| Revision as of 02:26, 19 August 2013 view sourceDrmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators406,886 edits →Admin Jc37 violating rules on topic bans← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:26, 8 January 2025 view source ActivelyDisinterested (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users50,421 edits →Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN: -1 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</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}} | |||
| {{stack end}} | |||
| |archiveprenefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchi | |||
| <!-- | |||
| |format=%%i | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| |age=36 | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| |index=no | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | |||
| |archivenow=<nowiki>{{discussion top}},{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{archive top|,Template:Archive top</nowiki> | |||
| == Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from ] == | |||
| |numberstart=756 | |||
| ], 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) | |||
| |minarchthreads= 1 | |||
| :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) | |||
| |minkeepthreads= 4 | |||
| ::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. | |||
| |maxarchsize= 700000 | |||
| ::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) | |||
| |key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505sc0c | |||
| :::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) | |||
| New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | |||
| :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) | |||
| As this page concerns INCIDENTS: | |||
| :::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) | |||
| Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header. | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| == Preempting discussion of ] == | |||
| {{archive top | |||
| |result= Based upon the consensus of the community discussion, ] is ] from all pages (including discussion pages) related to ] or ], broadly construed. There is no consensus to topic ban ] from "all articles related to ]". ] is also warned to stop removing/refactoring comments of other editors, further actions of this sort may lead to ] by any admin at their discretion. And finally, regarding concerns of ] or ] puppetry, editors so concerned should feel free to file a new ] request (with evidence of course), adding a request for checkuser, if appropriate. - <b>]</b> 00:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway.] ] 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Futuretrillionaire keeps trying to archive an ongoing discussion on the Talk page of ] that has barely even begun. He's doing this without any communication, so I'm not sure what to say to him or how to respond. It seems extremely antagonistic. ] (]) 17:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I think Darwin should avoid interacting with Skyshifter on all spaces on en.wikipedia.org. It's clear Darwin has made Skyshifter feel uncomfortable, and I don't appreciate it.]] 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. ] ] 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary ], broadly construed, as in effect.]] 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] yes, that's correct. ] ] 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I think a one-way interaction ban between the editors would be for the best here. While I think there is some merit to a Gender and Sexuality tban, as some of Darwin's recent edits appear to be about ] in the topic area, I believe the interaction ban would solve most of the issues raised here. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? ] ] 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::All your edits related to the subject, both here and on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] You're evaluating my edits on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages to punish me ''in the English Misplaced Pages?'' ] ] 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] Can you explain how my general edit history in wiki.pt is relevant in any way to an accusation of cross-wiki harassment? ] ] 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Would recommend that Darwin ''walk away'' from the general topic. This would avoid any need for topic bans. ] (]) 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ;Clarification | |||
| ::Archiving the thread and referring you to ] was an appropriate response to the revival of a dead-horse discussion. Perhaps you should try taking this up at Futuretrillionaire's talk page before asking for admin intervention? - ] (]) 18:04, 6 August 2013 (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=== | |||
| :::I left a message at his Talk page. Interesting you don't think he should be leaving messages at my Talk page. He is the one undoing other editors' efforts. I was not the only one commenting in the thread before the conversation was stomped. Regardless of all that, even if the content of the article is a matter of consensus, no rule justifies blocking discussion of the consensus. ] (]) 18:26, 6 August 2013 (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) | |||
| :::I agree with that. Also, removing a large slice of cited content () before starting the discussion () was somewhat provocative. Let's keep calm and discuss the issue on the talk page. --] (]) 18:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' -] (]) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I note that Darwin has agreed above to the IBan. -] (]) 18:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - He's already agreed to avoid that general topic area in future & Skyshifter. ''PS'' - If a t-ban is imposed? limit it to six-months. ] (]) 18:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Why should the community accept voluntary TBAN and IBAN which can easily be reneged on when we can impose it as a community sanction and ensure that any violation is actionable? '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban and IBAN''', both broadly construed - sorry GoodDay but I do not trust this user's words, and so we need a proper sanction. ]] 18:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Just read through the above and ''good grief''. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I said above I would support this proposal if it was brought forward, and I do. ] (]) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Why it should be a one-way iban? Skyshifter started this topic with the characterization of their opponent as "a known transphobic editor". A normal editor would be blocked just for writing this. I am not sure a iban is needed, but if it is needed it must be mutual. ] (]) 18:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| And then there was . --] (]) 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:::That's actually a fair point. -] (]) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent ] impulse. ] (]) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: Nothing to see there. Strangesad was making the "Actually, I think Dawkins has said Jesus existed..." edit that's now at the end of the collapsed section, but while making that edit, he inadvertently reinserted some disruptive text that had previously been posted by an unrelated vandal (the IPs in the edit history), so his edit had to be technically hidden together with those of the vandal. The legitimate part of his edit was later restored. ] ] 20:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] You have been misjudging me - It was , actually, if it's worth anything. ] ] 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{replyto|FutureTrillionaire}} Like Fut.Perf. said. I'll just add that it wasn't directed at you (or any editor) personally. --] (]) 22:27, 6 August 2013 (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) | |||
| So, is there any guidance from admins on hiding discussions on Talk? The only presented argument is that the version being questioned is the consensus version. You are not entitled to stifle questioning of the consensus version of the article. By implication, these editors are proclaiming a right to invalidate any future discussion of these issues on the grounds that it is "in the FAQ" and WP:STICK. The civilized approach to such a thing is to ignore the discussion if you don't like it, not try to shut it down for everyone else wanting to pursue it. ] (]) 03:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::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. | |||
| :Closing that was a kind gesture considering your argument about ] was beginning to get into BLP policy for recently dead. Please be more careful espousing your opinion of real people as that could be seen as disruptive in itself.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">]</font> <sub>] ] ] ]</sub> 04:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
:PS: The editor was mocking this discussion in the Telegram group while I was writing this. ] (]) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::Came back after a month with no edits for this? It's quite clear Jardel is taking something personal with DarwIn here. Or he doesn't have anything to do at the moment. And he didn't have such great writing and narrative in his mother tongue, now is writing perfect, well written English. That gets stranger considering he's partially blocked in ptwiki for some beefing with other editors (] in portuguese)... Quite strange, to say the least. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. | |||
| :::There is something very odd about the comments being made here. Here is the BLP policy on the recently dead that Mark cites above: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." Grant died 9 years ago, and the policy says "two years at the outside." The policy refers to "suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." Grant died at the age of 90, although I don't know how. The policy talks about "particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead, and I said his expertise was as a ] and not in the general history of the period. That is exactly what the Misplaced Pages article about him says: "some academics balked at his attempt to condense a survey of Roman literature into 300 pages, and felt (in the words of one reviewer) that “even the most learned and gifted of historians should observe a speed-limit". | |||
| 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. | |||
| :::So, what we have are utterly contrived suggestions of BLP-violations, and a lot of insistence that a certain discussion--in which several editors participated--should not be allowed to be seen on a Talk page. I am restoring the discussion, so that those who want to participate can, while those who don't still don't have to. That is how academic freedom works. ] (]) 05:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"]" is not how Misplaced Pages works. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 08:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| That page is about legal rights, which isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about what it takes to build a healthy intellectual community. Is that how Misplaced Pages works? ] (]) 14:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| JardelW is a user who was banned from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages due to his detestable behavior. This individual used the same Telegram group that he is now criticizing. The editor was banned from this group due to his behavior, in which he called respected users of the community . And DarwIn is one of the administrators of the group where he is banned, so you can already imagine why he is here. Now, once again he is trying to destabilize the community by defending an editor who called the entire project a sewer and made unproven accusations against an administrator. At this point, the account is practically banned and the article that caused the discord has its deletion or merge defended by several editors. By coming here, JardelW and Skyshifter are, in a way, stating that the entire community is prejudiced. Yet another offense enters the list as proof of Jardel's destabilizing behavior. Furthermore, this user to carry out the same destabilization by contesting on meta the banning of IPs, a consensual decision among hundreds of editors. And when he was still blocked, in an attempt to intervene in the Misplaced Pages domain, where he is banned, simply because he did not agree with the deletion of an article. And this without presenting any evidence. It is clear that Jardel's objective here is to take revenge on the community, and he will be punished for it. ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::::My point was that it seems this editor is bent of bashing legitimate historians because they are dead. Fine, then we can now begin bashing all those dead religious figures used as references here as well. Light your torches and pick up your pitch forks folks, there are reputations to destroy! --<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">]</font> <sub>] ] ] ]</sub> 08:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It is pretty clear thay the intents of Jardel here are disruptive. Your comment hopefully leaves no doubt to the community. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 04:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As I said above, I am not a perfect person. I may have used foul language to address some editors in a moment of anger, but I felt vulnerable and hurt by editors I held in high regard, and I apologize for what I wrote in the past. Likewise, I do not think it is right that a social channel that is reported as "linked to Misplaced Pages" is being used as a bar where people can say whatever they want, especially when it comes to prejudiced comments against minorities. At no time did I label all of them, only one of them demonstrated that she was doing so. If I happen to receive any sanction for this discussion, and knowing that bringing issues from pt.wiki here is not ideal, I will receive it for doing the right thing, because I want something to change for the better in a project that I have dedicated so much time to contributing to. I may be prevented from editing on Misplaced Pages, but if what I bring here helps to change something, I will be happy. ] (]) 05:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| :] - this is your second edit ever, and your account was just created today - how did you get to this ANI post? ] ] 05:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I saw a discussion in the group and created the account to not appear as an IP. ] (]) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] The objective of the channel is to be a more relaxed place. And it's not official, . Angry moment? Are you sorry? After your block, you attacked editors on a social network, as attested by a CheckUser: . And there are no prejudiced comments. That's a lie. Where are the links? And how much time have you devoted to the project when all you do is attack others? Enough of this nonsense. I ask that an administrator evaluate the conduct of this account. ] (]) 05:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't realize the discussion was closed. Sorry. ] (]) 05:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Supporting both IBAN and TBAN'''. Someone who actively believes in misgendering should not be allowed into this area when they have already demonstrably made another editor uncomfortable. The snarky reply to GiantSnowman does not convince me they would respond well if another editor brought up a similar concern in the future.--] ] 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Can't we give this child and her mother some privacy? What is it about gender issues, as opposed to other medical or developmental issues, that seems to give everyone a right to comment? Let's just report what reliable sources say and leave it at that. ] (]) 18:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.] (]) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. ] (]) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.] (]) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::talkpages def are covered by BLP as per the policy page.and the policy gives wide latitude about what the subject may have redacted if they object to info, even if they had previously or somehow otherwise placed that info in public domain. | |||
| :::::concerns about privacy have to weigh against dueness but arguing the book gives dueness to try to be internet sleuths and discover and identify a child is probs not gonna pass the smell test.] (]) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Misplaced Pages, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.] (]) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. ] (]) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Children cannot consent, their parents can. ] ]<sup>]</sup> 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I would totally agree, but that is irrelevant here, nothing Darwin did was related to revealing the child's identity. He criticised the mother in strong terms on talkpages and this is what the BLP argument comes down to.--] (]) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? ] (]) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--] (]) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Ask yourself whether Misplaced Pages would even entertain this discourse if the identity was anything other than a trans one. The answer is a flat no. Darwin's interpretation of the mother's interpretation of her daughter's identity is inappropriate for the project, is disruptive and is openly antagonistic toward trans editors. I think nothing more can be gained from endlessly debating whether we should pretend there is a carve-out to BLP requirements for children within oppressed minorities. ] (]) 17:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''', no comment on IBAN. . ] ]<sup>]</sup> 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Editors in this topic area can and often do disagree on the underlying issues, which often helpfully ensures that all such material on Misplaced Pages follows our policies and guidelines. However, the responses to Ad Orientem's request and various replies above shows that the proposed remedies would be appropriate given the BLP issues in play here.-- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose any sanctions''' I’m sorry if I’m interfering in something I’m not involved with, but I’ve been watching this discussion and I think it’s needlessly toxic. What I’m seeing is a misunderstanding of some inappropriate ] on a hot-button issue sparking a dispute that turned into “DarwIn is a transphobic bully” which I don’t think is true. I think the two main parties should simply avoid each other voluntarily and the situation will quickly de-escalate. ] (]) 05:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''', indifferent to IBAN. Having followed this topic for a few days, it's convinced me that a topic ban for both GENSEX and BLP is entirely appropriate in this instance. My initial scepticism passed after reading responses from the editor and realising that the understanding of BLP policy appears to be even more incomplete than I originally thought. The deceleration from the editor to avoid such topics voluntarily is irrelevant, as combined with the lack of understanding over the concept of broadly construed, commitments have already been made and broken within this discussion alone. So respectfully, I believe this ] type editing, whether it is attempting to ] or simply ] discussions, is nonetheless disruptive and uncivil at times. ] (]) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Dronebogus. I'd say "we're better than this" if I believed it. ] (]) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' ''Skyshifter'', if anything, is harassing Darwin in this instance. Darwin has agreed to an IBAN, never mind that he's expressed desires to descelate what has become the longest thread on AN or ANI as of writing. ''']]''' 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' This is a pretty explicit case of POV harassment. Their replies to the topic likewise do not give me faith they will adhere to a self imposed limitation. Darwin claimed to have agreed to step away before the ANI was created, but the edit history shows that Darwin continued editing the page up until an hour before Skyshifter created the ANI. Thus, there should be an actionable sanction. I fail to understand how it is Skyshifter doing the harassment at all as Cubby suggests. Darwin even called skyshifter a troglydite () to boot. ] (]) 15:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh my fucking god. This whole thread is nuts. I wish I could pardon my french but this is CRAZY. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Never in a million years would’ve I expected myself to be responding to a thread like this but I mean here I am. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Although Skywing’s concerns of harassment are valid especially if he’s being tracked across Misplaced Pages’s website, as far as I know, there are no guidelines that state someone can be punished for actions on another Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :'''I support''' the notion of Darwin being topic banned from gender related articles (especially trans ones), for the simple fact that his conflict of interest with transphobia has clearly caused a disruption to the Misplaced Pages community. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :'''I oppose''' with the IP-ban because if anything this '''SHOULD’VE''' ended a week ago when Darwin voluntarily said he would not edit those pages as well as avoid any interaction with Skywing. | |||
