikimedia Commons. I don't know what to do anymore. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace. This is severely impacting my mental health. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You don't seem to have notified the other editor. This is mandatory and this section may be closed if you fail to do so. Use <nowiki>{{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> on that user's talk page. Additionally, you don't seem to have provided specific diffs demonstrating harassment. Please do so. --] (]) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::On pt.wiki, DarwIn proposed the deletion of articles I created about transgender topics ( and ), using transphobic arguments, including misgendering and questioning the validity of transgender children. After translating these articles to en.wiki, he is , again focusing on his personal transphobic beliefs - as it shows, he doesn't even know how DYK works. He insisted multiple times trying to include his transphobic comment on that page and has just edited it again. On Commons, for extra context, DarwIn unilaterally deleted images related to these articles, despite being clearly involved in the dispute. | |||
| ::Again, I just want to collaborate with trans topics in peace. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --] (]) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes. However, context is important. This is harassment that began on pt.wiki, has spread to Commons, and is now here. The history has been provided, but, sure, I can provide the diffs instead. He has unilaterally and , despite this being not how DYK works. This is because he really doesn't know, as he only sporadically edits here and only came back to harass me. is explicitly transphobic and doesn't focus on the article itself at all. After his comment was reverted by me, saying that I shouldn't call it transphobia, despite it being transphobia. After being reverted again, . I asked him to , but . | |||
| ::::I just don't want to be targeted by that editor here. I've left pt.wiki in great part for that reason. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace here. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like yet another cross-wiki troll by this user. Already , the account is now promoting their POV here, including spreading lies, hideous slurs and baseless accusations against me like "known transphobic", after two of their creations were taken to community evaluation at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for lacking notability. The user is also a known sockpuppeter, at the Portuguese Wikipédia. In any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this case in yet another project apart from the strictly needed, so do as you please.] ] 13:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have been blocked on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. ] ] 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And here's explicit transphobia. It's her '''daughter''', no matter how much you hate the idea of trans children existing. The story you've told is also completely distorted. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I simply don't want this editor targeting me with transphobic stuff here after he target me on pt.wiki (and left it permanently in great part for that reason) and Commons. I am considering taking medication because of these events. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Suspension of article movepage rights of ] == | |||
| :Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway.] ] 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I am requesting that Kauffner’s pagemove rights be temporarily suspended for failing to cease moving articles that are controversial. This editor has been heavily involved in the requested moves (there are a number of ongoing requested moves on the subject) and discussions concerning the use of Vietnamese diacritics in article titles. | |||
| :I think Darwin should avoid interacting with Skyshifter on all spaces on en.wikipedia.org. It's clear Darwin has made Skyshifter feel uncomfortable, and I don't appreciate it.]] 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. ] ] 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary ], broadly construed, as in effect.]] 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] yes, that's correct. ] ] 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I think a one-way interaction ban between the editors would be for the best here. While I think there is some merit to a Gender and Sexuality tban, as some of Darwin's recent edits appear to be about ] in the topic area, I believe the interaction ban would solve most of the issues raised here. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? ] ] 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::All your edits related to the subject, both here and on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] You're evaluating my edits on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages to punish me ''in the English Misplaced Pages?'' ] ] 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] Can you explain how my general edit history in wiki.pt is relevant in any way to an accusation of cross-wiki harassment? ] ] 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Would recommend that Darwin ''walk away'' from the general topic. This would avoid any need for topic bans. ] (]) 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *On 12 September, during a the requested move discussion at ], I informed ] and ] that both needed to cease moving articles for the purpose of inserting and deleting diacritics from Vietnamese articles without discussion, as the issue was controversial.. This seemed neither odd nor unreasonable because requested moves of that subject rarely showed a clear consensus. | |||
| *On 21 September Kauffner moved ] to ] without employing ] | |||
| *On 24 September, after putting that move up for discussion, I reemphasized that actioning moves that either inserted or removed diacritics was controversial and needed to be discussed.. I also made clear that I was checking their logs of every couple of days to ensure that neither was inserting or removing Vietnamese diacritics in/from names without discussion. | |||
| *On 5 October, Kauffner moved ] to ] (removing the diacritics) , without discussion. | |||
| ;Clarification | |||
| Given I had made two rather clear warnings on this exact subject I don’t believe a temporary rights withdrawal is either unreasonable nor excessive, but nonetheless leave the issue with you. --] (]) 17:46, 9 October 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. | |||
| *As for misgendering, I am one of the founders and former board member of ], which after 30 years still is the main LGBT association in Portugal, though not an active member for many years for moving away from Lisbon, where it's headquartered. For more than 30 years I've been on the fight against homophobia and transphobia, not specially in Misplaced Pages, but on the streets, where it was needed in the 1990s here in Portugal, when the whole LGBT thing was just starting and most people couldn't even tell the difference between a drag queen and a trangender woman. I was beaten up, lost my 2 front teeth on homo/transphobic street fights (the first one at 18 years old, for publicly defending from booers in the audience a trangender girl which was acting at a local bar )- and whatelse. I never had even the least impulse to misgender any of the many trangender people that always have been around me, and the few situations where that may have happened were online with people that I knew for years as being one gender, and took a while to sink they are another, because online there's not the ever helping visual clue. So it's kind of disheartening to be treated like this in a strange place by people I don't know just because I expressed an (harsh, agreed) opinion defending the age of consent for children, and condemning their parents interference on that. | |||
| *The TBan is not very relevant for me, as I seldom edit here and despite the activism of my past days LGBT is not my primary interest on Misplaced Pages, but I'm considerably saddened by the misunderstandings, bad faith assumptions, false accusations that have been told here about me, though eventually the flaw is not in the whole group that has their own rules and culture, but in the newcomer which don't understand it well in all its nuances, as was my case here. | |||
| *Finally, as the misunderstandings continue, I never came here after Skyshifter, which as is public and she knows, I've always considered a good editor and helped several times with articles and what else (which is also why I felt confident to answer with a 😘 when she called me a dictator in another project, though it was obviously not the most appropriate way to answer it, and for which I apologize to Skyshifter). In this last row I wasn't even directly involved in her indefinite block in wiki.pt, despite being mentioned there. I didn't even touched the articles she created here on ] and ] or addressed she here in any way. I came here because of the DYK note, which, as said above, I thought was an exaggerated exposition for that case here on the English Misplaced Pages. As you extensively demonstrated here, it is not, and I defer to your appreciation. Despite that, after this whole situation I've not the least interest on interacting in any possible way with Skyshifter, with or without IBan. | |||
| *And that's it. Hopefully you'll excuse my verbosity, specially in such a festive day, but I felt this last clarification was needed. I also present my apologies to all those who may have felt offended by an eventual appearance of cockiness or defiance which I inadvertently sometimes transmit in my speech. I'll return here if specifically asked to, otherwise I'll leave the debate for this community. Again, stay well, and have an happy new year. ] ] 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposed Community Sanctions=== | |||
| :*Hey, I am always happy to be on ANI. I want to emphasize that I have never received, or even requested, a privileged status with regard to moving articles, or anything else for that matter. It's not true that I moved Thuy Nga without discussion. I wrote a little explanation . As for Bac Kan, it's a town, not a city. Even if it was a city, there is no reason for it to have a pre-disambiguator. I was reversing a move made in bad faith. If you are interested in diacritics, I give an exhaustive explanation . Labattblueboy seems to think that Vietnamese diacritics is a hot subject and that this leads to controversy. No! IIO has a grudge against me, follows me around where ever I edit, has a beef with everything, and complains everywhere. ] (]) 19:10, 9 October 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) | |||
| * '''Good Idea''', although I don't believe “move” is a right that can be unchecked, so it would be a formal restriction. Kauffner has been hugely disruptive regarding diacritics for years and this is overdue. cf GoodDay's AC-imposed ] re diacritics for much the same long term disruption. ] (]) 19:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' -] (]) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment:''' As long as Kauffner is willing to see a controversial move reversed, and as long as there is no evidence that a particular move will be controversial, I don't see any need for restrictions here. Clearly there are two opposing diacritic factions and equally clearly neither of them has a claim on exactitude, so we shouldn't be restricting anyone here unless an editor is move warring or obviously moving against consensus. Moving articles is one way of testing consensus. ] <small>(])</small> 19:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:I note that Darwin has agreed above to the IBan. -] (]) 18:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' No statement one way or the other on restrictions, per se, but two notes on either side of this: 1) ] still has Bold as a part of it, if a move he makes is contested, you're allowed to revert it, and then he should discuss it. If you want to contest one of the three moves above, revert and start a discussion. I don't see that that has been done yet (I see lots of admonishments to stop, but that does not amount to a discussion). 2) On the other hand, acting in a '']'' manner isn't productive: that is, through sheer volume of action establishing a convention which isn't strictly decided is usually a bad idea. I don't see this at that level ''yet'' (three moves is hardly a "fait accompli" maneuver). Lastly, I am troubled by the statements by Kauffner that dodge the issue being put bluntly before him. Two of his moves changed diacritics ''and something else'', and his responses are defending his moves based on the "something else", without addressing the point of contention. That should be corrected going forward. If someone is raising the issue of moving articles and changing diacritics in the process, that specific point needs to be discussed without distraction of unrelated issues. --]''''']''''' 20:14, 9 October 2012 (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) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I don't really have much opinion on the core situation, but just to toss in that at least a small part of this saga played out on a ] of my talk page over the last couple of days. This should be added into the mix by anyone examining the recent history of this kerfuffle. - ] (]) 20:39, 9 October 2012 (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) | |||
| **It can seen in . ] (]) 07:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban and IBAN''', both broadly construed - sorry GoodDay but I do not trust this user's words, and so we need a proper sanction. ]] 18:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Interesting. Looks like we do have a diacritic war of sorts in progress. There is also ] on RM. I don't like the idea of forcing everyone to assume a move is controversial so perhaps all parties need to be reminded that ] is an acceptable process and that, since we don't actually have a diacritics or no-diacritics policy in place, each page move needs to be considered on its own merits. I don't see enough evidence to conclude that Kauffner was disingenuously moving articles to non-diacritic titles but that is also something worth watching out for. ] <small>(])</small> 20:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Just read through the above and ''good grief''. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::You make it sound like this is something new and shocking. IIO has been doing dozens and dozens of these mass move requests and also 1000's of non-requests to diacritics across this and every other wikipedia and topic all this year. This is the norm and he and several friends rarely consider each article on it's own merit or whether a rm has recently failed or not. It's not just Vietnamese diacritics, it's all diacritics. I won't get into merits on this one particular incident but it seems silly to talk of the flyswatter and not the fly. I think Kauffner is just reaching a breaking point with this editor. ] (]) 21:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I said above I would support this proposal if it was brought forward, and I do. ] (]) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Like I say above, I don't see any need for action against Kauffner. Rather, it is the other editor who needs to be reminded about BRD and about proposing page moves individually. If you believe that IIO needs to be sanctioned somehow then that's a different matter and, since I don't follow the diacritic battles, I can't really comment on that without further evidence. ] <small>(])</small> 22:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:::: No, the root of this mess is years of disruption by Kauffner. I've not been following this closely, but there are various archived threads about this. He's made a great many controversial moves and there was an issue with many IPs being used to mess with talk pages to hide old RM discussions so that new ones could be falsely proposed as uncontroversial (somethin' like that, at least;) ] (]) 22:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::It's not possible to revert moves wherein the article is first moved then a G6 is employed to salt the route back. The edit history of ] shows this was conduced it this case. The better question would be is an action still considered bold if you are aware that the action is controversial bordering on disruptive. BRD itself states "Bold editing is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing without consensus". The only consensus appears to be that editors are generally tired of Vietnamese diacritic moves of any kind, the requested moved at ] seems to be the clearest indication of that. Given the entire topic is controversial (you need not look further than the half dozen at ] to see that) is the request that such moved be addressed at a central venue that unreasonable?--] (]) 02:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Unreasonable, no. But definitely avoidable unless necessary. If ] is the tip of the iceberg (and, scanning RM/C I see quite a few others), then we're going to get bogged down by these move discussions. The problem with diacritics is that each article needs to be evaluated in isolation (what do English language sources say), so group moves are generally not possible. It might actually be more practical to just ban both of these guys from making or proposing any move from a diacritic title to a non-diacritic title or vice versa and be done with it. It might not be fair but may turn out to be the only way to deal with this without a load of overhead. Just a thought. ] <small>(])</small> 02:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::RegentsPark, with respect I hope you are agreed that there is a difference between: | |||
| :::::::::(A) 1600x undiscussed moves - 800x of them counter the ] RMs, and 1600x BRD-locks on one hand, and | |||
| :::::::::(B) putting in a democratic RM to give the community opportunity apply the majority view of both RfCs on the subject. | |||
| :::::::::There is a difference, yes? ] (]) 03:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Just a thought In ictu oculi. Not something I necessarily support. I'd rather not see anyone banned from anything. ] <small>(])</small> 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''', plus he seems to have the habit of adding irrelevant tags in his undiscussed moves to prevent everyone to revert then without a good amount of work, as , , , , , , , and .] (]) 23:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::You know what I like about you? Your sense of humor. ] (]) 07:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - but a hefty caveat: I am not neutral here; although I only became aware of this issue in March 2012 I have been creating Polish bios with Polish names for years and do not have much sympathy with en.wp's English-names-for-Poles lobby. I also was in Hanoi in the early 90s, speak Vietnamese, and believe that Vietnamese people deserve the same lexical respect from en.wp as Polish people. But I am able to detach, and when standing back do recognise that even Slavophile editors may not share my view on the second point. | |||
| :As I see it there are 2 separate issues: (1) User Kauffner, (2) diacritics. | |||
| :(2) - Let's discuss (2) diacritics first. I wasn't aware of the "diacritics war" on en.wikipedia till March ]. During that RfC I also became aware of . WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:DIACRITICS share the same characteristic of a minority of editors sincerely convinced that foreigners have "English names" - hence Lech Wałęsa's "English name" is "Lech Walesa" minus crossed-L and nasal-e, or sincerely convinced that en.wp should follow the MOS of USA Today/Daily Express etc and not Britannica/Chicago MOS. In terms of a "diacritics war" there evidently has been one on en.wp, as far as I can judge going back to 2010, centred particularly on WP:HOCKEYNAMES, but civily and democratically '''resolved''' in terms of articles ]. Though '''unresolved''' in terms of is still at odds with en.wp's 4 million articles (or rather 4 million articles minus 9 hold out foreign tennis players). With one exception; Vietnamese. For some reason Mỹ Linh (Asian, no consensus) is more challenging than Lech Wałęsa (European, where de facto consensus exists on 100,000s of articles). Admin JoyShallot characterizes the "English name" thing against Serbian tennis players as "xenophobic" (technically it is only "xeno'''nymo'''phobic") but I note that the editors who turn out in force for Serbian/Czech/Romanian/Polish/French/Spanish/German names are less sure about for example ]. This despite the fact that the Vietnamese roman-alphabet is older and more established than the Croatian/Slovenian/Serbian one. But whatever, it is legitimate to note that the consensus that exists for Lech Wałęsa does not exist for Mỹ Linh. | |||
| :(1) - Then issue (1), User Kauffner. | |||
| :This is much wider than whether the accent on Mỹ Linh should be treated as Lech Wałęsa. The issues with Kauffner are largely behavioural, and cover much wider ground than undiscussed diacritics moves. | |||
| :(a) '''IP puppet activity''' | |||
| :The scope of move interests can be seen at ] (this has not previously been at ANI). This is logged out set up of archiving - minutes after the puppeted Misza archive bot clicks in - launching second or third attempts when the archive is invisible. Although the opinion of those who discussed the Saigon IP cluster's activity concluded the tampering with archives prior to launching RMs from ] was User Kauffner, User Kauffner did not admit to it in the SPI and a User check was not done to link user to IPs. Kauffner did (not on the investigation page) admit on Good Day's Talk page that the edits were his, and there is a "smoking gun" in the history of the IP's activity on one of the RMs which shows Kauffner, inadvertently logged back in, finishing the IP's archive reset. | |||
| :(b) '''Undiscussed move then redirect lock''' | |||
| :Up to a point undiscussed moves are reasonable, as regents park says as long as the ] cycle is not disrupted. (this issue has not been at ANI before). The problem is with Kauffner, as banned-user Dolovis, is redirect edits. If you look at Kauffner's activity in June 2012 you will see 100s of redirect edits, effectively locking the 1600x undiscussed moves made July 2011 to June 2012. This includes 1000x under UserKauffner name, + 600x using G6 involving at least a dozen G6 admins in performing "uncontroversial moves" on Kauffner's behalf. An example of WP:BRD cycle blocking is . After a Dolovis-style redirect edit June 30 2012 the only way to restore a locked move is an RM - and even then a 3-1 support of restoring a title may be overturned by a closing admin. | |||
| :(c) '''Deletion of failed RM notifications prior to G6 requests''' | |||
| :One of the particularly unpleasant aspects of the G6 moves counter the 2010 2011 2012 ] geo article RMs was the deletion (logged in) of notification of failed RMs before proxying G6 admins to move counter RM with a G6 request. (this issue has not been at ANI before). Obviously no G6 admin will move an article if there is a notification of a contrary RM result on the talk page - hence the deletions have to be deliberate intent to deceive admins making (in good faith) article moves as uncontroversial. | |||
| :(d) '''IP archiving prior to G6 requests''' | |||
| :This is distinct from (a) above. In this case the IP archives the failed RM not before launching a second RM, but before/after bypassing RM with a G6. | |||
| :(e) '''Canvassing''' | |||
| :Kauffner has been warned about ] on several RMs. Similar is targeted canvassing for example to (this is just a particularly desperate example of a longstanding pattern). | |||
| :(f) '''Deleting Talk page requests to stop''' | |||
| :Deleting Talk page requests to stop (these go back to July 2011, long before I was aware, AjaxSmack, Gimmetoo, Prolog, Vietnamese editors, who knows how many more), and carrying on regardless. | |||
| :(g).......or alternatively, | |||
| :If you agree with User Kauffner's views - on Hauptbahnhof or Vietnamese - then a good cause justifies the methods. ] (]) 23:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I may stand above as the one who began this discussion but in due fairness to Kauffner, In ictu oculi comments are ]. In ictu oculi has an equal sordid history of moving articles when he/she should have known them to be controversial. If I remember correctly, my warning of 12 September at ] was initially because In ictu oculi moved approximately 100 articles while a requested moved concerning geographic Vietnamese names was taking place. Further In ictu oculi was entirely unrepentant. The only reason In ictu oculi is not equally mentioned is because he/she as not moved an Vietnamese scope article to insert diacritics since my initial warning of 12 Sept.--] (]) 02:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi Labattblueboy, | |||
| :::Sure, in part fair, but I'm not sure about "entirely unrepentant" because as you say, I did '''not''' continue to restore articles which had been among those moved counter ] (among the 1600x total moves). What I did explain was that restoring 80x of the 800x was after RMs restoring several of the moves, after RfC majority, and after admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett (and one more whom I forget) had already reverted approx 40 of the 300 of the 800 geo articles which had been done by using G6. If anyone considers reverting those 80x of 800x undiscussed moves (moves counter to RM) "disruptive" then does that apply to the other 40x reverted by the proxied G6 admins admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett as well? However I was asked to stop restoring the articles and did. In practice it was hard work to restore the articles anyway, since finding any among Kauffner's undiscussed moves which have not been given Dolovis-style redirect-edits to prevent BRD is almost impossible. I estimate that I already found most if not all of the 80x of 800x geo stubs he omitted to lock. There is less of a clear mandate to restore the 800x bios. And there has been more locking activity since. (If anyone doesn't believe me, try and find one that isn't locked... then call the pot equally black). | |||
| :::As regards the pot calling the kettle black, I am not perfect but, as above: | |||
| :::(a) I have never used IP activity of any kind. | |||
| :::(b) I have never followed a move with a redirect lock | |||
| :::(c) I have never deleted a failed RM notification prior to a G6 request. (In fact I am reasonably certain I have never used a G6 request template at all) | |||
| :::(d) I have never used Miszabot to hide a previous RM (never even thought of it) | |||
| :::(e) I have never made the sort of ] notifications during an RM or RfC we are seeing here. | |||
| :::Unfortunately if you wade into mud you will get your hands a little dirty. This is a filthy area. But is a filthy area which is being enabled by winking at (a)(b)(c)(d) in particular. ] (]) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I feel my previous comment was both accurate and fair. You have not at any point accepted during this or any other discussion, to my knowledge, that your own actions were sometimes inappropriate. Your comments above that it’s necessary to sometimes get “dirty” are in the very least unhelpful. Simply ceasing to move articles in a controversial topic area does not, by any means, equate repentance. Equally, simply because you may not have engaged in actions (a)-(d) does not mean your behaviour has necessarily been appropriate in the topic area. If this post concerned actions over the past year or further, and not simply approx. 12 September onwards, then I would be entirely supportive of PBS’s suggestion below that any remedies apply to both yourself and Kauffner. Please see this as an opportunity to turn a new leaf.--] (]) 14:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hi there Labattblueboy, | |||
| :::::Thanks for your comment. We probably are nearer on this than you think. I already said, before you arrived, two days before your first comment, that I have '''no intention''' to restore any more than the 80x of 800x undiscussed moves counter RM that have already been restored. | |||
| :::::As to "repent", most editors would not, under normal circumstances, view reverting a move made counter an RM a sin to be "repented" of, at least in a case like this where it was carefully preceded by (a.) 40x restores by admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett, (b). confirmation by RfC, (c.) confirmation by a series of RMs: ] RM, ] RM, Talk ] RM3, ], ], that these undiscussed moves counter RM were not uncontroversial. But again I had already, before you appeared, said, I have '''no intention''' to restore any undiscussed moves made contrary to RM. | |||
| :::::I'm really not sure what more you want of me here. (and btw I didn't say it was ''necessary'' to get dirty, I only said ''you will.. this is a filthy area'', so that was intended as the opposite, that we should try not to). Are we good now? I'd hope we can be. ] (]) 15:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am good with whatever solution sees an increased level of civility in this subject area. Move waring in this family of articles doesn't do anyone any good. I'd frankly be happy with an affirmation by parties involoved that any Vietnamese diacritic article moves be first discussed or handled through ] (likely on a case-by-case basis) until such time that a community solution on the Vietnamese diacritics issue is developed. Like RegentsPark, I'd rather not see anyone banned from anything.--] (]) 17:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Labattblueboy, thanks. I'm 100% fine with everything you say here. I couldn't agree more, since if there's no undiscussed moves, no G6 use, no IP edits, no redirect locks, then there's nothing to revert, no need to put in RMs to restore ], ], ], ], ], ] etc. in the first place. We can get back to creating/building articles. Then we're good, very good. ] (]) 17:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *IIO is claiming to "speak Vietnamese"??? ''Trời ơi!'' I'm sorry, I just can't sit still for this one. We've discussed various language issues. IIO can't get even very simple stuff straight. I live in Saigon, so I edit about Vietnam. I read the local English-language press, so I quite familiar with the fact that the professionals don't use Vietnamese diacritics. Nor is Vietnam promoting their use in English, as you can see . No published encyclopedia or major media organization uses these marks. Local publications that once used them, like and , have dropped them. They make the copy look amateurish. I spend many hours telling Vietnamese not to use Viet-lish. The editors of Lech Walesa's article can worry about his diacritics. ] (]) 03:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Kauffner, I wouldn't doubt that your familiarity of street Vietnamese is better than mine, now, 20 years later. But we aren't here to discuss this. | |||
| ::::(a) Do you now want to give a yes/no answer to the SPI? | |||
| ::::(b) How many articles have you followed an undiscussed move with a redirect lock? The records show 1600x from July2011-June2012, with redirect locks continuing even this week. I estimate 1500x redirect locks. Is that about right? | |||
| ::::(c) Did you (while logged in) delete failed RM notifications from Talk pages prior to G6 "uncontroversial move" requests? | |||
| ::::(d) Did you (while logged out) manipulate Miszabot to hide previous RMs some of them not yet launched from ]. yes/no? | |||
| ::::] (]) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' WP:BRD does not work when articles are locked on purpose. Kauffner has continued to lock articles even after being asked not to do so. ] (]) 06:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **Um, how is he locking pages down. He's not an administrator, and doesn't have the ability to protect pages. I'm confused to this rationale. I don't care one way or another, but this makes no sense to support sanctioning him for using an administrator tool he has no access to... --]''''']''''' 06:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***By double-editing redirects he makes it impossible for rank-and-file editors to revert his moves, requiring admin rights to undo the move. The issue is tricky as redirects have to be categorised but a) he does that even when he could create the redirect and categorisation in one edit and b) in controversial cases like this it is better to leve the categorisation until the matter is settled or to ''the other side'' iE I can without causing any controvery lock ''redirects from diacritics'' wheras Kauffner could without any controversy lock ''redirects to diacritics''. Maybe some noticeboard could be established just for that issue. c) There is past precedent for even banning of editors involved in exactly that behaviour. ] (]) 06:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****I believe there is another method of gaming the system to achieve this "lock", which would keep an editor's hands "clean" at first glance; but it's probably ]. If we were drawing up stricter rules on redirect-mischief I'd be happy to add it to those rules. ] (]) 10:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Whether or not to use diacritics in titles is the subject of much disagreement between editors, so such moves should go through ]. In the last year, we've made a lot of progress on that front. Still, some people persist in making undiscussed moves to diacritic-free titles and sometimes sneakily edit the redirect to prevent somebody else moving it back; that is gaming the system. A previous combatant in the diacritics wars was banned for it. Kauffner knows this. ] (]) 08:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support move ban''' Käuffner has been caught many times on this, and knows better. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I am placing the following bullet points here and my views are based on what I have seen both editors doing over a number of months. | |||
| **'''Comment''' Iio wrote "note that the consensus that exists for Lech Wałęsa does not exist for Mỹ Linh" yet the ] was closed with the statement "The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 46 days" support/oppose about 10/11. -- ] (]) 12:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **I suggest that '''] and ] are banned from moving any article that alters the article title to include or delete diacritics for a period of twelve months'''. This ban will include initiating ] request that alters the article title to include or delete diacritics for a period of twelve months. This ban will not include reverting bold moves (as described in ]) and both can still voice their opinions in requested moves initiated by other editors. | |||
| **I suggest that all the editors who have edits that have been diffed in this section for editing redirects after a move has been made (which prevents an non-administrator moving the article back to the previous name) should take this as a warning that such edits are disruptive and in future any such edits by these editors will result in administrative action. Likewise moving an article through an intermediate page name (so that the bots automatically change the original page name's redirect) will be seen disruptive (the correct process if a mistake has been made is to move the article back to the original name and then move it to the new correct name--so that double redirects are not created). -- ] (]) 12:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::PBS, | |||
| :::I'd like to assume good faith, but you see Kauffner making 1600x undiscussed moves, 800x of them counter the ], IP puppeting, G6 and basically '''NOT''' using RM, and your solution is........... to ban RMs like ] and ]???? | |||
| :::Your personal view (, ], ) was characterized as during your 1-8 opposition to É in the ], ]. | |||
| :::Sorry, but no. RMs like ] and ] express the consensus of the vast majority, and the reality of where en.wp's 4,000,000 articles are (minus those 9 tennis players). You know this. ] (]) 14:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The whole point of this is to force controversial moves to go through RM not to avoid the use of RM. ] (]) 17:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In ictu oculi that you would object to a restriction on yourself is not surprising. Iio your argument is disingenuous most articles that go through the RM process that are not at descriptive titles are at their common name as used in reliable sources. Agathoclea in the case of these two editors I think that they can be just as disruptive using the RM process, I think it is better for Misplaced Pages if both take a back seat over such moves for a time and follow rather than lead in this area. -- ] (]) 13:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hi PBS, | |||
| ::::::First, can I ask a question. Have you ever restored an undiscussed move to an article made contrary to a RM result? | |||
| ::::::Second, another question. Have you ever made an undiscussed move and then locked it with a redirect edit? | |||
| ::::::These are questions I have answered here ("yes" to first, "no" to the second) it's reasonable for me to ask others the same question I think, yes? | |||
| ::::::<small>As regards taking a quid-pro-quo with Kauffner, that wouldn't be appropriate, as I'm not making new moves, I've only restored some. But I'd be willing to consider a quid-pro-quo with yourself, if you would take a back seat from editing MOS pages and guidelines on diacritics/sourcing for 12 months, then I'd be quite happy to not submit any more RMs like ] for 12 months. Would you consider taking a back seat in this area? I would be (not least since it's getting very difficult to even find mispelled foreigner bios).</small> ] (]) 16:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' The community ] Dolovis from moving diacritic related titles because of the exact same methods that Kauffner has been using to lock the pages so that regular editors can't revert his moves. I see no reason why he shouldn't be given the same restriction that Dolovis was given. -] (]) 12:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - I was going to mention Dolovis as well. This comes down to a very simple issue for me: There is no possible way Kauffner is not aware that moves to or from diacritical versions in this area are controversial. ], like ] is not a poison pill. There comes a point where the bold move simply becomes disruptive. I would !vote the same for any editor on either side of this coin who makes a similar pattern of moves. ]] 13:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *With everyone ridding their own hobby horse like this, I obviously can't deal with every concern, so yours may be overlooked. IIO brings up the issue of the page moves I made last year. This was already dealt with ]. But while we are on this trip down memory lane, I would like to review a few items. As you may or may not recall, there was an ] with wide participation in July-August 2011. A proposal was made to increase the use of diacritics, but Vietnamese was specifically excluded. So despite divided opinion concerning other languages, there appeared to be a consensus in this regard. I rewrote the naming conventions for Vietnamese to conform to this understanding of the RfC. So when IIO got involved in this issue in late June 2012, pretty much every Vietnam-related article of any notability was at a non-diacritic title. ] isn't the first time IIO has tried to hold an article hostage at a misspelling. He did before with ]. IIO and I have a long and complex history. In happier times, we translated Latin and Hebrew titles together. More recently, Vietnam and other countries have been caught in the crossfire. I can only hope that common ground will reemerge when appropriate matters arise. ] (]) 16:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>Part of that is true, I am actually in favour of English exonyms where they exist (i.e. "John Calvin" for "Jean Calvin", not simply stripping ç to make "FranCois Mitterrand,") and did award Kauffner a barnstar for one of his English names moves. However, that is before any of us were aware of (i) IP puppeting, (ii) G6 proxies, (iii) deletion of the ] RM results from talk pages, (iv) the 1600x Dolovis-style move-locks, and none of these items have been at ANI before. As to this latest two-step-G6, move to a self-admitted mispelling and then G6, certainly creative, but that only makes one wonder whether the G6 loophole should be shut down for everyone. ] (]) 01:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC) </small> | |||
| *"The ultimate goal of the guide is to have every redirect categorised in a standard format," per ]. So the act of putting a redirect in a category is not in itself problematic. In Dolovis' case, he was accused of going against the consensus of the hockey project. The technical means he used to do this are a secondary issue. There is certainly a lot of advise to "take it to an RM." As far as RMs go, IIO abuses these to fulminate at length against me, in the same manner that you see above. I don't know how many editors follow these rants, but they do seem to head off reasoned discussion and editor participation. ] (]) 08:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>Per (b), (e) above. ] (]) 09:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Since the issue of diacritics is undecided, I don't like the idea of a move ban on either editor. My inclination is to warn Kauffner not to lock moves through redirects and to warn iii not to propose multiple page moves in the same move request. Placing bans is not a good way to deal with things for which there is no existing consensus. If bans are the way to go, then we should ban both per PBS, but I don't really like that option. Banning Kauffner alone is a terrible idea. --] <small>(])</small> 15:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::RegentsPark, multiple RMs of similar pages have frequently been '''encouraged''', particularly in this area, and are common practice. Please look at the WP:RM archive. If you want to ban anyone posting an RM for multiple page moves you need to propose changes to WP:RM. There is one in there right now at ] by PBS himself. ] (]) 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I meant only in reference to diacritics. For figuring out whether we should have diacritics in titles, we need to look at common usage in English language sources. That would mean looking at each article separately rather than listing them all together. For example, per ], each listing in your ] needs separate verification. Listing them together is equivalent to asking for a stylistic norm to be codified (which is better handled by an RfC). --] <small>(])</small> 17:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well okay, that view is noted but again since use of multiple moves has in the past been encouraged in exactly this diacritics area, if you want to change WP:RM you need to raise a general restriction on ] to remove the community's ability to bunch similar RMs if they involve foreign accents. | |||
| ::::And FYI we just had a RfC immediately prior to putting in the RM to restore the undiscussed and edit-locked moves at ] which had an evident majority in favour of treating Vietnamese people like any other Latin-alphabet nationality. Even after RfC there still has to be an RM even after an RfC.<small>...btw ] means ''']''' (not Edison Arantes do Nascimento), rather than .... but this isn't the place to discuss WP:COMMONNAME.</small> ] (]) 00:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' RegentsPark's thought process makes good sense here. I don't like the idea of bans either. Those two warnings should be sufficient for now, with a quick revisit should circumstances change. ] (]) 18:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you promising to bring this to ANI at his next offence? Anyway Kauffner was warned repeatedly about the issue for longer than a year now and instead of stopping he continued. What makes you think he will stop now? ] (]) 17:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::They've both been brought to ANI in the past year, probably multiple times. To me this argument has these two editors joined at the hip as far as Vietnamese diacritics are concerned but I hate lengthy banning if at all possible. I would do as RegentsPark suggested on the two... a formal warning. If it fails a 30-60 day ban on doing any of the offenses mentioned, and go up from there. It's not like these editors don't do good work also. Admittedly, it's difficult for me to remain unbiased when it comes to IIO, but to say it's all Kauffners fault is really ridiculous. ] (]) 08:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The fact is that over 90% of diacritic RM are going in favour of the diacritic versions. Attempts to stop that trend by attempting to change guidelines has failed. Attempting to get the WMF involved on so-called '''accessability issues''' has failed. Now the only possibilities left are undiscussed moves in the other direction, socking and other gaming of the system. You are suggesting a 60 day ban from such offences. That means after 60 days he is allowed to game the system again. Sounds rather daft to me. The suggestion of this thread is to stop any undiscussed moves in controversial areas. I am sure IIO can be held to the same standard. ] (]) 08:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. About time that something is done top bring home some points to Kauffner, who has for much too long been able to talk his way out of sanctions. {{diff2|517161885|This recent comment of his}} is an example of his disingenuous refusal to acknowledge that his behavior is disruptive. It's not like he hasn't been told before, e.g. {{diff2|505280687|here}}. ] (]) 19:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per RegentsPark. Closing admin should issue a strong warning on both editor's talk pages. If either continues to move such articles without going through RM, or continues to "lock out" moves, or continues to bunch several diacritic-related move proposals together in multi-move requests when each should be considered separately, then a ban should be expected. --] (]) 19:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Born2cycle, I obviously agree against undiscussed moves and edit redirect locks. That's why we're here. | |||
| ::But if you want to restrict the community's ability to submit multiple moves you need to propose it at TALK ]. Multiple moves are a core part of the ] mechanism (and useful exactly when dealing with mass undiscussed moves and redirect locks). ] (]) 23:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Agree with regentspark comment's as well as Born2cycle's remark that both editors (Kauffner & IIO) should be warned for their disruptive and obsessive behavior regarding the diacritics issue. I think it would would be helpful to 'request' both editors to take a step back from their diacritics crusade and allow a cooling down period of at least 6 months or so. --] (]) 23:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you are suggesting that they have to step away from the proper way of resolving controversial moves? If so, it would actually reward Kaufner for gaming the system as the first-mover-advantage. ] (]) 17:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm looking at it from a broader perspective. Both editors have their own distinctive ways and means but regarding the diacritics issue they are equally obsessive and disruptive so there should be a balanced approach in how this is addressed by the community. This balance however is lacking and this seems at least partly due to the observation that IIO is supported in his/her conduct by a group of editors who appear to be blind in one eye. Hence my proposal for a cooling off period, preferably voluntary, to be observed by both editors.--] (]) 09:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Enough's enough. As one of the admins working at RM, Kauffner's actions have been extraordinarily disruptive to that process. He is plainly aware that his moves are controversial, and yet he's continued making them, and for over a year. He has absolutely no regard for Misplaced Pages's consensus building mechanisms in this area. I won't rehash all his disruptive methods already covered by others, but it needs to be said what effect they've had.<br> | |||
| :In the bulk of the dozens (hundreds?) of controversial moves Kauffner has made, or compelled others to make by falsely marking them as "uncontroversial", simply getting the pages back to where they were entails a fresh move discussion. Dozens and dozens of unnecessary discussions, forcing literally weeks of community back-and-forth and many hours of administrator's time (as the moves are almost always reversed, and as his habit of manipulating the redirects requires administrator action to close), further compounding the already dire RM backlog. All just to reverse undiscussed moves. For several months, I don't think I've seen a single day where there weren't several of these discussions in the RM backlogs. Additionally, as I've become involved, I no longer close the many RMs involving one of Kauffner's moves, and I believe other admins have done this too, leaving even fewer people to clean up his mess.<br> | |||
| :Simply giving Kauffner yet another warning is obviously not going to cut it. I believe he should be banned from the move process entirely, but in the very least he needs to be banned from making moves, from editing redirects after moves, from requesting uncontroversial moves, and from using any undisclosed alternate accounts.--] ]/] 15:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. IIO comes here with unclean hands, having wikistalked Kauffner for months and orchestrated disruptive ] moves to place or re-place diacritics on titles for which the consensus of editors or sources was to remove them. In many ways, IIO's disruption is even worse than Kauffner's, because Kauffner only deals with Vietnamese articles, and those for which he can make a case based on the reliable sources. Trouts for both of you.<p>About the page locking issue: we shouldn't make it easier for users to make controversial changes without going through RM, ''especially'' in the midst of a partisan dispute where if the pages were unlocked, Kauffner's rights were restricted, and IIO's rights were left alone, we would see a new flood of tendentious page moves from IIO and other veterans from the Czech/Serbian diacritics wars who are trying to expand their diacritics into an area out of their expertise, Vietnamese. ] (]) 19:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hello Shrigley, | |||
| ::(i) UserKauffner's undiscussed-move-and-lock technique does not only affect the 1600x WP:VN articles moved (1000x under own name + 600x as G6 proxy = 1600x, of which 800x geo articles affected by IP puppeting to hide the ] RM2 and deletion of failed RM notification). See (right now) RM at ] to revert a move which was . See , , ] RM to restore. | |||
| ::(ii) the reason people watch these contributions are for edits such as: | |||
| :* 16-17 July 2012 - mass undiscussed move-and-lock of ] while . | |||
| :* 19 July 2012 - proxying by G6 of admin Y followng VN editor Grenouille Vert trying to restore at . | |||
| :* 20 July 2012 | |||
| :* 17 August 2012 | |||
| :*etc. | |||
| ::(iii) As I said 2 weeks ago, I have no intention to restore any more of the 1000x undiscussed moves under his own name - and even if I wanted to I can't because they are redirect-edit-locked. As regards the 600x done by misuse of G6, if the admins proxied want to restore the 600x acheived by G6 that is up to them. Some do, some don't. Though the G6 admin . ] (]) 00:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>As far as "Vietnam expertise" - the WP:VN's editors already had the vast body of WP:VN articles at Vietnamese names (same treatments as Czech and Serbian) before Kauffner moved them, otherwise there wouldn't have been opportunity to move 1600x.</small> ] (]) 00:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I don't think his actions justify such kind of sanction also like Shrirgley noted there are some problems with IIO behaivour.--] (])/] 19:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I agree with Shrigley that In ictu oculi's unilateral, ], regardless of wide usage of the non-diacritic form in English, is a far greater problem that Kauffner's reverting diacritics in (mainly Vietnam-related) article titles to plain English. In ictu oculi has repeatedly attempted to ], and organize bullying of editors with messages to the effect that, "Misplaced Pages rules are that all European articles must have diacritics in the article title, and if you persist in using the non-diacritic form you will be banned" when there are no such rules and there have been no successful RfCs on blanket use of diacritics. GoodDay and MakeSense64 are just two of several formerly-productive editors who have been baited and bullied. In ictu oculi seems to think that Misplaced Pages guidelines can be disregarded if one has a large enough private army. He has ], and he is not going to stop at all the European articles, it has to be all the Vietnamese ones—without any exception—as well. I agree with PBS that if there is any ban then it should apply to both. Although ] was ONLY about using diacritics in titles, IIO ] to make it look as if it was about ALL diacritics or NO diacritics. The previous ] on this ] was rudely shut down. ] (]) 01:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>respond on User's Talk page ] (]) 01:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::So the person cleaning up Kauffner's mess is now at fault? Anyway, since you are quoting your own crusade against diacritics as gospel may I remind you of you recieved from WMF staff. ] (]) 07:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Wars over unsettled MOS issues should go to ArbCom per longstanding tradition. ] (]) 14:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Another comment'''. The arguments that Kauffner shouldn't be banned because others have also behaved badly are pretty weak, in my opinion. If others are causing problems they should be dealt with, but it certainly doesn't exonerate Kauffner from his own demonstrable and ongoing disruptive actions. And it certainly doesn't make up for the huge amount of wasted time and energy he's caused at RM to clean up his mess. This isn't a matter of different interpretations of the MOS, it's a matter of Kauffner blatantly and repeatedly abusing the move process and wasting many ''weeks'' of the community's time in the process.] ]/] 14:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **Do you realize that I wrote the ]? What you care about Vietnamese diacritics, anyway? This is payback for the ] RM, isn't it? Hey, if it means that much to you, go move the thing back. ] (]) 15:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *** I've only looked at it briefly but the talk page there shows continuous disagreement (as does this thread). That page should probably not be tagged as guideline, but only as a proposal. ] (]) 18:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****Re: Kauffner: No, but that's some pretty amusing projection. Not that it matters, but I don't really care about Vietnamese diacritics at all. What I care about the the severe disruption you continue to cause to the RM process through the actions highlighted above.--] ]/] 19:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *****You showed up at SPI with the same song and dance, so you've got a white whale of some kind. So you are just a guy really cares about archive bots settings? ] (]) 02:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{unindent}}At this point I suppose that reaction is to be expected from you. Back in reality, as I say, my interest here is as one of the relatively few administrators who's been working regularly on the RM backlog. Can you honestly claim that the myriad undiscussed moves you've made or initiated have ''not'' resulted in numerous move discussions, backlog congestion, and increased workload for closing admins? Can you honestly say you have ''not'' engaged in surreptitious behavior and sockpuppetry to get your way?--] ]/] 04:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was just joke about the archive bot settings. After all, the SPI clerk didn't think issue was important enough to bother doing a checkuser for it. From this reply, it sounds like your beef really is about archive bot settings. I clocked this complaint in at 50KB. I thought it was about something more important than that. The SPI discussion was epic length as well. So I have been at the center of a swirling controversy for some months now. After GoodDay was banned, I was next on somebody's hit list. At one point, I was blocked for an edit I made nine months earlier. I had to look it up to figure out what IIO was yapping about. Eventually, someone will look up my first edit and I'll have to defend that. ] (]) 12:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :@Tijfo098, In your view is there a difference between '''(A)''' making undiscussed moves/G6 and locks counter RM results and '''(B)''' using the WP:RM process to give the community opportunity to restore undiscussed/G6 and locked moves? ] (]) 23:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::IIO has moved hundreds and hundreds of articles to diacritic titles without discussion. Certainly his Vietnamese moves go counter to any reasonable interpretation of the guidelines. ] (]) 02:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>As anyone can check I haven't "moved hundreds and hundreds of articles to diacritic titles" and certainly not "without discussion". Yes on 1 May 2012 before I was aware of the strength of anti-foreign name lobby on en.wp I moved '''4''' Czech hockey players to Czech names to (a) agree with the article sources, (b) agree with the rest of en.wp's 4,000,000 articles. PBS, who was following me reverted me and we then had 4 duplicate RMs ] which were unanimously against PBS' view, with PBS himself eventually conceding that the move was justified. Since then I, and a couple of others, have been making use of the RM process to give myself and fellow BLP article-space contributors opportunity to implement by WP:RM the results of the Hockey/Tennisnames RfCs. And the result is at e.g. ], leaving 9 tennis BLPs which were closed the other way, and that's fine. We can leave those 9 as a permanent monument to "English names." on en.wp, it isn't the end of the world. ] (]) 03:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::*IIO, regarding the Czech names that you mention, didn't you brag to ] on ] on 17 or 18 August 2012 (date depends on one's time zone) that quote: "for any Swedish or Czech article too, full-spelling (with diacritics) will always be in the minority", and then remove the thread (-4,598) when you found out that I had seen it? This is like bragging that you can ignore Misplaced Pages guidelines because you can bring a bigger private army to mass-move RfMs. ] (]) 01:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::*In response to IIO buddy Br'er Rabbit's comments that, "the root of this mess is years of disruption by Kauffner. I've not been following this closely, but there are various archived threads about this", and "Kauffner has been hugely disruptive regarding diacritics for years and this is overdue", it would be instructive to look at ], ], and ]. ] (]) 09:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<small>To be called "Hitler" to the WMF for proposing RMs for Latin American BLPs to have Spanish names is disturbing. ] (]) 06:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *Back to the record company article at the head of the ANI notice, and similar to the example above , it appears that after the move Labattblueboy has diffed User Kauffner actually moved the record company article a third time in a 5-step process reverting admin Texas Android: (1) , (2) , (3) , which was self-reverted by G6 admin Texas Android "Move back. I've been informed that this is far from a uncontroversial move.", (4) , (5) . ] (]) 06:12, 15 October 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) | |||
| == Apparent competence issue == | |||
| :::That's actually a fair point. -] (]) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent ] impulse. ] (]) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] You have been misjudging me - It was , actually, if it's worth anything. ] ] 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the ] area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. ] (]) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] OK, I didn't knew the child used those pronouns when she was 4 years old, I commit to use them here if I would ever talk about that issue again (which I definitely will not, anyway). ] ] 20:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If they weren't before they are now... ] (]) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, to be clear, I '''oppose''' a one-way IB. I do not find this argument convincing. ] (]) 19:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' this seems like a reasonable set of restrictions, I hope they can stick to it ] (]) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] I never edited in that topic here, as far as I can remember, not is it a primary interest I have, so it certainly will not be difficult to hold, even if it comes out to me as incredibly unbased and unfair. ] ] 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Your edits to DYK were within that topic area. ] (]) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] And those were the only ones, and I immediately after being reverted. How does that configure the kind of systematic behaviour that would justify a topic ban? I really apologize, but in this moment the way I see this is a kind of Salem witch hunt, with people accusing me of all kind of slurs and abominations, even when they are in directly opposition to . You seem to be punishing me for my opinions and the way I (supposedly) think about a very particular issue (if 4 years old have self determination or not), which comes out to me as really unfair and unworthy of a project like this. ] ] 20:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::How is that in direct opposition to your stance there? Your edit summary says "forgot that English has the neutral pronoun, which is useful in these cases. fixed." which suggests that it is in line with that stance ] (]) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] I'm sorry, I seem to have missed your point. What is wrong with correcting the gender to a neutral pronoun in such a situation? ] ] 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::This edit might help you get the point. At this point your conduct on this page is becoming a serious behavioral issue... you can't lie, sealion, obfuscate, and misdirect endlessly without consequences. ] (]) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::@] I can fix those too as I did yesterday, if you think it's important 🤷🏽♂️ ] ] 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::You are not supposed to edit comments after they have been responded to in that way. But by fix do you mean change to "she" or do you mean change to "they"? ] (]) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::@] Change to "she", following this wikipedia rules, certainly. So if I can't fix them, what do you propose instead to mend it? ] ] 20:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Given the sheer quantity of lies and obfuscations from you (the truth is apparently a last resort) the only fix I can see is a formal one, a topic ban and an interaction ban. Up above you so easily went from "I never edited in the topic area" to "those were the only ones" that I don't even think you understand that you were caught in a blatant lie. ] (]) 20:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::@] There was not any "lie", please stop ]. I thought you were referring to the main space only, which I believe is a fairly assumption to do, if the used word is "editing". ] ] 20:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::At best you're saying that you lack the competence on enwiki to adhere to any voluntary restrictions. This will be my last comment unless pinged by an editor other than you, my apologies that this has been an unpleasant process for you. ] (]) 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Darwin has a long history of editing in ] albeit generally less controversially. . ] (]) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::@] That's documented with the sources and all, and the proposition there was that the tupinambá was gay, not a woman. It's not even gender related. So you desperatly want something to justify a TB, bring it on. I'm fed up with what seems to be a circular and nonsense discussion on this board, where whatever I say is a lie and with bad intentions. I don't even edit here in the gender topic, but if it makes you happy, bring it on. ] ] 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::DarwIn ] covers gender ''and'' sexuality. You have been saying you aren't interested in the topic area. It appears to be one of your main areas of interest on en.wiki. ] (]) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::@] Thanks for clarifying that. Fact is that I don't edit much here. I've occasionally added or fixed some LGBT related stuff in the past when it crossed my main interest, History, but it certainly is not a primary interest, despite being LGBT myself. ] ] 20:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Bushranger. ] ] 20:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. As GoodDay noted, the problem appears to already be addressed. If the problem persists then go for a sanction. Look we let people argue their point here and it does seem like most of the support is because editors feel Darwin isn't contrite enough, not that they expect the issue to continue. Note that I'm not weighing in on any interaction bans. ] (]) 20:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' per Springee. This entire issue could have been dropped days ago when DarwIn acknowledged he would walk away, and instead seems to have been needlessly escalated again and again and again. ] ] 20:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Ping|Pppery}} days ago? I think you might have misread the time stamps. ] (]) 00:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' the TBAN; personally I'd have indeffed several outdents sooner, but here we are. No opinion on the IBAN. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Given what's happened, I think an enforceable topic ban is better than Darwin stepping away. IMO the BLP issues is far more concerning than gensex one so I'd support a BLP topic ban as well, but it seems likely a gensex one would be enough to stop Darwin feeling the continued need to express their opinions on a living person. Since Darwin is going to step away anyway and barely edits en, it should be a moot point and if it's not that's why it's enforceable. As for the iban, while I don't think Skyshifter should have described Darwin in that way when opening this thread, I think we can accept it as a one time mistake under the stress of apparently being followed and given questionable way Darwin ended up in a dispute here with someone they'd had problems with elsewhere I think a one-way iban is justified. ] (]) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? ] ] 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{replyto|DarwIn}} Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times ], ], ], ], ], ]. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. ] (]) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like ]. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here.] ] 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. ] (]) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. ] ] 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::], I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> | |||
| *:::::::{{Ping|Liz}} Thank you for the wise advice, I'll be doing that.] ] 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{reply|DarwIn}} you can think whatever you like about living persons. I have a lot of views on living persons which I would never, ever express on wiki for various reasons including BLP. Also you defence is bullshit. No one ever asked you to make accusations around living persons to defend your actions. And yes it is fairly normal that editors may be sanctioned if they feel they need to do such things about living persons on ANI as part of some silly argument or defence. I recall an editor who was temporarily blocked after they felt the need to say two very very famous extremely public figure living persons (and some non living) were sex predators to prove some point at ANI. And I'm fairly sure a lot of people have said and feel those people are sex predators including some Wikipedians I'd even probably agree in at least one case, they just understand it's not something they should be expressing here. ] (]) 23:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::For clarity, what I mean by my last sentence is that I'm sure quite a few people would agree with the statements. I'm sure such statements have been made elsewhere probably even in opinions printed in reliable sources (I think the editor did link to some such opinions). I'm sure even quite a few Wikipedians would agree that one or more of these people are sex predators, I think I'd even agree with it in at least one case. However most of us understand that our personal views of living persons, especially highly negatives views are generally not something to be expressed on wiki except when for some reason it's important enough to the discussion that it's reasonable to say it. When you keep saying something and in the same paragraph acknowledge the English wikipedia doesn't consider your opinion relevant, then it's clear there was no reason for you to say it. You're still free to believe it just as I'm still free to believe all those things about living persons that I would never express on wiki. ] (]) 06:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Support''' - Darwin's replies and conduct here indicates that he simply doesn't get it. | |||
| :]] 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Oppose''' - Per GoodDay and Springee. ] (]) 05:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' TBAN per Bushranger. Darwin has already agreed to the 1-way IBAN — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ])</small></span> 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Given the history at pt.wiki, I think this is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. There should be no interaction between the parties, which Darwin has agreed to.] (]) 14:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The agreed-upon IBAN takes care of the ongoing issue. While the edits related to the child were problematic, this doesn't appear to be case of significantly wider problems in this topic area, and the full scope of ] may very well be surprising to editors who don't do much in that area. I don't think there's been near enough here to no longer ]. ] (]) 15:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * <s>'''Support''' TBAN/IBAN</s> '''Weak support TBAN/Strong support IBAN''' - ] suggests that queerphobia is inherently disruptive. calling a queer activist a "troglodyte", the previous history of abuse on pt.wikipedia, and the current responses from Darwin indicate ] behavior. ] (]) 16:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I’ve encountered an apparent ] problem that in my view has reached the point at which it requires admin attention. The editor, ], makes occasional sound edits but most are poorly considered or executed and many require additional attention or outright reversion. Attempts to engage the editor on his Talk page have been completely unavailing. | |||
| ::This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.] (]) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. ] (]) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--] (]) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. ] (]) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago , is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. ]] 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. ] (]) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. ]] 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::OK boomer. ] (]) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Well, you certainly put me in my place with that one. ]] 21:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I understand. Speaking up for the witch is a sign I too might be a witch. I'll try to be more careful in future.] (]) 20:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Misgendering BLPs is disruptive. A Johnny Cash related username is not. Suggest the IP ] - while we may disagree with Boynamedsue regarding their interpretation here they have done nothing wrong. ] (]) 21:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::No. It's stopping a disruptive editor from continuing to edit disruptively. ] (]) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}} NQP is an essay. Essentially it's an op-ed piece. It does not carry any force in the realm of ], and the views expressed there are controversial. (See the essay's talk page.). IMO words with some variation on "phobe/phobic" &c. are being routinely weaponized by people on one side of hot button cultural/political debates as part of an effort to demonize those on the other side of these debates. As such, I am inclined to view the use of such terms as a specie of WP:NPA. -] (]) 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::fair enough, i'll remove my vote for TBAN. | |||
| :::sidenote, I have no qualms with labeling a behavior as queerphobia. I don't think calling out discrimination or disruptive attitudes is inherently a vio of NPA. ] (]) 16:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::... I am indecisive.. I'll add weak support for TBAN, I still think the topic area should not have folks who are disruptive like this. ] (]) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Pervasively misgendering a child based on the belief that a child cannot express a desire to transition is a form of transphobic behavior. If it was a similar comment made about a BLP on the basis of religion or skin colour ''there would be no mention of WP:NPA''. Misplaced Pages is generally good about handling racism. It is a perpetual stain upon the reputation of Misplaced Pages that it's culture ''continues'' to worry more about the feelings of people who take transphobic actions than of the victims of the same. ] (]) 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Oppose''' as unnecessary given the commitments already given. ]] 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|1=Let's not. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC). <small>Edited to include edit conflict comment. ] (]) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}} | |||
| ::::I am assuming you haven't spent much time in places ] where religious belief and persons of faith are not infrequently and quite openly subject to ridicule. Racism is a subject upon which society has happily come to more or less full agreement. Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other. I shall refrain from further comment out of deference to WP:FORUM. -] (]) 21:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Fringe ideas get ridiculed at FTN regardless of whether or not they are religious... That so many fringe views are also religious is more a result of the supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual being inherently fringe than any problem with FTN. Religion which is rational and explainable isn't religion any more after all. ] (]) 21:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you for affirming my point. -] (]) 21:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Your point was that "Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other." Right? Like for example the ] or is that not the side you were thinking of? ] (]) 22:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No. I was thinking of people who regularly insult and ridicule religious belief and those who hold to it. Something which based on your comment, does not seem to be a source of concern to you. That said, this discussion is veering deep into WP:FORUM territory and I am going to move on. Have a good day. -] (]) 22:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't think I've ever seen any of those people suggest that trans people are demons, or did you mean demonize in a way other than literally saying that the other side is demonic/satan's minions? Becuase that would be highly ironic... ] (]) 22:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I am reaching the uncomfortable conclusion that you are attempting to be deliberately offensive. And for the record, you are succeeding. Good day. -] (]) 22:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::You weren't aware that a cornerstone of the gender controversy was religious conservatives resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other? Because that is well documented in reliable sources. I don't think you're the one who is supposed to be offended here, you're the one saying what appear to be extremely offensive things and are being asked to clarify what you meant. ] (]) 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{ec}} I think a significant point here is that while we may tolerate some degree of forumish and offensive comment about gender or race or religions from editors when they are restricted to largely abstract comment or even when they reference other editors, it's far more of a problem when the editors make offensive accusations about living persons especially when these are completely unrelated to any discussion about how to cover something (noting that the editor continued to make the comment even after they had noted how the English wikipedia treats issues). So for example, if someone says a specific religious figure is delusion or lying in relation to how we treat their testimony that might barely be acceptable. When someone just comes out and says it repeatedly for no reason, that's far more of a problem. Especially if the figure is someone barely notable and not notable (as was the case here for one of the individuals each). ] (]) 22:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| {{hat|1=This ''is'' affairs of other wikis. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *'''Comment''' This is definitely not the ideal place to discuss the subject since the whole problem originated with pt.wiki, but since the editor came here asking for help (for the right reasons or not), I will draw attention to the case of the admin accused of transphobia. This is not the first time that DarwIn has been singled out due to his comments on the subject (he has already given several examples of this here), but there is an where the editor has already been criticized for making such comments. There, they were also celebrating Skyshifter's ban (DarwIn commented something like "as a man he was 100%, after transitioning he became unbearable" to refer to her). As much as they try not to link the group to the project, to use this chat you need to associate your Misplaced Pages credentials, so I am concerned that pt.wiki admins could be seen spreading speeches against minorities in an official space of the project, since Misplaced Pages is the target of attacks for investing in equity and diversity. In addition to this comment, the admin was also extremely rude and crude towards a ]. | |||
| :Again, this is not the ideal place to comment on these issues, but I suggest that the case be submitted to Wikimedia if any intervention or something more incisive is necessary. The local community can accuse me of anything for writing these words, but I am concerned about the escalation of editorial harassment within that space. | |||
| Here is a well-abridged sampling of troublesome edits, in generally ascending order of concern: | |||
| :PS: The editor was mocking this discussion in the Telegram group while I was writing this. ] (]) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* Idiosyncratic addition of information to articles which is generally plausible but unsourced and possibly incorrect. E.g. declaring that because one company involved in the production of a program is in Canada – a fact not in evidence in the article – the program is properly described as “Canadian-American” (see ); adding “Emmy-winning” to an article when the company appears only to have been nominated (); | |||
| ::Came back after a month with no edits for this? It's quite clear Jardel is taking something personal with DarwIn here. Or he doesn't have anything to do at the moment. And he didn't have such great writing and narrative in his mother tongue, now is writing perfect, well written English. That gets stranger considering he's partially blocked in ptwiki for some beefing with other editors (] in portuguese)... Quite strange, to say the least. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::And yes, by "quite strange" I am talking about maybe ]. Nobody comes after a month without edits (that was preeceded by some other months before some 5-ish edits), to make an "accusation" based on unfounded arguments, especially after being blocked precisely for beefing and attacking other members of the community in his homewiki. Such a hypocrisy, a user banned for beefing accusating another user of attacks and using the word "transphobia" so vaguely. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I expected, the group participants started making accusations against me (that's why Eduardo G. appeared in this discussion) and wanted to insinuate that Skyshifter is writing this text, perhaps wanting to provoke some kind of retaliation later. First, I appreciate the compliments on my writing, which was 100% done by Google Translate; I think Google's engineering is to be congratulated. Second, I'm only here on this page because I noticed the links to this discussion in the Telegram group itself and decided to contribute with what I've been reading for a long time with great disgust. I didn't need to bring much, Darwin himself made a point of making abject comments in this discussion, but if you want, I can bring some screenshots of what they were talking about in the group. Third, I did go 1 month without editing here because my focus is not on en.wiki but on pt.wiki, where I make regular edits. I find it strange that you entered this discussion without refuting any of the arguments above, thinking that bringing up my tarnished "reputation" changes everything that was written by me or in the group. I believe it must be embarrassing to participate in a group where they are celebrating the sanctions that Skyshifter will suffer (thinking that place is a "private club") while at the same time you from the "public side" to the same editor, simulating virtue. In any case, my goal here is only to reinforce that there is indeed materiality in what Skyshifter said with more evidence and once again I recommend that the discussion be evaluated by the Wikimedia team knowing that attitudes that demonstrate prejudice against minorities go against the project's investments in equity, diversity and equality. ] (]) 03:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I will not pursue any retaliation. I'm just stating what I know of this case, and I even supported Sky when the edits were being made. People are celebrating because all of this discussion was brought to even another wiki by her. But I understand you might've written this text, and will not take the subject further. If anybody needs anything, please read the message below. Cheers. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So, I don't disagree with your argument about the sanctions she's passing on the other project, unfortunately. As for "not pursue any retaliation", I don't think that's what you mean by the phrase "4 successful DBs in a row is not for everyone." directed at me. ] (]) 04:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] You're wrong, twice. First, it wasn't me saying that. It was NCC-1701, and my user in TG is Edu. And at no point did I agree with NCC's messages. And secondly, the "four DBs in a row" wasn't in anyway directed at you. It was directed to Bageense, who opened 4 block discussions in the last 2 or 3 days and all of them were successfull. You are distorting the messages to condone your erroneous narrative. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 04:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well, if I am "distorting messages" to "tolerate" my narrative, anyone who wants to evaluate can join the group and read the messages posted there or see the pt.wiki discussion against the Projeto Mais Teoria da História na Wiki and talk to its ] to see what their opinion is on the matter. I may not be a perfect person, but what I see with great displeasure (coming from those who are "in charge of the gears") is not positive for the project. ] (]) 04:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Joining the group the community would then have no doubts about your intents and distortion of facts. You didn't deny the two things I said above — you know I'm right, you can't bend the facts this much. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 04:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''As a ptwiki user''' that know what's happening but talked to both sides of the discussion throughout it: This whole discussion started as a beef between Skyshifter and DarwIn. Skyshifter didn't accept some changes DarwIn made to an article "of her" (quotes because articles doesn't have owners. I respect her pronouns), and when discussing with DarwIn, called the whole Portuguese Misplaced Pages project a sewage ()/], thus being banned and the ban being endorsed on the ] <small>(in portuguese)</small>. The discussion was based on the references for the article, was solved in the ptwiki with an outburst from Sky, and that was it. | |||
| :* Very infrequent use of edit summaries; | |||
| 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. | |||
| :* Creating a category with a typo, ; | |||
| 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) | |||
| :* Creating superfluous redirect pages (“Mrio” to “Mario”; “Mini mARIO” to “Mini Mario” – itself a redirect to “Mario”) (both since deleted); | |||
| 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--> | |||
| :* Removing a proposed merger template (albeit stale) without discussion, ; | |||
| :It is pretty clear thay the intents of Jardel here are disruptive. Your comment hopefully leaves no doubt to the community. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 04:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As I said above, I am not a perfect person. I may have used foul language to address some editors in a moment of anger, but I felt vulnerable and hurt by editors I held in high regard, and I apologize for what I wrote in the past. Likewise, I do not think it is right that a social channel that is reported as "linked to Misplaced Pages" is being used as a bar where people can say whatever they want, especially when it comes to prejudiced comments against minorities. At no time did I label all of them, only one of them demonstrated that she was doing so. If I happen to receive any sanction for this discussion, and knowing that bringing issues from pt.wiki here is not ideal, I will receive it for doing the right thing, because I want something to change for the better in a project that I have dedicated so much time to contributing to. I may be prevented from editing on Misplaced Pages, but if what I bring here helps to change something, I will be happy. ] (]) 05:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| :] - this is your second edit ever, and your account was just created today - how did you get to this ANI post? ] ] 05:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I saw a discussion in the group and created the account to not appear as an IP. ] (]) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] The objective of the channel is to be a more relaxed place. And it's not official, . Angry moment? Are you sorry? After your block, you attacked editors on a social network, as attested by a CheckUser: . And there are no prejudiced comments. That's a lie. Where are the links? And how much time have you devoted to the project when all you do is attack others? Enough of this nonsense. I ask that an administrator evaluate the conduct of this account. ] (]) 05:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't realize the discussion was closed. Sorry. ] (]) 05:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Supporting both IBAN and TBAN'''. Someone who actively believes in misgendering should not be allowed into this area when they have already demonstrably made another editor uncomfortable. The snarky reply to GiantSnowman does not convince me they would respond well if another editor brought up a similar concern in the future.--] ] 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Can't we give this child and her mother some privacy? What is it about gender issues, as opposed to other medical or developmental issues, that seems to give everyone a right to comment? Let's just report what reliable sources say and leave it at that. ] (]) 18:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.] (]) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. ] (]) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.] (]) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::talkpages def are covered by BLP as per the policy page.and the policy gives wide latitude about what the subject may have redacted if they object to info, even if they had previously or somehow otherwise placed that info in public domain. | |||