| :<br> ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. ] (]) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I understand, I meant that. Apologies. I misunderstood what it stood for. I would prefer if the IBAN was two way instead of one-way. Seems hardly fair in my honest opinion when both I suppose are equally responsible and to share the blame. This is a messy situation so putting the blame on one when both are equally responsible seems hardly fair. But that's my two cents. | |||
| :::NOTE: I don't condone homophobia or queerphobia or whatever the term is (I'm not really informed enough in this situation to know what Misplaced Pages calls it so I'm adding both just in case) so please don't take it as me defending either side as that is NOT my intent. | |||
| :::Cheers, <br> ] (]) 01:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This reply reminded me of the essay ]. ] (]) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Lol. It is accurate. That literally is what it is I suppose lol. ] (]) 01:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any sanctions against Darwin per Dronebogus. I wish we were better than this, but like TBUA, I don't actually believe that we are. ] (]) 20:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both TBAN and IBAN. Their behaviour at DYK might have been mitigated if they had taken responsibility here instead of doubling down. A TBAN and IBAN will reduce disruption. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at ] accusing me of coming to their talk page to "{{tq|further troll me with this nonsense warning}}". '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both. I'm baffled that some people above are saying "well, they agreed to stop voluntarily" - did they not read the massive post Darwin made above? It amounts to an extended "I'm sorry that you were offended." Trusting that someone will avoid the same mistakes in the future on their own requires that they understand and admit to those mistakes, which is obviously not the case here; how can we trust that an editor will abide by a self-imposed restriction when they won't even meaningfully acknowledge the errors that made that restriction necessary? Therefore, sanctions are necessary. --] (]) 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both. To make sure I haven't lost my goddamn mind, I read this discussion '''''twice'''''. I personally believe Darwin is in the wrong here. His behavior on enwiki violates both GENSEX and BLP sanctions (), and he doubled down when he had the chance to defend himself (] and comments above). Even if we play devil's advocate and assume Darwin's claims about Sky being a troll/vandal and sockmaster (which is a heavy accusation to make) on ptwiki are true, her work on enwiki has shown that she's changed for the better. This is coming from a person who has interacted with Sky a couple of times (], ], ]); she is an amazing editor on here. For the sake of everyone involved and to avoid another mess like this, the sanctions above should be enforced. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 08:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === ] taking matters from another Misplaced Pages to seek revenge. === | |||
| The entirety of what I said is: "The citation says stuff like Micahale Grant is a classicist, without mentioning that his specialty was Roman coins". Exactly how is that bashing? | |||
| {{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. | |||
| Can I restore the discussion? The objections here are contrived. I'm puzzled by the lack of guidance. It appears I'm not going to "win" an edit war, but the implication is that only consensus views are allowed to be discussed in Talk, and that's not the intent of the consensus process. ] (]) 14:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| But all of this happened only, and just because of her banishment for the portuguese wiki. She is the cross-wiki harrasser in this situation, as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log. | |||
| :The present wording of the article is firmly supporting by ] sources from a variety of points of view. Do you know of better sources that say this is ''not'' the consensus of scholars? If not, then sorry, a vital article is not going to be edited to appease a ] view. - ] (]) 16:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| This is all for revenge of some articles that are being debated and will be either deleted or merged with other articles, and especially over her permanent block on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, after calling the whole platform a sewage ( and in ]), ] over other users and using ] and ] to revert back the articles (one of her meats is currently being blocked from ptwiki too, see it ], with all the proofs). The ] taking place at the moment has 10 administrator votes in favour of the block, and absolutely no contrary opinion whatsoever. | |||
| ::This thread is not about what the article should say. It is about whether a discussion of what the article should say is allowed on its Talk page. (It is also ridiculous to refer to views held by Harvard professors and Nobel prizewinners as "fringe.") ] (]) 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Despite some not-so-good arguments from DarwIn in the AN/I above, it is more than clear that the reason for the opening of the said AN/I was '''personal''' and for '''revenge'''. I'm open to any questions regarding this topic, as there is plenty of evidence to sustain my claims. All of this that she's doing would clearly fall under ], here called ] I think, and ]/], and in the AN/I above she's commiting ], repeating the eye-catching word "transphobia" over and over, without sustaining her argument accordingly, seeking to block a sysop at other 3 projects and rollbacker here, with the sole objective of tarnishing his block log, just for revenge and self-fullfillment. | |||
| :::I think you'll have to explain what discussion there is to be had. You deleted important, well-sourced information based on your own interpretation of the words "virtually all" and "scholars of antiquity" (that phrase doesn't include Michael Martin). In your own words, "This has been discussed at great length", and "It always ends with the minority skeptics being chased off". Explain why another discussion will not just take up space. - ] (]) 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The way to do that is start a discussion on the Talk page, which is what I did. Nobody has to start a discussion about whether it is permissible to start a discussion, and the idea that ANI would be the place for such discussions of discussions is absurd. ] (]) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC) ] (]) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|Eduardo_Gottert}} You need to provide evidence when opening an ANI thread, not on request. ] (]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Latest update. After censoring my attempt to talk in Talk, Futuretrillionaire is now reverting my article edits with the comment "discuss first." . Pretty funny. This is fairly typical of my experience of few months ago editing a different Jesus article. It is how a group of dedicated editors maintains "consensus" on these articles. Gaijin has also continued the tradition of blocking skeptical discussion on the Talk page by closing discussions that are active. ] (]) 16:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::'@] The evidences are above. I said if you need any '''further''' evidence, you may ask. All of the necessary evidence are on the request. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>The edits I reverted were of a different issue, so it's appropriate to discuss. In those edits, at least you're focusing on the arguments.--] (]) 16:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :Nevermind, I didn't realize this issue was also discussed before. Still, the reverts were justified because they were POV-pushing for a fringe viewpoint.--] (]) 16:44, 8 August 2013 (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) | |||
| You have provided ZERO sources that contradict the sources we already have included which comply with ]. Rehashing the same arguments that have been discussed ad nauseam are disruptive. ] (]) 16:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The reason for the AN/I opens is still the same, revenge. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I've read many of the posts on the Portuguese wiki, and it is pretty clear that the Skyshifter's complaint above is a deliberate expansion of drama from there. The Portugese wiki is not Uganda, people do not get banned there for being Trans, and former admins don't get banned without causing a lot of disruption. It is clear these two users really strongly dislike each other and need to stop interacting in any way.--] (]) 06:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:People obviously doesn't get banned for being trans. She was sysop there, commited some errors, but stayed there even after 5 months of being on estrogen. And the community knew it. What caused her block there was calling the project a sewage and then outbreaking and attacking other users. I suggest they get a two-way IBAN, at least, not the one-way as proposed on the other AN/I. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 07:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I would add that unless I'm missing something, the block discussion on the Portugese Misplaced Pages seems to have been started about 30 minutes before the ANI thread . It has no contributions by DarwIn . It is theoretically possible I guess it somehow factored into the motivation of Skyshifter opening the ANI thread, but this seems extremely unlikely. There's a good chance Skyshifter wasn't even aware of it when opening the thread. In other words, there's no reason to think Skyshifter was even aware they were likely going to be permanently blocked from pt at the time of opening the thread although they did say they weren't going to return. ] (]) 07:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You are confusing issues. The edits FutureT reverted were non-controverisal, and the majority (re argument from silence) based on sources already in the article (which the article currently misrepresents). As for the "virtually all" disagreement, the problem isn't that sources contradict the article, it's that the stated sources are inadequate to support the article. If this has been debated thoroughly, you should know the stated problem. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :Trying to bring objectivity to an article on Jesus via the "consensus" process is a waste of time. The community is unable to handle such cases according to its principles. As was said a few months ago, when I last visited this subject: Atheists don't win popularity contests. ] (]) 16:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Jesus probably existed.” – Richard Dawkins (atheist), The God Delusion, p.122 --] (]) 16:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::"If Jesus lived today, he would be an atheist." - Richard Dawkins. You're distorting the sources. ] (]) 18:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Richard Dawkins is not a reliable source on the subject of ancient history. His opinion is irrelevant. Besides, a historical Jesus who "would have been an atheist" is still a historical Jesus. - ] (]) 19:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Exactly. | |||
| *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) | |||
| ::::::Then stop citing him as a skeptic who believes Jesus existed. Also, many people identify the historical Jesus as somebody who definitely would not be an atheist today. What Dawkins means by the historical Jesus and what ] means are different. This is the exact topic I tried to discuss on the Jesus Talk page--where it belongs--and which was closed/hidden/archived in-progress. Why are we having it now on ANI, instead of where it originally began and still belongs? ] (]) 20:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:I am not saying she isn't an avid used of English wiki. I just stated that she took ptwiki matters here for revenge and self-fullfillment. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 07:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::If 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}} | |||
| ::::Uh. No, you are. The topic at hand is the historical existence or not of Jesus. His divinity is an entirely separate matter. On a related, but also separate issue is how much of what is written about him is historical vs apocryphal, and there there is much wider debate (which we already discuss in the article). But you are attempting to use arguments from those like Dawkins, who admit he existed, as an argument that he did not exist at all. ] (]) 19:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == ] reported by ] == | |||
| ===FutureTrillionaire's Behavior on Jesus=== | |||
| {{atop|result=John40332 has been blocked sitewide. ] (]) 01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| * FT's last reverts of my edits are BLP-violations and misrepresent sources. | |||
| ::*The article says Robert Price is "an atheist who denies Jesus' existence". When I looked at the source, I found this statement by Robert Price (who is a living person): "...I was for half a dozen years pastor of a Baptist church and am now a happy Episcopalian. I rejoice to take the Eucharist every week and to sing the great hymns of faith.". I changed the article to reflect what Robert Price says about himself. | |||
| ::* FT reverted with this unhelpful comment: "Wrong. A Christian atheist is still an atheist)" | |||
| ::*I restored the article to BLP compliance, with additional informarmation in the comment. | |||
| ::*FT reverted the edit again, and added a source which says nothing about Robert Price's religious belief. | |||
| * As described above, FT has aggressively tried to close/hide an in-progress discussion of the article. | |||
| ::*He has made comments relevant to ] here, yet tries to keep it off the article Talk page there. Several others have begun discussing the topic here, showing the topic still has life in it. The discussion belongs on the Talk page. | |||
| ::*Despite his squashing of my attempts to discuss, he has never left a message for me on any Talk page, nor did he respond to the message I left on his Talk page. | |||
| *The article contains sources regarding something known as the "argument from silence" (drawing conclusions based on an absence of evidence). I added quotes from the sources (I didn't originate the use of these sources). I tweaked the text to make it clear that the sources are not rejecting the argument from silence--the article misleadingly implies otherwise. | |||
| ::*FT reverted again. Again, no explanation on any Talk page. | |||
| *The article gives the background of a source as "secular agnostic." Aside from the redundancy, another relevant part of the source's background is that it is evangelical and his early degrees are from a Bible college and a theological institute. So I added that to the background info. FT immediately reverted that too. | |||
| He has reverted virtually every edit I've made to the article and tried to censor discussions of some of the edits in Talk, all without participating in discussion. I believe this pattern meets the definition of "ownership". ] (]) 20:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{moved from|]|2=] (]) 14:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Yes, all of your changes got reverted, because they are strongly against consensus that you have been pointed to repeatedly. You have introduced no sources that contradict the consensus. Your characterization of FT is grossly misleading, and you should look out for falling ]s ] (]) 20:41, 8 August 2013 (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) | |||
| ::: I believe that User:Strangesad is actually giving a good description of their own tendentious, POV editing. Strangesad thinks that just about every authority quoted in the article on the question of the existence of Jesus is biased or unqualified to discuss it - Bart Ehrman went to Bible college! - Richard Burridge is a member of the Church of England General Synod! - Robert van Voorst is a pastor! Michael Grant wrote "popular books" and only knew about Roman coins! Strangesad is causing serious disruption to both the main article on Jesus and the talk page and I ask that some sort of warning or sanction be issued.] (]) 20:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Not a bot and not spamming, you just keep ] me repeatedly, I cited sources to the publisher of the books in question. You appear to suffer from ] and act like I need your consent to edit the articles you feel that belong to you. You also know I'm not a compromised account, you spam ] on your reverts but you're mostly bullying other editors into submission. | |||
| :You've been asked to stop disrupting editing https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:CurryTime7-24#January_2025 , and continue to harass any edits that touch "your" articles. | |||
| :You also keep saying I add citation to obscure music sites, just because you don't know something doesn't make it obscure. Additionally, you are the only person raising this as an issue because you're extremely controlling of the articles, you don't own Misplaced Pages and hopefully some other editor or admin can remind you of that. ] (]) 09:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you claiming that SheetMusicX is a reliable source for these articles? If so then someone (it may be me but I don't guarantee it) should take it to ]. I note that several editors have queried this, not just CurryTime7-24. John40332 is clearly not a spambot or compromised account, so please avoid over-egging the pudding. ] (]) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is reliable and listed with other , it's the homepage of the Canadian music publishing house Edition Zeza, their books are part of the , shows their books in libraries around the world etc, I shouldn't even have to dig this far because 1 editor decided he ] Misplaced Pages. The links I had included provided relevant information about the articles I was editing (orchestration, dates, duration etc). Cited information from a publisher of said work, which is exactly what ] suggests doing. ] (]) 18:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The editor's history does seem suspicious. From 2014 to 2023 they made a total of 24 edits to article space, almost all of which were to ] and ]. Then after more than a year of no edits, in the last 5 weeks they have made 38 edits to article space, of which all except three added a reference to sheetmusicx.com. This is a commercial site that sells sheet music. As far as I can see, every reference added was a link to a page that sells a particular piece of sheet music. This certainly seems like ]. ] (]) 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So is the problem that I'm actively contributing now, or that the cited sources aren't good enough? You guys are grasping at straws at this point.] added links to commercial sites , such as to Fidelio Music (to which he appears to be an affiliate) and yet no one raises a flag. Even when I added a source without removing his, he removed mine to keep only his link to Fidelio Music. ] (]) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is no "you guys" here. You have exactly the same status, as a volunteer editor, as I do. I have no idea who CurryTime7-24 is, or whether that editor is an affiliate. I just know about reliable sources and that we should not be linking to ''any'' commercial site, except possibly to the original publisher of a work. ] (]) 19:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *] has compiled a page, ] of edits with links to this website. This list was not created by CurryTime7-24 but by a bot looking for instances of conflict-of-interests. All of the problems you are concerned about, John40332, would not exist if you would just stop posting links to this website. If you would agree to stop referring to sheetmusicx.com, you wouldn't be "hounded" or be defending yourself and we could close this complaint. Can you agree to that editing restriction? And, if you can't, then why are you insisting on linking to this particular website? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Because it's a valid source according to: | |||