| :::::concerns about privacy have to weigh against dueness but arguing the book gives dueness to try to be internet sleuths and discover and identify a child is probs not gonna pass the smell test.] (]) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Misplaced Pages, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.] (]) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. ] (]) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Children cannot consent, their parents can. ] ]<sup>]</sup> 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I would totally agree, but that is irrelevant here, nothing Darwin did was related to revealing the child's identity. He criticised the mother in strong terms on talkpages and this is what the BLP argument comes down to.--] (]) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? ] (]) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--] (]) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Ask yourself whether Misplaced Pages would even entertain this discourse if the identity was anything other than a trans one. The answer is a flat no. Darwin's interpretation of the mother's interpretation of her daughter's identity is inappropriate for the project, is disruptive and is openly antagonistic toward trans editors. I think nothing more can be gained from endlessly debating whether we should pretend there is a carve-out to BLP requirements for children within oppressed minorities. ] (]) 17:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''', no comment on IBAN. . ] ]<sup>]</sup> 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Editors in this topic area can and often do disagree on the underlying issues, which often helpfully ensures that all such material on Misplaced Pages follows our policies and guidelines. However, the responses to Ad Orientem's request and various replies above shows that the proposed remedies would be appropriate given the BLP issues in play here.-- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose any sanctions''' I’m sorry if I’m interfering in something I’m not involved with, but I’ve been watching this discussion and I think it’s needlessly toxic. What I’m seeing is a misunderstanding of some inappropriate ] on a hot-button issue sparking a dispute that turned into “DarwIn is a transphobic bully” which I don’t think is true. I think the two main parties should simply avoid each other voluntarily and the situation will quickly de-escalate. ] (]) 05:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''', indifferent to IBAN. Having followed this topic for a few days, it's convinced me that a topic ban for both GENSEX and BLP is entirely appropriate in this instance. My initial scepticism passed after reading responses from the editor and realising that the understanding of BLP policy appears to be even more incomplete than I originally thought. The deceleration from the editor to avoid such topics voluntarily is irrelevant, as combined with the lack of understanding over the concept of broadly construed, commitments have already been made and broken within this discussion alone. So respectfully, I believe this ] type editing, whether it is attempting to ] or simply ] discussions, is nonetheless disruptive and uncivil at times. ] (]) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Dronebogus. I'd say "we're better than this" if I believed it. ] (]) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' ''Skyshifter'', if anything, is harassing Darwin in this instance. Darwin has agreed to an IBAN, never mind that he's expressed desires to descelate what has become the longest thread on AN or ANI as of writing. ''']]''' 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' This is a pretty explicit case of POV harassment. Their replies to the topic likewise do not give me faith they will adhere to a self imposed limitation. Darwin claimed to have agreed to step away before the ANI was created, but the edit history shows that Darwin continued editing the page up until an hour before Skyshifter created the ANI. Thus, there should be an actionable sanction. I fail to understand how it is Skyshifter doing the harassment at all as Cubby suggests. Darwin even called skyshifter a troglydite () to boot. ] (]) 15:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh my fucking god. This whole thread is nuts. I wish I could pardon my french but this is CRAZY. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Never in a million years would’ve I expected myself to be responding to a thread like this but I mean here I am. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Although Skywing’s concerns of harassment are valid especially if he’s being tracked across Misplaced Pages’s website, as far as I know, there are no guidelines that state someone can be punished for actions on another Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :'''I support''' the notion of Darwin being topic banned from gender related articles (especially trans ones), for the simple fact that his conflict of interest with transphobia has clearly caused a disruption to the Misplaced Pages community. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :'''I oppose''' with the IP-ban because if anything this '''SHOULD’VE''' ended a week ago when Darwin voluntarily said he would not edit those pages as well as avoid any interaction with Skywing. | |||
| :<br> ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. ] (]) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I understand, I meant that. Apologies. I misunderstood what it stood for. I would prefer if the IBAN was two way instead of one-way. Seems hardly fair in my honest opinion when both I suppose are equally responsible and to share the blame. This is a messy situation so putting the blame on one when both are equally responsible seems hardly fair. But that's my two cents. | |||
| :::NOTE: I don't condone homophobia or queerphobia or whatever the term is (I'm not really informed enough in this situation to know what Misplaced Pages calls it so I'm adding both just in case) so please don't take it as me defending either side as that is NOT my intent. | |||
| :::Cheers, <br> ] (]) 01:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This reply reminded me of the essay ]. ] (]) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Lol. It is accurate. That literally is what it is I suppose lol. ] (]) 01:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any sanctions against Darwin per Dronebogus. I wish we were better than this, but like TBUA, I don't actually believe that we are. ] (]) 20:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both TBAN and IBAN. Their behaviour at DYK might have been mitigated if they had taken responsibility here instead of doubling down. A TBAN and IBAN will reduce disruption. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at ] accusing me of coming to their talk page to "{{tq|further troll me with this nonsense warning}}". '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both. I'm baffled that some people above are saying "well, they agreed to stop voluntarily" - did they not read the massive post Darwin made above? It amounts to an extended "I'm sorry that you were offended." Trusting that someone will avoid the same mistakes in the future on their own requires that they understand and admit to those mistakes, which is obviously not the case here; how can we trust that an editor will abide by a self-imposed restriction when they won't even meaningfully acknowledge the errors that made that restriction necessary? Therefore, sanctions are necessary. --] (]) 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === ] taking matters from another Misplaced Pages to seek revenge. === | |||
| :* Undoing, without comment, other editors’ efforts to clean up articles and remove cruft, ; | |||
| {{hat|1=100% affairs of other wikis. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{atop|result=This entire subsection is about Eduardo Gottert casting aspersions on Skyshifter and providing no diffs or evidence of this "revenge" except for statements about what is going on on another language Misplaced Pages which have no bearing on what occurs here. I'm closing this now before this ]s on to Eduardo Gottert and editors start proposing a block for personal attacks. Baseless counter attacks are generally dismissed at the English Misplaced Pages ANI. Please do not reopen this section. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| On the 29th of December, ] started an AN/I based on a claim that ], a sysop at ptwiki, was cross-wiki harrassing her. To make up those claims, she used as a single proof, of him editing on a DYK nomination . AFAIK, DYK nominations are open for debate. | |||
| She accused him of transphobia, a very harsh word, over some 5 edits on the same page, and all the other arguments in her accusation were from the ptwiki with absolutely no relation to the English Misplaced Pages, and she tried to "force" that it was a cross-wiki harrassment, when it wasn't. The sole reason for that AN/I is a beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. | |||
| :* Placing articles into non-existent categories then doing it again – twice – after other editors undid him, and ; | |||
| 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. | |||
| :* Low-grade apparent vandalism – ; | |||
| 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. | |||
| :* Page blanking, and ; | |||
| 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. | |||
| :* Unilaterally moving “Nick.com” to “Nick.co.uk” without discussion and inconsistent with the content of the article, which is about “Nick.com” – followed, a couple of weeks later and after a Talk page reminder about the need to discuss most moves beforehand, by another unilateral move (“Viacom (1971-2005)” to “Viacom (1971-2006)”); | |||
| <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* Adding a “Good Article” designation to article that is not, in fact, a “Good Article”, (defending the edit by saying that “it’s not a bad article”); | |||
| :{{replyto|Eduardo_Gottert}} You need to provide evidence when opening an ANI thread, not on request. ] (]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* Not once discussing any edit, before or after making it, on any article Talk page. | |||
| ::'@] The evidences are above. I said if you need any '''further''' evidence, you may ask. All of the necessary evidence are on the request. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Where's the evidence? What we know is that DarwIn came here despite little involvement and made a highly offensive statement that can reasonably be characterised as transphobic. While I don't feel Sky Shifter should have described it so, better to let others decide, it was entirely reasonable for Sky Shifter to call for action against DarwIn for it. What is your evidence that they did it for revenge instead of for the fact that after a disagreement with DarwIn in a different wiki, DarwIn suddenly appeared in this wiki, one they themselves agree they barely edit, to make a highly offensive statement that Sky Shifter reasonably felt was transphobic. After doing so, they then appeared on ANI to make similar highly offensive statements were they made offensive accusations against living based on their own opinion. ] (]) 06:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Honestly, the argument is pretty clear above. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you agree you're wrong then please withdraw this ANI. ] (]) 06:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I did not agree in any place that I am wrong. I just stated that the evidence is pretty clear above, with all the block discussions and diffs needed for understanding the problem. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Your statement was very unclear. You said "the argument" which I interpreted to mean my argument. If you're still claiming your argument is clear, then please explain how it can be when part of your argument is it was unfair for Sky Shifter to go around saying "transphobia" when many of us agree that even if it was unnecessary, it was not unsupported given the comments DarwIn was making do seem to be transphobic. ] (]) 06:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::As we were talking about my evidence, I think saying "the argument" clearly refer to me. And as to the reason for the opening of this ANI, it's because the revenge seeking of Skyshifter. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I wouldn't say it doesn't considering as I said, one of the reasons your argument was flawed, but you didn't address that in any way. Nothing you've said above or since has explained why you're claiming Sky Shifter using the word "transphobic" is evidence for "revenge" when it's a reasonable characterisation of what DarwIn said. ] (]) 06:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{ec}} I would add it's very unclear what you thinking you're adding that wasn't already considered above. In the above thread a 1 way iban on DarwIn seems to be getting serious consideration. A two way iban seems to have been rejected based on the assessment that whatever the wrongs with Sky Shifter's approach, it wasn't serious enough to warrant an iban. The fact that Sky Shifter was in a dispute with DarwIn on other wikis, and DarwIn was involved in their blocked is likewise not a secret, part of it was stated by Sky Shifter when opening the thread and the rest was stated by DarwIn. The sock allegation likewise. So what do you think you're adding to the discussion that wasn't already considered and seemingly rejected by the community above? ] (]) 06:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It is time for a ]. You already said all of that above. You seem to have been canvassed here from a discussion outside of this wiki. Go back there and let them know cross wiki harassment will get you blocked here. ] (]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I added more evidence and context. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You simply cast aspersions as part of a cross wiki harassment campaign against someone over transgender related issues. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 06:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your statement doesn't even make sense. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We can add ] to the reasons you are blocked then. ] (]) 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Am I? And where am I in violation of ]? <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I used plain English and you said you couldn't comprehend it. ] (]) 06:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I thought it was pretty well determined in that prior ANI thread that DarwIn's edits and statements absolutely were transphobic and bigoted. ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I estimate that about ¾ of this editor’s edits are reverted by one or another editor. He’s been accumulating Talk page warnings and comments for several weeks; they’re all generally friendly (because the edits rarely seem malicious or completely over the top) but they do not seem to be having the necessary salutary effect, and this editor’s poorly considered edits continue pretty much unabated. I can’t seem to get his attention and thus have concluded that the matter requires consideration here. Thanks for any and all help. ] (]) 18:03, 11 October 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) | |||
| *Again, I'm leaving for the night, but looking at the contribs, in particular the new talk: contribs, does lend credibility to the claim of a clue deficiency here. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 02:30, 12 October 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) | |||
| *First edit less than 6 months ago. Check. Less than 200 edits. Check. Indef as incompetent. Check. Or maybe xe's just new and doesn't understand the culture here. -] (]) 14:12, 12 October 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) | |||
| ::*We need to add to the foregoing list, "unilateral restoration of duplicate article in place of redirect, which - again - review of edit summaries and / or relevant Talk pages could have averted". This fellow requires almost constant monitoring, or (I think) at least an attention-getting block; and I'm growing weary of the former and can't do the latter! ] (]) 11:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The editor's unhelpful edits continue, most recently with an edit to change certain dates in a way to make them inconsistent with another WP article *and* offering up an edit summary that doesn't match the edits. The fun has gone out of chasing down & correcting his bad edits, and I would appreciate some assistance in this minor, but vexing, run of disruption. A block of a couple of days or a week - whatever seems appropriate - might help. Thanks. ] (]) 12:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *He has not responded here although he continues to edit today. I think this is probably a very young user who genuinely believes he is helping the encyclopedia. I don't think template warnings are going to help so I've left a and suggest we wait and see if there is any reaction.] (]) 15:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I thought your message hit just the right tone and I hope he acts on it. If your surmise is right, then I agree templates won't work. (My chattier, personalized messages didn't seem to do the trick either but perhaps coming from another editor he'll pay heed.) Thanks. ] (]) 15:46, 14 October 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) | |||
| == Request topic ban of ] for persistent disruptive editing at ] == | |||
| ::She opened an NI, ptwiki equivalent of AN/I against DarwIn with crazy arguments. You can see it ]. It was prompty closed, and she was very well aware of the consequences she would face, and of the opening of the block discussion, and clearly opened the AN/I because of that reason. The block discussion started at 1130 UTC, and the AN/I was posted at 1300, at a time that Skyshifter had already taken notice of the discussion, as you can see . <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 07:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *This is ''very blatantly'' a tit-for-tat. As mentioned above there is the distinct smell of fishiness about it, and {{tqq|as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log}} - yes, the editor who has ''three FAs'' on en.wiki "came to this project" to do this. Suggest this be promptly closed as I hear a ] inbound. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] has tried unsuccessfully to get the ] BLP deleted twice before. . But having failed at deletion twice, for two years now, Novaseminary has also failed at ]. He persistently challenges the BLP's notability and threatens to start a 3rd deletion attempt. He also regularly violates ]. He almost on a daily basis, , because they are mentioned in the BLP, creates suspect , insists on edits, , uses citation tags to edit war, like , , and , and attacks and fights to and spreads material about the BLP's subject over several editor's objections. | |||
| *:I am not saying she isn't an avid used of English wiki. I just stated that she took ptwiki matters here for revenge and self-fullfillment. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 07:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::If you aren't asking for any sanctions against Skyshifter, then why did you open this sub-section, just to sling some mud at her? Give it a rest already, you're just creating more drama than is necessary.]] 08:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think that the background of this dispute is very relevant. Obviously, neither Skyshifter or Darwin should face any repercussions here for behaviour on pt.wiki, but it isn't possible to understand what is happening here without discussing what happened there. For me, having read what happened over there is the main reason I wouldn't yet TBAN Darwin, and would call for a two-way rather than one way interaction ban.--] (]) 08:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| But Novaseminary is also knowledgeable of WP rules. So knowledgeable that he uses WP to argue & defend his indefensible actions, even as he ignores all the WP rules & policies that his tendentious editing violates. He cites the rules that give him cover, and just ignores those that expose his tactics as disruptive. Recommend an immediate topic ban. Not just for the ] BLP, but for all the articles sourced in the BLP. Otherwise he will just retaliate by continuing to disrupt them. ] (]) 10:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == ] reported by ] == | |||
| * This looks like a content dispute. Have you taken this to ] as a first port of call? --] ] ] 10:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result=John40332 has been blocked sitewide. ] (]) 01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :* Unfortunately, it's more than a content issue. It's a persistent, long-term pattern of disruptive behavior. So per ], ANI ''"may be the best first step."'' ] (]) 10:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *The article would probably benefit from both these editors leaving it alone. ] (]) 16:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{moved from|]|2=] (]) 14:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::* Fact is, unless admins enforce it, don't count on it. Otherwise I wouldn't have had to come here. I've suggested several times that Novaseminary just take a Wikibreak from the article. He refused. ] (]) 19:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I found this at ] and have spent more time than I'm willing to admit looking through it all. 3RR violations from dynampic IPs are really disruptive, but similarly I think we can do without Noveseminary's bizarre obsession with this person. I'm going to give Novaseminary time to respond, but I strongly lean towards a topic ban for both users. – ] 00:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{vandal|John40332}} – On {{No redirect|:Psycho (1960 film)}} ({{diff|Psycho (1960 film)|1266578685|1265765039|diff}}): account is being used only for promotional purposes; account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. User's recent edits have been dedicated almost invariably to inserting links in classical music-related articles to an obscure sheet music site. Behavior appeared to be ] and ]. Personal attempts to curb this behavior or reach a compromise were rejected by user. ] resulted in ], despite three other editors informing user that their edits appeared to be spam or some kind of advocacy. ] (]) 08:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* You know what? I'll accept that. If Novaseminary is topic banned, I'll voluntarily self-ban. My only request is that the last edit before the ban is monitored/reviewed by uninvolved 3rd party/parties to insure no Novaseminary POV. Thanks. ] (]) 02:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Not a bot and not spamming, you just keep ] me repeatedly, I cited sources to the publisher of the books in question. You appear to suffer from ] and act like I need your consent to edit the articles you feel that belong to you. You also know I'm not a compromised account, you spam ] on your reverts but you're mostly bullying other editors into submission. | |||
| :::*I've never violated a single guideline or policy at this article. The IP seems to care more about how this person is presented favorably than about the nietrality of WP, but it tough to know what else if anything this IP has edited. This article was one of several resume-like PR/POV articles i've come across over the years. I, and others, tried to make it neutral and then kept it on my watchlist. Almost everything i've done i've discussed at talk. I have only even edited this over the last few weeks because an IP came along and removed well sourced text without discussion until posted at a NB. ] (]) 13:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :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. | |||
| ::::*I would also point out, I only nominated this article for deletion once, with no consensus. I actually came across it at the first successful AfD nom made, not by me, but another editor. The IP seems to think I have had it out for this person, but I have been only one of several editors to do things the IP apparently disapproves of, but that I think comply with policy. (At one point the article cited several non-RS articles written by a single publicist, for instance.) ] (]) 14:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::::::Our IP user has agreed to a self-ban from this article providing you do the same. From your comments above that the IP's edits are the only reason you've even been editing the page recently, this should be an acceptable resolution for you too. Right? – ] 15:11, 13 October 2012 (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) | |||
| ::::::Yes. Novaseminary? I do agree that you have an all-too strong interest in that article. ] (]) 17:16, 13 October 2012 (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. | |||
| :::::::* I'd just like to point out that I haven't touched the article since ] came along and restored some sanity to it. Even though we still disagree on an issue, and even after the temp-protect was denied. But even as a dynamic IP, I've respected all these dispute resolution processes. I should also point out the same can't be said for Novaseminary. Just today: , and . Drmies has already attacked ''my'' intentions and falsely accused me of COI - after working on the article for just a few weeks. By the way, I found nothing that supports Novaseminary's "single publicist" theory. But what I did find, is that Novaseminary has been at this article for ''almost 2 years'', much of it for months at a time as it's as the sole editor! Just look at the period from March to May of this year, folks. And please let's not forget Novaseminary's "Douglas Tait obsession" goes well beyond just the article. The creation of his . The fact that he slapped up a ] stub that was so non-notable, that months later, it's still just a stub. He also slaps up citation tags on any article even mentioned in the BLP, as I noted originally. And just today, his obsession with 1 article on Tait about him getting kicked off his HS basketball team was revealed again! (Which by the way, a subsequent article that he never includes noted was a 1 day suspension!) But for your convenience, and possibly entertainment, I pulled just how many times and places I could find where he (or his meatpuppet who did it twice), have fought to include that one article - over the objection of far more editors than just me: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and just TODAY - you guessed it: ! | |||
| :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}} | |||
| :::::::*But that tally also excludes these, found on the article on Tait's high school, ] : , , , | |||
| == User:Historian5328 == | |||
| :::::::*By the way, he has also attacked ''that'' article, presumably because the school and/or team dared to admit Tait: , . | |||
| *{{userlinks|Historian5328}} | |||
| I have been dealing with persistent additions of unreferenced numbers to ], ], etc for some time. Rolling them back - they're never supported by sources that validate the data, or the sources are distorted. | |||
| In the last couple of days a new user, ] has also started showing this behaviour. But in this edit he's entering fantasy territory, saying the ] are equipped with the ], which has never been exported beyond the ]. I would request that any interested administrator consider this account for blocking. Kind regards and Happy New Year, ] ] 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*So it should be clear by now folks, that the problem isn't me. But is exactly as Steel said: Novaseminary has some "bizarre obsession with this person." ''Geez, Novaseminary can't even stay off an article when he's being ANI'd over it!'' Now I know, to Drmies, I'm just some lowly SPA with a dynamic IP and some as alleged, yet unexplained, COI. But I just happened upon this deal a few weeks ago, and you've got a real problem on your hands that's been persistent long before me. So you can either do something about it, or you can continue to let Novaseminary's wackadoodle freak flag fly. ] (]) 19:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Editor clearly has some serious ] issues, given this ] stuff, and using...let's say ''non-reliable sources'' elsewhere, without responding to any of the notices on their talk page. I've pblocked them from articlespace so they can come here and explain themselves. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::*I do not think that is true that the IP has left the article alone since Drmies restored sanity to it. since the Dr made his edits. That is why the Dr asked for the article to be partially protected. In fact, the Dr reverted IP most recently. And I just restored to the version IP said he agreed with (and others did, too) on talk, but then s/he changed. ] (]) 01:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just noting that the editor's username is ], not ] and they were informed of this discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}The only reason I have edited the page at all since this iteration was created is because it was recreated after deletion at AfD and, at that time, was quite promotional. To be clear, I do not think this individual satisfies N (the only indepth coverage were ] and removed from the article and ). But if there is to be an article, it should not be a promo piece, or even a non-promotional piece that neglects widely covered aspects of this individual because somebody doesn't want that covered. And it is not just the current variable IPv6. Various other IPs at other times have inserted unsourced or promotional material. So has at least one regular editor who was blocked, ] (whose arguments and edit history ]). I have always tried to achieve consensus at talk and adide by it, and except for disagreements from IP or other editors who have actually broken WP guidelines and policies and been blocked for it ( and ] blocked ), I and the other editors have succeeded in reaching consensus (including the current version of this article). We did so despite being up against at least one individual who, in my opinion, did not have WP's best interests at heart or even any stated or apparent interest in WP for WP's sake at all. I think it would be strange and detrimental to WP to topic ban an editor who has never been blocked, has followed all guielines and policies on the article in question, seeks and abides by consensus at the article in question, and has only had run-ins at the article with tenacious editors who have been blocked for their violations of various guidelines and policies (including the IP requesting this action who certainly has before and does even in the post above with the "wackadoodle freak flag fly" comment and unsupported claim I have a meatpuppet). I hope we don't allow editors whose edits indicate that they are more interested in positive coverage of a particular subject have veto power of a good faith editor who edits to keep WP from being misused for the sake of WP. ] (]) 01:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::In the same regard, I would kindly request that any interested administrators review ], who has been warned over and over and over again about adding unsourced and completely made up material (Somali Navy for example, consisting of 3,500 personnel..) ] ] 03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think anyone disagrees that 2602.304 is a disruptive presence on the page. But it takes two, and the edit history for September and October is just crazy. There is more than one person here who thinks that ''both'' of you should just chill and give it a rest for a little while. The Wiki is bigger than this one article, and if it's true that you've only been editing the article because of 2602.304, then this will have zero effect on your editing. There are still other users who can look after the page. So unless any other uninvolved users want to chime in, I think we can consider the dual article ban done. – ] 14:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I see you corrected their username in this report after I mentioned the mistake. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :On second thoughts, instead of an article ban let's make it a topic ban on anything related to Tait, that way ], and any other page that this might spill over to, is included as well. – ] 14:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Liz, the original vandal and very problematic editor, who should be blocked immediately, was YZ357980. With all due regard to Historian5328, they display very similar behaviour, which immediately created a warning flag in my mind. ] ] 21:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I’m relatively new to Misplaced Pages editing and only recently discovered that there is even a talk page. Regarding the active personnel for the Somali Armed Forces, I listed approx 20,000–30,000 (2024) and included a citation, which I believe does not warrant being blocked. I’m a beginner in Misplaced Pages editing, have no malicious intent, and do not believe I should be blocked. Moreover, I read from a Somalia media source that the Somali government had acquired A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, believing the source to be authentic up until I discovered I was blocked. This was a mistake on my part, as I am new and inexperienced (2 days.) The individual who requested me to blocked must have had bad experiences which I’m not responsible for. I am requesting to be unblocked. ] (]) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Discussion continued on user's talk page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| A reminder that the arbitration committee has designated the Horn of Africa a contentious topic, so don’t be afraid to lay down a CT advisory template for either user. ] (]) 08:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Both done - thanks for the reminder. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I've removed the pblock on Historian5328 as it appears what was happening was 'new user unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's policies on reliable sourcing', but best to keep an eye on their edits. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and removal of sourced information == | |||
| :* It's been a very long time since I've read such a steaming pile of desperate, self-serving, "everybody did bad but me, daddy!" ''fiction'' that it was actually embarrassing to read. Novaseminary's "defense?" Everyone ganged up on poor him, while all he did was wear angel wings - while he alone protected the very existence of WP from the mortal threat posed by this one minor article with limited traffic. Ridiculous, and not a string of truth anywhere! | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = no action at this time | |||
| | result = Participants reminded to attempt communicating with other editors before reporting their behaviour to ANI. ] (]) 21:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''1)''' Here, his edit-warring with Drmies: and and of course, his all-time favorite, . | |||
| }} | |||
| This seems to be an ongoing issue. | |||
| ::'''2)''' To Novaseminary's claim that the restored article was the same as the deleted one, was originally made back on March 3. Here's . But that for him. So much for collaborative editing. Equally obvious, Novaseminary's 2nd AfD also failed. In fact, while he says there was no consensus, there originally was consensus - Once again, Novaseminary fought it and an admin changed it, despite an !vote itself of 4 to 2 to Keep, to no consensus. | |||
| {{Userlinks|Vofa}} has lots of warnings about disruptive editing in their user page and a block. | |||
| ::'''3)''' To his claim that the article was promotional? Here's the first . Remarkable how it contains much of the , even after Novaseminary had months of editing it, several alone, to supposedly scrub it of anything "promotional." | |||
| Most recent example of removal of sourced information: | |||
| I checked the source and the information is there on page 7. | |||
| ::'''5)''' Novaseminary also attempted to make hay over the fact that an editor who challenged his edits, (pretty vocally too), was blocked. Well here's a portion of Novaseminary's own record. He misrepresented his own history on Noticeboards. Seems this isn't his . There may have been more incidents in his history, but this was so well-detailed, I didn't see the need to look for any more. | |||
| Previous examples include: . Also see: ] ] (]) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''6)''' Just as he misrepresented the current version of the article. Which I have now to reflect the actual consensus. | |||
| :Just to clarify, I just noticed that there is indeed an unsourced paragraph. | |||
| ::'''7)''' By the way, this is meatpuppetry: , , , . ] (]) 14:44, 14 October 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== | |||
| :::I resent the claims of the IP (by that, I mean the person who has been posting using IP v6 Addresses in the range 2602:3FF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF) that my actions have been meatpuppetry (and consequently that I am a meatpuppet). The IP should have brought this section to my attention, and neglected to do so. I have warned the IP for making a personal attack in . The IP has never answered my question "What are your goals in editing this talk page?" about ] in . The IP has consistently refused to login or to create an account, to "tell us which other IP Addresses you have been using" (asked in the same edit), and to "Kindly provide a single user talk page on which to discuss your conduct", and has instead deflected such queries as "inappropriate". Given ], I wish to discuss the IP's conduct here. — '''<span style="background:Yellow;font-family:Helvetica Bold;color:Blue;">] ]</span>''' 21:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* The complete extent of ]'s contributions , , , , was: ''"Yes per Novaseminary.", "I agree wholeheartedly with Novaseminary's position on this issue."'' and to twice repost a link that Novaseminary reposted over 35 times on a least 2 articles. A link that has been rejected by more than a dozen other editors. So he's free to resent the meatpuppetry conclusion. The log is the log. Although there was also his repeated attacks aimed at me while complaining of my attack on Novaseminary. As he , , 3 times I had to ask him to focus on the RfC topic instead of me. Three times he was unable to do so. | |||
| ]'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: | |||
| ::::*Regarding his other issues, not surprisingly - again all focused on me and not the topic: a) I'm not required to create an acct, nor do I choose to do so. . b) Nor do I need to "tell us which other IP Addresses you have been using", ''mein Herr''. c) My dynamic IP meant that I never saw his IP talk page post, but I called his attack on me "inappropriate" in an RfC forum, because I actually took a line from Novaseminary, who had said earlier: Interesting that he only found it troublesome when I said it, but not when Novaseminary did. Ironic, huh? ] (]) 01:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills. | |||
| :::::*Not to speak for him, but you never had discussed at talk why you continued to remove the when he reverted you. You only discussed after I requested page protection. And what more than dozen editors is IP talkign about? IP removing without discussion over a dozen times, against the only discussion at talk, is not the same as over a dozen editors removing it. IP has seen fit to document and complain of my 35 edits here at ANI (miscontrueing and including among them POV edits such as (, and the very offensive ). Where are the more than dozen editors that have removed ''anything'' I have added at that article? And if this is not the place to discuss IP, it is also not the place to discuss me. ] (]) 02:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* There was no reason to rehash his question, since I had already thoroughly discussed it at the where he had participated. By the way, the full extent of his utility there was this to you: Obviously, I also should have included that as well. ] (]) 02:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883 | |||
| ::But his emotional appeal was also instructive for what it didn't defend or explain. Like: | |||
| WP:NPA | |||
| ::*'''a)''' His . | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324 | |||
| ::*'''b)''' His abandoned and non-notable ] stub. | |||
| Profanity | |||
| ::*'''c)''' His wikistalking & original research of Talk's . | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966 | |||
| ::*'''d)''' His attacks on other articles mentioned in Tait's article: , . | |||
| Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor | |||
| ::*'''e)''' His attacks-by-citation tags on other articles because they were mentioned in Tait's article. Like , and . | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877 | |||
| ::*'''f)''' His recent redlinking of the article, which he only withdrew when I showed him the notes against excessive redlinking, esp. if he never planned on writing those articles. | |||
| Unicivil | |||
| ::*'''g)''' His obsession with 1 article about Tait's high school basketball suspension. He posted it over 35 times, on two articles! I've also removed it - where it's also not only irrelevant, but inconsistent with all the other notable alumns. NONE of whom need citations - and many of whom also have their own BLPs. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027 | |||
| ::*'''h)''' His insistence in renaming the article "Douglas Tait . Tait's infobox mentions actor twice, stuntman and filmmaker. If it weren't for his orphaned stub of , which should probably be deleted for N, Tait wouldn't need to be listed as a "stuntman", since that ignores the entire body of his acting credits and other work as a filmmaker. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441 | |||
| ::*'''i)''' And finally why, if Novaseminary's only interest in the article was to keep it from becoming promotional, couldn't/didn't he accomplish that in the 2 months when only he was regularly editing the article, from March to May of this year. Either that was not his intention at all, as he's claimed. Or he's just a really incompetent (CIR) editor. Something else is going on with his obsession over Tait. That much is obvious. | |||
| Contact on user page attempted | |||
| ::Finally, in response to his admittedly well-crafted rhetorical appeal - which he always seems to display whenever he needs it on Noticeboards - but is rarely in evidence in his contentious edits and stubborn failure to edit collaboratively. I say, save the rhetoric. His duplicitous and conniving edit pattern, contrived speechifying and transparent agenda, speak for him. A review of his edit log clearly shows he forfeited any AGF a long time ago. It also makes a strong argument that he has damaged the very WP, and regularly violating the very WP rules & guidelines, that he now claims he protected. His last disciplinary action, just a few months ago, proves the Tait article isn't just a lone exception in the way he operates here. ] (]) 14:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795 | |||
| :::*Steel, I'd like it noted, that I must have posted my last response at the same time that you did. And while we disagree that I have been disruptive - esp. given the time it obviously takes to research and craft responses that I hope have been useful, I understand your need to be Solomonic here and split the baby to protect your own. Fine. But yes, the topic ban was my original request, so enormous thanks for that. I also see you've protected the page as well. Again, no problem. I'll keep my part of the bargain. But, and I really hope this won't be misconstrued as "disruptive", but I'll look it over in a day or so and leave any final thoughts/comments/requests on your talk page. Thanks. ] (]) 14:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*I do not agree to a topic ban. The IP ''continues'' to insure his/her POV remains with edits, of course, right before the lock. This is a content dispute with a disruptive IP, nothing more. This is not the appropriate DR location for this discussion anyway. On the other hand, if the article is reverted to the pre-IP state, I would happily stand down. Or even if the non-RSs (and corresponding facts) were removed and the discussion of his basketball career that notes he didn't play much in the season before he was supposedly casted as a basketball player because of his play. Either way, if others (other than disruptive IP) want to discuss that version and change it, I bet there would be little to no disagreement in the future. A partial protection would probably take care of everthing. ] (]) 18:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent | |||
| *OMG, I've never seen such.....er...passion regarding such a non-noteworthy individual before. I remember when this page was first created and there was a lot of disagreemen over whether he was even notable (I was not one that thought he was). I do NOT think that there should be a topic ban for either, as then we'd have no one even editing this page. LOL. In all seriousness, I think a temporary topic ban would be acceptable. For instance, just keep the page fully protected for say 1 or 2 weeks and let everyone cool down. There is nothing on the page that is negative or requires immediate removal at the moment and the time away from the topic could do everyone good. I think there are a lot of egos on both sides being tested here and time apart is appropriate, IMO. I am NOT for any permanent bans or blocks. I think this has to do with editors that want the best but are going at it from 2 different sides of the equation. ] ] 19:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557] (]) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not knowledgeable on this particular situation, but I have had an IMMENSE amount of interaction with Novaseminary which started with this: and thankfully 98% ended with this ] I certain that I'm the Wikipedian that knows them best. They do launch into obsessive battling behavior against individuals, including following them around and even creepier privacy related stuff that I don't care to get into. And they have "skated" by being expert at mis-using and mis-quoting policies and guidelines and clever wording that disguises such warfare as not being such. If you really want to do something really huge for Misplaced Pages, take a close look at what has happened at this article with this framework in mind, and 1 or preferably more folks should warn them to reduce the type of behavior exhibited. I believe that they would be very influence-able by that type of input, and with that course correction would be a good editor, as they also do much good work, aside from the above. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 20:26, 14 October 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) | |||