| *:] - "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources" | |||
| *:] - The publisher of the work (and not only the first ever publisher, any reputable publisher of a work) | |||
| *:] - "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form." | |||
| Interestingly, "someone" (and I'm not saying it's CurryTime7-24) came to my talk page yesterday to write , I can only think of 1 person who is hounding me this much though, but that doesn't seem to be taken seriously. ] (]) 07:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :That's not "interesting", that's despicable; as is your insinuation. As for sheetmusicx as as source: for what? That they published some work? Why is that noteworthy? -- ] (]) 08:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a source for information about the work. Yes it's despicable, and as I said, no one takes it seriously, I'm not insinuating anything, admins can look into the IP themselves. ] (]) 08:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::So, you would prefer that this dispute continue on, which could lead to sanctions for you, rather than simply stop using this website as a reference? To me, when I see that kind of behavior, it's typically a sign of a paid editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There's no dispute, it's a reliable source and ] makes a fuss about it because of his ] syndrome and potential ] with his affiliation with Fidelio Music. | |||
| ::::Why are you against a source that complies with ] ? ] (]) 09:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Because your use of that source is pretty clearly intended as promotional. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's hard to understand how you can say "there's no dispute" when there is quite obviously a dispute; six editors in this thread alone have questioned your use of that source. You have invoked ] to claim that the website is an acceptable source, but I'm not sure you have understood what that guideline says about commercial sites; they are allowed as references '''only''' to verify simple facts such as titles and running times. You have not used sheetmusicx.com for such purposes; you have used it to tell the reader where they can purchase sheet music (], ], ], ], ], etc). ] (]) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I used it to add relevant information that didn't exist on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ::::::When I added "Psycho A Narrative for String Orchestra" that exists since 1968 and never mentioned on Misplaced Pages, but CurryTime decided to harass me there too. | |||
| ::::::When I added the orchestration for Tambourin Chinois , which CurryTime decided to remove too. | |||
| ::::::I used information by the publisher to confirm facts, as per ], if commercial sources are not allowed to verify contributions, then why is everyone so quiet about CurryTime's affiliation to Fidelio Music links ? So far these comments are a good example of ], first I was accused of spamming, then of being a bot, then that my account was compromised, then that the source used wasn't reliable, if you run out of ideas try my religion or ethnicity. ] (]) 08:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, you added the bit about Psycho - which included the link ''with the same phrasing as on the other edits'' where it was obvious "buy this music here". Your edits are either promotional or are indistinguishable from being promotional. That is why they are being removed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You have repeatedly said that CurryTime7-24 is an affiliate of Fidelio. Can you show us your evidence of that? ] (]) 18:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Here he removed my source to add Fidelio Music | |||
| ::::::Here again to make sure only Fidelio Music exists | |||
| ::::::And obviously here, deleting what I added to include Fidelio Music exclusively | |||
| ::::::Here he completely deleted everything I added about the piece as part of his ] ] (]) 19:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That may be evidence of something, good or bad, but it's certainly not evidence that that editor is an affiliate. But, anyway, the action that hould have been taken a few days ago has now been taken, so we can stop talking now. ] (]) 20:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be nice if an admin would compare the IP address 181.215.89.116 that told me to on my Talk Page, to existing users, now that would be fun to find out who is so against my edits, because so far the only action was a suspension. ] (]) 08:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::In any case the most obvious guess is: some unrelated troll who saw your name on this board. —] (]) 22:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It appears that there is consensus here and at ] against linking to Sheet Music X. Is it possible for an admin to propose a resolution here? —] (]) 17:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The only consensus is your ] syndrome, the sources linked are reliable and fit for purpose. People have questioned my use of the source, not the reliability of it. | |||
| ::::If it is relevant that Ehrman is agnostic, it is relevant that his training and background are not. Still waiting for an explanation of "Christian atheist." ] (]) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :You created this complaint stating that I'm a spammer, a bot or a compromised account, has that consensus been reached too ? ] (]) 18:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {od} | |||
| ::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) | |||
| Three of my edits pronounced "disruptive" have now been reinserted or accommodated, and are now part of the consensus. ] (]) 03:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::So CurryTime can throw random accusations until something sticks? ] (]) 18:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::FWIW, having looked at the quote above about Price, I guess it could be argued that he isn't actually indicating that he is necessarily in any way "Christian" however that term is defined, just that he really, really ''likes'' going to church. And it is, marginally, possible that he might be in some way someone who does not believe in Episcopalian beliefs, or that, possibly, the particular Anglican/Episcopalian church he goes to might in some way hold really unorthodox beliefs, even given the broad range of belief within Episcopalianism. Maybe. But that is a really weak argument. And I have seen "Christian atheist" used in some sources as describing someone who does not believe in god of the (mainstream, presumably) Christian belief system, making him an "atheist", but might, maybe, hold beliefs which might be consistent with some other system, which the individual himself might not have reviewed or know, which would only allow someone to say that he is "atheistic" at least relating to the beliefs of what might be the only religion he knows much about, Christianity. It is a term that is in occasional usage, and I think in general it has a clear definition, but I am not sure that the general meaning given the phrase would apply here. It would be a stretch to say that an Episcopalian is not theistic, and I don't see the source material used as being sufficient to make such a statement. ] (]) 20:44, 11 August 2013 (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}} | |||
| ===Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad=== | |||
| == ] and removal of sourced information == | |||
| Strangesad's disruptive editing to the Jesus article continues and is escalating. Strangesad today removed a couple of sources from the article on spurious grounds and continues, against clear consensus on the article talk page, to alter the second paragraph of the lead, which has been arrived at through innumerable discussions over years and is a paraphrase of a cited quote from New Testament authority Bart Ehrman . Strangesad says the cited source is no good because it comes from a "popular book" . Strangesad has been disrupting this important article for days now and I request admin action to prevent further such activity. ] (]) 13:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| :I concur. His eariler disruption is minor compared to the blanket removal of citations without discussion. ] (]) 14:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| | 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) | |||
| ::I removed two citations, and explained it in the commentary. We are completely distorting what the sources say. Just as we did in calling Robert Price an atheist. I've made the edit once. ] (]) 14:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| This seems to be an ongoing issue. | |||
| :::Gee, can you get the facts right? I added to the use of the "popular book." I don't think you even read my edit. ] (]) 14:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|Vofa}} has lots of warnings about disruptive editing in their user page and a block. | |||
| ::::Yes, I read it and speaking of not reading things, anyone who attempts to edit the second paragraph of the lead will see this notice, which you have either not read or simply ignore - | |||
| <div style="border:1px dashed blue; padding: 10px"> | |||
| "-- The paragraph below was created by consensus after considerable discussion by a variety of editors. Out of courtesy for this process, please discuss any proposed changes on the talk page before editing it. | |||
| Most recent example of removal of sourced information: | |||
| READ THIS FIRST. | |||
| The following references are WP:RS sources which are used per WP:RS/AC guideline. | |||
| The issue has been discussed on the talk page at length | |||
| See the "talk page FAQ" about it—it may answer your question. | |||
| I checked the source and the information is there on page 7. | |||
| The main source says "scholars of antiquity", other sources say "scholars", "biblical scholars and classical historians" and "historians". | |||
| Previous examples include: . Also see: ] ] (]) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Sources do not say "X scholars" or "Christian scholars", so do not modify it as such | |||
| for that will make it deviate from what the sources state. | |||
| The source says "virtually all", so do NOT change it to "most", "several", "many", etc."</div> | |||
| ::::] (]) 15:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In his first edit in this latest controversy, he , apparently rejecting the edit notice.--] (]) 19:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Just to clarify, I just noticed that there is indeed an unsourced paragraph. | |||
| Agree. Something needs to be done about this. Strangesad's edits are undoubtedly disruptive.--] (]) 15:26, 9 August 2013 (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== | |||
| :What the main source says is that there a "bona fide" scholars who question the existence of historical Jesus. Thus, I added to what the main source says. This discussion belongs in article Talk, where it would be now if FT hadn't tried to suppress it. ] (]) 15:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ]'s uncivil comments and assuming bad faith on multiple contentious talk pages is not necessarily egregious but I suppose it ''is'' problematic and chronic, consistent and ongoing. I would appreciate some assistance. Here are some diffs from the past few days: | |||
| * I've issued Strangesad a about this disruption. Further edit warring will be met with a block. Enough is enough. --] ] 16:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills. | |||
| ::There has been no edit warring, your warning is one-sided, and my edit now appears to have been accepted (for the time being, at least). Please retract your gratuitous display of power. ] (]) 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, that one edit was not one of the series of controversial edits you made earlier.--] (]) 17:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883 | |||
| ::::Yes it was. It was one of five edits I made. All reverted by Smeat with the single comment "(reverting to version prior to Strangesad's latest disruptive changes) ". Still waiting to hear how removing misrepresentation of a source is disruptive. ] (]) 17:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| WP:NPA | |||
| Although I don't think Strangesad's edits were (originally) made in bad faith, they have now risen to the level of disruption. I hope Strangesad heeds the warning given. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 17:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324 | |||
| By the way, there was an attempt to get Strangesad indef blocked back in April: ].--] (]) 19:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Profanity | |||
| In other news, and without making any accusations against specific editors, I find it highly coincidental, that two content disputes broke out at the same time about this tpoic, on two different articles, with no overlap of editors. It makes my ]dy sense tingle. See ] ] (]) 20:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966 | |||
| *'''Topic ban Strangesad from all articles related to religion''' This has been going on for far too long already. Many of us spent much of the spring involved in endless discussions about the behavior of Strangesad and her pal Humanpublic. Humanpublic was later banned for sockpuppetry. Strangesad actively encouraged Humanpublic to use socks. Strangesad also used highly abusive language directed at lots of other users. A long discussion about Strangesad saw about half of us supporting an indef ban. The closing admin understood that view, but opted for not banning "yet". Now we find ourselves back at ANI for I don't know which time concerning Strangesad and religion. Enough is enough.] (]) 20:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' - Strangesad started this latest controversy by of important information. The paragraph was constructed with consensus and had an edit notice clearly explaining that any changes to the paragraph must be discussed first. Strangesad is clearly asking for trouble.<small>By the way, is Strangesad a woman? I want to get my pronouns correct.</small> --] (]) 20:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor | |||
| ::Um, no. This "controversy" was started when you tried to collapse and archive an ongoing discussion. I made the edit you mention once, and attempted to discuss it on Talk. That's not disruptive, it is what you're supposed to do. (And, yes, I am more of woman than you could ever hope to be (or get).) ] (]) 21:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Gee, Strangesad, I haven't seen your name in a while. I thought (mistakenly) that you'd gone away. It doesn't appear that your edits or your approach to dealing with other editors has improved any.--] (]) 21:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Long time, no see. At the moment, the edit that is being called "disruptive" is one that I made twice and has now become part of the consensus. My approach to dealing with editors is according to policy, namely, based on discussion. You will notice that I've spent 10x the effort at giving my reasoning in Talk that FT has, and made no edit more than twice. The problem, which the community refuses to problem-solve, is that normal assumptions and polices don't work for articles like Jesus (or anything highly ideological with a clear cultural majority, e.g. Palestine, etc.). It's very easy for the majority on a ideological subject to drum up a witch-hunt. The question is not when will I change: I have done everything according to policy. Step thru all my edits to this article in the last few days: nothing close to anything that would be considered disruptive on 99% of our articles. Yet, an admin gave me a warning for an edit that nobody objected to. And, there's a topic-ban being proposed (and winning, no less). The question is when will wikipedia change. ] (]) 23:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you want to wax philosophical, I don't think Misplaced Pages will change any more than you will.--] (]) 23:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' per Jeppiz and FutureTrillionaire. I feel Strangesad is not acting in a neutral and productive manner and is overtly trying to push a certain fringe viewpoint (in a distinctly discourteous manner, I might add). <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—] ]</b> 22:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877 | |||
| *'''Oppose Topic Ban''' ] can change. If there is a FAQ, that does not mean that the FAQ is set in stone and that it cannot change. If someone wishes to challenge the previous consensus, they should be allowed to do so. All topic bans are good for are getting rid of opposing viewpoints.--] ]</font> 22:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' JOJ, could we please not go down that road of trying to say that this is a content dispute? Yes, consensus can change and nobody should ever be blocked for challenging a previous consensus. That is not the issue here. The issue is that Strangesad is obsessed with this topic, has engaged in strong personal attacks directed at users who disagree and, most seriously, has actively encouraged sockpuppetry to get her opinion into the article. It's not Strangesad's opinion that is the problem, it is Strangesad's disruptive behavior.] (]) 12:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban of Strangesad from all articles related to religion''' per FutureTrillionaire and Jeppiz. Enough is enough.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">]</font> <sub>] ] ] ]</sub> 22:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **Enough is enough of what? You do realize that Stranesad has only participated in two threads at ] and made 15 edits on ] and only one thread at ] and no edits to the main page. How is that enough is enough? How is that worthy of a topic ban? Good Grief, a topic ban discussion of 15 total edits and three total talk discussions. Really?--] ]</font> 23:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the edit count. It only shows the amount of disruption caused by such few edits has been overwhelming in itself. You may continue to comment but my !vote stands.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">]</font> <sub>] ] ] ]</sub> 23:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No. It shows how quickly people want to start trying to get anyone who opposes them banned from a discussion. This fad of quick topic bans should be stopped. Topic bans should be the last resort. Not the first one. ] ]</font> 00:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::With all due respect, JOJ, you're either intentionally dishonest (and assuming good faith, I guess that you're not) or you don't bother to check. Looking at Strangesad's edit history, there hundreds of comments and edits related to Jesus, to going after users who disagree with Strangesad's views about Jonas, and to endless ANI-discussions. You're perfectly free to oppose the topic ban, but both your comment above when you try to paint this as a content dispute and this comment about only a few edits are quite simply misleading.] (]) 12:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I only was referring to the recent ones, but I counted and there were about 100 edits Talk page/Main page on the subject. Most of the edits were on the talk pages. Just over 100 edits on the subject in about 6 months. Thats not a lot of edits to want to get a topic ban. And thats not the hundreds that you are alleging. And no I AM NOT BEING DELIBERATELY DISHONEST. So you can halt that line of thinking right now!!!--] ]</font> 13:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Just say no to canvassing for bans''' . ] (]) 23:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for pointing that out. He also canvassed Jeppiz and Sergecross73 . Exactly what is meant by "drumming up a witch-hunt." ] (]) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::You better be able to demonstrate that these editors are biased and that the attempt was to find editors who are on the side of the 'canvassing editor" otherwise you are just complaining about things you wish to raise to a level to defend yourself. Please show how this was canvassing or seriously, don't make the accusation because if they were not aware of the guideline we have to assume the didn't have a clue.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">]</font> <sub>] ] ] ]</sub> 23:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The canvassing is blatant. I've warned FT.--] (]) 23:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::How odd, I just got the exact same wording from an editor for another discussion canvassing only those with past problems with User:Sitush but that was not considered canvassing, nor when another editor canvassed editors to change their vote at an RFA. I will take you word for it Bbb23 as I would assume it to be but odd that thee seems to be no consistency in application of such warnings.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">]</font> <sub>] ] ] ]</sub> 03:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I deeply apologize. I shall notify all who have opposed the previous ban proposal (and only those) immediately.--] (]) 00:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support topic ban'''. I was not canvassed. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :* Again, I sincerely apologize. I don't know what I was thinking. I have now notified 9 individuals who opposed the previous ban proposal (I think that's all of them?), compared with the <s>two</s> three users I canvassed. <s>I've also crossed out my own vote</s> and will not participate further in this discussion. I will also not revert any more of Strangesad's edits.--] (]) 00:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::* I don't know that any other editor has ever taken one of my warnings so much to heart. My compliments for trying to fix things.--] (]) 00:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' topic ban. I'm honesty not seeing excellent behavior on either side of this mess of disputes, and I don't see a compelling reason to ban just the one editor. ] (]) 03:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support topic ban''' per Jeppiz. This editor has been arguing for giving undue weight to a fringe view. I think the drain on everyone's time and attention outweighs any contribution she might make. - ] (]) 03:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' Misplaced Pages is not the place to rub religious noses in <small>TRUTH</small>. {{diff|Jesus|prev|567778187|diff}} ] (]) 07:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::That diff shows an edit I made once, with the text I added supported by a source already used in the article. ] (]) 13:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Unicivil | |||
| :::No, the diff ] presented is a clear example of an improper edit by you that places the "] view ahead of the mainstream view". And what is worse, you are ''fully aware'' of what the mainstream view is, and know full well that the item you added upfront is a fringe view, by virtue of the very quote from the source you refer to. That is a clear case of intentional ] on your part, which can not be excused based on the ignorance of the source on your part. The edit and your explanation make it clear with the fringe view in that edit. There is no disputing that. ] (]) 20:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027 | |||
| * I was notified of this discussion by FutureTrillionaire. In the previous discussion, I opposed a indef ban for StrangeSad, on the grounds that s/he has demonstrated an ability to make useful contributions to the wiki. However, it appears that StrangeSad has continued to show the same inability to work with others or to understand the concept of consensus versus Truth. This continuing pattern of bad behavior has caused StrangeSad to be a drain on wikipedian-hours that far outweighs his/her useful contributions. I thus continue to suggest as I suggested before that some sort of sanction be put in place to stop this fights from occurring, not because StrangeSad is necessarily wrong, but because s/he appears to be incapable of presenting his/her views in an appropriate way. -- ] ] 07:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Appears"? Do you know? Please list the edits I've made more than once against consensus. I'm pretty sure the list is empty, although I could be forgetting one. ] (]) 13:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Restored support for topic ban''' I was not canvassed, but have been watching the article talk page and its current FAC. Strangesad has been aggressively pushing a FRINGE view in a disruptive manner. This was continued in , in which Strangesad duplicated all previous discussion before adding her own comments. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to her explanation immediately below, but in the light of her unwillingness to entertain a good-faith explanation of FT's actions, even in the light of his two apologies, I am ], especially as she followed up the offending edit with four tweaks in a space of 25 minutes without noticing the error. The whole thing blew up because Strangesad edited against a consensus she know about '''before''' discussing it on the talk page. Consensus can change, but that's the wrong order. Original comment by ] (]) 09:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC), heavily redacted by ] (]) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::You do it by 1) Choosing "Preview Edit", 2) Seeing multiple errors, 3) Choosing "Copy All" forgetting that the entire article is in the edit field, 3) Making the changes in a word processor without noticing the extra text on top, 4) Choosing "Copy All" again and pasting back into the Misplaced Pages editor. The idea that I spent over an hour working on my comment for the FAC, and then tried to undermine the FAC is....what I've come to expect here. ] (]) 13:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::<s>(ec) Thank you for the explanation. To give you the benefit of the doubt, since your editing future is on the line here, I have deleted that part and revised my comment to neutral with an alternative suggestion. I hope you will make considerate use of any slack you may be given.</s> --] (]) 14:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Benefit of doubt withdrawn in light of failure to AGF. --] (]) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441 | |||
| *Holy sheitza. FT has now canvassed an additional six editors whose sole prior interaction with me was a ban discussion several months ago. He hasn't canvassed anyone outside of that one ban discussion..... ] (]) 13:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is explained by , which has . --] (]) 14:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is still canvassing people exclusively on the basis of a discussion to ban. It's a distorted lens. The damage was done when he canvassed Jeppiz, who had already tried to get me banned repeatedly, but hasn't edited with me in 4 months. ] (]) 16:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For the record, I have the article ] on my watchlist since at least two years and would have seen Strangesad being back to form regardless of any "canvassin". I find it rather revealing that Strangesad opts for the defence that the "wrong" people are commenting, while ignoring the actual topic. As I said below, there have been few users who have encouraged so many violations of rules and few users who have taken up so much of the community's time with so little to show for it. In short, few users have done so much damage to Misplaced Pages during 2013 as Strangesad.] (]) 16:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@Strangesad: a pity you couldn't AGF as I AGF'ed for you. My support for a topic ban has been restored. --] (]) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Contact on user page attempted | |||
| *'''Totally Support topic ban''': I quit Misplaced Pages sometime ago because of this type of illogical and contentious situation, . I happened to look on the Jesus page again today and guess w2hat I saw: ''utter chaos'' caused by Strangesad - and its discussion here. As ], users like Strangesad are clearly in the "liability column" of this web site. Strangesad should be certainly banned for the clear disruption of sources, and logic. Frankly, frankly, In my view the edit that started this chaos was a clear case of ] and this discussion is a clear illustration of the need to ban disruptive users such as Strangesad. This user has previously encouraged sockpupetting (as shown on their talk page) and has shown little respect for policy all the way. Personally, I think of ] as one of the very best and judicious editors on Misplaced Pages. Alas NY Brad ''certainly failed'' when he opposed a topic ban on Strangesad last time around. The reason for the chaos here is that were too soft. This user is a liability for Misplaced Pages, not an asset. This user needs to be banned without further fanfare. I m so glad I quit this web site. There is nothing but contention here. ] (]) 14:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795 | |||
| :: It is a sad thing, to me, that editors are being driven away by the sort of thing you describe. In the topic area we are discussing here, two of the most valuable editors who had expertise in the subject and could edit from a NPOV no matter what their personal beliefs may have been, have recently gone - User History 2007 vanished and User PiCo announced today he had made his last post. Neither of them gave reasons for their departure, and I hope they will come back as in this topic area at any rate we need help to maintain objective balanced articles from being disrupted by highly motivated cranks, POV pushers and fringe theorists who often have minimal knowledge of the subject.] (]) 14:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent | |||
| :::That account was created 3 weeks ago. ] (]) 16:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::*And what's to say the individual did not have an earlier account? — ] (]) 07:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Background''' As some users seem to think that the issue is only the latest round of edits Strangesad had made, I thought it may be relevant to give a short background of the problem we've had with Strangesad. <br> | |||
| - Strangesad repeatedly reverted others at AN , despite being warned about it . Ignoring the warning, Strangesad continued edit warring ''and'' reported the other for edit warring instead.<br> | |||
| - Strangesad explicitly encouraged ''"allies"'' to create a sock to avoid their topic ban. .<br> | |||
| - Despite several admins pointing this out , , Strangesad refused to withdraw the call to creat socks. <br> | |||
| - Strangesad argues in favor of violating Misplaced Pages policies .<br> | |||
| - Strangesad often goes after people who displease here. , , , .<br> | |||
| - Shorter blocks has no effect as Strangesad declares they won't change her style. .<br> | |||
| The time we've all spent on Strangesad is mindblowing, and several good users have left Misplaced Pages because of her and her relentless fringe pushing. Few users have ever done so much harm and so little good to Misplaced Pages as Strangesad. | |||
| <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557] (]) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::FT really scored canvassing you (Jeppiz). Those links are from the ban proposal you made 4 months ago, which followed a ban proposal you made weeks before that, which followed yet another ban proposal you made before that. Has anybody but you made one of these proposals? Why don't you provide links to, oh say, the article I created? Or the numerous non-disputed edits I've made? Meanwhile, still no diffs from the last 3 months showing any pattern of policy violations, unless challenging Christianity is a policy violation. ] (]) 16:14, 10 August 2013 (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) | |||
| ::: ''unless challenging Christianity is a policy violation'' - I think it is. This is not a place to right great wrongs, battle for the truth or challenge any religion, but neutrally to present verifiable information based on reliable sources, please see ] and ]. ] (]) 16:39, 10 August 2013 (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) | |||
| ::::Neutrally presenting verifiable information based on reliable sources challenges Christianity. ] (]) 17:01, 10 August 2013 (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) | |||
| :::I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. ] (]) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a ] slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|BarntToust}} You're being ] and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. ] (]) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::well, I tend to get concerned when someone with LLM text pasted on their userpage comes up from the water. If that's considered bite-y to reiterate my concerns in intentional lighthearted analogy in order to seem less hard-headed, then I guess we're done here. @], I invite you to weigh in on whether you think a '''formal warning''' or a ] slap is what needs to happen to Hob. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :That content from ChatGPT was meant to go in my sandbox as experiment or for assisting with research into a future article. The LLM can generate wikitext with links to articles that already exist. ] (]) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are ] and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @], I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? ] (]) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@], I'm pointing out questionable content on someone else page. for ''context'', in which they copied ChatGPT text without attribution, then said that using ChatGPT without attribution is plagiarism. That contradictory stuff is what I was questioning. please click on the diff for context. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I use it more like a (really good) search engine or a thesaurus. It can give a lot of suggestions for a human writer, but ultimately you use your own mind and RS to formulate the facts and how to present them. ] (]) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks! *curtsy* ] (]) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *The lack of civility in this contentious topic is significantly hindering editing efforts, especially since most issues concern neutrality and tone, which requires a careful and nuanced approach. ] (]) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The comments by Strangesad indicate a continued lack of logic. Strangesad is not just opposing Christianity, but all the respected Jewish scholars from ] to ] who support the historicity of Jesus. Strangesad's position is pure ] as multiple sources indicate. Strangesad does not have "a single professor of history" in a major university (''not one professor of history'') who supports the fringe view, and has never produced a source as such. As for the "article Strangesad created" it is just one page, nothing breathtaking by any measure - but it would not be an excuse for disruption even if it had been a major item. In any case, a quick review shows that the majority of Strangesad's time has been on WP:ANI fighting based on illogical assertions and with no sources to support that position. And the community has shown a "mind blowing tolerance" for these disruptions. It is time for that to change. ] (]) 16:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't see anything in the original report that does anything other than show that Hob Gadling calls a thicko a thicko. What is wrong with that? ] (]) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? ] (]) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::::I'm only challenging Christianity in the minds of certain Christians. The real point is that our sourcing is dubious, and selected to promote one view over another. Improve the sourcing and balance, and the objections go away. Who are you? Your account is less than a month old, yet you claim to be "Retired", yet you are obviously not retired (or a newbie editor). What's your previous account? ] (]) 17:01, 10 August 2013 (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) | |||
| ::::::No, you are also challenging all Jewish scholars cited in the article. And again, you have not provided "one single professor of history" that supports your position. I was/am retired and will be again once this illogic is over. But please do not divert, and address the issues about your own disruption. ] (]) 17:12, 10 August 2013 (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) | |||
| :::::::By the way, I hereby authorize a Checkuser to verify that I am not a sockpuppet for any of the user who have commented on this page. ] (]) 17:15, 10 August 2013 (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) | |||
| ::::: ''unless challenging Christianity is a policy violation'' - that comment is the clearest possible indication that Strangesad is ] to build an encyclopedia but to treat editing as a battleground - ''"Excessive soapboxing, importing or exporting of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia"'' and fight for the ]. ] (]) 17:15, 10 August 2013 (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) | |||
| :::::: In my book was a clear WP:NOTHERE marker (in line with ]), and all indications here are that the trend has continued. And having looked at the diff presented by another user above, it is clear that Strangesad "knows" what the mainstream view is, yet by placing the ] view ahead of it, and claims that it is supported by the source. This train of disruptive edits that ignore and defy policy needs to come to an end here. ] (]) 21:10, 10 August 2013 (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) | |||
| *'''Oppose Topic Ban''' Hang on here... I don't see a topic ban offense. Edgy, bold, even a bit reckless? Yes indeed. But I do not think after reading most of this long thread that we have a serious disruption here, as I understand the term to mean. Challenges to orthodox thinking are refreshing, as long as they don't become a chronic condition. The Jesus article is one of the highest profile ones on the 'pedia, but someone who doesn't automatically think with the majority should not just be given a "fringe" label and tossed out. This is someone using the Talk page and working within the established system here. I see a lot of outrage and puffed up chests, but I think we as a group are better than this. ]]] 21:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:For context, ] is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :That is a good and valid argument, and I fully agree with the principles you state. The problem as I see it is that with Strangesad, it ''is'' the chronic condition you describe. This started in December, spearheaded by Strangesad's pal Humanpublic/Minorview with the support of Strangesad. Humanpublic/Minorview was sinced banned for sockpuppetry, a sockpuppetry Strangesad encouraged as she thinks violating the rules are ok to achieve the "greater truth". We should never ever ban someone for the opinion, but when we've been going through the same arguments over and over and over and over again, it becomes tedious. Once again, we've been at this same argument since December. Since December, Strangesad and Humanpublic/Minorview have been encouraged to present ] in support of their views. It's been eight months, and the discussion has never advanced from there. If that's not a "chronic condition", I don't know what is.] (]) 21:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. ] (]) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. ] (]) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Recuse{{smiley}} Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. ] (]) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. ] (]) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:If you click through the diffs, you’ll notice that many other editors have received the rude comments, so this is more than a 1-on-1 scuffle with me and Hob Gadling. I stopped compiling examples after finding 9 examples of visible hostility out of their most recent dozen diffs, but like I mentioned to ] above, I can go back further if you need me to, to illustrate the chronic pattern. And the handful of other editors who have spoken up here who have been aggrieved speak for themselves. ] (]) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *As a note, Hob Gadling without comment and has not responded here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, user:Jusdafax about the undue tolerance for disruption. So thank you for supporting my decision to quit. But did you say "a bit reckless?" This user ''knowingly breaches'' ] in the diff shown just above and you have fear of attrition? And you call it "someone who doesn't automatically think with the majority"? If I go off and edit the page on ] to say that it is ''triangular'' am I just "not thinking with the majority?". Note that I made my comment about the problem with this website being the sudden defense of disruptive editors in these types of discussions weeks ago. It was not invented for you. And note that this user had been warned before and had been told that they then. ] (]) 21:51, 10 August 2013 (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) | |||