| :::*I think Novaseminary's response - and reaction - finally exposed the real him. This isn't ab policies that his tendentious editing violates. He cites the rules that give him cover, and just ignores those that expose his tactics as disruptive. Recommend an immediate topic ban. Not just for the ] BLP, but for all the articles sourced in the BLP. Otherwise he will just retaliate by continuing to disrupt them. ] (]) 10:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Would I be the person to provide you with that {{tq|further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions}}? I did think that it would be more than a ], since that's for {{tq|one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior}} and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern ]. ] (]) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. ''Hob should know better'', and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to ]. But I would ''caution you'' about ] and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your , , and it seems like you're having a problem handling a ] and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith. | |||
| :Furthermore it does appear that you might be ] because your attempts at ] for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. , , , , , , and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding ] and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards ]. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. ] ] 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address ''unique issues'' as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. ({{tq|All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution.}} ]) Thank you for your time and input. | |||
| ::] (]) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hope the editors who read this will notice the ABF here: {{tq|trying to report other editors in bad faith}}. ] (]) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{OD}} | |||
| @]: Jay brought something to my attention with . It looks like there is ] (ChatGPT) text about "COVID-19 Natural Immunity" copied and pasted on there. What in the cheeseballs?? What made you think {{!tq|hmm, let's prompt ShatGPT to churn out 700 words about this random out-of-pocket topic, and I'm gonna post this on my Misplaced Pages user page for no reason!}} I'm confused. This specific revision also ] about IP editors, and here's the rich part: just as you copy-pasted text from ChatGPT about COVID to your user page, you go on to write a section that addresses use of AI. {{tq|Quoting from an AI chat bot without attribution is plaigiarism.}} I'm just confused with what you are doing here. So I'd like to ask you, ], what in the sam hill is going on here? If there is a reasonable explanation for this goofiness, I suggest you produce one, '''not from a prompt entered into ChatGPT''', in your own words. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It is an old version of their user page, and it is not plagiarism to quote from a chat bot even without attribution, so we must assume that you are attempt to detract from the OP's complaint. The issue at hand is an experienced editor who joins talk page discussions without understanding the topic at hand (which they admit in one instance ), and are frequently use derogatory language and tone towards other editors. This behavior does not seem like a new thing for them and they clearly know how to skirt the edge of what would be considered a personal attack by an admin, so this merits a formal warning. ] (]) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * This looks like a content dispute. Have you taken this to ] as a first port of call? -- Which is his right. But he's also cherry-picked editors who have worked on the article before and whom he believes he can reliably trust to agree with him. Where are all the requests for comment from editors who have worked on it and like me, also complained about his edits? He sure didn't send them "Hail Mary" invites. So I think contributions from NON-INVOLVED editors with no history on the BLP should be weighted more. I especially appreciate the comments of North, who has zero axe to grind on this article having never touched it, but who's own experience with Novaseminary makes him uniquely positioned to comment on this user's disruptive and yes, disturbing behavior. At this point it should be clear to everyone that nothing "temporary" regarding Novaseminary will/would ever work. Unless he is stopped, he won't stop. He'll say what he must say on Noticeboards to escape censure and restrictions, and then just wait until the heat dies. And then he'll resume as if nothing happened. And he'll be free to do it on the Tait article because it's not well-traveled, so it'll go on for months again until some "horrible IP" like me happens along and risks being called "disruptive", just by showing the WP community what it failed to catch or monitor itself: That he has an absolutely clear pattern and agenda, at least on the Tait article and probably on his other SPA edits elsewhere. Someone should review and request feedback from editors there to see. Because it would be incredibly foolish to let him escape responsibility again, just months after North's Noticeboard complaint. As he's demonstrated, it would also be foolish to expect/assume any voluntary, unmonitored change. People are who they are and they consistently do what they do. ] (]) 21:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @], you should familiarise yourself with ]. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Just clarifying one point, it's my guess that they ''would'' be influenced by well-written on-target warnings. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 21:51, 14 October 2012 (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) | |||
| ::::::I still think it's best if Novaseminary simply stays away from the article. ] (]) 21:58, 14 October 2012 (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) | |||
| {{outdent}}I didn't respond to IP's "report card" because it is not worthy of a response. My ''only'' concern at this article is that WP not be used for promotional purposes or be exploited to only show the good about a particular subject leaving out articles in national newspapers covering the subject in a less flattering way. That is my true color. You might disagree with ''how'' I have tried to do that, but seeing as I would prefer the article not exist (not that it highlight unflattering material about Tait, and certainly not that it be a resume, linked, as it was, from his facebook page), what else would have caused my alleged POV? If we allow an IP to inhibit strict reliance on RS and V and NPOV, especially in a BLP, the project will be worse off. I would love to tone it down. IP does not seem to have the same interest. And going straight to a ban, even though no other blocks have been made (against, me, of course; the requestor has been blocked before), and no ] has been undertaken, seems to violate ]. I would also note and agree with JeffG's interspersed edit above (). No meatpuppetry. This also weighs against a topic ban (for me) at least. I tried to use DR and talk. ] (]) 23:08, 14 October 2012 (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) | |||
| :* You didn't respond, because after having your own disruptive edit log laid bare in front of you, ''even you have no response.'' Frankly, your responses only remind people why no temporary or voluntary solution requiring your compliance would ever work. I'm not entirely convinced that you shouldn't be banned altogether for abusing this project and distorting it to make it your own personal plaything. But that's for others to eventually decide. ] (]) 02:20, 15 October 2012 (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) | |||
| == Is it reasonable to have my integrity questioned and my edits reverted because I am an ip? == | |||
| :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) | |||
| As ] ] (]) 13:26, 12 October 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) | |||
| ::My experience with and attitude toward Hob is 100% the same as described here by Palpable. It goes back a while ... <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hob Gadling failing to yield to ], apparently missing both the discussion and RSN link from the talk page. Asserting an unreliable source as reliable in order to describe the subject as having a ‘victim complex’. ] (]) 23:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to think that an IP address which has no edits and then suddenly starts editing the Manual of Style during a contentious argument is in fact a registered user who happens to be editing while logged out. If you do not already have an account, it is easy to make one (although as I said it is surprising that your very first edit on Misplaced Pages was to the Manual of Style). If you already have a registered account and are editing while logged out, that is tolerated to some extent, but of course it editors may not find it very respectable. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 13:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your reply, Carl. Could you answer my question? ] (]) 13:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't see anything in that link that appears to be any sort of question regarding your integrity because you're an IP editor. Perhaps you provided the wrong link or I missed something? ] (]) 13:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yep, you missed the edit summary -- ] (]) 13:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe Carl answered your question in his first word. – '''''] ]''''' 13:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I believe he answered a different question in his first word. ] (]) 13:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I question the integrity of IP editors and revert their edits frequently. Neither is ''strictly'' because the user in question is an IP, but rather than the bulk of IP edits are utter crap, and their reasons for editing as an IP are steeped in bad-faith and deception. Hopefully that answers the question. ] (]) 13:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Do you not feel it would be better to revert edits solely on their merits? ] (]) 14:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It would, but editors are human and make mistakes, which is especially easy when so many IPs do nothing but vandalise and troll. If you only want to edit WP as an IP, you have to accept that sort of discrimination will just happen, and handle it. --] ] ] 19:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We'll have to agree to differ on that one, Richie. I don't believe that ips should have to accept discrimination from admins or anyone else, and I don't believe it's possible to discriminate by "mistake". ] (]) 20:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : Anyone who appears to be a new user can have their integrity questioned, IP or otherwise, as long as everyone is ], doesn't ] and follows the correct policy and guidelines. If you happen to be on an IP that gets recycled, then, well sorry but we've got no way of knowing your previous contributions, and you can't easily prove another IP was you. --] ] ] 13:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you don't mind I would like to keep this discussion open for further input. It has hardly been open 5 minutes. I disagree with the notion that it is reasonable to question the integrity of an editor simply because he is an ip, and I would like to hear further input. My main concern, which nobody has addressed, is that I was reverted twice: as above, and also ], simply because I'm an ip. Is that reasonable? ] (]) 14:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I contest the premise, namely, that it was "solely" or "simply" because the edits were from an IP. There appear to be several other factors at play, which Carl captured nicely in his original response. ] (]) 14:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Without looking into the matter too deeply, it appears to be an edit-warring issue more than an IP issue? ] (]) 14:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'm not sure what the issue is here. Noetica's edit summaries seem to be valid enough for the RfC to be closed; a competent and experienced editor closed an RfC that ''yielded no consensus''. You undid it (your first edits were to the MoA article as a whole, which seems suspicious), and Kwamikagami rightfully commented that you may be a logged-out user. So, yes, Carl '''did''' answer your question. – '''''] ]''''' 14:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The issue is that an RfC was ] by an uninvolved editor. There was nothing at all wrong with the closure. Noetica reverted the closure, demanding that it be closed by an Admin. Discussion ensued on the talk page, and the overwhelming consensus was that Noetica had no right to demand closure by an Admin. Therefore, the original closure should stand. This morning K ] the RfC with a different decision to the original. If that second closure is allowed to stand, then we are opening the floodgates for any involved editor to undo an RfC closure which he dislikes, and demand it be closed by someone else. ] (]) 14:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: (edit conflict) If you remove the word "anonymous" from the edit summary (and it took me about 30 seconds to find out you're in the UK, and you're a ] broadband customer, so you're perhaps not as anonymous as you might think), the premise for the revert is just as valid. Another editor disagreed with your edit and gave a legitimate reason for reverting it. Take it to the talk page if you disagree. --] ] ] 14:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am entirely aware that as an ip I am not anonymous, whereas those of you who are signed in are. Thanks very much for posting my details to ani. You don't seem to have noticed that the edits we're discussing ''are'' on the talk page. 14:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your question is disingenuous, 146.90. You weren't questioned simply because you are editing as an IP. You were questioned because your only contributions on this IP relate to a contentious MOS debate and you show a far greater understanding of Misplaced Pages than a new editor would - including running straight to ANI. In truth, if you had registered a SPA sock instead of simply editing logged out you would have faced the exact same questions. ]] 14:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::This snarky comment: "(Undid revision 517379871 Undoing a revert founded entirely on ad hominem. Welcome to WP! We can't allow editors to continue reverting a valid RfC closure until they have a result they like.)" seems provocative enough to result in this response: "(Undid revision 517388417 by 146.90.43.8 (talk) why do we have anon. IPs edit warring over this? at least have the integrity to sign in.)" Neither would be acceptable as habitual behavior. I would simply write this off as an unfortunate incident. I realize someone could have been editing here for many years without creating an account, but making substantive comments based on long experience requires using your registered account in order that they may be seen in context. ] ] 14:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Perhaps I shouldn't have written "Welcome to WP", but I absolutely stand by the Ad Hominem remark. Noetica has successfully overturned an entirely legitimate RfC based simply on the non-admin status of the closing editor. He is now removing my edits based on my status as an ip. That is not he way WP is supposed to work. ] (]) 14:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To 146.90, I have no strong feeling over whether or not it was OK to revert you on the grounds of the ''content'' of your edit. Your edit summary was unnecessarily snarky and might have invited a knee-jerk reversion just fot that. I do think that the answer to the narrower question of "should my edits be reverted just because I'm an IP" is a definite NO. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit does not require that anyone creates an account to do so. merely strongly encourages it. However if you make potentially controversial edits with snarky edit summaries, I'm afraid your IP status probably is going to be a factor in another editor's decisoin to revert or not. The deciding factor will be the quality of your edit however, not your status. ] ] 14:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Okay, Kim, I accept that the remark seems to have come across as snarky, and so I shouldn't have made it. But as I mentioned above I was actually trying to make a point with that remark. An RfC has been overturned based on editor status. ] (]) 15:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * ''No'' it's not reasonable; the edit summary comment is contrary to longstanding policy that registration is not required to edit. I've left a note on the editor's talk page asking them not to do that in the future (unfortunately, current software does not allow edit summary comments to be edited).<small>]</small> 17:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC) I'm not seeing evidence the reversion was inappropriate. <small>]</small> 17:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ** The situation here seems relatively clear that this is an experienced editor using an IP address as a sockpuppet, not a novice IP editor. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 18:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***A ]? Not clear to me. Policy says if you suspect a puppet file a ], not to declare the editor non grata. <small>]</small> 19:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****As a longtime editor here, you should know full well that SPI's involving IP's are always rejected. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *****Why? I'm a longterm editor here (AN & ANI), not there (SPI). So if someone suspects an IP editor is returning editor but can't id the regular account, it's simply ''guilty as suspected?'' <small>]</small> 01:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ******Checkusers will never comment on IP's. It's against the rules. However, if the IP here would level with us instead of jerking us around, he could regain the good faith that he's destroyed. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Note that Hob edited the talk page after re-adding this content; he should have self reverted if he missed this discussion prior. ] (]) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **Nobody, the reason I feel that the revert was inappropriate is that I asked that Kwamikagami explain why the initial RfC should not stand. Kwamikagami ignored that request completely, citing as the reason for his revert only my status as an ip. The RfC had already been closed . If Kwamikagami is not going to allow that initial closure to stand, then I believe it is incumbent upon him to explain why. If he can't explain why, then the initial closure should stand. ] (]) 19:25, 12 October 2012 (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) | |||
| Here is the timeline: | |||
| *:For context, ] is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| # Nathan Johnson closes the RfC as consensus in favour. | |||
| *::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) | |||
| # Noetica, who was deeply involved throught the RfC, reverts, claiming that the RfC should be closed by an admin. | |||
| *:::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) | |||
| # Discussion ensues on the talk page. The overhwelming consensus is that Noetica had no right to require that the RfC be close by an admin. | |||
| *::::Recuse{{smiley}} Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. ] (]) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| # I make the changes to MoS based on Nathan's closure, and am reverted by editors who !voted against the change. | |||
| *:::::To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. ] (]) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| # Kwamikagami re-closes the RfC as no-consenus. | |||
| *: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) | |||
| # I revert Kwamikagami asking him to explain why Nathan's closure should not stand. | |||
| # Noetica reverts me because I am an inexperienced ip, and Kwamikagami is an experienced editor. | |||
| # I revert Noetica because my status as an ip is irrelevant. | |||
| # Kwamikagami reverts me because I am an ip. | |||
| *As a note, Hob Gadling without comment and has not responded here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I would like that Nathan's original closure to stand. It was a perfectly valid closure, reverted by a heavily involved editor. If it doesn't stand, then we're saying that it's okay for involved editors to revert a valid RfC closure if they're not happy without the result. Allowing that will result in chaos. ] (]) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *: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) | |||
| :No you didn't ask Kwamikagami anything, you made an unenforceable demand in an edit summary. If you wish to ask a Misplaced Pages something, use their talk page. <small>]</small> 20:00, 12 October 2012 (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) | |||
| ::I said "This RfC has already been closed. If you feel the previous closure was invalid, please explain why, and say how your closure rectifies the faults in the last one.". Whether that counts as asking or demanding, is it not a reasonable request? Kwamikagami was overriding the previous closure. Does it not merit a response that is not simply a reference to my status as an ip? ] (]) 20:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| :::'' then we're saying that it's okay for involved editors to revert a valid RfC closure if they're not happy without the result.'' Isn't that what you did in steps 6 and 8 of your timeline above? ] (]) 20:16, 12 October 2012 (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. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No it absolutely is not. If Kwamikagami had been closing the initial RfC, then I wouldn't have dreamt of reverting him. Seriously. All of my reversions are attempting to back to the initial, valid, closure. ] (]) 20:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This whole "because I'm an IP" sounds a bit like "]?" As Nobody Ent said, use the talk page. --] ] ] 20:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The only reason I'm bothered about the ip thing is that it is being used as a means to avoid accountability. Instead of responding to very valid questions about why he has ignored a perfectly legitimate RfC closure, Kwamikagami has simply told me to go away because I'm an ip. I couldn't care less about the condescending remarks and the impugning of my integrity per se. What I do care about is him using them to push through an against-consensus change into the Mos. ] (]) 20:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::146, if the RFC was closed and the changes were made by you and you were reverted, it appears there was no consensus. So, closing it as "no consensus" seems appropriate. By reverting those closures, which go against changes you had made to the MoS, your argument seems to float into ] territory. Go to the talk page and start another discussion. ] (]) 20:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Not at all. There was whole RfC which ran for several weeks and involved umpteen editors. ''That's'' were the consensus was decided. The editors reverting me are a small subset of all of those involved in the RfC. The argument that you're using is the very same one that they are using. Three or four editors who opposed the change have decided that there is not consensus ''between themselves'' to accept the result of the RfC, and are reverting the changes that it brought about. If they're allowed to get away with it, then they've just invented a new way for a small group of editors, unhappy with the result of an RfC in which they participated, to sabotage it. ] (]) 20:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's not the number of editors who raise the issue, but the validity of the argument. You seem to view that your side "won" and that discussion should be closed marking your victory. I recommend you either request specific administrative action to be carried out by an admin against an offending party, or you return to the talk page and open or continue discussion about this topic. ] (]) 20:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Yes, listen to the wise IP <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 21:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::(EC) Nobody is saying that it's the number of editors that count. What I am saying is that ''after the RfC is over'', a small number of those editors who participated in it should not be allowed to prevent the changes brought about by the RfC from being put in to effect. What I want to establish is whether we should allow an involved editor to revert the legitimate closure of RfC an by an uninvolved editor. I say that we shouldn't, and if we do we're undermining the entire RfC process. ] (]) 21:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::192.76.82.90, would you mind saying whether or not you have participated in the process that we are discussing? ] (]) 21:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::''"Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to think that an IP address which has no edits and then suddenly starts editing the Manual of Style during a contentious argument is in fact a registered user who happens to be editing while logged out."'' That's an unreasonable accusation as well as innacurate. There was an RFC. IPs may participate. They may make edits to the manual of Style based on the closing as any editor may do. If you feel an editor is Sockpuppeting then make the accusation properly and show the diffs and whatever evidence you have. It is no more reasonable to accuse an IP of misbehavior than a registered user without proof.--] (]) 21:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| (od) <small>Since my 'reasonable' close of this discussion was undone.</small>An IP editor whose edits are almost exclusively to MOS should expect to have his/her integrity questioned, without prejudice of course. Do note that no one, not even kwami, is questioning the right of IP editors to edit without registering an account. All that the edit summary was saying was that this one IP editor is likely to be a registered editor hiding behind an IP. --] <small>(])</small> 21:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :He used the edit summary to talk about me, conveniently avoiding using it for its proper purpose, which is to explain his edit. ] (]) 21:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::You need to be clear about your complaint. If you want to know whether his assumption was reasonable, it is fairly clear that the community believes it was reasonable. I note that you're also using this thread as a forum for reverting the RfC close. That's better done on the appropriate talk pages. --] <small>(])</small> 22:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::(edit conflict) I always feel a little bad when I disagree with you RP as I have agreat deal of respect for your work. However, as I understand it, using the edit summary to make an unfounded accusation such as this is not appropriate and could lead to sanctions. Is it possible that the IP is a registered user, not logged in? Perhaps? But as I understand, there needs to be evidence of the sort and using the edit summary to make a claim as such goes against ], which states: ''"Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself."'' Per a recent discussion with ]: ''"Being logged out and editing isn't a violation of socking. Using that as an advantage is. This means voting twice in a poll like RfC or AfD, or using it to bypass 3RR, or in some other way that would make it looks you were two people when you are really one, like in a simple article talk page discussion about content."''--] (]) 22:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :::My complaint is that I'm being prevented from implementing the changes that should have come into effect when Nathan closed the RfC . Instrumental in that is Kwamikagami who has changed the result of the RfC and is refusing to discuss why. What I would like from admins is opinions on whether Nathan's closure should stand and, if it should stand, help in making the change to the article. "Take it to the talk page" is not really an option because the talk page is now inhabited by a small number of editors who took part in the RfC and are unhappy with the outcome. There is a consensus among those editors, a small subset of all those involved in the RfC, that the RfC should not be implemented. ] (]) 22:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::146, WP:STICK. WP:POINT. Nothing will come by arguing here. Cheers. -] (]) 22:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You might well be right, but I hope not. ] (]) 22:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Now you are discussing a content dispute. If your contributions were excluded and you feel this was done in an improper manner the best venue would be DR/N.--] (]) 23:00, 12 October 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) | |||
| :Back to the original question... When an editor's very first edit is something like this, it is ''right and proper'' to be suspicious of the editor - be it an IP or a redlink or whatever. It practically screams "wikipedia abuser". And griping about it reinforces that suspicion. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, exactly what is so suspicious? I am suspicious of a number of editors. So what? It is only when you express suspicions in an innappropriate manner that an issue arises. What in the edit or edit summary was incorrect....or is it that it WASN'T incorrect that gives editors pause? The editor was correct. RFCs do not require an admin closing. If the RFC has become contentious and a request for admin closing was made, then I could understand the problem. Did this have an request for admin closing?--] (]) 00:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Years of experience indicate that when someone shows up from nowhere, and their first edits are complaints about something on a WP page, that practically screams "Sockpuppet!" However, if the OP reveals some of the other user ID's and/or IP's he's edited under, he could gain some credibility. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you'd have bothered to read the discussion that you're commenting on, you'd have seen that I self-identified as a different ip address who had commented on the RfC. ] (]) 10:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Where? I'm not seeing it, but I might be blind. Post the diff here, please. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 12:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!) {{tq|bullshit}} to describe an argument that did, in fact, turn out to be bullshit shows how weak it is. What's more alarming is that ''that'' was what led Lardlewarmers to try and , a hamhanded effort whose sheer inappropriateness they remain sufficiently tone-deaf to that they made the mistake of bragging about it here as part of their "report". This is a straightforward ] situation. --] (]) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*: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) | |||
| === Recap === | |||
| :Please check out the article and discussion. The lab leak theory is not pseudoscience, but rather a scientific hypothesis which important scientists have suggested is worthy of serious investigation (]). Although the evidence strongly favors a zoonotic origin, the investigation is inconclusive. In any case, I would favor a Misplaced Pages where civil discussion leads to a balanced representation of what is published in reliable sources. If your position is supported by the sources, there is no need to resort to name calling. ] (]) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sorry but I've re-opened this for further input. Nobody closed it with " Opinions vary on questioning the integrity of the IP but there's a clear consensus this is not the place to argue about the RFC close." Well, if you search through the discussion you will see that almost nobody has commented on the RfC closure. There certainly isn't a consensus. Ip 192.76.82.90 had very strong opinions on the matter, but he disappeared when asked whether or not he was an involved party. Sorry for beating the drum, but either we have an RfC procedure or we don't. We shouldn't let an involved editor overturn a valid RfC closure. To re-iterate: | |||
| ::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) | |||
| {{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}} | |||
| My complaint is that I'm being prevented from implementing the changes that should have come into effect when Nathan closed the RfC . Instrumental in that is Kwamikagami who has changed the result of the RfC and is refusing to discuss why. What I would like from admins is opinions on whether Nathan's closure should stand and, if it should stand, help in making the change to the article. "Take it to the talk page" is not really an option because the talk page is now inhabited by a small number of editors who took part in the RfC and are unhappy with the outcome. There is a consensus among those editors, a small subset of all those involved in the RfC, that the RfC should not be implemented. ] (]) 10:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == User lobbying fringe subculture off-site for fringe subculture and suspicions of ]ry == | |||
| : The concept of ] is that non-admins should '''not''' close controversial issues, nor those where ] is not 100% obvious. The first close by a non-admin on a contentious topic was not valid, and as such, nothing from their close should have been considered as implementable. The valid close - and at first glance from a first reading of the entire RFC - shows that the admin close of no-consensus was '''correct'''. So, this has nothing to do with you as an IP, it has to do with someone closing an RFC improperly, and setting inappropriate expectations for other editors such as yourself <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 10:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=It's said that ] - well, ANI is ''also'' not a place to bring fishing expeditions. If you have evidence of ''recent'' misconduct by an editor, then by all means bring it. But if you just {{tqq| more would come to light}}, expect a {{tl|trout}}ing. I'm closing this as unactionable with a fish for the OP, and a caution to in the future compile evidence ''before'' coming to ANI. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Over at ] and the very questionable ], both extremely ] topics strongly linked to for example ], myself and a few other users find ourselves having to respond to a lot of accounts that either openly or less than openly state that they're members of the article's subject subculture and that, like the subculture's founders, have a strong distaste for experts ( from one such fairly new account, {{ping|KanyeWestDropout}}). | |||
| One of these editors, {{user|Paleface Jack}}, has been caught lobbying off site (). The user has also likely done so elsewhere that hasn't come to light. This user's efforts appear to have led to a variety of ]s popping up to ] any and all changes they disagree with, an effort to shape the articles to the subculture's preference. | |||
| ::If you're right about that, then I'll drop the stick, because as you say, the initial closure was invalid. There was a long discussion on the talk page about whether or not it is permissible to demand that an admin close an RfC. The discussion included editors and several admins. The overwhelming consensus was that it is not permissible, any uninvolved editor may close any RfC. Any RfC ] (]) 11:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Adding that the essay in the link you provided refers to closures of deletion debates. It was agreed in the MoS discussion that it is permissible to ask for admin closures in deletion debates, but not in RfCs, as the RfC page makes explicit. ] (]) 11:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Exactly, the scope of the ] essay is Afd so it is not relevant to this discussion. The RFC policy clearly does '''not''' require an admin to close: ] <small>]</small> 13:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Right. And as it was formally closed by an uninvolved editor, that closure should stand. ] (]) 13:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is about controversial Afds. Other wording extends NAC restrictions to controversial moves. Neither can be closed by non-admins. Contested RFCs can be closed by non-admins. However, all closures (except for a delete in an Afd or a move of a move-protected page) can be reverted boldly. If the revert is undone, the editor should go to the talk page, per BRD; the IP edit-warred instead. Granted, practically the same thing happened with a non-IP on the first closure, but editors can't use another's behavior to justify their own. I am not sure why this is on ANI; we can't enforce consensus through warnings, censures, locks and blocks, so I am not sure what you are asking an admin to do. ] (]) 16:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::RfCs are started when BRD hasn't worked. To accept BRD on the result of RfCs would make a nonsense of the whole process. Where would it end? RfCs are there to draw a line under the discussion ] (]) 17:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Unless I'm looking at this completely incorrectly (and I've read the ANI thread as well as the RFC, but I don't think I am), Nathan Johnson (not an administrator) closed the RFC with one result, and was reverted twice because of their non-adminship status. However, in , Kwamikagami (also ) re-closed it with a different result, but this has been allowed to stand? If the RFC is contentious enough to require administrative closure, then fair enough, but no double standards please. Can someone who is actually an administrator review the RFC and determine the result? <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 11:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*You are right that it was closed by an uninvolved non-admin, reverted by one of the most heavily involved editors, then closed with a different result by another non-admin. But I don't agree that an admin should make the final call. The original closure was perfectly fine. Nobody has given any valid reason why it should not stand. The original closure should be reinstated. Doing otherwise would mean that any disgruntled, involved, editor could undo a closure he didn't like, and demand someone else close it. That would undermine the whole system. RfCs by their very nature are contentious. There will always be editors who disagree with the result. ] (]) 11:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :* An admin (Jayron32) has already commented on the closure, to wit: The RFC policy clearly does '''not''' require an admin to close: ] <small>]</small> 11:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Again, it's important to emphasize that not only has Paleface Jack been caught red-handed here but he has likely also lobbied elsewhere, leading to long-term problems for these and associated articles. | |||
| There seems to be some disagreement about whether admins have special magical powers to close discussions. Perhaps there should be an RfC about that. -] (]) 14:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| As some users here know, I edit a lot on fringe topics and have all but single-handedly written our coverage on topics like ], utilizing nothing but the highest quality possible sources. Along the way, I've endured relentless insults and less-than-pleasant anonymous messages. I've been a personal target for users like Paleface Jack and co for years. | |||
| IP 192.76.82.90 "disappeared" because I left work and didn't feel like repeating the same spiel over-and-over again. But if you're so suspicious of ''my'' participating in this discussion because I'm an IP, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your initial question. ] (]) 15:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Two editors (I wasn't involved) reverted you. We shouldn't discuss the merits of the edits, content-wise, on this forum. They didn't revert you just because you were an IP. But while the comment you may actually be a registered editor was uncalled for and unpolitic, I agree with its truth. An IP dropped out of the Internet sky, went like an arrow to the talk page of a Misplaced Pages Project page (WP:MOS), and waded into a long-running, lengthy, arcane dispute, displaying a grasp of the discussion even most of the few who post on that page were unlikely to have. It was reasonable to assume you had participated in the debate as a registered user. And why bring this here? What do you want? Sanctions or warnings against those who reverted you? I would oppose it; being not as polite as people should be isn't grounds for censure, especially of one of Misplaced Pages's most prolific contributors, on the complaint of an edit-warring IP. If you are asking for the edit itself to be reinstated, I oppose that since there was no consensus (or any support) for your edit war on that page. ] (]) 16:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*You are one of a goup of 3 or 4 editors who are not prepared to let the result of the RfC stand. The RfC was widely advertised, lasted for weeks and involved many editors. An uninvolved editor assesed the RfC and decided that there was consensus in favour of change. A heavily involved editor didn't like the result, so reverted. You and two or three others continue to revert in order to prevent the changes agreed in the RfC from being implemented. | |||
| As is far too typical in our ] spaces, any action by myself and others introducing ] on these articles is responded to with endless talk page lawyering and complaints from these cryptozoology-associated or -aligned editors, who fill talk pages with page after page of insult-ladden chatter about anything that doesn't fit their preferred messaging. This not infrequently includes insults toward non-adherents abiding by ] and ] (as an example, recently one of the users decided to refer to me as a "", for example). This pattern has been going on for years and is a clear indication of long-term ] and I've frankly put up wth it for far too long. | |||
| ::What I would like to know is whether there is a consensus on ani that that was perfectly proper, and should stand. I'm not asking ani to decide whether the assessment of consensus was correct--that's up to the closing editor. I'm simply asking whether the procedure was correct. Was there any valid reason to revert it? | |||
| This is an all too common pattern that many editors who edit in new religious movement, pseudoscience, or fringe spaces will recognize as an unfortunate reality of editing in these spaces on the site. | |||
| ::Those of you who are unhappy with the legitimate result of the first RfC can start another, if you like. In the meantime, the result of the first RfC should be implemented. ] (]) 16:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not so. I never took part in the debate on whether to include the material; nor did I endorse the overturning of Nathan's closure. I never reverted you on that page; check the logs. Nor did I ever edit supporting the overturning of Nathan's closure; I just said others seem to be contesting it. Some other editors opposed the first closure. RFC closures, admin or NAC, aren't binding, and cannot be enforced by admin action, so an ANI consensus doesn't really apply. You could discuss this on the MOS talk page, or at dispute resolution, but I notice this has strayed from your first question. ] (]) 16:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I recommend that Paleface Jack be topic banned for off-site lobbying for meatpuppets, if nothing else, as well as likely associated accounts per ]. ] (]) 05:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"''Some other editors opposed the first closure. RFC closures, admin or NAC, aren't binding...''". There will always be editors opposed to a closure. I always assumed that RfC closures are binding. If not, what's the point in having them? When participating in an RfC editors of opposing views state their case, and agree to independent assessment. They don't then decide not abide by the independent assessment if they're not happy with it. Don't you agree with that? Don't you agree that it is within the spirit of WP to abide by an RfC in which you have participated, even if you don't like the result, or disagree with the closing editor? | |||