| *First off, I detect symptoms of a ] here, and citing the notoriously grumpy BWilkins (who actually finally banned Off2RioRob/YouReallyCan and is now just getting outta Arbcom, if unanimously) is counterproductive. Jeppiz, let's give this unbeliever a final warning and if you're still outraged if there's a next time, write up an Rfc that will probably get enough momentum to knock her outta here. Strangesad... time to chill. Take it from someone who doesn't know you but has a feeling he knows your POV a bit. Tread lightly when it comes to Christians on Misplaced Pages henceforth. Announce your proposals first, don't just hack away at stable versions. Think smart, edit cool. That way you'll still be around in a year. Otherwise you'll be on the ban list. And cool that sock talk too. OK? Now let's party, it's the weekend. ]]] 22:21, 10 August 2013 (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) | |||
| ::With all due respect Jusdafax, have you looked into this situation at all? I've lost count of the times people have said "Yes, Strangesad is behaving badly but let's give her one more chance". I am not saying we should topic ban for that reason, but I am saying that it is not a valid argument. When someone has had umpteen "one last" chances, then the argument is not credible.<br> | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| ::Second, I find it quite offensive that you claim that only Christians can care about sources and neutral editing. I am not a Christian user and most of my edits concerning religion go against Christian views. The question of whether a person called Jesus existed is not a religious question, and trying to make it sound as if the problem here is some "Christians versus non-Christians" is very far off. Surely you can concede that there is nothing inherently Christian in putting sourced scholarship above blind belief. As a non-believer, I would even say it is often the opposite.] (]) 22:38, 10 August 2013 (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) | |||
| :This comment is actually more of a personal attack then any of the diffs provided originally. Smartass, like a teenager, pissy, lalaland? That's some ageism, maybe commenting on mental health, and some silly insults. I don't think you should see any sanctions for this, but hopefully you compare your comments to the diffs. ] (]) 22:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am sorry Jusdafax, but I could not agree with your trivialization of disruption, and the invitation to party. And the diva comment was totally uncalled for - this type of undue tolerance of "continued disruption" was a serious factor in my decision to quit, and I am glad I did. As for user:BWilkins and whatever the arbcom story may be (I am blissfully unaware if it) it is really beside the point here, for as an admin he closed the previous thread and issued a warning. And no one objected or the warning. This user has been close to an indef block before, and now is close to a well deserved topic ban. And note that ''hardly any'' of these user's edits to the topic persist beyond a day - and just cause disruption. So I do beg your pardon, but your invitation to party can not be accepted. ] (]) 22:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|Extended discussion}} | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban of Strangesad, at least from the historicity of Jesus sub-topic. The latest incident wasn't that egregious, but he has a documented history of disruption . This was the straw that broke the camel's back as the saying goes. (And I'm no fan of BWilkins if you really want to know that angle.) ] (]) 22:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::IP, how'd you get here? A person who calls things {{tq|bullshit}} and generally isn't in a good mood around others, being condescending: saying that they are pissy and being a smartass is ]. Teenagers are known for angst and pissy-ness and for having lip. Not insinuating they are a teenager, just that their behavior resembles that of. As you will recall, someone, somewhere in this derailed, miles-long trainwreck of an ANI report-turned morality seminar-turned COVID-19 ] + ] debate, said that there is no policy against profanity. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I <b>do not support</b> a long-term or permanent ban of Strangesad from editing religion-related articles. However, I do believe that a cool-down period is in order. As such, I suggest banning the user from the article ] for 1-2 weeks, and directing her to the appropriate ] where she indeed has something to contribute. - ] (]) 14:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::If I tell User:ExampleA that they did an "amazing fuckin' job!" with a ], that is different than calling User:ExampleB a "{{!tq|fuckin' wanker}}" because they botched a ]. Context is everything, and I get how we are all connecting through the two-dimensional medium of simple text and thus misunderstandings tend to occur, but tones like these aren't that hard to discern. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When ] shouts "fucking A!" after a job well done, that is not the same when he tells ] that he is a "fucking psycho murderer". <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Right, and there are no egregious uncivil diffs either. So, how is Hob acting like a pissy teenager, but you aren't? Catch my drift? This is a nothing burger report, and the reporter should get a boomerang. ] (]) 00:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hob's profanity is not amiable. It sours the collaboration with other editors. most importantly, it is undue. Mine is not undue, and is a statement of truth. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Provide a diff of something you believe is sanctionable. Your pile of personal attacks is making it unclear what you are trying to say. It's ok when you cuss, but it's bad if someone else does it? What? ] (]) 01:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Profanity has nothing to do with it. The attitude is the thing that's wrong. The word "shit" can be said in many different ways. Some good, some bad. Have you even looked through these diffs of Hob's comments that have popped up through this ANI report? I also invite you to create an account. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So, to recap, ]: It's not ''what'' it is said that causes problems, it's '''''how''''' it is said that matters, and in what context. I call a pissy editor pissy because it's great to ]. I can use profanity to describe someone's behaviour, and if I weigh words, I can even use it when addressing someone's contributions; i.e. "This is a really fuckin' well done article, User:Example". Hob calling someone's opinions {{tq|bullshit}} is not the right thing to do. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think you may refer to this as calling a spade a spade. When someone says we should ignore science because it has a COI with Covid-19, their opinion is bullshit. This is what you are defending. ] (]) 03:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Eh, you can say "That's ] and ] and does not constitute ] as the subject is discussed in ]". Calling a spade a spade is easy, while addressing content and user contributions in dispute should require more, IDK, poise. I can say "fucking awesome work!" to an editor about their ] and no harm can be meant by that in any feasible situation, but when addressing questionable content, it should be done with nuance, eh? You can call someone's work shit whose work ''isn't'' shit, but you pretty much can't call someone's work "fucking amazing" whose work isn't amazing, as calling work "fucking amazing" provides pretty much no point of contention, unless you were just bullshitting them for no reason or trying to be nice about a novice's contributions that in terms of quality, reflect their inexperience. | |||
| :::::::::This entire ANI report has derailed into pretty much every unrelated topic save debate over what ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 03:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm not worried about contexts when "strong language" is ok, and you can stop giving needless examples. I don't believe anything that violates our guidelines on civility took place at all in the diffs originally provided. Hob was reasonable in tone, and sometimes people are exasperated by nonsense. Being annoyed but mostly polite isn't actually against the rules. You will need better diffs to change my mind. ] (]) 06:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The COI pertains only to a few authors in particular with a personal stake in the outcome of the investigation. For example, the article uses several sources co-authored by Dr. Zhengliang Shi who {{tq|herself and the WIV itself have an obvious conflict of interest}}<ref> Nie JB. "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2020 Dec;17 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/</ref> This is a secondary peer-reviewed article, and several editors who call LL fringe stated it is RS.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#c-GPinkerton-2021-01-18T14:40:00.000Z-ScrupulousScribe-2021-01-18T14:27:00.000Z</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Shibbolethink-20250104081900-IntrepidContributor-20250103151400</ref> ] (]) 08:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| It should be noted that Lardlegwarmers, after only truly starting editing two months ago, has been actively pushing ] misinformation, particularly on Covid related pages. They have actively been making claims that the scientific community is trying to cover things up, such as ], and has been using poor quality sources to try and claim that major published scientific papers on the topic are false, such as ]. This entire thread just sounds like an attempt to silence another editor who has been actively dealing with fringe POV-pushers across numerous articles, such as those linked by Lardlegwarmers above. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''This is probably not just user:Strangesad''': Looking at the edit history, edit style, points made, the level of contention in the arguments, length of comments, etc. I do not think these last edits are just by user:Strangesad, who is usually short on time and does not make these types of arguments, although the use of the word "absurd" was likely her at the start of the discussions. I think , the password was likely given to indef blocked ], who is now using the account. The edit behavior is that of User:Humanpublic who was confirmed as a sockpuppet by ] sometime ago, but yet. ] (]) 15:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::You'll want to add to your arsenal. Your contribs log now shows 75% of '''all''' edits are to this thread. ] (]) 16:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Incidentally I'm much more comfortable proposing improvements at than the article Talk page. I can comment in peace there. And, I'm optimistic that venue can have more influence. ] (]) 16:10, 11 August 2013 (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) | |||
| ::::The previous WP:SPI link is implied from the User:Humanpublic talk page in any case. I do stand by my statement, and I have previously authorized a checkuser on myself to verify that I am not a sockpuppet. Would you do the same in return please? ] (]) 16:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This makes little sense. If HP is using Strangesad's account to edit here, a CU would be useless. As for a CU otherwise on Strangesad's account, it was fairly conclusively demonstrated that Strangesad's and HP's accounts were unrelated. See ].--] (]) 16:39, 11 August 2013 (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) | |||
| ::::::Actually it does make sense. When ] issued the initial SPI, the accounts were unrelated, but that has likely changed now, given the edit trail. The way it will show up is that part of the edits in the last 48 hours will be from the OS and browser used by Strangesad, and will then interleave with edits from a separate device used by Humanpublic. That information is visible to the CU, unless has gone stale by now, but may still be fine. In any case, based on that very statement by Humanpublic that "no one has caught me yet" it will make sense to look for sleepers, etc. That statement itself merits a check. ] (]) 16:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*:There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "]" in situations like this one. Misplaced Pages would be better off if people were more willing to ] and stop treating ]. ] (]) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not a CU, so I don't know what all is revealed when one is done. However, I do think that any interleaving should be checked during the summer while all the leaves are still intact, that despite the fact that Southern California doesn't know from deciduous.--] (]) 17:17, 11 August 2013 (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 was/am trying not to announce all the checks that a CU performs, so potential sockpuppets do not get trained on avoiding them. So let us just say that a CU sees items that are not obvious to a general editor or a general admin. But let us put it this way: A and B know each other, and A has been indef-blocked. A SPI in the Spring determines that they are not related, prompting A to go out and get a sockpuppet that he uses on other pages. To be sure that the sock is not detected, he meets and gets the password to the account for B (who has less time and is less contentious) so he can edit the same pages he was editing/disrupting before. Then in mid-summer he starts using B's account. But a sleeper check on A and B will likely turn something up. ] (]) 18:01, 11 August 2013 (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) | |||
| :'''Comment''' - Just having done a quick review of the discussion, I would have to say that I am not sure that an individual ban is necessarily the best way to go here. The article is currently an FA candidate, and such articles tend to get more attention, positive and negative, when such. The edits are certainly problematic, and I don't dispute that in any way shape or form, but I am not sure that under the circumstances, particularly given the contentious nature of this particular topic, that this proposal is necessarily the best option to employ here. ArbCom is an option, and honestly, given some of what I read above, might be a better option, particularly as I seem to remember some of them also have CU. Alternately, maybe some sort of other short term editor restriction, or page locking, might resolve the question for a while. While I agree that there is good reason for the editor in question to maybe be at least warned about conduct, I am not at this point necessarily convinced that other, less dramatic, options might not yield better results in the short term with less possibly problematic long-term results. Having said that, I personally really would love to see ArbCom place most of the material regarding early Christianity under discretionary sanctions, and hope to maybe get them to do so in the near future, given the number of problematic POV pushing edits from multiple sides. But that is probably a separate matter best dealt with elsewhere, not here. ] (]) 19:51, 11 August 2013 (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) | |||
| ::Yes, Arbcom is a separate issue and will take forever and a day. You could start that anyway. But these edits are certainly "problematic" as you said, and disruptive, as others have said. And I see that you are not disputing that. But puppetry will obviously render many of the other items on this thread moot in any case. The last round of edits were likely by Humanpublic, not Strangesad. ] (]) 20:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Please check out the article and discussion. The lab leak theory is not pseudoscience, but rather a scientific hypothesis which important scientists have suggested is worthy of serious investigation (]). Although the evidence strongly favors a zoonotic origin, the investigation is inconclusive. In any case, I would favor a Misplaced Pages where civil discussion leads to a balanced representation of what is published in reliable sources. If your position is supported by the sources, there is no need to resort to name calling. ] (]) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''' I'm seeing a content dispute with passionate editors more than I'm seeing severe conduct violations. Yes there seem to have been some problems in the past with socking and the like but I'm not seeing new evidence of repetition of past misbehavior. As mentioned before, ], and sometimes consensus needs to be reassessed to determine whether it's changed or not. I generally do not find it appropriate to remove another editor's comments and to refuse to engage in discussion even if the matter is "settled" as doing so is a bit too close to ] than I'm personally comfortable with. If it is the case that Strangesad's case doesn't have a leg to stand on (and I don't know because all my "knowledge" about the historical Jesus comes from ]) then the best way to determine that is to invite ] ]. If after a DRN discussion or an RFC the consensus is still the same and ''then'' Strangesad continues arguing about it, it might be time for a topic ban, and if Strangesad is as wrong as people make him out to be then it should be fairly easy to demonstrate to uninvolved editors. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 03:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of ''this specific'' pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. ] (]) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You mean well, but we've already done all you suggest and more. This started in December, and I would guess at least 50 uninvolved editors have looked at it. I became involved in February, after two months of this. Of course any uninvolved editor who look into it will find that Strangesad&Humanpublic advocate a fringe view. There is not one academic in any relevant field who supports their fringe view. That is easy to demonstrate. The problem is that Strangesad doesn't give a damn. She is convinced she knows the truth, and if other editors disagree, then they are a "lynch mob" (one of her favorite phrases). So it's precisely because this has been going on for so many months and because it doesn't matter how many people get involved that I think a topic ban is necessary.] (]) 13:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::What you are describing is a different idea: ]. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus. {{tq|the World Health Organization is recommending in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe is required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. ]}} {{tq|The fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs.}}(]) ] (]) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. ] (]) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Beyond what @] said, ''for all parties'', it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil ]. ] ] 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Indeed. ] (]) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If Hob Gadling wants to "deal with" new editors who threaten Misplaced Pages, it should ''not'' be through aggression and insulting them openly, but through quality sources and discussion. Editors who sympathize with "fringe" ideas might be more cooperative if they didn't have to defend themselves against offensive comments in response to their suggestions. ] (]) 07:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::If this "old grievance" about the FTN exemption to CIVIL really has been thoroughly hashed out, could someone link the discussion from ] or something? Being up front about it would save time here at ANI, plus it's always heartbreaking to watch as earnest new editors learn about this the hard way. - ] (]) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. ] (]) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am in the diffs. | |||