| :I think you're misinterpreting what I said. I don't have any disdain for Loxton and Prothero, all I said was that cryptozoologists have historically discussed a large number of "cryptids" which is something you could see from reading cryptozoologist papers ans books. I've previously cited Loxton/Prothero on cryptozoological wikipedia pages ] (]) 06:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was reverted twice because I'm an ip. If there is confundsensus here that the first closure was valid, and should be implemented, then I would hope that those reverting me would desist. ] (]) 16:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::This user's actual comment in response to my mention of Prothero & Loxton, a dreaded ]: "Learning about cryptozoologists by reading secondhand sources is a poor way to find out what cryptozoologists have actually done historically" (). Funny how a spotlight on ANI can change an editor's tune. ] (]) 07:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, no, RFC closures aren't binding. I think the idea is to add an uninvolved editor's voice to the debate, summarizing the issue and that way granting some gravitas to specific conclusions. If those conclusions are still not acceptable, I guess the dispute needs to go to other dispute-resolution forums such as DR. You argue the first closure was a valid NAC; I agree. However, there is nothing procedurally wrong with reverting a procedurally valid closure. I have participated only in the meta discussion of whether there is consensus or no consensus and what the two possibilities imply; I don't have a position on the merits of the material, which is fundamentally the spirit of the issue. I do have a problem with appealing to admins to settle the debate; it is ironic you opposed the other editor's appeal for an admin closure, rightly so then. I forget whether it was you or a sysop who pointed out the admin symbol is a mop and a bucket. ] (]) 17:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thaf didnt change my tune at all! I mentioned that I personally liked that book before you posted this ] (]) 14:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't know whether there is anything "procedurally wrong" with the revert or not. If there isn't then I think we should look at adding something to the RfC page that prohibits involved editors from reverting an RfC they have just participated in. If you feel Noetica's reverts have been within the spirit of WP, then there is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between us. I am very uncomfortable coming here for help, but it seemed clear to me that those editors who are reverting are intent on having their own way, regardless of policy or WP ethos, so I felt I had no choice ] (]) 18:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Adding that I am emphatically ''not'' appealing to admins to settle the debate. I am asking for admin input on the validity of the first close, and whether or not it is acceptable to revert an editor's edits based on his status as an ip. ] (]) 18:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You can ask for changes to ], an essay and neither a policy nor a guideline, but as it stands, it doesn't consider an RFC closure as binding. The page starts with the "informal" nature of an RFC. No, I didn't say the first revert was within the spirit of WP. But you started a separate discussion on that, and again found multiple editors opposing the closure. The "spirit of WP" isn't practically very useful in convincing objectors in any debate. You realize asking for "admin input on the validity of the first close" is essentially endorsing one of the objections, a wrong one, to the first closure—that it was a NAC? I see your argument is getting more admins involved (proposer of original RFC was an admin) would help drive the issue to a consensus. I have a problem with admins taking up the role of guiding others, motivated and propelled by "the spirit of WP." The community vetted and voted for them to use their tools in mop-and-bucket fashion, not to be considered guides on content. I think I am quoting you here, though I might have mixed up the comments with those of a sysop's on that talk page. This is somewhat orthogonal to your issue (whether to include the material), but matters in the larger scheme of things. ] (]) 19:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I think we're getting away from adding anything meaningful to this subsection, so perhaps we better take it to talk if you want to continue. I'll make one more reply here. I agree absolutely that admins should not be used for matters relating to content. It was me who mentioned the icon. | |||
| :::::::::I was trying to implement the result of the RfC, which had been legitimately closed. I was tag-team reverted. The reverters made no realistic attempt to justify their actions, instead dismissing my edits because I am an ip. I was in two minds: should I post to the talk pages of everyone who participated in the RfC, explaining what was happening, and inviting further input, or should I come here. Posting to all the talk pages seemed almost equivalent to re-opening the RfC, which really should not have been necessary. It seemed to me that the way I was reverted might well be a policy issue, so I came here. Similarly with the RfC page, it seems to be a grey area. It's not marked as policy and it's certainly not marked as an essay. Regardless of how it is marked, I suggest that most editors respect it in the same way that respect policy.] (]) 19:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::The incident Bloodoffox is referring to happened years ago when I did not know that was even a rule. It was a mistake I have not repeated, nor have I violated any rules since that incident. | |||
| ===Would an uninvolved admin please endorse or overturn the RfC closure?=== | |||
| The dispute above is about an RfC that was held from September 1 to October 4 on ]. The RfC was about the sentence: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole." The dispute is about the words "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole." They were removed last year (I believe without discussion). The question is whether to endorse the removal or to restore those words. | |||
| ::That being said, Bloodoffox has a history of antagonizing other users associated with the topic. I am not aware of any of the other occasions where he has been harassed by users, so I sympathize. There are bad editors on this site that do that behavior or make edits that are, in kinder words, sloppy. Fringe topics are constrained as they are to avoid pandering or making it a massive advocation for them and should remain within the neutral guidelines that are enforced on fringe topics. | |||
| A request for closure was made on AN/RFC, and it was closed on October 4 by ]. His closure is . He decided there was consensus to restore the words. Noetica, who is strongly opposed to those words, reverted Nathan's closure twice, arguing that an admin had to close it, and that the closure was premature. | |||
| ::Yes, the topics do need a lot of work, and its hard to find the few good editors that know what they are doing with fringe topics. I myself follow the topic out of interest, not advocacy, and I rarely edit on it mainly cause of a backlog of other projects. I don't pop on to cause trouble as Bloodoffox loves to accuse me of, among the many personal attacks he has made against me. I have had no such incidents since my mistake way back in the day and I have not made any since then. The sole reason I commented in the discussion was because I could see it was rapidly devolving into an antagonistic nature, and though my words could have been put differently, I always wrote that we "needed to find common ground". It has become a point of frustration with this, because of personal attacks on my character and what I have contributed to this site. I am not a disruptor by any means and Bloodoffox has keep making accusations or belittling comments in regards to me and other users who disagree with him. His aggressive and belittling behavior has a huge role in antagonizing other users and it does need to stop. I might be frustrated, but I cannot see how this does any good with moving projects and topics forwards. Banning me from the topic is unnecessary and overkill. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| I therefore requested an admin closure on AN/RFC on October 8. Yesterday, Kwamikagami – who is a supporter of cross-article style consistency, a supporter of Noetica's, and who I believe was desysopped recently for misusing the tools in MoS disputes – arrived to overturn Nathan's closure. He cannot be regarded as uninvolved here. | |||
| :If the only example of off-wiki canvasing is a single blog post from seven years ago, I'm not seeing any case for sanctions. - ] (]) 07:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is the only clear incident I've encountered. However, there's good reason to suspect that there's more. Note also that although the user is happy to apologize about it when called on it here, the user also never deleted the off-site lobbying on the cryptozoology wiki. ] (]) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can see a case for a {{tl|trout}} for the OP, at the very least. (Trout-erang?) - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry, Bloodofox, if this has been a contentious area to edit in (there are many such areas on the project) but we can't sanction editors based on suspicions, we require evidence of misconduct and if it is off-wiki behavior, it might be more appropriate to send it to ARBCOM. You have provided a narrative statement of how difficult it is to edit in this field but with few diffs illustrating conflict and other editors have providing competing narratives. This isn't your first trip to ANI so you know what is required here for an admin to take action. And if you do provide some more evidence, I encourage you to provide RECENT evidence (like from the past 3 years), not diffs or statements from when an editor was new and unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies and practices. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::While the editor and his off-site post was from 2018 (yet somehow claims to not know it was not OK to canvas for meatpuppets off-site), I figured this might be the case and hoped more would come to light about what's going on off-site (I expect more will, in which case I'll return). ] (]) 08:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I have said before, I am not used to conflict on the site and naively did that. If you look back at that whole debate, I did reply saying I was not aware that it was bad. If you look at my history of edits, I rarely (if ever) participate in conflict. I prefer to edit like everyone else on here in a constructive and beneficial manner, so all those accusations strike a nerve with me as they are both untrue and slander. As I have said previously, bloodoffox has a history of provoking conflict by aggressive behavior towards other editors, even when those editors are in the wrong they should not be treated with the level of disdain and contempt. Slandering myself or others either based on an isolated and admitted mistake, then constantly bringing it up as "proof" of his claims that I am an instigator of any sort of conflict he has with others is behavior that only inspires destructive conflicts or edits. I have, in the past, reached out to bloodoffox to apologize and also offer assistance with other projects thinking that would mend any sort of anger and hate. This recent incident has proved me wrong and I am sad to see that it has come to this. I never wanted any conflict, just a healthy way of moving forwards to tackle fascinating and notable topics. | |||
| :::: | |||
| ::::I will admit that it is frustratingly difficult to make edits on fringe topics, I am one of those people that tried to edit some but got frustrated by the overly tight restrictions on the subject (not that I was leaning to one side as some claim I do), which is why I rarely edit on the topic and only do so when I see that there is reliable information benefiting and fitting of the standards set by Misplaced Pages. I love information, and even fringe topics have enough within Misplaced Pages's confines to exist on the site and be a fascinating read for people. I truly hope you read this bloodoffox and realize I never meant you ill or advocate for people harassing you, I want this platform to explore information correctly and efficiently, even if we do not agree with the topic. That is pretty much all that should be said on this matter and hopefully it gets resolved. ] (]) 17:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Taboo of archaeologists == | |||
| It would be very much appreciated if an uninvolved admin would examine and decide whether it is valid or not, and if not, what the next step should be. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:07, 13 October 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) | |||
| :Done. I looked at the history of the request on AN and the actual close by Nathan Johnson and see nothing wrong with his/her closing it. This is not an endorsement of anything other than the procedural validity of that close. --] <small>(])</small> 21:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Give me an actual reason why the specific seal in question is not authentic? How about that? Quote me an actual scholar who does? If not, then your words mean jack. ] (]) 06:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::Many thanks, that's much appreciated. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:18, 13 October 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}} | |||
| == HoraceAndTheSpiders == | |||
| :::And now Noetica , because the RFC bot had already removed the tag when Nathan closed the RfC. Now we need to have a 100.000 word discussion to tell Noetica that RfCs don't become magically unclosable when the RfC bot removes the tag after 30 days. This is the sort of bureaucratic stonewalling that keeps disrupting consensus formation at WT:MOS. --] (]) 22:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Attention gotten and message received. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| (od) For the record. I've reverted Neotarf's revert of Enric Naval's revert of Noetica's revert of my endorsed closure. If that string of reverts doesn't tell us its time to put this behind us, then nothing will. Either way, my work is done. Imo, further reverts can only be construed as disruptive but it probably isn't appropriate for me to do anything about that so I'll leave this to others to deal with. --] <small>(])</small> 01:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|HoraceAndTheSpiders}} | |||
| ::Uh, the top text of the closed area refers to kwami's decision rather than Nathan's. They came to opposite conclusions about whether or not to reinsert the text. For the moment, I'm assuming that this is an oversight, and I've reinserted the contested text. ] (]) 02:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Could someone briefly block ] to get their attention, or come up with better way to get them to read their talk page/comply with the ] restrictions. Thanks. ] (]) 11:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * {{done}}. I've left a note on their talkpage that they will almost certainly be unblocked if they promise to keep away from ARBPIA until they are extended-confirmed. ] 11:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Aaaaaaand now it's reverted in what Beeblebrox thinks is at least the opening stages of an edit war. RegentsPark, I hope this doesn't put you off touching the MoS, but HELP! ] (]) 04:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks ] (]) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As ] notes later, this was a misunderstanding on the editor's part; I never reverted anything. I will be staying out of this discussion, since none of my edits (technical ones which were not reverts and have not been reverted by anyone) have anything to do with this. ] (]) 16:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{u|Sean.hoyland}} The editor has submitted a suitable unblock request, so I have unblocked. Please let me know if they stray into ARBPIA again. Thanks, ] 12:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == TTTEMLPBrony and continued addition of unsourced/crufty material, zero communication == | |||
| ===Break=== | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. Now CU-blocked. ] (]) 15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Seriously folks, there's no admin action required anywhere. Just drop it and move on. --] ] ] 19:20, 13 October 2012 (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) | |||
| :At this point there has been a request for a non-involved admin to reveiw the closings. Whether this discussion belongs here or not I could see there being good points, but lets at least deal with the issue of the request and let an admin decide what to do from here...if they feel so inclined.--] (]) 19:39, 13 October 2012 (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). | |||
| ::<s>Not a good idea. If every time someone doesn't like a non-admin RFC close they can come to ANI to get it reviewed, what's the point of having NAC in the first place? Given there are backlogs of tasks that ''require'' admins, it's not the best use of a limited resource. </s><small>]</small> 19:57, 13 October 2012 (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) | |||
| ::I agree. Closure of this thread with a summary that there is consensus on ani that the original RfC closure was valid, and should not have been overturned for being a NAC, would be my preferred solution. ] (]) 20:13, 13 October 2012 (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) | |||
| ::Nobody Ent, I agree too. But Noetica has twice reverted the non-admin closure. So in the interests of avoiding further reverting, I'm asking that an admin decide whether to endorse or overturn Nathan's closure. Otherwise we have spent a month holding an RfC with no outcome. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:24, 13 October 2012 (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) | |||
| :::Oh. So an uninvolved admin should review Noetica's behavior and see if there was any justification for reverting Nathan's closure. Got it. That's reasonable. <small>]</small> 20:40, 13 October 2012 (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) | |||
| :I don't think it fine for an admin or a cluster of admins to judge this. That is not part of their role. RFC closures can be reverted. That is continuation, ill-advised perhaps, of a content dispute. ] is policy, and it lists their role as arbitrators: they adjudicate discussions such as deletions. Assessing ] in closure of RFCs or reversion of closures is not listed there because ] makes it clear that is an informal process involving editors. I oppose extending convention to lend admins more powers by creating a new tradition. Not because I think admins are not to be trusted, but because it moves farther from the idea of a freely editable encyclopedia. I don't have a position on the material itself; so if somebody just puts it in, or undoes the original discussion to some previous stage, I won't revert. ] (]) 20:50, 13 October 2012 (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}} | |||
| == Jypian gaming extended confirmed == | |||
| ::You've made that point several times, Churn, but with nothing to back it up. Yes, RfCs can be overturned if there is something wrong with the closure (e.g. it was closed prematurely or by someone involved). But otherwise closures should generally be respected. If any involved party can overturn an RfC that was open for 33 days, where it was closed by an editor that no one could argue was involved, then there is no point in holding RfCs in the first place. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = Sock blocked | |||
| | result = I've run out of sock puns, sorry. — ] ] 17:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)<br> | |||
| ::I've changed Ritchie's header, by the way, because it was provocative and implied that the request for closure is not a reasonable one. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :::I think the onus is on you to show RFCs are something special and not just a glorified form of a talk-page consensus. They aren't policy; they aren't guidelines; so when you say NAC RFC closures "should generally be respected", isn't that just like saying "the view of multiple editors on a talk page should generally be respected"? How can we ask for admin help to enforce that respect? I realize that is the last thing people who have spent time and effort debating points on an RFC want to hear, especially from somebody who has been debating just the meta aspects of the discussion, but the alternative of asking admins to judge I find troublesome in the longer run. ] (]) 21:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Sock blocked. ]] | |||
| ::::] <small>]</small> 21:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| I think that RFC's should carry a tiny bit more weight than a talk page discussion. Typically have a bit more input, (gauge the level of that for the particular case) and some type of a closing process based on wikepedian principles. And an Admin close should carry a tiny bit more weight than a non-admin close. True, an admin can be just a kid who got the tools by working the system, but on average, they are more vetted than an average editor. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 21:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Jypian}} | |||
| On ], the user is making pointless edits after having been here for exactly thirty days. Clearly gaming extended confirmed. ] ] ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 12:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I been making real edits since I created my account please take your time to check and I’m sorry for purposely pointless edits for extended confirmed on Day 30. I’m a real and genuine user I just wanted early access to work and edit on important stuff] (]) 13:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The point of an RfC is that its throws its net far and wide. It brings many editors into a discussion who wouldn't ordinarily be involved in that discussion. When an editor participates in an RfC he does so in the expectation that it will be closed in accordance with the accepted procedures. Many of those editors then move on. What has happened here is that a kernel of heavily involved editors have hung around after everyone has left and are refusing to allow the results of the RfC to be implemented. If that becomes standard practice, then RfC, one of the few mechanisms on WP that does usually end in a result which all parties accept, will disappear. ] (]) 22:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::For what reason are you doing this? ] (]) 13:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The thing is, articles that only extended confirmed users can edit are like that for a reason. What kinds of {{tq|important stuff}} were you planning on working on? ] ] ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 13:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Noetica did not revert this user because he or she is anonymous. Noetica reverted this user because he or she disagreed with him. | |||
| :::Donald Trump Hotel Accident ] (]) 13:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 146, just register and get a username. Then people will have to find other excuses to revert your actions. The problem is easily fixed. | |||
| ::::Considering you've admitted you've gaming the system you need to voluntary agree to refrain from editing anything that requires EC until you've made 500 real edits. The permission will be removed if you don't follow this. I'd also suggest stay away from the Donald Trump hotel article until you've gotten at least a few thousand edits under your belt since being so desperate to edit an article is usually a sign once you do start editing you'll get into trouble. ] (]) 14:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have revoked their extended-confirmed permission. They may re-request it from ] after making 500 legitimate edits. —] (] • ]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Im going to edit Donald Trump hotel accident, whatever you want it or not😡 ] (]) 14:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you create alternative accounts to try and bypass your primary account's restrictions, you will end up being banned. ]] 14:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's unnecessary to threaten or to evade restrictions; you can propose edits via ]. If they are nonsense, though, expect to be blocked as well. ] (]) 14:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Blocked'''. Blocked as a sock by {{u|NinjaRobotPirate}}. ] | ] 15:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| *:That makes sense. ] (]) 15:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thanks for the action NinjaRobotPirate. ] ] ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 15:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *<small>As an aside, is it possible to take away the EC permission before it is achieved or otherwise prevent it being automatically gained? I said what I said above because I incorrectly thought they hadn't yet achieved EC. Given this I thought either an admin would need to watch out for them (unless there's an admin bot which can do this) or they could voluntary refrain from using their EC and this wouldn't be necessary. But I checked after and realised I was wrong about them not gaining EC and I'm wondering if I could be wrong about the removal of EC before it's automatically gained. ] (]) 16:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *:I think it's possible to prevent an account from obtaining EC by granting and immediately revoking it. That apparently stops the account from getting it automatically because it has obtained EC before. ] (]) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Interesting, thanks. Useful to know for the future. ] (]) 17:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Footballnerd2007 == | |||
| === Objection to serious and continuing irregularities: set the RFC aside as completely irregular === | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = This is going nowhere fast. Whether or not {{u|Footballnerd2007}} is using an LLM to respond to conversations, they've promised to stay out of other editors' userspace drafts, been notified they shouldn't start RfAs for other editors without speaking to them, and said that they would be more careful with moves. (On that note, I can't warn Footballnerd2007 to not close RM discussions, but I'd highly recommend they avoid doing so until they become more acquainted with community norms.) ] (]/]) 22:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| I need a second pair of eyes on {{user|Footballnerd2007}} please - apparently a new editor, but they have been closing RM discussions - including one where they introduced a typo, see ] which I have fixed - and they have also been messing around moving my user space pages (see ]) and they have also created ]. None of this is the action of a new editor and my Spidey senses are tingling. ]] 19:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I should have been notified of the discussion above, since all sorts of statements are being made about me. Some are misrepresentations; some are lies. The discussion here was ''closed'' (how about ''that''?). It was then re-opened by an IP who is clearly a very adept operator and is evading the consequences of his or her actions, by posting on weighty matters in a partisan fashion but without revealing a Wikipedian identity. I have attempted to revert the irregular closure of the RFC by an admin. Note: I never said that an admin was needed for closing controversial RFCs; I called for one to sort it out, since the RFC had been set up misleadingly and non-neutrally from the start by admin SlimVirgin. It is extremely difficult to counter such behaviour from a well-connected and politically astute admin who is prepared to twist the truth to restore old wording she had inserted years ago in ], and which had been removed in favour of a more consensual and more accurate lead over a year ago (with 4,000 words of discussion). | |||
| :I don't see an urgent or intractable issue here. Unless/until stronger evidence comes up, I'm going to ] that they're trying to help and suggest ]. ] (]) 19:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In good faith I do my bit to protect ] from arbitrary subversion by powerful operators, some cloaked in anonymity. I make myself extremely vulnerable in doing so. But some of us are indeed ready to stand up and work against such abuses. | |||
| ::I'd like to clarify a point in your message. The statement "and they have also been messing around moving my user space pages (see ])" should be corrected. I have only moved one page, not multiple pages. Please adjust the wording to reflect this accurately. ] • ] ⚽ 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::A response like that is not helping with my suspicions and concerns. ]] 20:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What exactly am I being accused of? ] • ] ⚽ 20:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are either an extremely over enthusiastic new editor making mistakes - in which case you need to slow down a lot, and listen ASAP - or you are a sock trying to be clever. ]] 20:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The former is rather accurate. ] • ] ⚽ 20:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{u|GiantSnowman}}, if you have evidence, then the appropriate forum is ]. If you don't, then you're liable to get hit with a boomerang for ]/], even if you end up happening to be correct. ] (]) 21:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And what would my boomerang punishment be? ]] 21:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::How do I go about making a complaint against him for violating ]/]? ] • ] ⚽ 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Response''' | |||
| Hello GiantSnowman, | |||
| My current intention is to request an ArbCom case to sort out the very worrying course of this affair. I request now that the RFC be set aside as hopelessly compromised from the very beginning, as a reasonable interim step in the restoration of stability and good order. | |||
| Thank you for raising these concerns. I'd like to address the points you mentioned: | |||
| <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 1. '''Botched Page Moves:''' Regarding the page moves, I made an attempt to improve the accuracy and consistency of article titles based on my understanding of the situation. I acknowledge that there was a typo introduced, which I appreciate being pointed out, and I have since corrected it. I’ll be more careful in the future to ensure that such errors do not occur. | |||
| :Noetica, you should not call other people liars and then say, "I never said that an admin was needed for closing controversial RFCs." | |||
| :Please note the words, "controversial RFCs should be closed by admins" in this change: They might be telling the truth, and they might be lying, but they also might have forgotten or made a mistake, just like you might have forgotten that you said this. ] (]) 02:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 2. '''Messing with User Space Draft:''' I apologise for any disruption caused to your user space draft. My intention was never to interfere with your content. I recognise that user space is personal, and I will be mindful to avoid making any uninvited changes moving forward. | |||
| ::Darkfrog, I did not call anyone a liar. Read and report with care, please. And when you quote, do not suppress relevant context. My complete edit summary: "(Revert closure of RFC by User:Nathan Johnson; controversial RFCs should be closed by admins; this was premature: actions had been asked for and were pending; failed to distinguish points about consistency 1. where choices were allowed and 2. generally)". There is a difference between a ''need'' (as a matter of policy, or established procedure) and an optimal state of affairs (a ''should'', such as some admins in the discussion above have agreed applies in the present case). I reverted Nathan's attempt at closure because it was premature and incompetent (and as I later stressed, the RFC had lapsed according to one of the ways ] provides for: it was delisted by the bot). Since then, people have lied about what I did and my reasons for doing so. In any case, you ''endorsed'' my reversion of Nathan's closure, and called for discussion to continue. When I found the time, I made an extensive summation of the RFC, labelling it as ] (now hidden in the RFC's extended content). '''I invite people here to read that.''' It was set aside and not considered by Regentspark, though I spent considerable time preparing it when you, I, and others agreed that discussion should continue. | |||
| ::I regret that real life intrudes, and I am now unable to participate fully as any further developments unfold. I'll try to deal with anything that people want me to, when I can justify spending more time on this fiasco. Meanwhile, I again urge people to see how the RFC was tainted and mismanaged from the start (as I am on record as fearing that it would be, before it began). | |||
| ::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC). | |||
| :::Noetica, if you say "People are saying things about me. Those things are lies," that counts as calling those people liars. | |||
| :::I did think that the RfC should not have been closed, but not for the same reasons that you gave. I believed it should remain because the discussion was, at that time, ongoing, and it still seemed likely that people would present evidence in favor of their positions. It's been a while now, and that has yet to happen. ] (]) 03:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::And this is what he's been doing all along. He's reverting the closure simply because he doesn't like the way it turned out, and burying that simple truth in a mountain of verbiage. He reverted the fist closure because it was made by a non-admin . Another non-admin then closed it the way he wanted, so he reverted to ''keep'' that closure in place. An admin has now reinstated the first closure, with the backing of ani, and he's still reverting. ] (]) 10:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 3. '''Creation of an RFA for Cyberdog958''': As for the RFA for Cyberdog958, I stand by my decision to create it. I believed that Cyberdog958 hads demonstrated the necessary qualities for adminship and could be a positive asset to the community. There was no ill intent behind my actions. The RFA was made based on a genuine belief that they were qualified, and I will continue to support nominations that I feel are appropriate based on the contributions and behavior I observe. | |||
| :::Still distorting the history, from behind a protective veil of secrecy? No, an admin has ''not'' now considered the RFC afresh and closed it. An admin has stepped in ''on your one-sided advice'' and affirmed an earlier "closure" that took place after the RFC had ended. According to ] – whose provisions you appeal to but only when it suits your implacable desire to secure a plainly non-consensual result – that is one of the ways an RFC comes to an ''end''.<br>Regentspark did ''not'' consider what I submit here in this discussion. How could he? Although you have to admit that I am a major participant in all this, ''I was not advised of this discussion'' till after Regentspark's action. Deliberations continued by common consent at WT:MOS after Nathan's "closure" interrupted it; but perhaps unsettled by the revelations I made of irregularity and confusion (with clear documentation and evidence), you and SlimVirgin preferred to disqualify those further deliberations and cling to the flawed "closure" rather than risk defeat. Yes, defeat. Such is the battleground mentality promoted by covert and dishonest actions. | |||
| :::'''The bottom line: can anyone keep a straight face and claim that there is ''consensus'' for resurrecting SlimVirgin's cherished wording, after it had been superseded consensually a year ago? Has the RFC achieved ''that''?''' Ridiculous to think so. | |||
| :::Discard the fatally flawed RFC here, or ArbCom is the logical next step. | |||
| :::Distinguish short-term victories for bullying, lying, and subterfuge on the one hand, and robust consensus on the other. My record shows that I work hard to assist development of robust consensus at WP:MOS. But what does your record show, 146.90.43.8? We are entitled to know. | |||
| :::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There you go again. A mountain of words to disguise the simple fact that you didn't like the closure of the RfC by an uninvolved editor, so you've repeatedly reverted to get your own way. ] (]) 11:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And you continue to edit war in order to do so. RegentsPark's edit after the discussion here: . Your edit warring: . ] (]) 12:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Noetica, RegentsPark is not obliged to follow a protocol that exists only in your brain to your complete satisfaction for his or her decisions to be valid. Your personal ideas of how things should work are not rules. ] (]) 14:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. I strive to make constructive contributions and act in good faith, and I appreciate your understanding. | |||
| ===Discretionary Sanctions=== | |||
| The policy page in question is under discretionary sanctions (]). ] admins are supposed to receive input when applying sanctions. Would there be any objections if I placed ] and it's talk page under a ] restriction for 3 months? --] | ] 03:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] • ] ⚽ 20:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think what is needed instead is a change to the culture at WP:MOS. The quote, WT:MOS is not for the faint at heart at the best of times (I am quoting from memory) indicates a huge change is needed. That type of lack of incivility it connotes is completely unacceptable, in my opinion. I would like to make sure that discussion remains on the wording of the MOS, not on the application of the MOS. I think that the culture that has grown up is that changing the MOS changes articles. No, changing articles changes the MOS. There was almost infinite discussion over whether Mexican American War was spelled with an endash or an hyphen when a check of any dictionary or book with the term reveals the answer. The article was no help as it had been moved a half a dozen times from 2006 to 2011. The MOS is never the place to decide that answer. The article talk page is. ] (]) 04:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :RFA - why didn't you discuss with the editor first? ]] 20:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Apteva, I doubt that Guerillero was asking for a manifesto. I will not comment here on the content of yours, nor on your conduct at WT:MOS and elsewhere in the last couple of weeks.<br>I believe the question is focused on the most recent upheavals and instability at WP:MOS and its talkpage. As a major participant in the development of that page, passionately committed to its ''orderly'' and ''consensual'' development, I have no problem at all with Guerillero's suggestion. Possibly just one month would do? But anyway:<br>'''Support.'''<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wasn't aware there was a requirement to do so. I did notify them! ] • ] ⚽ 20:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Before'' you made the RFA??? No. ]] 20:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I wasn’t pinged about this ANI, but I found it through the RFA message on my talk page. I guess I appreciate the thought, if it was coming from a sincere place, but I would have declined the nomination if I was asked. I’ve never come across this user or interacted with them in any way until now so I’m not sure why they picked me. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Footballnerd2007, given that Cyberdog958 has confirmed that they have never interacted with you, please confirm how you found them to nominate them for RFA? | |||
| ::Similarly, how did you this afternoon, as I similarly have never heard of or interacted with you before today? ]] 21:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Footballnerd2007}} thank you for trying to help out, and I'm sorry that GiantSnowman has chosen to escalate this in the way that he has. Page moves can be tricky, and you might want to sit back and watch the process for a while before participating in it yourself. Regarding RFA, it's a serious decision that people usually mull over for years before they finally agree to submit their names, so it's going to be more than a little jarring to have someone else do it on one's behalf. With the user space, it seems you understand the issue so there's no need to retread that. Going forward, I suggest taking things slow and asking for help whenever you think about entering a new area. I've been doing this for a few years now, and I still reach out to someone with experience in the area if I think I want to try something new! ] (]) 21:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Footballnerd2007}}, the response that you made at 20:08 has formatting that I have only seen before from AI, never from a human editor. Was it made with an LLM? If so please talk to us in your own words. ] (]) 21:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I have the feeling that a lot of this editor's comments are AI produced. ]] 21:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I refer you to ]. ] • ] ⚽ 21:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for that link - I see therefore that other users have raised concerns with you only yesterday about your RM/discussion closes, and yet you have continued to make poor closes today. Why is that? Why therefore should we trust you when you say you won't do it again, given you have done it again? ]] 21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yesterday I didn't say I wouldn't do it again, today I have, albeit reluctantly, changed my position for the sake of keeping the peace. ] • ] ⚽ 21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why did you continue to make the same questionable edits that other editors have previously queried with you? Unless you are deliberately trying to be disruptive? ]] 21:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Transparently LLM output. ] (]) 21:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yet they deny using Chat GPT. So either it's ''not'' LLM (and multiple users have raised these suspicions, which I share) and just very odd language, or they are a liar. Which is it? ]] 21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::What unsubjctive hard evidence do you have to support that allegation? ] • ] ⚽ 21:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I pulled 11 random AI detectors from Google. Of them, seven give a 100% AI rating. One gives 50% and the 3 others give 0%. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The final 3 are 100% accurate. ] • ] ⚽ 21:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And the 7 others? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have no explanation. ] • ] ⚽ 21:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Because there is none - it's absolutely AI generated, you don't need a detector for that. While not against policy, it's heavily frowned upon, as it's not ''your'' words but the LLM's. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And given that you have ''repeatedly'' denied use LLM, you are a liar and cannot be trusted. ]] 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have repeatedly denied using ''ChatGPT'' because I didn't, that's not a lie and you have no evidence to suggest to the contrary. ] • ] ⚽ 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::But you have been using a LLM of some kind, yes? ]] 21:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::No comment. ] • ] ⚽ 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::We'll take that as a 'yes' then - and that you therefore have not been truthful. The tiny modicum of AGF I had has now fully disappeared. ]] 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So you're accusing me of lying now? As I have said before, I didn't use ChatGPT. ] • ] ⚽ 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, I am accusing you of lying. ]] 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That's a serious allegation, what evidence do you have that I use ChatGPT? ] • ] ⚽ 21:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: is Exhibit A. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{ec}}I'm pretty sure there's LLMs that aren't ChatGPT. But if you're saying "I didn't use a LLM/AI generator at all", then that is . - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::And if you're trying to be clever by saying "I use LLM but not ChatGPT", your comments here have been disingenuous and misleading. You are digging yourself a hole. ]] 21:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I never made any comment about LLMs in general. ] • ] ⚽ 21:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Please answer this direct question - have you used LLM? If so, why didn't you own up to that when asked? ]] 21:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively. ] • ] ⚽ 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::🤦♂️ ] (]) 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::{{ec}}So that's "yes" then, got it. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::] applies (even if only an essay). ]] 22:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::You're not helping your case right now. Even if you're getting dogpiled (''especially'' if you're getting dogpiled) you need to speak clearly and directly. You'll gain far more goodwill by saying you're using an LLM and agreeing to stop. ] (]) 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Thebiguglyalien, do you now understand why my red flags were flagging earlier? There is something off about this editor. ]] 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I don't disagree with your analysis. I disagree with the way you approached it. ] (]) 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::A fair criticism. ]] 22:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I'm sure you've had to deal with this sort of thing far more than I have, so I get that. My philosophy is just that I'd rather give dozens of "cases" that extra chance if it means salvaging one well-meaning productive editor. ] (]) 22:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Which is what I usually try and do, but the alarm bells just really rang here, and I simply wanted a second pair of eyes on the contribs to tell me "yes it's fishy" or "no you're thinking too much". I did not envision this discussion! ]] 22:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Again, that's conjecture. I just choose my words very carefully. ] • ] ⚽ 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Stop choosing your words carefully. I'm trying to give you a chance that isn't often afforded to new editors here, and you're trying to ], which is also against the rules. ] (]) 22:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::{{ec}}Here's the deal - either you used AI, or you {{tqq| my words very carefully}} in a way that is how AI distinctively chooses them. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here's 4 more AI detectors. Two give 100%, one says 11% (literally the last two sentences), and the other gives 50%. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Which AI detectors are you using? ] • ] ⚽ 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == possible hoaxes == | |||
| *Guerillero, do you mean each editor would be under 1RR, or the page as a whole (i.e. just one revert per 24 hours from anyone)? The problems at that page are being caused by Noetica. He will revert no matter the consensus against him, and is willing to revert on the talk page too, even inserting "corrections" into other people's comments. I don't often post at the MoS talk page so this is my first real exposure to it, but looking through the archives I see it is a long-term problem.<p>The recent RfC was conducted in a perfectly standard fashion (not counting his efforts to disrupt it), left open for 33 days, closed by an uninvolved editor, which he objected to, and then the closure was endorsed by an uninvolved admin. He reverted both closures multiple times, then reverted Darkfrog who tried to implement the RfC's conclusion.<p>If the page is under ArbCom sanctions, the most helpful thing would be to place the person who is causing the disruption under a revert restriction, or even to ask him not to post there for a while. I think the latter would be in Noetica's interests too, to be frank. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **The restriction would say something to the effect of, "One revert per 24 hour period per person on either WP:MOS or WT:MOS ending three months from the day that the restriction was set in place." If people engage in slow motion edit warring still, they can be blocked or topic banned under ] or ] (depending what the admin who is handing the request thinks is best). I think this would be fairer and has more of a bright line than if I used the active discretionary sanctions to topic ban people based on what I see as bad past behavior. I am going to ] that this could be a reason for all people to talk and acknowledge consensus, which ever way that seems to go. --] | ] 20:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *** How about you use the AE powers (which you have already thanks to ArbCom) to block the edit warrior(s) right now? The sophistry about only "technically" breaking 3RR occurring elsewhere in this thread is really amusing (as if edit warring were an entitlement as long as you don't break 3RR). ] (]) 04:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Technical breach of ] === | |||
| *{{user|Emilioveh}} | |||
| I thank ] for pointing out that I was technically in breach of ]. See details in ] at my talkpage. I am normally extremely careful about 3RR, and had no intention of doing such a thing in what I clearly signalled as perceived errors made by another editor at ] (as the record clearly shows). In fact, the editor whose editing Darkfrog altered agrees with me: it was a misunderstanding on Darkfrog's part. I am away from my usual facilities, and sometimes editing on handheld devices; so it is hard to keep track of the extraordinary developments at WP:MOS and its talkpage recently. In sum, I submit that my beach was inadvertent, well-motivated, excusable under ] for the circumstances (fixing an error), and something I have not done before and have an abhorrence of.<br>I will now paste a link to this explanation at the talkpages of editors who may be considered involved.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *{{user|Emnoé}} | |||
| :If I might point out, "fixing an error" is why ''almost all'' edit wars take place. In one editors mind it is clearly an error, in another's the error is an error, and instead of discussion to find out which is the most commonly used or the best to use, the edit war ensues. Removing profanity from a BLP that is not a direct quote from a politician (see there are always exceptions) is not 3RR. Fixing an "error" is. Removing profanity from a direct quote from a politician just before the election by the campaign staff is 3RR. From 3RR: "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." ] (]) 13:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *{{user|Larissæ}} | |||
| *{{user|Miguelinor}} | |||
| *{{user|Nose236}} | |||
| The above accounts that have been for creating articles with unverifiable references or with scarce references taken out of context. I recommend reviewing all the articles that these accounts have created here as they may be hoaxes.--] (]) 04:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The thing that I misunderstood was who put the misleading wording in place; it wasn't Churn. So if you're talking about Churn, then no, the editor who's work I corrected does not agree with you. I stand by the change itself. RegentsPark said "I have restored Nathan Johnson's close," so the text at the top of the closed section should repeat Nathan Johnson's decision, not Kwami's. ] (]) 14:43, 14 October 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) | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| ===Shut this down now please!=== | |||
| @] has removed an RFC tag from ] now within . | |||
| I'm coming into this conversation as an uninvolved observer of this humunguous mess (to put it mildly). I'd like to propose that this discussion and the related one at ] be shut down - ]. The one thing that seems to have been completely lost in the "sturm und drang" of this whole mess is that, above and beyond any other considerations, the integrity and stability of the MOS must be preserved. We simply cannot tolerate that such a destabilisation drags on for so long. (For the record - I am not an admin <small>I'd rather bash myself over the head with a baseball bat three times a day than ever ask for adminship!</small>) ] (]) 12:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Speaking as another non-admin, non-involved editor, I concur. I can't see a single reason to continue this endless discussion here. ] (]) 12:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :It has already been closed twice, but the IP just keeps reverting the close. --] (]) 13:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::It seems you missed the part where I said "...]". If the entire conversation goes into the cyber-shredder it won't be possible to continue. ] (]) 13:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::A case can be made that repeatedly reopening a tendentious discussion in the wrong forum is a form of disruptive editing. ] (]) 13:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :For the sake of context, I'd like to point out that Neotarf is one of the editors, along with Noetica, who has been reverting in order to prevent the result of the RfC being implemented. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::The IP who may or may not be using an alternate account has reported an incident. The incident is, are IP's respected just as much as Jimmy Wales? The answer is yes. And with that we can see if any sanctions need be placed on any users who have acted inappropriately because of not granting the respect that all of us deserve. ] (]) 14:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thats just fucking great! Now the people responsible for the whole shitstorm are using this appeal for sanity as yet another place to continue their bloody fight! SOMEBODY PLEASE!!!PLEASE!!!PLEASE!!!PLEASE!!!PLEASE!!! JUST KILL THIS TOPIC ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!! ] (]) 14:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Welcome to the MoS! It's not for the faint of sanity. ] (]) 19:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Discussions are not shut down by force and ] highly restricts when revision deletion can be used. --] | ] 20:46, 14 October 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. | |||
| == Recurring BLP violations by ] == | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] added to a YouTube video to the biography of a UK politician ]. The YouTube video is titled '''''"Diane Abbott - A Racist Pig"'''''. Ironman1104 has previously edited the article to include coverage of controversial remarks made by Abbott. Their edit-warring on this article is discussed . Ironman1104 similarly negative information to the biography of another female Labour politician, ] (discussed ). Although I note that it was April Fool's Day, they also made a series of edits to another BLP, ], which mixed in some unacceptably insulting redirects ( & ). | |||
| 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) | |||
| I think the YouTube video is enough for a block, but given the apparent history with BLPs of politicians, I think a topic ban may be in order, so I have started a discussion here. ] (]) 00:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Everyone is ok with having an offensive YouTube video linked to the biography of a UK politician? I guess it's a good thing I left the link there, then. Someone close this up and I'll give Ironman1104 a barnstar instead. ] (]) 14:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC. | |||
| ::Um, regardless of the title or content, many YouTube videos are copyright violations, and that one certainly is - see ]. ] (]) 15:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I am perfectly happy to take instruction on that point if I am incorrect but the removals were undertaken in good faith. | |||
| :::While I don't usually like blocking people without warning, I'm very tempted to do so here. I've asked Ironman1104 to comment, otherwise I may still issue that block. He hasn't edited since before the warning, so we can afford to wait a little bit and see. ] (]) 08:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :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. | |||
| == Legal threat on Moodbar Feedback == | |||
| 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. | |||
| Per ] from {{User|Akkiiey}}, I propose a block per ]. ]] <small>(note: not a ]!)</small> 22:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :There is certainly an NLT issue here, but it isn't aimed at a particular user, and this is a brand-new editor (no article-space contributions at all that I can see). He has been warned of the NLT policy, and I think we can leave it at that unless he offends again. ] (]) 22:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've left an explanation on what NLT actually means to supplement the simple link that was left. To be honest, I doubt it will matter, because the user probably won't be back. ] (]) 08:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Scientific and legal literature concerning propylene glycol (]) placed on the talk page have been ignored by both users, without attempts to discuss or apply what any objective editor reading the sources would agree are authoritative. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| '''Proposal''': Because of Axad12's hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC, tag-team behavior with Graywalls on the Breyers article edits, canvassing each other on its talk page, and ], Axad12 and Graywalls should be ] from the Breyers article and its talk page. | |||
| ] has been making "minor edits" (note that they aren't really minor, he just tags them as such) to this page (see an example , this is a series of about a dozen edits). The edits seem to constitute original research not to mention the major conflict of interest. My comments on his talk page have gone unreplied, so I wasn't quite sure what the best next course of action would be. Note that he removed someones objection to an objection of a CSD. This is becoming disruptive and something should probably be done. As mentioned, I've tried to handle this via the talk page route, but to no avail. Thanks in advance--] (]) 01:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I notified ] of this thread. In the future you must do that. ] ] 01:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I thought I did...but that was right around when my internet crashed. My apologies, I am aware of this and as mentioned thought that I did. ] (]) 01:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>zOMG!!!111 Go Phightins! broke teh internets, etc, etc {{smiley}} --] (]) 04:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::I've blocked the user indefinitely for username issues--user's can't have the name of a "famous" person (unless they identify through OTRS they really are that person). If there's an unblock request, we can worry about getting reassurances on the COI issue as well. ] (]) 08:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. ] (]) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:BeasttoBeast == | |||
| **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) | |||
| Alright, I am getting tired of having to deal with this user's edits (as I'm sure many others are too). This user continues to upload images with , of , replaces articles with older and lesser quality images ( versus , makes questionable uploads (see and ), , , and the list goes on and on. It's obvious BeasttoBeast isn't willing to ask for help or engage in civil discussion (just look at his talk page and contributions), so I'm at a loss of what to do. This has to be violating at least a couple policies. --<span style="padding: 3px; background: #EEE; color: #007; border: #CCC 1px solid; text-transform: uppercase; text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">] ● ] ● ]</span> 07:15, 14 October 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 editor's latest contribution is of an article that's seemingly superfluous and that had a total of zero sources. (Another editor later sourced part of it to a blog entry.) -- ] (]) 13:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'd just like to echo that sentiment. I'm all in favour of consensus. | |||
| ::It should be ], by the way. ] (]) 00:10, 15 October 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. | |||
| :::According to BeasttoBeast, it's "King Triton Garden's", ]. In itself, this doesn't much worry me; but when all these things are added up, I wonder if there's a basic issue of competence. -- ] (]) 00:21, 15 October 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. | |||
| :Edit summaries would be helpful. I've just now for their provision. -- ] (]) 00:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'd welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that going forwards (i.e. without an article ban). ] (]) 06:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::* The mention by Graywalls for an RfC on 27 Dec had no influence on the one existing. As an uncomplicated process, an editor truly sincere in having community input would have posed a simple objective question. Graywalls, why didn't you take 5 minutes and create the RfC question you wanted? What would have been your RfC question? | |||
| *::Specifically for propylene glycol (you are still defending its use in the article by - see comments about this book in the RfC): {{tq|what do you believe propylene glycol does in a frozen dessert and what would you prefer the article to say about propylene glycol? I have asked for this clarification on the talk page many times and in the DRN, but you ignored the opportunity to collaborate and clarify.}} | |||
| *:: | |||
| *::Your reverts in article history and combative talk page behavior over months revealed a persistent intent to disparage the Breyers article, focus on the "antifreeze" slur (mainly promoting ), and restore a skeletal version having no sources more recent than 2018 , after That version also has misinformation under the section 'Ice cream', falsely stating that Breyers changed their ice cream ingredients by using other additives, which in fact, were used to evolve a new category of frozen desserts not intended to be ice cream. I believe you know this, but you and Axad12 persisted to favor misinformation for the article. | |||
| *::The RfC I provided came from steps in the lead of ]: 1) generally poor talk page progress, where one editor seeking facts verified by current sources was opposed by Graywalls, Adax12, and {{u|NutmegCoffeeTea}}, all defending a version including "antifreeze"; 2) an RSN post where Graywalls argued that a web link by the Seattle PI made the Motley Fool article an RS; 3) for which Graywalls, Axad12, and NutmegCoffeeTea abstained from collaboration to improve the article; 4) , which appears to be <u>willfully ignored</u> by Axad12 and Graywalls, who responded only with hostility and defiance against the facts; 5) seeking third opinions from admins, first by BD2412 (talk page on 29-30 Nov) and by , resulting in verbose trolling by these two users. Axad12's response on 27 Dec was to . | |||
| *::Axad12 and Graywalls should be ABANNED from the Breyers article for exhibiting 1) hostility on the talk page to good faith proposals for making the article better, and 2) persistence to perpetuate misinformation on propylene glycol. Simply, what history shows that either editor has tried to improve the Breyers article? Both users meet most of the definitions of ] for the article, its talk page, and the RfC. ] (]) 18:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Zefr, I've already indicated on several occasions that I welcome and support the developing new consensus. Graywalls has made a similar comment below. That being the case, I don't really see what purpose an article ban would be intended to serve. | |||
| *:::Admittedly there has been some quite heated disagreement over recent months, but it seems that we all now have the robust talkpage consensus that we were hoping for in one way or another and that all three of us are happy to move forward in support of that consensus. | |||
| *:::You were clearly in the minority for quite a long time and I can appreciate that you found that experience frustrating. However, to continue to make allegations above of bad faith, trolling, tagteaming, etc. about those who constituted the valid majority for several months is just an attempt to perpetuate strife on an issue which is now, as far as I can see, satisfactorily resolved. ] (]) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Filed under: sometimes you hurt articles by treating COI editors as the enemy. The problem here is two users who should really know better edit-warring over the course of ''months'' to reinstate TikTok diet influencer silliness into a Misplaced Pages article, repeatedly reinstating ] content (implicitly, if not explicitly). We currently treat a little "avoid antifreeze" bubble in a diet book (which includes Breyers in a list of brands) and a book published by one of RFK Jr's antivax publishers as ] for including the insinuation that an FDA-approved and much-conspiratorialized additive is harmful. They've been repeatedly removed, but two editors keep putting them back, whether because of a misunderstanding of ]/] or in pursuit of COI purification. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I take your point but I think you're misjudging the situation somewhat. Prior to the opening of the current RfC it was approximately 6 or 7 users in favour of inclusion vs 3 or 4 favouring exclusion. I only reverted the attempts at exclusion because those attempts were contrary to the talk page consensus. | |||
| *:I'm perfectly open to the suggestion that that consensus position was wrong but the simple fact of the matter was that there was ''at that time'' no consensus in favour of exclusion. | |||
| *:It has only been in the last couple of days that the requesting editor has been able to demonstrate a consensus in favour of exclusion. And that's great, I have no problem with that at all. In fact I welcome it. | |||
| *:My understanding is that editors wishing to make changes to article text should not do so if there is a consensus against what they are trying to do, and that under such circumstances an edit can be (indeed ''should be'') reverted. If I'm mistaken on that score then I'm perfectly happy to take instruction. However, I really want to stress that my actions were based primarily upon that reasoning and were made in good faith. ] (]) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@], you should not revert something because other editors want it to be reverted. You should only make content changes that you personally support. This is necessary for BRD to work. See ] for an explanation of why. ] (]) 17:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{re|Rhododendrites}}, the antifreeze matter is ] since I believe everyone's pretty much agreed it doesn't need to be in there. Zefr has taken issues with me, Axad12, NutMegCoffee and possibly some others. They've tried to get the article "set in place" to their preferred version, but that was declined admin {{u|Daniel Case}} who determined it to be content dispute ]. Zefr inferring alleging I was <s>"uncooperative"</s> <u>not collaborating/cooperating in the way that he was hoping</u> in DR, but I don't believe that to be so. <u>There was nothing intentional on my part to not cooperate.</u> I'll see if {{re|Robert McClenon}} would like to share their observation on that since they closed the dispute. | |||
| *:https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Breyers/Archive_2#c-Rusalkii-20240814014600-Inkian_Jason-20240801145900 here's another uninvolved editoring erring on the side of inclusion. A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus. Reading through the current plus the archived discussions, up until the RfC, the general consensus is in support of having PG mention and Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus. As I mentioned, if consensus changes with the RfC, I'm not opposed to going with that. ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (adjusted ] (]) 13:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)) | |||
| *::For the record, I never stated the word "uncooperative" at DRN or the Breyers talk page, but rather "non-collaborative", as discussed in the thread with Robert McClenon below. | |||
| *::"Set in place to their preferred version" and "Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus" should be translated to using "facts verified by reliable sources", which is the simple goal for the Breyers article that Graywalls has obstructed over months. | |||
| *::It's incredible that Graywalls says even today above, knowing the comments on the RfC and months of being presented with facts and sources about why propylene glycol is safely used in thousands of manufactured foods: ''"A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus."'' | |||
| *::Here's your chance to tell everyone: | |||
| *::Why do you feel propylene glycol was used in Breyers frozen desserts (in 2013, not since)? What concern do you have about it, and what government or scientific source says it's unsafe in the amounts regulated by federal laws? Give a sentence here that you think meets consensus and uses a reliable source. ] (]) 01:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::You're right, you did not use that specific word. I've corrected my response due to wording. ] (]) 13:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===A Non-Mediator's Statement=== | |||
| == Edit-war at Obama article == | |||
| I am not entirely sure why ] has pinged me about this dispute, saying that I "closed this dispute". The accuracy of the statement that I "closed this dispute" depends on what is meant by "this dispute". | |||
| I closed the ] thread, ], on 12 December. I obviously didn't resolve a dispute that has been continuing for another three weeks, and the claim that I closed the dispute looks to me like an attempt to confuse the jury. ] had opened the DRN thread on 3 December, complaining about the insertion of the word ] and of the mention of ]. I was not entirely sure beyond the mention of ] what the issues were. There were questions about what the procedure was for handling a ] dispute; I think that Zefr was said to be the one. There was a long question that may have been about whether ] is voluntary; DRN is voluntary. Then Zefr said that the case could be withdrawn because no one else was commenting. The disputants other than Zefr never did say exactly what the article content issues were, perhaps because they didn't want to discuss article content, and were not required to discuss article content. If anyone is implying that I resolved or settled anything, I have no idea what it was. | |||
| Currently, the featured article {{la|Barack Obama}} aka "]" (etc.), pageviews: ~57,000/day, is in an edit-war to break the article to exceed the post-expand include-size limit by removing 402 instances ] and using {cite_news} or {cite_web} to again exceed the template limits and crash the bottom 3 navboxes, {]}, ], and the ]/GA interwiki links to the other-language wikipedias. Obviously, the edit-war is upsetting to users who are guarding the article for improper changes, and also users are not pleased to again see the bottom 14 templates crashing. There have been 2 editors in the edit-war: | |||
| * ], already indef-blocked (]) after blocked 48 hours () on 13 October for other edit-warring on ], began removing {cite_quick} first from featured article "]", with no prior talk-page discussion (, ). | |||
| * ] is acting as a one-man campaign to TfD delete ] (]), and remove {cite_quick} from featured article "Barack Obama" () to re-crash the bottom 14 templates, and not work to create an alternate version of the article which can reformat the entire page. The article seems too big by over 100 carefully chosen citations (as ]), so the reduction of article size will be difficult, and require talking sensibly with other users. Now, anyone is allowed to submit a TfD, but it is too zealous to also unilaterally remove that template from a high-visibility, featured article where it fixes 14 other templates to avoid a template-size error which crashes the bottom half of the featured article. I think the user is acting as judge, jury, and executioner (to submit TfD and also remove usage when opposed), while offering no help to rewrite the featured article to fit {]} and {cite_web} without crashing the article. | |||
| I think someone else needs to talk with those users, and get them to agree to stop the edit-warring. They have shown little interest in fixing the Obama article to reformat the entire page, they detest ] which reformats cites 9x faster/shorter, and I am not sure the other Obama article editors would welcome their efforts at this point. There is a clause in ] that allows citation templates to be removed from an article (replaced by hand-coded citation titles/dates) after prior consensus. The scope of the problem seems to span over 100 citations (of 402 cite templates), so it is not a trivial fix in a carefully-written featured article. Therefore, we need to proceed calmly. -] (]) 11:31, revised 12:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :* Consensus poll: ]. -] 12:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Unless something has changed, ] has been indef-blocked and a ] is ongoing at WP:AN. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 12:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| 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) | |||
| : On ] it has been Wikid77 that has been repeatedly inserting his template , with edit summaries such as "undid non-census change", though as he's the only editor doing so it's a strange consensus he is referring to. For the many discussions on this I would look at ], ], ], ] and ]. | |||
| : But perhaps the nexus is ] on {{tl|Fcite}}, {{tl|Cite fast}}, and ] on {{tl|Cite web/smart}}. The outcome of these discussions, was that the templates should only be used for testing purposes, not deployed in mainspace. Creating yet another variant of these templates and deploying it in mainspace is ], and raising the same arguments again and again in repeated forums (multiple TfDs, articles and user talk pages, here) is simply ].--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 13:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Other editors want an agreement for the edit-warring to stop, and then discuss what to change for the Obama article to fit within template limits. -] 16:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::The question is, does the inclusion of the new template fix something that is broken in a version of the article without the new template? ] (]) 14:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I couldn't give a frog's fat arse who did what and why. All I want to see is an unbroken page where all the templates are working as expected. Although page-load times on ] have been horrific (for ''years''), at least the page was working. If we need to take drastic measures to reduce the size of the article then that's fine and we'll get the moving, but edit warring over how templates are used is completely unacceptable. -- ] (]) 14:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::* '''Reformat time drops from 40 to 7 seconds if all cite templates removed:''' Generally, I like the idea of cite-templates, to help new users follow the citation formats, but people need to know how articles will display much faster, "Barack Obama" within 7 seconds, if all cite-templates are replaced with hand-coded authors, titles, and dates. A large, top infobox takes about 1 second to format, and large navboxes run about 2 or 3 per second. If all templates were replaced as hand-coded wikitables and wikilinks, the reformat would drop below 2 seconds for a huge article, at any default image-size (~25 images) for the reformat. -] 16:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Maybe a silly question but can't we just <nowiki>{{subst:}}</nowiki> the citation templates? ]</font><sup> (],])</sup> 19:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::* '''Cite_news subtemplates are not structured for wp:Subst:''' I have created a special template for ]'ing journal cites to simple wikitext, outside of reftags "<ref>" which prevent subst'ing; so something similar might be the way to de-template the Obama article. Step 1: Change all "<ref>" to "<xxref>" and save, Step 2: Subst with a special "Cite_quick/subst" template and save, Step 3: unchange "<xxref>" back to "<ref>" and fix any glitches in the substituted format. The 24 forks of {cite_web} templates do not support subst'ing because they would be almost impossible to read (the subst'ified markup) when updating use in 1.6 million articles. -] (]) 23:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::*We certainly ''don't'' want to get into a situation where we are using different citing systems for different articles. Whatever system we employ going forward needs to be Wikpedia-wide or it will be a "cats and dogs living together" situation. -- ] (]) 23:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::**Please read ]. Anyone can use any citing system the please. For example ] uses Harvard citations, while ] uses APA citations and ] uses <nowiki>{{Cite foo}}</nowiki>. I was the primary contributor for all three articles. --] | ] 00:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Full protect for 3 1/2 weeks (aka after the election):''' It's time <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 19:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Robert McClenon}}, I pinged you, because I felt you'd be a good commentator to evaluate whether you also felt I was "not cooperative" in the process as Zefr says. I tried to participate, but it got closed shortly after I posted a comment in it. ] (]) 22:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If it's necessary to full protect to keep cite quick in place, I'd say do it. There is no excuse for its disruptive removal. --]]] 21:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Was that purposely mis-stated to be provocative and mislead the discussion here? | |||
| *'''Comment''' I have no idea why it matters either way, but all I know is that I can't load the page when the template is disrupted. I can't even see the edit(s) with the template. Come to some conclusion on the talk page and enforce the "consensus", but theres is no reason to fully protect the page.--] ]</font> 23:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I said you were <u>non-collaborative</u>, which describes your behavior throughout your editing history on the Breyers article, its talk page, and the DRN. You refused collaboration at DRN, which is the whole point of the process. DRN FAQ: ''"refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building."'' | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ==Complaint against ]== | |||
| {{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 . | |||
| 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 ] 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:''' | |||
| * 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 ]:''' | |||
| * 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 ] 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. | |||
| Thank you for your time and consideration. </s> | |||
| ] • ] ⚽ 12:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The discussion I raised was at ], now closed. I raised concerns about this editor, who has (in brief) - undertake botched and inappropriate RM closures; re-factored other editor's talk page posts; randomly nominated another user with whom they have never interacted before for RFA; and messing with my user space draft. None of that was the conduct of a new editor here to learn the ropes, and I wanted a second pair of eyes. | |||
| :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 === | |||
| * I propose a ''']''' for Footballnerd2007, appealable no sooner than six months from now (and then once per year thereafter), alongside a ban on using LLM's which would remain in effect until specifically contested. At the time of writing, Footballnerd2007 has only 142 edits, a ''significant'' number of which are right here at WP:ANI. They are clearly a massive ] time sink. I urged Footballnerd2007 to withdraw this complaint and warned about ] and that clearly didn't land. I think it's time for everyone else to get back to regular editing. --] (]) 12:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*'''Support''', obviously. The more they have responded, the stronger my concerns have grown. ]] 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:I have decided to withdraw my complaint with immediate effect in order to avoid the loss of my editing privileges. I'm going to write a long piece (without using LLM) explaining my actions later when I have time. I'm sorry for any disruption caused, I have always acted in good faith. ] • ] ⚽ 13:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::Demonstrably not, when you've been dodging all along the question of whether you've been using LLMs, and only now -- when the tide is running against you -- stating that at last you'll respond at length without? ] 13:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::FN2007 claims to be a new editor, and to have spent a significant amount of time reading Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines etc. If so, they will have known not to re-factor other user's talk page posts, but they did that anyway. That cannot be good faith editing. ]] 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::I'll respond to this in depth later today. ] • ] ⚽ 13:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::I concede that I've been backed into a corner and now I need to do the right thing, stop with the defensive act and own up to my mistakes which I'll do in my statement later this afternoon. ] • ] ⚽ 13:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::So you only need to so the right thing after being backed into a corner? I think we can do without such editors. ] (]) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::I had my legal head on with the philosophy "defend until you can no more" - I now concede on reflection this is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages and that my actions were not the right way to go and for that I will take full responsibility in my statement. ] • ] ⚽ 13:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::It's too late to withdraw now. You have to take responsibility for your behaviour. ] (]) 13:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*{{ec}}<s>'''Support'''</s> - on top of what's been posted on this thread, FN2007 has ] by archiving without a link to the archive on the fresh talk page, without responding to ]. They also ] to add things they didn't say when closing a RM discussion, and haven't responded ]. These things alongside their LLM use (and subsequent wikilawyering "technically I only said I didn't use ''ChatGPT''" responses), refusal to listen to good advice, and everything else in this topic, I think a community ban would be a good idea. ] ] 13:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC) ''Update'' - striking support for cban, I think footballnerd's recent responses and CNC's offer of mentorship indicate that we may be able to avoid it. ] ] 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:The archiving of talk page was an attempt to "wipe the slate clean" and move on, I didn't see how I could reply to the advice constructively. As for the wikilawyering, again I concede that I was out of order and that I did use AI assistance to write my complaint which was unwise. I do however, maintain that I did not lie as my comments about using ChatGPT were accurate, however this was using technicalities and involved me being rather economical with the truth. ] • ] ⚽ 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::You could have simply said "thank you Liz for the advice". And if you 'wanted to wipe the slate clean', why did you start this new thread? ]] 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::I will go back and thank her for that. Because I had been advised that your actions could have violated WP policy and thought it would be a good way to deflect the blame, in heinsight it was absolutely the wrong course of action. I would like to draw a line under this whole sorry situation and move on with the reason that I joined once my statement has been published and the subsequent discussion has concluded. ] • ] ⚽ 14:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:(another {{ec}} To clarify, I don't think Footballnerd is doing anything malicious or deliberately trying to time-waste. I think they are a misguided new bold editor who unfortunately doesn't listen to advice and is stubborn to self-reflect. If this cban goes ahead I urge them to appeal in 6 months with a better understanding of how wikipedia works, with a more cautious editing style and more acceptance of community opinions. ] ] 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::I am not being malicious, there was only one motivation for my actions - wanting to help. | |||
| *:*::My comments on this and the above thread have been ill judged. | |||
| *:*::As for the ban, I'd like to ask that I be spared at this moment in time in view of my above comments and the concession statement that I will be posting when I return home. ] • ] ⚽ 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::You seem to be spending a lot of time/making a lot of posts saying "full statement to come!", rather than actually making that statement... ]] 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::Because I'm posting from my phone and I'm not at home. When I return to my PC later today I'll make the statement. ] • ] ⚽ 14:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*<del>Support CBAN.</del> Using a chatbot to generate discussion then denying it when called out is already deeply contemptuous. Turning around and filing a chatbot generated revenge report for people not believing your lies about not using a chatbot? Words fail. ] (]) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|{{ins|edited 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC); see below.}}}} | |||
| *:*:FTR I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT but I admit that I was somewhat economical with the truth and am guilty of wikilawyering - overlap of my professional life. ] • ] ⚽ 14:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::You are still not clearly and unequivocally admitting what you did. ]] 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::What you want me to admit? I admitted using AI but not ChatGPT and tried to use wikilawyering to get away from this. ] • ] ⚽ 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::Unless I missed something, that was your first clear admission of using AI. Your earlier comment of "I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT" is not the same. ]] 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't use a Chatbot form of AI nor did I use ChatGPT but I did use AI assistance (which I didn't deny). So to be unequivocally clear - I never lied but was economical with the truth, I am guilty of 'wikilawyering' and I did deploy the assistance of Artificial Intelligence on a handful of occasion. ] • ] ⚽ 14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::Thank you - but you repeatedly failed to own up to using AI when questioned on it, and your latter responses here do nothing to deal with my personal concerns. ]] 14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::I admit that I did, I just saw the line of "I didn't use ChatGPT" as an easy 'get out of jail card'. ] • ] ⚽ 14:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::While that might be technically accurate when you answered that you did not use Chat-GPT, you were intentionally being deceptive in your answers multiple times. It might be slightly different if you were asked ''specifically about Chat-GPT'', however multiple times you were ''specifically asked about the broad term of LLM''. Your current claim of, {{tq|never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT}}, falls on deaf ears because it is clear that you were dodging the questions, and indeed intentionally addressed only Chat-GPT for the purpose of deception instead of honesty. ] ] 17:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::'''Soft-struck''' prior comment because now I see you have admitted to such activity prior to my comment above. ] ] 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:{{a note}} for ], just to inform you there is a ] that you may not have seen. I was about to send generic pings to !voters of this section, but it appears all other editors are aware of this proposal already (or voted afterwards at least). This isn't intended to influence your decision, only to provide you updated information. ] (]) 23:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::{{rtp}} Withdrawing support for CBAN in light of ] combined with acceptance of mentorship by {{u|CommunityNotesContributor}} (thanks for the ping: I've been offwiki).{{pb}}{{Ping|Footballnerd2007}} I'm sure the point has got across, but please respect your colleagues here. Using an LLM (of any brand) in discussions is disrespectful of our time; assuming we won't notice is disrespectful of our competence. Please engage with the spirit of other people's communications, rather than with the precise words chosen. Misplaced Pages is very much unlike a courtroom: we're here to work together on a shared project, not to win arguments against each other. I look forward to your earnest acculturation. ] (]) 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Support''' as this behavior is clearly ]. </s>] (]) 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' CBAN as this editor has caused a monumental waste of the volunteer time of other editors, which is our most precious commodity. This is an encyclopedia, not a robot debating society. ] (]) 18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. First choice would be an indefinite block. Despite the user's sudden acts of contrition, I don't trust them. I don't see them as an asset to the project. As for their recent statement that some think is AI-generated, my ''guess'' is it's a mixture, maybe we should call it AI-assisted. However, I wouldn't support an indefinite block if it were just that. What preceded the complaint by GS and their conduct at ANI was egregiously disruptive.--] (]) 18:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I say give them some rope. There is good discussion going on below, and I don't think anything is gained by blocking an editor who does at times add value. We can always revisit this later - and presumably the action would then be quick and obvious. BTW, I thought we all used AI to some extent - certainly when I misspell words like "certainyl" I then accept the AI in chrome changing the spelling. Or even improving the grammar if I turn on those options. Also ]'s numerous draft articles in his userspace always confounds me. I've asked them before to write these articles in draft-space where there can be a collaborative effort, rather than their userspace where they won't let anyone else edit. ] (]) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Haven't voted in this proposal yet, am abstaining for now per trying to avoid advocacy as potential mentor. The two points I will however question is: would a CBAN solve these issues or postpone them until a later date? Would a 1–2 month mentorship more likely bring about the results of reform or failure much sooner? If we want to talk about ] as we have do so, it might be worth ] the time wasted in not mentoring a newish editor into the folds of the encyclopedia. ] (]) 00:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''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=== | |||
| {{quote|] commitments to uphold by ] for a suggested one–two month period. Mentor: ]. | |||