| :::::I would still like a pointer to the discussion of why FTN regulars get an exemption from CIVIL, I honestly think that should be better understood. - ] (]) 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. ] (]) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above: {{tq|Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic.}}] ] (]) 07:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That diff certainly doesn't prove anyone is exempt from policy. I think it's interesting Palpable said he was following diffs instead of saying he was involved in the content dispute underlying this complaint. ] (]) 21:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, they're one of the pro-fringe editors in the linked discussion. ] (]) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Extended discussion}} | |||
| :::::How ironic that you would call out canvass, when you haven't contributed to this discussion previously, nor have you contributed to any prior notice board. See ], also please see ] if you logged out just to make {{tq|problematic edits}} here.... ] ] 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times, what are you talking about? IPs are only assigned for a few hours to weeks at a time usually. ] (]) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@]: Okay let me say it another way... | |||
| :::::::* never in this history of this subject has an IP editor contributed. | |||
| :::::::* since January 1, ALL of the IP's who have contributed to ANI aside from your are blocked or had their contribution reverted. | |||
| :::::::* in the last 50,000 edits to this notice board, not a single anon has commented more than 34 times and that user was in Romania, whereas your IP shows US/Mobile, and they are currently blocked. Followed up an IPv6 with 30 edits, last participated in ANI back in May. Followed by a handful from the UK and other countries. The first one who is US based that was mobile has less than 12 edits, not hundreds. | |||
| :::::::* when you choose to edit anonymously (which is your privilege) you accept the reality that people will question your constructiveness because of a lack of established history. | |||
| :::::::But beyond all of that, aren't you simply deflecting from the question brought up? Perhaps @] has been lurking anonymously. As they have logged at least 31 edits to ANI alone . ] ] 05:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There's a lot of strawmen there to knock down if I cared to derail this conversation, but I'm curious what question you think I'm deflecting? Your assumptions of bad faith are expected, but disappointing. ] (]) 06:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What I claim you are deflecting KETTLE: Somehow you feel like you can call out someone who hasn’t contributed previously as canvassed, which is a ''serious allegation'', yet that is exactly what your user account history appears reflect. When challenged, you claimed to have edited hundreds of time, which was rebutted with facts, you resorted to allegations. Interestingly they very closely mirror only one other person who liberally throws around terms like strawman and bad faith. And really only one person at ANI has ever held this view so strongly they would plainly say bad faith was “expected” from me . If your not that person, then my query is how did you get involved in this conversation, and when exactly do you proffer that you last edited on here as an IP constructively? ''However, '''if''' you are indeed that person, let me warn you, such activity is considered sock puppetry.'' (Of course editing while accidentally logged out is a human mistake. But persisting and pretending otherwise, is not.) ] ] 07:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Don't know what this thread is about, but point 2 and 3 seem wrong - none of my IPs have been blocked, and I am an anon that has, in the to this board I made 38 of them (all edits by IPs starting with 2804:F14), let alone in the last 50 thousand edits. | |||
| ::::::::Maybe I'm misunderstanding your claims. – ] (]) (]) 06:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I think my detail for you was accidentally edited out. You would be an IPv6 from a different country, so unless this IP user is claiming they have rotating IPs hourly because they’re using an international VPN connecting via various countries, I find their claim that they just stumbled upon this conversation dubious at best. ] ] 06:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Also in case you were not aware, while mobile IP addresses can and do change, they still remain with that mobile carrier. So while your ip address will change, who all of those addresses are registered to will not. What I mean is that will your current IP goes back to a US based cell network, you’re not going to get a new IP address that is registered in Japan or even one in the US that is through a completely different network (a few technical exceptions exist, but they’re nevertheless evident). Same with home internet as well. And of course, most work addresses are persistent. All that to say, a claim of “my ip address changes” does not mean that a persona cannot reasonably determine if you’ve contributed to ANI from the a network. ] ] 07:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::When did I say I stumbled upon this thread? Provide the diff. You are putting words in my mouth and casting aspersions. I said my IP changes as a response to you saying I was a new editor. You are creating an elaborate narrative and getting strangely defensive. ] (]) 07:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I will gladly provide the answe after you answer the two questions I have previously asked to you. First was about KETTLE, and the second asked you to substantiate your claim of {{tq|I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times}} by providing your last contrustive ip edit to this notice board. ] ] 07:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Please read ]. I'm not going to link all of my comments across IPs here for you. If you really believe I was canvassed, you need some diffs, or maybe you should strike your aspersions. ] (]) 07:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::All I can do is laugh at your replies. More KETTLE behavior. You claim don’t have to proof anything per SATISFY, yet in the same breath you demand such of others. More ad hominem, deflection. Zero actual replies. ] ] 08:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::What are you talking about? I asked one question, got one answer and it was done. It was you who started a long thread full of bad faith assumptions and no diffs. Provide diffs, or kindly stop bludgeoning. ] (]) 08:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| :::You have done none of what he suggested. No DRN and no RFC. I advocate no view on the historical Jesus. The view that there is no meaningful historical Jesus does not meet Misplaced Pages's definition of "fringe." According to the article's reliable, cited sources (Ehrman), there are "bona fide" scholars who make "intelligent" arguments against the existence of Jesus. You, on the other hand, have now proposed banning me four times, yet the number of times you've attempted to talk to me on my Talk page (excluding warnings) is zero. ] (]) 02:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Send to AE?=== | |||
| ::: ''' Comment''' - I have not advocated for a topic ban for Strangesad, I am not an admin, so it seems to me I should leave it to them to decide what should be done here but I am certain that some action needs to be taken to prevent this kind of constant disruption to important articles on religion / Christianity / the Bible. As I said earlier, two of the most valuable editors in this area have recently left, History2007 and PiCo, editors who have not been involved in these areas may not realise what a disaster this is for the project as these two were highly knowledgeable in these fields and able to edit neutrally and fend off constant POV and fringe theory pushers. They appear to have got tired of doing that and who can blame them? Dougweller in another thread where I raised this says "In History2007's case, too many sockpuppets were a big issue. For both I think pov editing was another factor." To me, this indicates that WP just is not functioning any more and lack of effective action by admins has resulted in more or less turning over the project in the area of Christianity to fringe pushers. Should History2007 and/or PiCo see this, I appeal to you to at least come back every now and then and check the most important pages. WP is, perhaps unfortunately, now the number one source of information on the web and WP articles come up first on most web searches for information. History2007 and PiCo were doing a service to the world in maintaining those articles, I understand the frustration, no need for either of you to go back to being as highly active as you were here, but please help us out every now and then at least, this project is too important to be abandoned to cranks.] (]) 14:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Given how long this has gone on for, may I make a suggestion? Send this to ] since ANI seems incapable of resolving this, and it falls solidly into the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories. ] (]) 21:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps I just missed it but I'm not seeing a diff of a discussion at DRN or an RFC. If I did miss it please point it out so I can review the discussion and determine whether sufficient outside input came to the same conclusion. As I said, if a DRN or RFC took place and consensus was upheld, and if Strangesad is continuing that same conversation then it might be time for a topic ban. If, however, neither venue has been exploited then a topic ban is premature. Just FYI - and though I'm sure you didn't intend it this way - "you mean well" can come off condescendingly. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 02:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{replyto|Noformation}} DRN and RfC are used in cases where no consensus can be reached at the article's talk page. Since '''there is consensus''' for this issue (a consensus that involved dozens of users), I don't understand why DRN and RfC are necessary. Just because one or two users ] does not necessitate the use of DRN or RfC. These two venues are used to establish consensus (if none can be reached via talk page discussion). They are not requirements for a topic ban. Strangesad is being nominated for a topic ban due to her continued anti-consensus and fringe-view-promoting edits.--] (]) 03:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::DRN and RFC are used when a dispute needs to be resolved and is a standard progression of ] - soliciting uninvolved advice is never a bad thing (and in this case apparently hasn't been tried outside of drama boards). Again, if the consensus is as clear as you say then there should be no objection to it being evaluated by neutral, third parties and doing so can only solidify the issue should it arise again. If you don't believe the discussion is worth your time you can sit it out and let other editors deal with it, since there are, as you say, dozens who agree. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 03:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{replyto|Noformation}}: Actually, it was Strangesad who chose to come to this drama board. The topic ban proposal is something that appeared in the boomerang's flight path. --] (]) 12:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not sure why this is relevant to my arguments. I did not make any statements about who brought the issues here, I simply noted that the content aspect of this dispute has not followed normal DR channels and ANI has been the only outside venue. Content disputes are outside the remit of ANI; indeed, Strangesad's complaint here is addressing a conduct issue: users removing her talk page posts - an issue I believe is valid for the same reason I cannot support a topic ban. To reiterate, if proper channels are utilized and if Strangesad continues to argue, then it might be acceptable to remove her posts as disruptive and to topic ban her. Until then I don't know how else to interpret it other than as an attempt to avoid discussion to maintain the status quo, which to me outside the spirit of the 5 pillars. Maybe you all are experts on the subject and Strangesad is on the fringe of the fringe - I don't know and it's not going to be determined on a drama board. The easiest way to solve the problem is to simply file the DRN and let the conversation take place. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban'''. For those commenting along the lines of "I've glanced at Strangesad's edits and I don't see anything seriously disruptive", I acknowledge that is indeed true. Deeper examination, however, reveals that this editor has engaged in behavior that is difficult to demonstrate in a single ANI thread: the long-term pushing of fringe views, coupled with a persistent and verbose rhetorical style designed to wear down detractors. The long-term effect is that contributors are pushed out of the topic area (or off the site completely) out of sheer exhaustion with dealing with the person. Strangesad is not offering anything constructive to this topic area, and should be removed while constructive editors are still around to maintain logic and fend off fringe positions. Now she is trying to derail the FAC. I do not agree that arbitration is needed at this point. Arbitration is for when the community has demonstrated an inability to solve the issue. If we can deal with it here, we can be done with it. For the record, I have nothing to do with religious topics on Misplaced Pages, so I am commenting from a neutral point-of-view. --] ] 15:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories". | |||
| *'''Update''' I see Strangesad has now started deleting comments by users she dislike , . The first time, she deleted the comments outright, as seen in the diffs above. Fortunately FutureTrillionaire noticed it and reverted. Then Strangesad instead moved all the comments, creating confusion , this time she was reverted by Stfg. I honestly don't know what Strangesad is thinking, deleting other users' comments while this thread is going on. Unfortunately, it's not surprising and it is preceisly that kind of disrupting behavior that had made me suggest Strangesad be topic banned.] (]) 09:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :That matches my experience and I'm grateful to the people willing to say it out loud, but surely it would save a lot of drama and forum shopping if someone just wrote it down? - ] (]) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::And as if that wasn't enough, Strangesad has continued to move around other users' comments. , . So in addition to all the disruption already discussed, Strangesad is now deleting comments by others, and edit waring about moving around comments. How long will this farce continue? Has any one user taken up more of the communities time in 2013, and with so little productive to show for it? Strangesad is most definitely not here to improve Misplaced Pages.] (]) 15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The IP made no such claim? - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I thought that was implicit in the request to move the civility complaint to a forum about fringe theories, but you're the expert. - ] (]) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :As others have noted, being brusque with pseudoscience-pushers is an insignificant offense when compared to agenda-driven editors who are only here to advocate for a fringe topic. Esp. when they have only been editing for a handful of months. ] (]) 23:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*Number of times Jeppiz has tried to talk to me on my Talk page (notices/warnings excluded): 0 | |||
| ::While I do agree that from an objective and absolute POV (e.g., of an external user evaluating Misplaced Pages) it is better to have an uncivil but pseudoscience-free Misplaced Pages than a civil but pseudoscientific Misplaced Pages, from a subjective and relative POV (e.g., of editors making internal decisions together) it is impossible to systematically abandon a relatively less important principle on the basis of a relatively more important principle without completely annihilating the less important principle. That's why ] is policy. | |||
| :*Number of times Jeppiz (or anyone) has requested an RFC/U: 0 | |||
| ::Moreover, as others have also noted, because WP:CIVIL is a principle that at some point does get acted upon, we would all be better off if no one, on any side of any given debate, would minimize it. ]. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*Number of times Jeppiz has gone to AN or AN/I proposing to ban me: 4 ] (]) 15:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I '''second''' to motion to bring this to ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not sure why you excluded the notices and warnings sent to your talk. The point of these is to warn you, so that we don't have to resort to ANI. Also, RFC/U is not a requirement for a topic ban.--] (]) 15:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Strangesad is quite right. I've brought her behavior to AN or ANI four times. Not once has the community thrown it out as irrelevant. Quite the opposite, every time most users have agreed that Strangesad is disruptive, and there has usually been a quite even split between those wanting to ban Strangesad and those wanting to give Strangesad "one last chance". And it is quite revealing that Strangesad brings this up to try to change the topic, not commenting with even one word on her deletion of other users' comments or about her edit warring today. That is Strangesad's standard trick whenever her disruptive behavior is discussed, to change the topic to talk about others.] (]) 15:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is exactly why you should file a DRN. Had you done so before bringing it to ANI in the first place, and if the DRN was closed as upholding prior consensus, you could simply point to it in an ANI and it would be positive evidence that Strangesad was being disruptive. This would give you a much stronger case - one based firmly in policy - for a topic ban. ANI should never be the first resort when dealing with an editor making proposals in good faith, even if you are personally sure they are wrong. Seriously, if you want this dispute solved then go right now, file the DRN, make your opening statement, notify Strangesad, let uninvolved editors hash it out and get your answer. If you're right and Strangesad keeps arguing I will support your topic ban proposal next time and I imagine you'll find few who oppose. As a matter of fact, if you do so then feel free to copypaste this comment to the next ANI and call it my support !vote. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :So far as I can tell, there are 10 supports for a ban, 1 support for some sort of limited ban, and five opposes. I myself don't know whether that is sufficient, or if the final results, whatever they might be, will be, but if they aren't I really think that maybe retitling the section, or starting a new subsection, to more clearly indicate that it is about a proposed ban of some wort would be a good idea, to make it clearer to others who see the discussion here and might be more motivated to express an opinion if they actually knew what was being proposed here. ] (]) 19:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Taboo of archaeologists == | |||
| ===Not Here Anymore=== | |||
| {{archivetop|This is fundamentally a content dispute, I see nothing admin-actionable here. ] (]) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Request interaction ban on this account. Since registering, the vast majority of edits have been targeted at opposing me on this one topic. . | |||
| 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) | |||
| Also, what is the policy on breaking up someone's comments in a FAC with sniping and other attempts to turn my comment section into his debating forum? I expected this to be a bit more like ArbCom, where each editor has there own space, and isn't drawn into bickering by point/counterpoint sniping. | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::Do you think it’s inauthentic? Or not? Please do not be wasting my time here. ] (]) 06:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It think that claim is utterly unfalsifiable, so it cannot amount to ]. See for details {{YouTube|FYgqnlQXWjA|The Shapira Strips: What Are They and Are They Forgeries?}} by Dr. Robert R. Cargill. ] (]) 06:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ok. Thanks for actually giving me an answer at least. ] (]) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What exactly are you asking admins to do there? This looks to me like a content dispute. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Who, me? I’m not asking anything. I just wanted to show how a seal dated by a scholar to the 8th century is indeed an 8th century BC Israelite seal of Hoshea. | |||
| ::::::The guy up there has a problem with that and now apparently I’m on the naughty list. ] (]) 07:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{re|The Bushranger}} I have explained them at length why this is utterly problematic, previously. I had expected that they will behave. Misbehaving is a behavioral problem. ] (]) 07:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think I know how to behave, thank you very much. I’m not a petulant manchild. ] (]) 07:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::See ] and ]. ] (]) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Lol, I refuted you there. All you did was attack Dr. Mykytiuk and call into question his scholarship. ] (]) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Besides, what does this have to do with the Hoshea seal? ] (]) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't expect any of you to take my word for it, that why I had ] https://web.archive.org/web/20241209232716/https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/the-problem-with-unprovenanced-objects/ Suffices to say that unprovenanced objects are ethically and juridically fishy. ] (]) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::So no comment on my refutation of your petulant behavior? ] (]) 07:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Who’s “any of you” by the way? I’m one guy. ] (]) 07:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::You're (only you, not The Bushranger) promoting a claim that is unfalsifiable, unethical, and maybe even juridically problematic. ] (]) 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Ooo, that’s a new one. ] (]) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Nope, if you had read carefully what I told you in 2024, there is nothing new about my claim. ] (]) 07:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good. You guys represent scholarship only when it suits your ideology. ] (]) 07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::It's not about my ideology. It is about: bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss such claims in public. So no bona fide archaeologist could affirm that that object is authentic or inauthentic, because the next day they will have to flip burgers at Target. ] (]) 07:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Fine whatever, I apologize. ] (]) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Demands to prove a negative are a nonsensical and puerile debating tactic. The editor must cite evidence that the item is considered authentic, or refrain from stating so in WP's voice. Simple as that. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 07:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Is the editor referring to me? ] (]) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:If so, here you go. Lawrence J. Mykytiuk, Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E. (Boston: Brill, 2004), 58., https://www.academia.edu/62900860/Iconography_on_Hebrew_Seals_and_Bullae_Identifying_Biblical_Persons_and_the_Apparent_Paradox_of_Egyptian_Solar_Symbols_ABSTRACT_ ] (]) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Since bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss it, you win by default? ] (]) 07:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Elmidae, were you referring to me? ] (]) 07:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Bona fide archaeologists will lose their jobs for merely mentioning Mykytiuk's claim. ] (]) 07:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I was talking to Elmidae. ] (]) 07:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Yes, they were talking to you. Also both of you take a chill pill for a minute, please - this disucssion is already approaching ] levels of length from the back-and-forth above. Tgeorgescu, you don't have to ] esepecially when it's in response to other editors. Jahuah, {{tqq|i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good.}} is not an attitude conducive to cooperative editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Fine, fine, I apologize. I’m just angry that my contributions to Misplaced Pages get deleted. I just wanna leave some edits and then I’ll leave this site for good. I promise. ] (]) 08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I also want to make sure my contributions are kept before I leave. ] (]) 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:This editor appears to be edit warring across multiple pages to assert historical uncertainties as fact based on unconfirmed and speculative research from biblical archaeology blogs and the like. ] (]) 07:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Oh look, BAR society is no longer reputable because some Misplaced Pages mod said so. ] (]) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::By the way, who am I edit warring with? That’s news to me. ] (]) 07:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::We don't have "mods" on Misplaced Pages. But you have only been editing for a month so it shouldn't be expected that you would know much about how Misplaced Pages works. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Hmph. I guess I’ll go then. Sorry for the trouble I caused. ] (]) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::], I wasn't asking you to leave the project, just pointing out that you are a newer editor. Misplaced Pages is chockful of rules and guidelines and it's not realistic to expect new editors to be familiar with them all. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::No, no. It’s ok. It’s clear that I have caused more problems here than solved. I just hope my contributions will stay, or at least be kept until new data comes. I’ll be out of your hairs soon. ] (]) 10:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{blockquote|it's an unprovenanced object and likely a forgery it was not found in a licensed archaeological excavation it does not possess a credible chain of custody this is very much too good to be true but since people of faith want to believe it and since it's not against the law to use your free speech to make false claims like this forgers will make forgeries and antiquities dealers will put them up for sale and try to make as much money as they can but these kind of forgeries pollute legitimate biblical archaeology and it is why so many scholars myself included do not publish critical reviews of unproven objects once you give them credence their value is increased even if you put a little asterisk by them and designate them as unprovenanced and merely teach the controversy you are still giving them scholarly recognition and debate that the forger and the antiquities dealer so desperately crave publishing unprovenanced objects leads to looting and to forgeries it's that simple|Dr. Robert R. Cargill, transcript}} | |||
| Quoted by ] (]) 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], this is becoming a detailed content dispute which means it probably should be closed as off-topic for this noticeboard. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *For the record, tg's hysterical talk about disgraced archeologists flipping burgers at Target is nonsense. There is vigorous controversy about unprovenanced objects, but no one's losing their job for breaking some alleged taboo. ]] 06:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == TTTEMLPBrony and continued addition of unsourced/crufty material, zero communication == | |||
| :Also, there is this sleazy message , in which he says "there is now a discussion that they may have exchanged passwords." (The truth is that nobody has made that suggestion but NHA.) ] (]) 03:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. Now CU-blocked. ] (]) 15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{user|TTTEMLPBrony}} has been active since late April 2024. They have a history of adding of unsourced and sometimes controversial material. They have been messaged and warned plenty of times, including by {{u|FlightTime}}, {{u|Doniago}} and {{u|LindsayH}}, but to no avail. Better yet, they haven't responded once on their own talk page.] is required and they do not seem to be willing or able to work with others. I've issued them a warning earlier this week, but looking at their talk page, I see they've been issued stern warnings plenty of times. And despite messages about adding sources, in late December 2024 they created ], which is barely referenced. ]. ] 12:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :They may be unaware of their talkpage, even though 8 months seems a long time for that. I have blocked indefinitely, with an informative message and a link to their talkpage in the log. Unfortunately that's sometimes the only way to get the attention of a non-responsive user. ] | ] 15:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| ::They know about talk pages, {{U|Bishonen}}, because they have used one at least once; i checked when i first tried to communicate with them to no avail. That being said, i think this is a good use of a block, showing we are serious when we say communication is necessary ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 17:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Indefinitely blocked after only 5-hours, without the user even editing during that period? For a first offence? After only warnings of the lowest level? I'm no sure why ] even created this request, as there'd been zero editing of the page in question since his talk-page warning 3 days earlier! Much of the edits seem to be merely content disputes. I don't see much repition after notification. And we don't even have rules about providing sources. There was no imminent risk of damage here, and I don't think the conditions laid out in ] have been met. And ] most certainly hasn't been met. This is an appallingly awful block ]. Can I that you reduce it to a week or less just to get attention. I'd suggest a day, but the editor is so infrequent, that they may not not notice. Though given they are moderating their behaviour based on what is posted in their talk page, even a block is barely justified. ] (]) 00:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I disagree. When an editor refuses to communicate, it's not uncommon for an admin to block until the editor responds. Even the block notice tells them {{tq|Please respond below this post and start communicating, and you may be unblocked.}} Sometimes it's a case where inexperienced editors simply don't realize that they have a talk page or that people are leaving them messages. This block gently brings it to their attention. ] ] 00:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I see nothing in policy for an indefinite. And an indefinite block is absolutely not "gently". It's the kind of heavy-handed authoritarianism that drives the people we need away. There seemed to be edits that were a real attempt to improve Misplaced Pages. And there seemed to be changes in behaviour that were guided by the comments on the talk page. And there hadn't even been any further edits of concern since the previous warning - days ago. Sure, for Misplaced Pages warriors who frequent ANI, a block is just something you deal with; but I don't think that's how many people would see it. ] (]) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Indef is "until you address the issue", not forever. ] ] 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I believe we are all aware of that. The issue is that doing so, at this stage, is completely outside of our policy, and that doing so for a minor case like this is completely outside of policy. We can't just make start doing things a different way because the admin feels like it. Our policy says that "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy". The threat was neither significant (or even very recent) or a major breach of policy. I note that the user in question was only given 5 hours to respond, but after 4 hours, we'd still had no response from ], perhaps she should also have been blocked for not noticing the discussion (yeah, that's irony, not a proposal). ] (]) 06:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *TTTEMLPBrony has now responded, stating that "I have not realized that accounts have talkpages", so apparently my block worked as intended. Unfortunately, they go on to say that ], and also that they ''allowed'' the brother to use the account. Blithely they claim that "I have already dealt with him" - uh, "already"? Anyway, whether or not I believe them about the brother (I can't say I do), the account is clearly compromised, and must stay blocked. With some hesitation, I've turned the block into a softblock, so that they may create a new account, and have explained that they must absolutely not share it with anybody. I have notified the stewards in case they want to globally lock. ] | ] 03:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| **Just because, ], it worked, doesn't mean that you are allowed to just make up your own rules. (but yeah, sounds fishy ... on the other hand, it's probably a child). Please follow protocol, or hand over your keys. Thanks. ] (]) 06:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***], please be more polite on these noticeboards. The block Bishonen placed was perfectly fine and it's the kind of thing admins have been doing for years. Nothing in policy forbids it, and I believe {{U|The Bushranger}}'s response is along the same lines. Besides, the editor's edit were, and I'm trying to stay polite myself, not good, as their talk page full of warnings indicates: no edit summaries, no responses, no communication, no knowledge of sourcing and sourcing requirements. Finally, I don't know how young that editor might be, but I do know that they are four years older than when {{U|Ponyo}} blocked them. ] (]) 15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == possible hoaxes == | |||
| ::Finally, continusouly calling me "Humanpublic/Strangesad" is sort of antagonistic. File a sock puppet report, or find a more constructive way to spend time. ] (]) 03:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Important development''' - Strangesad is now made by users who do not agree with her.--] (]) 04:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *{{user|Emilioveh}} | |||
| ::Actually, I moved them to that editor's comment section. Very important. ] (]) 04:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *{{user|Emnoé}} | |||
| *{{user|Larissæ}} | |||
| *{{user|Miguelinor}} | |||
| *{{user|Nose236}} | |||
| The above accounts that have been for creating articles with unverifiable references or with scarce references taken out of context. I recommend reviewing all the articles that these accounts have created here as they may be hoaxes.--] (]) 04:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please stop doing that. FAC reviews are threaded discussions. Your comments section is not your private space. --] (]) 08:32, 13 August 2013 (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 == | |||
| ::::Rather definitely not happening: "I will also not revert any more of Strangesad's edits.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)". I wish admins would give guidance. I think NHA is clearly harassing me, and his arguing with my comments in the FAC is intended to disrupt. However, I'm now getting into 3RR territory if I'm wrong. Rather than blocking for being wrong that 3RR isn't mean to apply to this situation, why don't admins engage in discussion? Prevent problems before they occur. ] (]) 15:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| @] has removed an RFC tag from ] now within . | |||
| ] provides a list of circumstances under which you can stop an RFC started by someone else, and disagreeing with the question or wishing that it contained additional information is not in the list. | |||
| :::::My reversion was a mistake in protocol, for which I have apologised on the talk page, but you clearly cannot forbid other reviewers from commenting after your signature. The current state of the FAC review page is that there are no comments by anyone else between your section header and your signature timed at 04:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC). That's all you're entitled to. The "protocol" you cited talks about nominators' comments, but it does not forbid other editors from commenting too. --] (]) 15:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| We have to be pretty strict about this, because an RFC is one of the few ways to attract the broader community's attention when there's an ] problem or a ] that needs outside attention. The fact that an editor doesn't welcome outside attention sometimes indicates that there is a problem. I'm ''not'' saying that these things are happening in this case, but the rules have to be the rules for all RFCs, not just for the ones we agree with, because these things do happen in ''some'' cases. We can't really have opponents of an RFC question/proposal, no matter how well intentioned or how justified they think it is in this one case, unilaterally deciding that the rest of the community doesn't get to find out about the dispute. | |||
| === Requesting closure === | |||
| I'm requesting an uninvolved admin close this report and defer it to ]. All the arguments are in and at this point it's just the editors involved in the principle dispute bickering with each other, a ] of someone created just to argue here, and me (uninvolved) explaining that proper dispute resolution has not been followed. Nothing productive is going to come out of this. Strangesad, you can help move this along by filing the DRN yourself immediately, which you should have done in the first place. And if it doesn't go your way then seriously drop it or you will be topic banned next time. Everyone involved needs to adopt a mindset of colaboration and to try and see the opposing side. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 02:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I wouldn't bother with this here, except that it's already past my bedtime, so I need someone else to handle this. The proper way forward is to run the RFC, and for the loyal opposition to take the advice about how to respond that they'll find in the first two questions of the ]. See you tomorrow. ] (]) 08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe it is time to close this -- I'm not a good judge of that. But I trust all views and proposals will be considered, not just yours. You are presenting this still as an authentic content dispute. Many of us here feel that it is not an authentic content dispute, but a conduct issue, with editing against a consensus documented on the page's edit notice, deletion of another editor's FAC comments, and so on. You are in no position to state that next time she will be topic banned. You simply don't know how it would go next time. The only thing that's certain is that a lot more good editors' time would be spent if there's a next time. Seeing the opposing side doesn't mean we have to give credence to fringe theories. Collaboration isn't a suicide pact either. --] (]) 13:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC. | |||