| # Abide by all policies and guidelines and ] to advise given to you by other editors. | |||
| # No page moves (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval from mentor. | |||
| # No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it. | |||
| # No more dishonesty, being evasive, or using AI of any kind in discussions due to laziness. | |||
| # Avoid commenting on all admin noticeboards (unless summoned). If there is a problem, seek advise from mentor. | |||
| # Avoid reverting other editors (either manually, part or in full), unless obvious vandalism. | |||
| }} | |||
| This goes a bit beyond original requirements, and the last two are effectively preventative measures to try and avoid problems arising. An editor involved exclusively on footy articles has limited to no need for involvement in admin noticeboards. ] (]) 17:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree to those principles and am grateful for the mentorship opportunity! ] • ] ⚽ 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Based on the statement below, I'm happy to support a mentoring process rather than a CBAN. ]] 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe you could edit your !vote above to avoid any confusion for other editors. ] (]) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::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==== | |||
| *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. | |||
| :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=== | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] • ] ⚽ 16:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for this. ]] 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're welcome, I'd really like to put this situation behind us and move on. ] • ] ⚽ 17:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, if that was written without AI tools (GPTzero still says it was 100% written by AI, but it looks a lot more "human" to me than your previous efforts) then you can at least write without them. ] (]) 17:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be fair, @], I tossed a couple of your writings into GPTzero and they also say they were 100% AI generated. I don't think we should be putting much weight on these things! Perhaps there's similarities between Wikispeak and AIspeak ... ] (]) 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not surprised. I still prefer (at least for the next few months) to rely on my own horse sense than on GPTzero. ] (]) 09:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Same. I don't find GPTzero and pals particularly useful benchmarks. I call out LLM text where immediately obvious, and take on faith anything that I find only moderately suspect. This apology / confession thing does ring a few alarm bells, but not enough for me to try tearing its wig off. Hopefully we'll gain a constructive contributor after all this. ] (]) 12:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{U|Nfitz}}, please quote or diff one such "writing" so I can try it myself. (And ping me, please.) ]] 10:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It was a bit short, ], but . ] (]) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well there's something very puzzling going on here. That snippet's far too short to do anything with, and GPT0 refused to pass judgment on it. So I tried something longer of Phil B.'s ({{tq|{{small|I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor.}}}}) and it came back "99% human". ]] 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, I suppose it's better to be 99% human than 0%. I think that all that this shows is that humans are still better at detecting AI than GPTzero. ] (]) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :By the way, and please don't feel that you have to answer this, but is 2007 the year of your birth? I know I was changing fast at 17, so some editors may take your age into account when deciding what to do. ] (]) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the aim of transparency, I will voluntarily answer that - yes I was born in 2007 and (not sure how relevant it is) I suffer from ]. ] • ] ⚽ 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well geez now I'm curious what overlaps with Wikilawyering. ] (]) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies. ] • ] ⚽ 14:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I appreciate the maturity in acknowledging your errors. I’d like to clarify this as it’s something I avoided mentioning. | |||
| :The use of AI is not prohibited but heavily frowned upon. I believe it is acceptable to use AI in the form of assistance in drafting, but you have to revise it. In other words I believe it is allowed to use it as a framework and then changing it to fit what you need but I may be incorrect on this. Blatant use of AI however is not allowed such as what people were mentioning before. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :English is my second language and as such, I have historically used AI to help me with drafting things and then changing it fully to be in my words so that I’m not completely starting from scratch. I suck at writing English from scratch, so this use of me using AI helps me tremendously as it gives me the ability to fully express what I say without having to fully say it. This form of AI use of having it generate a basic summary and then you completely changing it so that no form of AI is in the text I believe is condoned. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :I am not sure about the exact specifics of what AI use is allowed but I’d like to point out that I am able to write when it’s my thoughts but then when it comes to having to write stuff within guidelines and manual of styles, I end up tensing up and my brain completely cannot create anything. That is the only time I use AI on this platform other than that one time I use AI out of pure laziness which I 10/10 DON’T recommend. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :I am not sure if this above is correct so I would appreciate if someone here especially @] clarified if this is allowed or not. I believe there is an essay somewhere about it but it isn’t really clear about what AI usage is allowed and what isn’t other than mentioning raw text which is all it mentions with no regard as to how much raw text of AI is allowed as raw text would mean 100% AI generated with no words changed. | |||
| :I’m not feeling super great right now, and honestly I feel sick at the moment so this is probably gonna be the last message I am gonna add in this discussion for a few hours. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Cheers,<br> | |||
| :] (]) 19:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are looking for ]. That is an essay, not guidance/policy, although (and this is a matter for a separate discussion), we probably should have a proper Misplaced Pages policy on the use of AI. ]] 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was about to begin a reply with "]",{{dummy ref|TOMATS}} but it looks like that month-ago discussion has not yet been closed or archived. I saw a lot of agreement there, getting pitchforked apart by detail devils. A well read closure should help move us forward with the word­smithing. ] (]) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Courtesy pings to increase discussion as the following pings all commented in the sections prior. | |||
| :@] | |||
| :@] | |||
| :@] | |||
| :@] | |||
| :{{ping|Black Kite}} | |||
| :{{ping|Bugghost}} | |||
| :{{ping| isaacl}} | |||
| :{{ping| CommunityNotesContributor}} | |||
| :{{ping| Randy Kryn}} | |||
| :{{ping|Bbb23}} | |||
| :{{ping| Cullen328}} | |||
| :{{ping| Simonm223}} | |||
| :{{ping|Folly Mox}} | |||
| :{{ping| Bgsu98}} | |||
| :{{ping|Yamla}} | |||
| :Sorry for the delay CNC. | |||
| :Cheers, <br> ] (]) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::If I'm missing anyone, let me know and I will ping. ] (]) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please don't send mass ping ] to all participants without a specific reason (increasing discussion is not a specific reason for sending notifications for this specific place in the thread). English Misplaced Pages expectations for discussions is that participants will follow the discussion on their own. ] (]) 02:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seconding Isaacl - these pings were unecessary. Editors who wanted to follow this discussion would have subscribed. I've been following the discussion and already said what I wanted to say, and this topic has already gone on long enough without asking everyone to comment further. ] ] 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My personal opinion is that LLM content is not able to be brought into compliance with Misplaced Pages copyright restrictions and is highly disrespectful of others in article talk. As such I don't believe there is any place for LLMs and other chatbots in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Since we're here (at the most visible venue): ] (2023) concludes inconclusively. {{Slink|Special:Permalink/1265594360|Copyright of LLM output}} (December 2024) seems to indicate potential CC-BY-SA compliance varies by which giant tech behemoth's proprietary AI implementation is used. Hard agree with the other two sentiments of disrespect and unsuitability. ] (]) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That's interesting. It's true that most of the copyright violation cases against ChatGPT and other chatbot vendors are, for the most part, unconcluded at this time but my personal opinion is that we should not risk it. ] (]) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes, of course, a very good statement of contrition and hope for future editing (hopefully not all AI). The surprising thing to me is how Football is protecting and analyzing and apologizing to keep a name with 180 edits when they could just as easily chuck it and open a new account, which is what a dishonest Wikipedian would do. Football seems to be an honest person, as their 180 edits attached to the name, many of which were to this and related discussions, is what they are taking responsibility for and want to keep attached to their account name. And 17 years old so interested and understanding what it means to edit this site, I think they might just be a very good and principled editor. ] (]) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' the last change mentorship that has been offered by CNC, as it is the best step forward. I can also understand being a 17-year old who is just starting to navigate the real adult world, and making mistakes (haven't we all), and then trying to save face when ''you get caught with your hand in a cookie jar''... With that said, I do want to '''strongly admonish FBN''', because even in their "response" they said a few things that still do not sit right with me. For example {{tq|I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone }} however, Folly Mox asked about their prior statement of "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering and their age, they said simply {{tq|That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies.}}. That is in addition to their own statement earlier in the "response" stating that they kept using the phase that ''they didn't use chat GPT'' even whens specifically asked about LLM, and that they {{tq|now realise was evasive}} -- I believe that it wasn't until this ANI that they realized they were being decepitve. I also take great pause at the statement of {{tq|to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy}}. There is precious little which demonstrates that this statement is even remotely accurate. Even in raising this ANI, very few of the instructions were followed. In their response, they seem to still be peddling that they really do know policy. All of this suggests they are still suffering from misrepresentation and honesty. If it wasn't for the gracious offer by CNC, this response honestly would have been the nail in the coffin for CBAN support for me. ] ] 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:49.206.48.151 == | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Please keep ] off my talk page . See also . --] (]) 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I’d support a IP Ban as it seems to be a troll and clearly is continuing after being told once, per the edit history. ] (]) 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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 == | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocktannia rules the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] is an intermittent but disruptive editor whose last edit was today (my time) and who seems to have quite a bee in their bonnet about describing people or things as English ... they very much prefer them to be described as British. They use highly emotive and inflammatory edit summaries to make their point, ranging from ] to ]. They have been warned in ] and ] in ]. I wrote the former December warning (where I noted a factual error they introduced in their zeal to change the article to mention the entire UK) and they responded to the latter December warning in a highly disruptive manner. I think some sort of block is in order, at the very least. It's hard to communicate with /64 editors like this but I and other editors have tried our best, additionally including ], which they haven't violated in their last two article edits (though one could argue ] violated their warning). ] (]) 15:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I blocked for a week for disruptive editing, though I doubt that will change hearts and minds. ] (]) 16:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == New Family Family Rises Again == | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::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}} | |||
| == Air crash vandal == | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{User|180.252.28.172}} has done nothing but vandalize air crash pages and insert unsourced content while openly bragging about it . Taking this to ANI because it is taking more than 6 hours again for AIV to resolve the matter. ] (]) 08:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} ] (]) 08:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == 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. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Would it be possible to create a link (or button) that creates a new section on one's own talk page with {{tl|Help me}} preloaded? We could then add this to the page's editnotice. ] (]) 09:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I protected ] for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. — ] (]) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, I've fixed that. — ] (]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Looks like today they're hitting every help page they can find. ] (]) 09:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Moarnighar == | |||
| *{{userlinks|Moarnighar}} | |||
| * pinging editors from ]: {{ping|Rsjaffe|Callanecc|Spicy}} | |||
| * 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) | |||
| == 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 ] 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == SPA User:Muzaffarpur1947 and persistant removal of negative information about ] == | |||
| *{{userlinks|Muzaffarpur1947}} | |||
| 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 == | |||
| {{atop|1=], and it was a ], not a ]. Closing this. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{User|Westwind273}}, who was banned from editing ] and its TP last week following an ANI for uncivil behavior, appears to be evading their ban through their talk page in order to display the same uncivil, ] and ] posts that betray ] and ] behavior, not to mention their refusal to drop the stick that led to them being kicked off the article in the first place. See and . ] (]) 16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You must be kidding. How am I evading the ban? No one who is editing the Jeju article is bothering to read my talk page. Why would they? Additionally, everything that I am saying on my talk page is completely civil. I am not making personal attacks on anyone in any way. I think you need to drop the stick on this. ] (]) 17:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Westwind273 does not appear to have been banned? The previous ANI appears to be ], but that seems to have resulted in blocks, not a ban. | |||
| :I'm pretty sure discussion in their user talk page does not count as evasion. – ] (]) (]) 17:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::A pageblock is not the same thing as a topic ban, {{u|Borgenland}}. I see no problem with their comments on their own talk page. ] (]) 18:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with Cullen328, as the one whose comment the user in question is responding to. For what it's worth, I do not foresee this editor being constructive elsewhere but have no issue as long as they don't escalate to personal attacks and keep to their talk page.--] ] 19:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == NOt here account == | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{User|203.30.15.99}} But this ] is pretty much saying they will continue unless they are sanctioned. ] (]) 16:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Not an account; already blocked for a month by {{u|Bbb23}}. ] (]) 18:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Transphobia in my talk page by 136.57.92.245 == | |||
| {{atop|1=IP blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{Userlinks|136.57.92.245}} has posted the following - | |||
| ] - to my talk page, after I reverted a section blank which was done to ]. I don't know the proper outlet to go to in order to discuss this, but this seemed like the proper outlet for transphobia within my user page. | |||
| ] (]) 17:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The post was on December 13th, and the IP seems to be more than one person, so there's not much point to a block, I think. You can certainly remove the posting. ] (]) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I know we don't block IP addresses indefinitely, but this one seems to be used by only one person (or if by more than one they have remarkably similar interests), so a short preventative block is possible if they make any more such comments. ] (]) 17:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::136.57.92.245's edits to ], the apparent prelude to the personal attack, span a period of 29 days. – ] (]) (]) 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :(Not an admin) I've left them a level 4 warning for the personal attack. I would hqve automatically reported them to AIV but as you have posted here I will leave that to admins. ] (]) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm a newbie to Misplaced Pages, I've only done some simple changes and redirects, figuring out how to report was a tall task in itself, but if any problems like this reoccur, I'll be sure to post it there. Thank you. ] (]) 17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've placed a three-month {{tl|anonblock}}. They don't need a warning and they don't seem to be multiple people. They can request an unblock if they're willing to talk about their hate. ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == IP User 103.109.59.32 persisting in unsourced inflation of Buddhist population numbers == | |||
| *{{IPlinks|103.109.59.32}} | |||
| This IP was temporarily blocked a few days ago for persistently editing articles about religion to greatly increase the Buddhist population numbers and decrease the numbers for other faiths. Upon expiry of the block they have immediately resumed the same behavior (for example and ), and are attempting to cite the numbers they inserted to advocate for changes in other articles (for example ). Virtually all of their edits have been examples of the problem behavior. -- ] ] 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :While I certainly understand concerns that American demographic sources are making systematic mistakes regarding the population of China the IP is not going about this in anything remotely resembling an appropriate method. ] (]) 18:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:CNMall41 is Removing reliable sources and contents == | |||
| {{Atop|I blocked OP as a sock at SPI.--] (]) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|CNMall41}} | |||
| ] is Removing reliable sources like ], ], ] from ]. He also removed the list from ]. Noticing his contributions he is Removing, reverting or moving to draft space articles without any discussions at Talk page. I also noticed that he always through the new Misplaced Pages users in Sock puppet investigations. He also a major user who delete, revert or move pages from main space to draft space related to Television and film from ] and ]. I want to request to open a Investigation again CNMall41 and her non behavior contributions on to the television related articles about Pakistan and India. He also harasses user to keep away from her talk page. Please take a look on that. Thank you <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Yes, I removed the unreliable sourcing which is non-bylined, , etc. SPI also filed . --] (]) 18:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *], you have been an editor for 5 days now unless you are a returning editor evading a block. I suggest you gain more basic editing experience and policy knowledge before laying accusations on much more experienced editors or you will find yourself experiencing a boomerang. You also don't know much about how Misplaced Pages works if you think you can request that an "investigation" can be "opened" and you didn't even offer any diffs to support your claims so this is going nowhere. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a content dispute that should be handled on the talk page and if not resolved there, taken to DR. (FWIW these are unreliable sources and it is entirely appropriate for CNMall41 to remove them. This should be promptly closed with a ] to the filer. ] (]) 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{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. == | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| :<small>Courtesy ping, {{ping|Cassiopeia|KylieTastic|p=}} also have tried to warn this IP user.</small> -- ]-'']'' -- 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. <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 == | |||
| {{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 ] == | |||
| {{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) | |||
| }} | |||
| *{{userlinks|The Lord of Misrule}} | |||
| I'm getting caught up into an edit war with {{userlinks|The Lord of Misrule}} regarding the so-called "Gaza genocide" on ], ], and ]. Rather than continue, I am extricating myself and bringing their conduct here. From my attempts on their talk page, including the Arab-Israel, BLP, and American politics (post 1992) contentious topic warnings, are going unheeded. – ] (]) 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Editor Repeatedly inserting copyrighted material == | |||
| :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 === | |||
| In the article ], the editor ] is repeatedly inserting copyrighted material. I have posted on the talk page the links from where it is copied. Discussion also at ]. Please intervene. --] (]) 15:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :: I posted it on 10oct. Stop targeting me. People told me to rephrase the content. I couldn't so told him to do it. He's not willing to do it either. I asked another editor to volunteer even. --<small><span style="border:2px solid #2E8B57;">]</font></span></small> <sup>]</sup> 15:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :What subject? ] (]) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You cannot expect some one else to rephrase the material that you copy-paste and still claim that the material should be retained on the article. --] (]) 15:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::@], see the directly above discussion. '']''<sup>]</sup> 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Tendentious editor == | |||
| ::::Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations seriously. You ''must not'' insert copyrighted material into articles in this manner ''under any circumstances''. ] (]) 15:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Okay i wont. At least let me add the nominations. They are not copyrighted. Cmon--<small><span style="border:2px solid #2E8B57;">]</font></span></small> <sup>]</sup> 15:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've protected the page for 24 hours to stop the edit warring and so that we can work out what's going on. If this is cleared up before then, though, any admin is welcome to unprotect. I probably won't be able to do it myself as I will be busy for the next few hours. — ''''']''''' <sup>(])</sup> 15:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::OH.MY.GOD. What a mess this is? If u cant figure something out you protect the whole thing? WTF? Now nobody can update the page. Ridiculous. --<small><span style="border:2px solid #2E8B57;">]</font></span></small> <sup>]</sup> 15:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think, Titanium, that you may not appreciate how seriously Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations. For instance, I've just removed another instance of it in an article you created, ]. ] (]) 16:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Note: Not all the copyvio was removed before it was edit protected. I've just made an edit request at ]. The entire section '''The House''' needs to be removed or blanked with ]. It consists of verbatim pastes from the sources given and others. ] (]) 16:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've removed the section. Thanks for investigating this. — ''''']''''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Note''':User's another creation ] is also a copy-paste artistry. §§]§§ {]/]} 17:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Imtitanium, another of your article ] has by one user with summary of "suspicious similarity" to a blog. If you do not stop copy-pasting stuff, you might seriously be loosing your pasting abilities here. <br>And never ever demand other editors to clean your mess. Consider yourself lucky that you haven't been cleaned out by now. §§]§§ {]/]} 17:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} I've come across this user several times, and while they do have some minor issues they do generally edit in good faith. A little mentoring might help ]</font><sup> (],])</sup> 19:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I found another copyvio in ], consequently I opened ]. ] 01:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Single purpose account {{Userlinks|NicolasTn}} is reverting again . They want to expand the lead which is disputed. They have been warned not to edit war. They claim to "restore deletion" most of which introduced by them to the lead, but in the process removing other sourced information and adding back errors. They know where to discuss edits but avoid doing so as much as they can, so I don't think enough discussion exists to initiate dispute resolution. . ] (]) 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Some eyes are needed on an RfC discussion == | |||
| :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) | |||
| == User:Adillia == | |||
| Some ip editors have made some comments on an RfC . I and other editors have reverted them, but the ip users are insistent about their comments remaining. The comments are borderline trollish -- I personally would say they '''are''' trolling, but if the ip users are making such a stink about them remaining then perhaps it would be best to get someone uninvolved to moderate the !voting. ]{{SubSup||]|]}} 17:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a request for comment. You shouldn't be surprised if people comment, even IPs. If some think it's trolling (as some edit summaries state), then simply don't feed it (aka ignore it). -] (]) 18:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::The issue is editors removing comments which is apparently annoying the ip who is restoring them. Rinse, wash, repeat. ]{{SubSup||]|]}} 20:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not aware of anything in the ] that would explain . Perhaps they were pissed there edit was inappropriately referred to as ]. -] (]) 22:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Speaking of removing talk page comments, I've been wanting to ask you if edit was intentional or an accident? ] (]) 23:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|Aidillia}} | |||
| == ], again == | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| Ref: , where some promotional material at ] was removed by myself and others. | |||
| Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. ] ] 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I have just had the following e-mail interchange with Mr. Wadhwa (reformatted for Misplaced Pages, but the content is unaltered): | |||
| :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) | |||
| From: "Vivek Wadhwa" {{emailremoved}} | |||
| ::] you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| To: {{emailremoved}} | |||
| :::] 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) | |||
| Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:00:08 -0700 | |||
| :::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) | |||
| John, I am going to be writing about this for the national media and taking | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| the debate outside Misplaced Pages. I have been shocked at what I have observed. | |||
| :::::] and ]. I have other ] in real life. ] ] 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Regards, | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| Vivek | |||
| :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 == | |||
| This was in reply to my message: | |||
| {{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) | |||
| From: John Nagle | |||
| Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:26 PM | |||
| To: Vivek Wadhwa | |||
| Subject: Re: Would you like to meet for a cup of coffee? | |||
| On 10/12/2012 11:08 AM, Vivek Wadhwa wrote: | |||
| > John, I want to understand why you harbor such ill feelings towards me | |||
| > and why you are battling my former students on Misplaced Pages... | |||
| . | |||
| It's not all about you. It's routine maintenance on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Promotional efforts on Misplaced Pages are strongly discouraged. Due to some | |||
| recent problems with heavy commercial promotion on Misplaced Pages, enforcement of | |||
| the Misplaced Pages rules on this are being strictly applied. | |||
| Without such efforts, Misplaced Pages would turn into an outlet for PR Newswire. | |||
| I'm no longer involved; the problem was reported and others dealt with it. | |||
| John Nagle | |||
| <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) | |||
| So Mr. Wadhwa may be complaining about this in other media. (Probably a bad decision; see ]). --] (]) 20:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Aidilla}} You have failed to notify {{User|D.18th}} of this discussion, as the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires. I know they already reported you above, but they may not be aware of your one in return. You will need to show clear diffs supporting the allegations that you've made; expecting us to act on this report with no such evidence is likely going to result in ]. Regards, ]. (] | ]). 04:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : I assume you had permission from Vivek Wadhwa to publish these emails, and their email address? Because otherwise there is a rather serious breach of privacy here. If that's not the case, then those emails need to be revdeleted and you need to be trouted. ] (]) 23:18, 14 October 2012 (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) | |||
| : Email addresses removed. ] (]) 23:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{done}}, thanks! <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is no Misplaced Pages policy regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence. ] was proposed, but failed. ] was proposed, but failed. In this case, there's no anonymity issue; quite the opposite, rather. --] (]) 02:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:Azar Altman and User:Farruh Samadov == | |||
| :::What admin action do you expect to follow from this email exchange (being posted here)? Posting private correspondence on Misplaced Pages may not be forbidden, but neither is promising/threatening to write about one's Misplaced Pages experiences in the media. It happened quite a few times before. I don't remember anyone ever being sanctioned on Misplaced Pages for taking their (side of the) story to the media; ]? ] (]) 03:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Azar Altman}} | |||
| ::::Good point. It's just a heads-up. No action required at this time. --] (]) 05:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *{{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) | |||
| == An appropriate AfD non-admin closure? == | |||
| ::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) | |||
| == User:Tlay Khompson == | |||
| I don't want to cause problems, but I believe that the non-admin closure on this AfD discussion was incredibly premature: . Can you please tell me if I am justified in my concern on this? Thank you. ] (]) 00:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Revdel'd the offending edit. User is indeed noted to mind the ] in the future. If the username is a concern, ] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :It does look a little premature, but did you try discussing it with the editor that closed it? - ]] 00:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{User|Tlay Khompson}} | |||
| ::It was closed last week, a little more than one hour after it began. I only just discovered it about 10 minutes ago. ] (]) 00:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::...well I failed my perception roll there. I was focused on the times and overlooked the dates. - ]] 00:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We both mush have rolled a 1 there. --] | ] 00:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}} I would have relisted the article so more than 3 editors joined the discussion. That being said, I think that it is a fair close. --] | ] 00:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Probably one I wouldn't NAC myself (though maybe I would if I had one more keep, the keep rationales were pretty strong). You could have suggested this to the closer, perhaps, but most AfDs don't get much more participation.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 00:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| User's only edit so far is a serious ] violation. Name is also a veiled ] of a known person (]). —] (]) 04:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :In this case, I would have just approached an individual admin to handle this. Posting this at ANI just draws attention to the BLP-violating edit. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Sockpuppetry in Philippine articles == | |||
| Hello,<br/> | |||
| I would like to report by {{user|Dzlinker}} on my TP. Since ], I ask admins to take some actions against this user.<br/> | |||
| Thanks in advance.<br/> | |||
| --] (]) 00:31, 15 October 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) | |||
| == Cmonzonc == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| * {{Vandal|Cmonzonc}} Vandal is deleting referenced information in article ] he is the same vandal who tried to delete the article (was shown that in the discussion he told lies to remove that article), the problem with this vandal of arequipa (cmonzonc) he can't bear that Trujillo is the second metropolitan area of Peru and that it annoys him and leads him to commit acts of vandalism and his editions tend to hide important information of Trujillo city because he does not like it be said good things about Trujillo; he knows all the history of the city and he is full of envy and hates to Trujillo city. He can not bear that Trujillo is considered the cultural capital of Peru. cmonzonc has been blocked in spanish wikipedia for continous vandalism acts (continuosly he deleted important information that was correctly sourced after he was warned) . In spanish wikipedia he has some friends that are administrators that let him to do his vandalism acts, he was reported for vandalism acts (he also deleted information about a law for cities given by the peruvian government correctly sourced ), and they justified him and , and these bad administrators have blocked the user that undid the vandalic acts of this camouflaged vandal called cmonzonc, they let cmonzonc to vandalice completely spanish article knowing that he hates the city and they helped him to do it and before he had begun many edit warrings in that article caused by his hate for the city. Before He was reported in spanish wikipedia too one administrator said: "sí es verdad que sus ediciones son muy tendenciosas. Habría que llamarle la atención. Lourdes, mensajes aquí 18:54 4 may 2012 (UTC):''it is true that his editions are very biased. We would have to get his attention.(to give him an amonestation) Lourdes, mensajes aquí 18:54 4 may 2012 (UTC)''" and he was blocked before too for edit warring in the same article , he has a long history of many edit warrings in article Trujillo in spanish wikipedia with different users since a very long time ago ; but the administrator Andreasmperu has realized about it and has blocked him. This administrator before had recovered information deleted by cmonzonc in spanish wikipedia and had warned him if he did it again he would be blocked (the administrator warned him ..."La próxima vez que retires información referenciada, serás bloqueado. Andreasm háblame 04:41 7 oct 2012 (UTC) : ''The next time you retire referenced information, you will be blocked. Andreasm 4:41 Oct. 7, 2012 (UTC)''"), but cmonzonc kept go on making vandalism acts with the help of his friends, but today he was blocked in spanish wikipedia.--] (]) 00:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == IP 83.42.105.207 - account of indefinitely blocked user == | |||
| I believe that the IP account ] is being used by the indefinitely blocked user ], who is/was a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user ]. Their most recent editing has been at ] and ]. The pattern of editing of this IP is the same as from the blocked accounts, and includes a focus on similar topics, the same editing style, an unwillingness or inability to discuss on talk pages, and the same geolocation as the many IP addresses which were part of the sockpuppet investigation at ]. A detailed description of this user's general behaviour can be found at ], which is also referred to in the sockpuppet investigation. ] (]) 01:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| VZ Vermögenszentrum - this user named after their ] is heavily editing their bank wikipedia page. should be banned or warned at least. --] (]) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Speedy deletion of Template:Garry Marshall == | |||
| :It is nearly six months since they made an edit. ] (]) 12:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::yes, you are right. If I see something similar in the future, where should I drop a notice? ] (]) 14:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Usernames for administrator attention (WP:UAA, I think), would be the first place to go, followed by WP:COIN, then depending on user response either to the renaming page or to AIV. ] (]) 14:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I will jot it down. many thanks ] (]) 14:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Someone please give expedited consideration of the speedy delete nomination of ]. (Since it is redirected, you have to edit the template to see the nomination.) Reason: All pages where it is transcluded appear in ]. —] ] ] 01:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know why but the transcluded pages no longer appear in CAT:CSD; so please disregard. —] ] ] 03:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == SeanM1997 == | |||
| == The ] == | |||
| I had made some edits to "]", some of which were repeatedly reverted, unjustifiably and unreasonably in my view. I contented, and I maintain, that in the ], "the Three Kingdoms" always first of all mean the Kingdoms of ] (]), ] and ]. What do you, as administrators or simply as lay editors, think? I thank you. -- ] 02:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you discussed this on the article's talk page? ] (]) 02:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: I am afraid that I do somehow have the misfortune of having a history of "''run-ins''" with a few odd editors, and the other editor concerned would be it. -- ] 02:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{User|SeanM1997}} | |||
| ::This is not a matter for ]--it's a content dispute you haven't even started disputed yet. Not that it really matters, but being from the young side of the pond, I've never heard "Three Kingdoms" refer to anything other than the period in Chinese history. However, a discussion on the article's talk page could help sort out what is or isn't the primary topic. Run an RfC if necessary. ] (]) 02:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I see. Well, this is probably not helped, if my memory serves me correctly, by living right next door to the Koreas and China, and the long-range projectile weaponry belonging thereto. Anyway, this is a most interesting perspective. I did not realis(z)e just how far that the old ] had since "branched off". Yes, perhaps I shall, but perhaps in some other time. I thank you. -- ] 02:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That disambig page is horribly overlinked - and there should not be any entries that only have redlinks -- ] (]) 06:13, 15 October 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. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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) | |||
| ] has had an account since late 2006. He has a clean block log, but I believe a few months ago he was topic banned on a topic unrelated to this WP:AN/I. In August raising his intimidatory behaviour towards other editors, in particular ], and more generally, his inappropriate use of profanity. | |||
| Things seemed to calm down a bit after the WQA, but recently I noticed that he - again - has been swearing at ] and calling him names, as follows: | |||
| * "Pete/Skyring is being a stubborn prick again" (section title), "I know he hates my guts, but this is just stubbornly idiotic", "I've brought it here rather than continue Edit warring with the clown any more" | |||
| * "No fucking way. It's YOU who wants to delete well established, properly sourced content, so it's YOU who needs to present the fucking case. It's called logic. If you don't hate me, maybe it's a love of the Liberal Party that's your problem. There's certainly something wrong with your thinking process. It seems to be totally driven by emotion rather than truth. See if you can find a rational thought in your brain when it comes to politics and stop acting on dogma" | |||
| * "Yes, we have a fucking communication problem. And I see no fucking way that it can fucking improve, unless you change dramatically. You don't read what I write. You always respond as if I had said something else. I think you have serious psychological issues surrounding certain aspects of politics and trade unions. You cannot think rationally in that area. It's ALL emotion driven. While you retain polite language, you talk utter bullshit. It's fucking editors like fucking you that create far more fucking problems for Misplaced Pages than anyone who uses the occasional fucking obscenity. I have a personal rule that I am breaking right now in even trying to respond to you, because in the past it has ALWAYS led to further problems, because you actually don't want to hear (or read) what I have to say. And than your responses make no sense. I can assume good faith, but I cannot assume rational thought, sanity and competence." | |||
| * "That you think it's irrelevant is your problem, and fucking insulting. Thank you for the confession, <nowiki><big></nowiki>'''but stop fucking ignoring what I write!'''<nowiki></big></nowiki> " | |||
| * "No. Swearing at Pete works. Polite language makes no impact at all." (edit summary) | |||
| He eventually calmed down and offered this conciliatory post, but despite that I would appreciate an administrator reviewing his contributions because I believe further action is required. --] (]) 06:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **I'm an admin, but I think I'm a bit too involved here. I have had less than satisfactory interactions with this user at ], where the user was a bit more snarky than necessary. --''']]]''' 06:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I congratulate Skyring, for his calmness in the face of such profanity :) ] (]) 06:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:46, 7 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) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 |
| 358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 |
| 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)
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:Historian5328
- Historian5328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have been dealing with persistent additions of unreferenced numbers to Somali Armed Forces, Somali Navy, etc for some time. Rolling them back - they're never supported by sources that validate the data, or the sources are distorted.