| ::I agree with ]. While I believe that ] is right that it may be time to close, Stfg is right to point out that this is not the content dispute Noformation seems to think. More important, the '''last''' time this was at ANI about 50% wanted to topic ban Strangesad and the others said "let's give her one more chance, then topic ban the next time". Well, now is that next time. I don't say that that means Strangesad must be topic banned, but it does mean that Noformation's argument is moot. Either ANI sticks to "one last chance" or not. If it does, it should mean something. If it doesn't, then "the next time" shouldn't be used as an argument as it's meaningless.] (]) 13:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I am perfectly happy to take instruction on that point if I am incorrect but the removals were undertaken in good faith. | |||
| :The idea that I should be reported to ANI for this just because it is past someone's bedtime (and they don't have time for talk page discussion) seems to me rather an over-reaction. ] (]) 08:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed, I am perfectly happy to volunteer to replace the tag if an administrator indicates that that is the appropriate course of action. ] (]) 08:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Axad12}}, please do not tamper with the RFC. I have already commented there again based on my previous assessment five weeks ago, and I have ''absolutely no'' conflict of interest in this matter. In my opinion, you are taking too aggressive a stance on this issue. I happen to be an administrator but I am also involved with the dispute as an ordinary editor. ] (]) 08:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Axad12}}, I'd strongly suggest you return the tag. {{u|WhatamIdoing}}, a {{tl|trout}} for ]ing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you for both of your advice. I will shortly replace the template. | |||
| ::::The COI issue does not relate to Cullen, it relates to another user entirely. I would be grateful for input on the underlying COI issue, which seems to me to have been an exceptionally serious abuse. ] (]) 09:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What? A company quite reasonably does not want to be ''falsely accused'' of adulterating their edible product with antifreeze, based on what a fringe source wrote, and you consider that {{tpq|exceptionally serious abuse}}? ] (]) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I'm referring to the series of events outlined here where a paid COI editor has a COI edit request turned down and then starts cultivating a co-operative project member to implement non-contentious COI edit requests before reintroducing the contentious COI edit request and immediately tipping off their repeatedly canvassed project member to implement that contentious request. | |||
| :I feel that that is an exceptionally serious abuse - clearly it is an attempt to distort the COI editing process by attempting to make sure that a previously co-operative project member deals with a resubmitted request rather than waiting for a random volunteer working out of the relevant queue (one of whom had previously declined the request). | |||
| :As I said above, I am quite happy to take instruction on this point - but personally I feel that what happened there was highly inappropriate. ] (]) 09:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::In other words, you want highly misleading content to remain in the article, just to make a point? ] (]) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Cullen, my post directly above is clearly about a point of process rather than a point of content. | |||
| :::Even if the original COI edit request was incorrectly declined that would not justify the paid COI editor attempting to game the system to get the request through at the second time of asking. ] (]) 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Asking a second time" is not ]. ] (]) 22:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Agreed, but for a COI user to attempt to influence which user will deal with the second request does constitute gaming the system. ] (]) 22:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, it doesn't. Read the guideline instead of guessing about its contents from the ]. See, e.g., {{xt|An editor ''gaming the system'' is seeking to use policy in bad faith, by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support.}} Asking an individual to help has nothing to do with finding wording in a policy to justifying disruptive actions or stances that are not intended in that policy. | |||
| ::::::I also direct your attention to the item that says {{xt|Gaming the system may include...]ing the consensus-building process}}. ] (]) 22:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I was using the phrase 'gaming the system' in it's natural application (not specifically referring to ], which I didn't know existed until you linked to it above). Clearly the COI user was attempting to distort the COI edit request process in some way - whether one refers to what they were doing as 'gaming the system' or some other similar phrase is neither here nor there. ] (]) 23:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also worth noting that ever since the original COI edit request back in August the clear talk page consensus has been that the material should remain within the article and is not {{tq|highly misleading}}. | |||
| :::I've been part of that consensus position since approx October/November. Since that time the user who opened the RfC has repeatedly been opening new threads, continually trying to re-address a subject where they are repeatedly in the minority and presumably hoping that those who previously opposed them do not turn up to oppose them again. ] (]) 10:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe we should hold an RFC on whether the RFC tag should be there? ] (]) 09:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Right, I've had breakfast now so am in a position to make a more serious reply. This is a content issue (on which I hold, as yet, no opinion). On this page we often tell editors that the way to settle a content issue that hasn't been settled by more informal methods is by holding an RFC. Axad12, you should express your opinion as part of the RFC, not oppose holding it. By your behaviour you are turning people against you who might have supported you. ] (]) 10:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've already said that I'd be happy to replace the tag if instructed to do so, and upon being instructed to do so I immediately replaced it. As far as I can see that issue is now resolved. | |||
| ::I've asked for comment on the underlying COI issue, which is not a content issue. ] (]) 11:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::RFCs can handle COI issues. In fact, when ] can't resolve a dispute, they sometimes host an RFC to settle it. The nice thing about an RFC in such situations is that if it closes with an outcome like "The consensus is stick it to these fully policy-compliant, completely disclosed paid editors by making sure that this article implies the company's product was adulterated with a poisonous industrial chemical, just because we found one ] book that used this language, because it's really unreasonable of them to not want sensationalist and derogatory information in our article about their product" then you can generally be sure that the result will stick for at least 6 months and usually longer. | |||
| :::But you've got to get that consensus first, and I'm not sure you will. For one thing, it's been my ] experience that when someone objects to holding an RFC because the question is biased, that's a fairly reliable sign that they expect the RFC result to not match their preference. ] (]) 22:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My concern (rightly or wrongly) was simply that there was a COI element to the request which had not been disclosed. I swiftly requested clarification on that point and upon receiving that clarification I immediately reverted myself. | |||
| ::::It isn't really relevant here but actually I ''didn't'' expect the RfC to develop contrary to my preference. That was because the previous 4 months had indicated a consistent consensus opposing what the instigator of the RfC was proposing. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I don't actually have a particularly strong preference one way or the other on the issue at stake - I've simply consistently observed during November and December that the consensus was against Zefr, which seemed to me to be a simple matter of fact based on the various talk page threads from August to December. ] (]) 23:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *On matters concerning the Breyers article, Axad12 has been an uncollaborative, disruptive, and hostile editor ] with {{u|Graywalls}}, who is the main proponent over months of using the slur, "antifreeze", to describe a minor GRAS ingredient that is the subject of the current RfC. Both users have ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate for a factual, well-sourced article. | |||
| ::: ''"a ] of someone created just to argue here"'' I don't believe User:Not_here_anymore is a sock, but a former editor who created the account to say what he thought about this issue. ] (]) 14:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Indeed, he , and . Mind you, NHA had been making unsubstantiated socking allegations too. So many accusations, and not one SPI filing to date. Hmmm. --] (]) 16:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Having never contributed a sentence or source to the Breyers article, Axad12 has blatantly reverted simple, sourced edits claiming a false consensus which has no good source to support the propylene glycol/"antifreeze" claim and no evidence of consensus input by other editors over the last many weeks. An evolving consensus on the RfC is to exclude mention of propylene glycol as undue. | |||
| : With all due respect, Noinformation, I think you're widely missing the core issue here. This hasn't been a content dispute for a long time. It's been long-established that Strangesad is pushing fringe views and trying to edit against consensus. Therefore, this is a user conduct issue that should be handled here or, as a last resort, at ArbCom. --] ] 15:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't necessarily disagree with your premise but I take issue with your conclusion. Strangesad is an editor with less than ] attempting to work on a page that elicits strong emotions, and aside from boilerplates it doesn't seem as though anyone has respectfully attempted to work this issue out in a non-aversarial manner. I'm not saying that Strangesad will not eventually be topic banned; it very well may be the case that she can't edit on these pages constructively - but the only way to find out is to attempt a real discussion on the subject. I'm honestly astonished that the experienced editors involved in this dispute are actually of the position that discussion on Misplaced Pages need not take place. Aside from content ground, what is the downside to following proper procedure by simply having the issue evaluated at DRN? ANI will still be here in two weeks if DRN fails and Strangesad continues arguing. Hell, this could have at least been posted to ]! What is the argument against trying to work collaboratively? It is difficult to interpret this, as an outsider, as something aside from an attempt to silence discussion to maintain the status quo (not from you of course, as my understanding is that you are uninvolved in the content dispute). ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 20:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::In general, all the points you make are valid, even very good. That is why nobody objected to a discussion when the couple Strangesad-Humanpublic (along with various now-exposed socks) first turned up. The problem is the two of them have some kind of Wiki-record in ] and dismiss any argument. As I've already said, we've been through this since December. What Strangesad and Humanpublic are pushing is an extreme fringe POV. That is not unusual. There are editors denying the Holocaust, denying the moon landings, convinced about Bigfoot's existence etc. Strangesad and Humanpublic's fringe POV is no different. It is a fringe idea dismissed by any academic in any field related to the subject who has looked into it. As you say, the topic of Jesus elicits strong emotions, and there are literally thousands of aspects on which experts don't agree. This simply isn't one of them, this is one of the very few aspects on which every academic agree. Just as we don't insert fringe theories about the Holocaust or the moon landings when dismissed by all experts, I don't see the need to do it here either. Please read ] and ]. That is not to say the question should be buried. Things may change, there may be academics who will challenge this aspect as well and present new evidence. Then we should of course take that into account. When Strangesad and Humanpublic first appeared, nobody told them to get lost, instead they were invited to present sources for the claims they wanted to insert. It was only after a long period of the two of them refusing to hear contradicting arguments, and refusing to accept that their view is contrary to that of all experts, that people started finding the pair (along with the socks, we did not know about the socks at the time) a bit disrupting as they never brought the discussion forward. From there, it just went downhill with increasing sockpuppetry, personal attacks, harassment, and more time spent at these boards than at any articles. ] (]) 21:54, 14 August 2013 (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. | |||
| I also think this should go to Dispute Resolution. At this point, there are too many diffs covering too many months of activity for parties who are not involved in the article editing to sort through. It may be a minority opinion, but I'm most concerned about present behavior (the past two weeks), than edits someone did April, especially if they were a new account and, unfortunately, dove into one of the most contentious articles on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| '''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. | |||
| The point that sticks in my head is ]...Strangesad was bold, most of her edits were reverted and the next step was to discuss. But her original charge, and the reason that this case was even opened, was that her Talk Page comments were being deleted or collapsed. If this discussion had been talked out on the Talk Page, we probably wouldn't be here in ANI. | |||
| *'''Support'''. ] (]) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| What I sense is that there are a lot of editors who, through a painstaking process, have created this article that they can more or less live with. Then, a new editor arrives, makes some edits, is reverted, comes to the Talk Page and the regulars are all talked out. These debates have gone on for years and it's a pain to go over it all again with every new editor (hence, I imagine, the FAQS). | |||
| **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) | |||
| I haven't looked at all of the diffs but gathering from the response, Strangesad probably made some bad edits (maybe ''really'' bad edits). But if an editor whose edits are reverted comes to a Talk Page and asks why, there should be a discussion, even if that discussion has been going on for 12 years. So, my question is, how did the regular editors deal with Strangesad's questions on the Talk Page? This is what a Dispute Resolution editor can get into. | |||
| *:Graywalls, I think you were correct to recommend an RFC. Hopefully the RFC will reach a consensus. ] (]) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'd just like to echo that sentiment. I'm all in favour of consensus. | |||
| *::My position on this article hasn't been motivated by a partisan view on Propylene Glycol but has simply been in relation to serving the consensus position as it stood at the time. That is the approach I hope I adopt on all Misplaced Pages articles. If the consensus alters on this article (as seems likely) then I'll adopt the same approach in relation to serving the ''new'' consensus. | |||
| *::My primary area of interest on this website is COI issues. I'm simply not interested in content disputes or in pushing any kind of POV on Misplaced Pages. I'm not the sort of user who flagrantly disregards a newly emerging consensus by editing contrary to the outcome of an RfC. | |||
| *::I'd welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that going forwards (i.e. without an article ban). ] (]) 06:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::* The mention by Graywalls for an RfC on 27 Dec had no influence on the one existing. As an uncomplicated process, an editor truly sincere in having community input would have posed a simple objective question. Graywalls, why didn't you take 5 minutes and create the RfC question you wanted? What would have been your RfC question? | |||
| *::Specifically for propylene glycol (you are still defending its use in the article by - see comments about this book in the RfC): {{tq|what do you believe propylene glycol does in a frozen dessert and what would you prefer the article to say about propylene glycol? I have asked for this clarification on the talk page many times and in the DRN, but you ignored the opportunity to collaborate and clarify.}} | |||
| *:: | |||
| *::Your reverts in article history and combative talk page behavior over months revealed a persistent intent to disparage the Breyers article, focus on the "antifreeze" slur (mainly promoting ), and restore a skeletal version having no sources more recent than 2018 , after That version also has misinformation under the section 'Ice cream', falsely stating that Breyers changed their ice cream ingredients by using other additives, which in fact, were used to evolve a new category of frozen desserts not intended to be ice cream. I believe you know this, but you and Axad12 persisted to favor misinformation for the article. | |||
| *::The RfC I provided came from steps in the lead of ]: 1) generally poor talk page progress, where one editor seeking facts verified by current sources was opposed by Graywalls, Adax12, and {{u|NutmegCoffeeTea}}, all defending a version including "antifreeze"; 2) an RSN post where Graywalls argued that a web link by the Seattle PI made the Motley Fool article an RS; 3) for which Graywalls, Axad12, and NutmegCoffeeTea abstained from collaboration to improve the article; 4) , which appears to be <u>willfully ignored</u> by Axad12 and Graywalls, who responded only with hostility and defiance against the facts; 5) seeking third opinions from admins, first by BD2412 (talk page on 29-30 Nov) and by , resulting in verbose trolling by these two users. Axad12's response on 27 Dec was to . | |||
| *::Axad12 and Graywalls should be ABANNED from the Breyers article for exhibiting 1) hostility on the talk page to good faith proposals for making the article better, and 2) persistence to perpetuate misinformation on propylene glycol. Simply, what history shows that either editor has tried to improve the Breyers article? Both users meet most of the definitions of ] for the article, its talk page, and the RfC. ] (]) 18:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Zefr, I've already indicated on several occasions that I welcome and support the developing new consensus. Graywalls has made a similar comment below. That being the case, I don't really see what purpose an article ban would be intended to serve. | |||
| *:::Admittedly there has been some quite heated disagreement over recent months, but it seems that we all now have the robust talkpage consensus that we were hoping for in one way or another and that all three of us are happy to move forward in support of that consensus. | |||
| *:::You were clearly in the minority for quite a long time and I can appreciate that you found that experience frustrating. However, to continue to make allegations above of bad faith, trolling, tagteaming, etc. about those who constituted the valid majority for several months is just an attempt to perpetuate strife on an issue which is now, as far as I can