In the last couple of days a new user, User:Historian5328 has also started showing this behaviour. But in this edit he's entering fantasy territory, saying the Somali Armed Forces are equipped with the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, which has never been exported beyond the United States Air Force. I would request that any interested administrator consider this account for blocking. Kind regards and Happy New Year, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editor clearly has some serious WP:CIR issues, given this WP:MADEUP stuff, and using...let's say non-reliable sources elsewhere, without responding to any of the notices on their talk page. I've pblocked them from articlespace so they can come here and explain themselves. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just noting that the editor's username is User:Historian5328, not User:Historian 5328 and they were informed of this discussion. Liz 00:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the same regard, I would kindly request that any interested administrators review User_talk:YZ357980, who has been warned over and over and over again about adding unsourced and completely made up material (Somali Navy for example, consisting of 3,500 personnel..) Buckshot06 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see you corrected their username in this report after I mentioned the mistake. Liz 07:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Liz, the original vandal and very problematic editor, who should be blocked immediately, was YZ357980. With all due regard to Historian5328, they display very similar behaviour, which immediately created a warning flag in my mind. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’m relatively new to Misplaced Pages editing and only recently discovered that there is even a talk page. Regarding the active personnel for the Somali Armed Forces, I listed approx 20,000–30,000 (2024) and included a citation, which I believe does not warrant being blocked. I’m a beginner in Misplaced Pages editing, have no malicious intent, and do not believe I should be blocked. Moreover, I read from a Somalia media source that the Somali government had acquired A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, believing the source to be authentic up until I discovered I was blocked. This was a mistake on my part, as I am new and inexperienced (2 days.) The individual who requested me to blocked must have had bad experiences which I’m not responsible for. I am requesting to be unblocked. Historian5328 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion continued on user's talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the same regard, I would kindly request that any interested administrators review User_talk:YZ357980, who has been warned over and over and over again about adding unsourced and completely made up material (Somali Navy for example, consisting of 3,500 personnel..) Buckshot06 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just noting that the editor's username is User:Historian5328, not User:Historian 5328 and they were informed of this discussion. Liz 00:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
A reminder that the arbitration committee has designated the Horn of Africa a contentious topic, so don’t be afraid to lay down a CT advisory template for either user. 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:C826:BD54:45DF:3286 (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both done - thanks for the reminder. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've removed the pblock on Historian5328 as it appears what was happening was 'new user unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's policies on reliable sourcing', but best to keep an eye on their edits. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:32, 4 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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 |
|---|
|
User lobbying fringe subculture off-site for fringe subculture and suspicions of WP:MEATPUPPETry
It's said that Checkuser is not for fishing - well, ANI is also not a place to bring fishing expeditions. If you have evidence of recent misconduct by an editor, then by all means bring it. But if you justmore would come to light, expect a {{trout}}ing. I'm closing this as unactionable with a fish for the OP, and a caution to in the future compile evidence before coming to ANI. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over at cryptozoology and the very questionable list of cryptids, both extremely WP:FRINGE topics strongly linked to for example Young Earth creationism, myself and a few other users find ourselves having to respond to a lot of accounts that either openly or less than openly state that they're members of the article's subject subculture and that, like the subculture's founders, have a strong distaste for experts (here's an example anti-RS/anti-expert comment from today from one such fairly new account, @KanyeWestDropout:).
One of these editors, Paleface Jack (talk · contribs), has been caught lobbying off site (right here). The user has also likely done so elsewhere that hasn't come to light. This user's efforts appear to have led to a variety of WP:MEATPUPPETs popping up to WP:Wikilawyer any and all changes they disagree with, an effort to shape the articles to the subculture's preference.
Again, it's important to emphasize that not only has Paleface Jack been caught red-handed here but he has likely also lobbied elsewhere, leading to long-term problems for these and associated articles.
As some users here know, I edit a lot on fringe topics and have all but single-handedly written our coverage on topics like cryptozoology, utilizing nothing but the highest quality possible sources. Along the way, I've endured relentless insults and less-than-pleasant anonymous messages. I've been a personal target for users like Paleface Jack and co for years.
As is far too typical in our WP:FRINGE spaces, any action by myself and others introducing WP:RS on these articles is responded to with endless talk page lawyering and complaints from these cryptozoology-associated or -aligned editors, who fill talk pages with page after page of insult-ladden chatter about anything that doesn't fit their preferred messaging. This not infrequently includes insults toward non-adherents abiding by WP:RS and WP:NPOV (as an example, recently one of the users decided to refer to me as a "wikifascist", for example). This pattern has been going on for years and is a clear indication of long-term Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing and I've frankly put up wth it for far too long.
This is an all too common pattern that many editors who edit in new religious movement, pseudoscience, or fringe spaces will recognize as an unfortunate reality of editing in these spaces on the site.
I recommend that Paleface Jack be topic banned for off-site lobbying for meatpuppets, if nothing else, as well as likely associated accounts per WP:MEATPUPPET. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're misinterpreting what I said. I don't have any disdain for Loxton and Prothero, all I said was that cryptozoologists have historically discussed a large number of "cryptids" which is something you could see from reading cryptozoologist papers ans books. I've previously cited Loxton/Prothero on cryptozoological wikipedia pages KanyeWestDropout (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This user's actual comment in response to my mention of Prothero & Loxton, a dreaded WP:RS: "Learning about cryptozoologists by reading secondhand sources is a poor way to find out what cryptozoologists have actually done historically" (). Funny how a spotlight on ANI can change an editor's tune. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thaf didnt change my tune at all! I mentioned that I personally liked that book before you posted this KanyeWestDropout (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This user's actual comment in response to my mention of Prothero & Loxton, a dreaded WP:RS: "Learning about cryptozoologists by reading secondhand sources is a poor way to find out what cryptozoologists have actually done historically" (). Funny how a spotlight on ANI can change an editor's tune. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The incident Bloodoffox is referring to happened years ago when I did not know that was even a rule. It was a mistake I have not repeated, nor have I violated any rules since that incident.
- That being said, Bloodoffox has a history of antagonizing other users associated with the topic. I am not aware of any of the other occasions where he has been harassed by users, so I sympathize. There are bad editors on this site that do that behavior or make edits that are, in kinder words, sloppy. Fringe topics are constrained as they are to avoid pandering or making it a massive advocation for them and should remain within the neutral guidelines that are enforced on fringe topics.
- Yes, the topics do need a lot of work, and its hard to find the few good editors that know what they are doing with fringe topics. I myself follow the topic out of interest, not advocacy, and I rarely edit on it mainly cause of a backlog of other projects. I don't pop on to cause trouble as Bloodoffox loves to accuse me of, among the many personal attacks he has made against me. I have had no such incidents since my mistake way back in the day and I have not made any since then. The sole reason I commented in the discussion was because I could see it was rapidly devolving into an antagonistic nature, and though my words could have been put differently, I always wrote that we "needed to find common ground". It has become a point of frustration with this, because of personal attacks on my character and what I have contributed to this site. I am not a disruptor by any means and Bloodoffox has keep making accusations or belittling comments in regards to me and other users who disagree with him. His aggressive and belittling behavior has a huge role in antagonizing other users and it does need to stop. I might be frustrated, but I cannot see how this does any good with moving projects and topics forwards. Banning me from the topic is unnecessary and overkill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleface Jack (talk • contribs)
- If the only example of off-wiki canvasing is a single blog post from seven years ago, I'm not seeing any case for sanctions. - Bilby (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is the only clear incident I've encountered. However, there's good reason to suspect that there's more. Note also that although the user is happy to apologize about it when called on it here, the user also never deleted the off-site lobbying on the cryptozoology wiki. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can see a case for a {{trout}} for the OP, at the very least. (Trout-erang?) - The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Bloodofox, if this has been a contentious area to edit in (there are many such areas on the project) but we can't sanction editors based on suspicions, we require evidence of misconduct and if it is off-wiki behavior, it might be more appropriate to send it to ARBCOM. You have provided a narrative statement of how difficult it is to edit in this field but with few diffs illustrating conflict and other editors have providing competing narratives. This isn't your first trip to ANI so you know what is required here for an admin to take action. And if you do provide some more evidence, I encourage you to provide RECENT evidence (like from the past 3 years), not diffs or statements from when an editor was new and unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies and practices. Liz 08:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- While the editor has been been editing since 2013 and his off-site post was from 2018 (yet somehow claims to not know it was not OK to canvas for meatpuppets off-site), I figured this might be the case and hoped more would come to light about what's going on off-site (I expect more will, in which case I'll return). :bloodofox: (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I have said before, I am not used to conflict on the site and naively did that. If you look back at that whole debate, I did reply saying I was not aware that it was bad. If you look at my history of edits, I rarely (if ever) participate in conflict. I prefer to edit like everyone else on here in a constructive and beneficial manner, so all those accusations strike a nerve with me as they are both untrue and slander. As I have said previously, bloodoffox has a history of provoking conflict by aggressive behavior towards other editors, even when those editors are in the wrong they should not be treated with the level of disdain and contempt. Slandering myself or others either based on an isolated and admitted mistake, then constantly bringing it up as "proof" of his claims that I am an instigator of any sort of conflict he has with others is behavior that only inspires destructive conflicts or edits. I have, in the past, reached out to bloodoffox to apologize and also offer assistance with other projects thinking that would mend any sort of anger and hate. This recent incident has proved me wrong and I am sad to see that it has come to this. I never wanted any conflict, just a healthy way of moving forwards to tackle fascinating and notable topics.
- I will admit that it is frustratingly difficult to make edits on fringe topics, I am one of those people that tried to edit some but got frustrated by the overly tight restrictions on the subject (not that I was leaning to one side as some claim I do), which is why I rarely edit on the topic and only do so when I see that there is reliable information benefiting and fitting of the standards set by Misplaced Pages. I love information, and even fringe topics have enough within Misplaced Pages's confines to exist on the site and be a fascinating read for people. I truly hope you read this bloodoffox and realize I never meant you ill or advocate for people harassing you, I want this platform to explore information correctly and efficiently, even if we do not agree with the topic. That is pretty much all that should be said on this matter and hopefully it gets resolved. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- While the editor has been been editing since 2013 and his off-site post was from 2018 (yet somehow claims to not know it was not OK to canvas for meatpuppets off-site), I figured this might be the case and hoped more would come to light about what's going on off-site (I expect more will, in which case I'll return). :bloodofox: (talk) 08:37, 4 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)
HoraceAndTheSpiders
Attention gotten and message received. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- HoraceAndTheSpiders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Could someone briefly block User:HoraceAndTheSpiders to get their attention, or come up with better way to get them to read their talk page/comply with the WP:ARBECR restrictions. Thanks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. I've left a note on their talkpage that they will almost certainly be unblocked if they promise to keep away from ARBPIA until they are extended-confirmed. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sean.hoyland The editor has submitted a suitable unblock request, so I have unblocked. Please let me know if they stray into ARBPIA again. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:56, 4 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)
Jypian gaming extended confirmed
SOCK BLOCKED I've run out of sock puns, sorry. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Jypian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
On J.P. (rapper), the user is making pointless edits after having been here for exactly thirty days. Clearly gaming extended confirmed. 🐔 Chicdat 12:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I been making real edits since I created my account please take your time to check and I’m sorry for purposely pointless edits for extended confirmed on Day 30. I’m a real and genuine user I just wanted early access to work and edit on important stuffJypian (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- For what reason are you doing this? 331dot (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The thing is, articles that only extended confirmed users can edit are like that for a reason. What kinds of
important stuff
were you planning on working on? 🐔 Chicdat 13:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Donald Trump Hotel Accident Jypian (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering you've admitted you've gaming the system you need to voluntary agree to refrain from editing anything that requires EC until you've made 500 real edits. The permission will be removed if you don't follow this. I'd also suggest stay away from the Donald Trump hotel article until you've gotten at least a few thousand edits under your belt since being so desperate to edit an article is usually a sign once you do start editing you'll get into trouble. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have revoked their extended-confirmed permission. They may re-request it from WP:PERM after making 500 legitimate edits. —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im going to edit Donald Trump hotel accident, whatever you want it or not😡 JupianCircles (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you create alternative accounts to try and bypass your primary account's restrictions, you will end up being banned. GiantSnowman 14:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's unnecessary to threaten or to evade restrictions; you can propose edits via the edit request wizard. If they are nonsense, though, expect to be blocked as well. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im going to edit Donald Trump hotel accident, whatever you want it or not😡 JupianCircles (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have revoked their extended-confirmed permission. They may re-request it from WP:PERM after making 500 legitimate edits. —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering you've admitted you've gaming the system you need to voluntary agree to refrain from editing anything that requires EC until you've made 500 real edits. The permission will be removed if you don't follow this. I'd also suggest stay away from the Donald Trump hotel article until you've gotten at least a few thousand edits under your belt since being so desperate to edit an article is usually a sign once you do start editing you'll get into trouble. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Donald Trump Hotel Accident Jypian (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked. Blocked as a sock by NinjaRobotPirate. Bishonen | tålk 15:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
- That makes sense. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the action NinjaRobotPirate. 🐔 Chicdat 15:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- That makes sense. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- As an aside, is it possible to take away the EC permission before it is achieved or otherwise prevent it being automatically gained? I said what I said above because I incorrectly thought they hadn't yet achieved EC. Given this I thought either an admin would need to watch out for them (unless there's an admin bot which can do this) or they could voluntary refrain from using their EC and this wouldn't be necessary. But I checked after and realised I was wrong about them not gaining EC and I'm wondering if I could be wrong about the removal of EC before it's automatically gained. Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's possible to prevent an account from obtaining EC by granting and immediately revoking it. That apparently stops the account from getting it automatically because it has obtained EC before. QwertyForest (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks. Useful to know for the future. Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's possible to prevent an account from obtaining EC by granting and immediately revoking it. That apparently stops the account from getting it automatically because it has obtained EC before. QwertyForest (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Footballnerd2007
This is going nowhere fast. Whether or not Footballnerd2007 is using an LLM to respond to conversations, they've promised to stay out of other editors' userspace drafts, been notified they shouldn't start RfAs for other editors without speaking to them, and said that they would be more careful with moves. (On that note, I can't warn Footballnerd2007 to not close RM discussions, but I'd highly recommend they avoid doing so until they become more acquainted with community norms.) voorts (talk/contributions) 22:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I need a second pair of eyes on Footballnerd2007 (talk · contribs) please - apparently a new editor, but they have been closing RM discussions - including one where they introduced a typo, see Dory (special) which I have fixed - and they have also been messing around moving my user space pages (see User:GiantSnowman/Mbunya Alemanji) and they have also created Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Cyberdog958. None of this is the action of a new editor and my Spidey senses are tingling. GiantSnowman 19:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see an urgent or intractable issue here. Unless/until stronger evidence comes up, I'm going to assume that they're trying to help and suggest we respond accordingly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to clarify a point in your message. The statement "and they have also been messing around moving my user space pages (see User:GiantSnowman/Mbunya Alemanji)" should be corrected. I have only moved one page, not multiple pages. Please adjust the wording to reflect this accurately. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- A response like that is not helping with my suspicions and concerns. GiantSnowman 20:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- What exactly am I being accused of? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are either an extremely over enthusiastic new editor making mistakes - in which case you need to slow down a lot, and listen ASAP - or you are a sock trying to be clever. GiantSnowman 20:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The former is rather accurate. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- GiantSnowman, if you have evidence, then the appropriate forum is WP:SPI. If you don't, then you're liable to get hit with a boomerang for WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS, even if you end up happening to be correct. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And what would my boomerang punishment be? GiantSnowman 21:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- How do I go about making a complaint against him for violating WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And what would my boomerang punishment be? GiantSnowman 21:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are either an extremely over enthusiastic new editor making mistakes - in which case you need to slow down a lot, and listen ASAP - or you are a sock trying to be clever. GiantSnowman 20:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- What exactly am I being accused of? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- A response like that is not helping with my suspicions and concerns. GiantSnowman 20:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to clarify a point in your message. The statement "and they have also been messing around moving my user space pages (see User:GiantSnowman/Mbunya Alemanji)" should be corrected. I have only moved one page, not multiple pages. Please adjust the wording to reflect this accurately. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Response
Hello GiantSnowman,
Thank you for raising these concerns. I'd like to address the points you mentioned:
1. Botched Page Moves: Regarding the page moves, I made an attempt to improve the accuracy and consistency of article titles based on my understanding of the situation. I acknowledge that there was a typo introduced, which I appreciate being pointed out, and I have since corrected it. I’ll be more careful in the future to ensure that such errors do not occur.
2. Messing with User Space Draft: I apologise for any disruption caused to your user space draft. My intention was never to interfere with your content. I recognise that user space is personal, and I will be mindful to avoid making any uninvited changes moving forward.
3. Creation of an RFA for Cyberdog958: As for the RFA for Cyberdog958, I stand by my decision to create it. I believed that Cyberdog958 hads demonstrated the necessary qualities for adminship and could be a positive asset to the community. There was no ill intent behind my actions. The RFA was made based on a genuine belief that they were qualified, and I will continue to support nominations that I feel are appropriate based on the contributions and behavior I observe.
I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. I strive to make constructive contributions and act in good faith, and I appreciate your understanding.
Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- RFA - why didn't you discuss with the editor first? GiantSnowman 20:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware there was a requirement to do so. I did notify them! Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Before you made the RFA??? No. GiantSnowman 20:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware there was a requirement to do so. I did notify them! Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn’t pinged about this ANI, but I found it through the RFA message on my talk page. I guess I appreciate the thought, if it was coming from a sincere place, but I would have declined the nomination if I was asked. I’ve never come across this user or interacted with them in any way until now so I’m not sure why they picked me. cyberdog958 20:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Footballnerd2007, given that Cyberdog958 has confirmed that they have never interacted with you, please confirm how you found them to nominate them for RFA?
- Similarly, how did you find me this afternoon, as I similarly have never heard of or interacted with you before today? GiantSnowman 21:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Footballnerd2007 thank you for trying to help out, and I'm sorry that GiantSnowman has chosen to escalate this in the way that he has. Page moves can be tricky, and you might want to sit back and watch the process for a while before participating in it yourself. Regarding RFA, it's a serious decision that people usually mull over for years before they finally agree to submit their names, so it's going to be more than a little jarring to have someone else do it on one's behalf. With the user space, it seems you understand the issue so there's no need to retread that. Going forward, I suggest taking things slow and asking for help whenever you think about entering a new area. I've been doing this for a few years now, and I still reach out to someone with experience in the area if I think I want to try something new! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Footballnerd2007, the response that you made at 20:08 has formatting that I have only seen before from AI, never from a human editor. Was it made with an LLM? If so please talk to us in your own words. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I have the feeling that a lot of this editor's comments are AI produced. GiantSnowman 21:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I refer you to my previous answer. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link - I see therefore that other users have raised concerns with you only yesterday about your RM/discussion closes, and yet you have continued to make poor closes today. Why is that? Why therefore should we trust you when you say you won't do it again, given you have done it again? GiantSnowman 21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yesterday I didn't say I wouldn't do it again, today I have, albeit reluctantly, changed my position for the sake of keeping the peace. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why did you continue to make the same questionable edits that other editors have previously queried with you? Unless you are deliberately trying to be disruptive? GiantSnowman 21:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yesterday I didn't say I wouldn't do it again, today I have, albeit reluctantly, changed my position for the sake of keeping the peace. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link - I see therefore that other users have raised concerns with you only yesterday about your RM/discussion closes, and yet you have continued to make poor closes today. Why is that? Why therefore should we trust you when you say you won't do it again, given you have done it again? GiantSnowman 21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Transparently LLM output. Folly Mox (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yet here they deny using Chat GPT. So either it's not LLM (and multiple users have raised these suspicions, which I share) and just very odd language, or they are a liar. Which is it? GiantSnowman 21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- What unsubjctive hard evidence do you have to support that allegation? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I pulled 11 random AI detectors from Google. Of them, seven give a 100% AI rating. One gives 50% and the 3 others give 0%. Tarlby 21:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The final 3 are 100% accurate. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And the 7 others? Tarlby 21:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have no explanation. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because there is none - it's absolutely AI generated, you don't need a detector for that. While not against policy, it's heavily frowned upon, as it's not your words but the LLM's. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And given that you have repeatedly denied use LLM, you are a liar and cannot be trusted. GiantSnowman 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly denied using ChatGPT because I didn't, that's not a lie and you have no evidence to suggest to the contrary. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- But you have been using a LLM of some kind, yes? GiantSnowman 21:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- No comment. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- We'll take that as a 'yes' then - and that you therefore have not been truthful. The tiny modicum of AGF I had has now fully disappeared. GiantSnowman 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- No comment. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- But you have been using a LLM of some kind, yes? GiantSnowman 21:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly denied using ChatGPT because I didn't, that's not a lie and you have no evidence to suggest to the contrary. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you're accusing me of lying now? As I have said before, I didn't use ChatGPT. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I am accusing you of lying. GiantSnowman 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a serious allegation, what evidence do you have that I use ChatGPT? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'm pretty sure there's LLMs that aren't ChatGPT. But if you're saying "I didn't use a LLM/AI generator at all", then that is demonstratably false. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And if you're trying to be clever by saying "I use LLM but not ChatGPT", your comments here have been disingenuous and misleading. You are digging yourself a hole. GiantSnowman 21:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I never made any comment about LLMs in general. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please answer this direct question - have you used LLM? If so, why didn't you own up to that when asked? GiantSnowman 21:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- 🤦♂️ Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)So that's "yes" then, got it. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:LLMDISCLOSE applies (even if only an essay). GiantSnowman 22:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're not helping your case right now. Even if you're getting dogpiled (especially if you're getting dogpiled) you need to speak clearly and directly. You'll gain far more goodwill by saying you're using an LLM and agreeing to stop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thebiguglyalien, do you now understand why my red flags were flagging earlier? There is something off about this editor. GiantSnowman 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with your analysis. I disagree with the way you approached it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- A fair criticism. GiantSnowman 22:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sure you've had to deal with this sort of thing far more than I have, so I get that. My philosophy is just that I'd rather give dozens of "cases" that extra chance if it means salvaging one well-meaning productive editor. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which is what I usually try and do, but the alarm bells just really rang here, and I simply wanted a second pair of eyes on the contribs to tell me "yes it's fishy" or "no you're thinking too much". I did not envision this discussion! GiantSnowman 22:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sure you've had to deal with this sort of thing far more than I have, so I get that. My philosophy is just that I'd rather give dozens of "cases" that extra chance if it means salvaging one well-meaning productive editor. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- A fair criticism. GiantSnowman 22:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with your analysis. I disagree with the way you approached it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, that's conjecture. I just choose my words very carefully. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Stop choosing your words carefully. I'm trying to give you a chance that isn't often afforded to new editors here, and you're trying to WP:Wikilawyer, which is also against the rules. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Here's the deal - either you used AI, or you
my words very carefully
in a way that is how AI distinctively chooses them. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thebiguglyalien, do you now understand why my red flags were flagging earlier? There is something off about this editor. GiantSnowman 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please answer this direct question - have you used LLM? If so, why didn't you own up to that when asked? GiantSnowman 21:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I never made any comment about LLMs in general. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And if you're trying to be clever by saying "I use LLM but not ChatGPT", your comments here have been disingenuous and misleading. You are digging yourself a hole. GiantSnowman 21:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I am accusing you of lying. GiantSnowman 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And given that you have repeatedly denied use LLM, you are a liar and cannot be trusted. GiantSnowman 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because there is none - it's absolutely AI generated, you don't need a detector for that. While not against policy, it's heavily frowned upon, as it's not your words but the LLM's. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have no explanation. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And the 7 others? Tarlby 21:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's 4 more AI detectors. Two give 100%, one says 11% (literally the last two sentences), and the other gives 50%. Tarlby 22:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which AI detectors are you using? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The final 3 are 100% accurate. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:40, 4 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Complaint against User:GiantSnowman
 | 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)
- 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)
Air crash vandal
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
180.252.28.172 (talk · contribs) has done nothing but vandalize air crash pages and insert unsourced content while openly bragging about it . Taking this to ANI because it is taking more than 6 hours again for AIV to resolve the matter. Borgenland (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.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)
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)
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
- 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)
User:Tlay Khompson
Revdel'd the offending edit. User is indeed noted to mind the Streisand effect in the future. If the username is a concern, WP:UAA is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tlay Khompson (talk · contribs)
User's only edit so far is a serious WP:ARBBLP violation. Name is also a veiled WP:IMPERSONATION of a known person (Klay Thompson). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- In this case, I would have just approached an individual admin to handle this. Posting this at ANI just draws attention to the BLP-violating edit. Liz 05:08, 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)
VZ Holding
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
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)
Category: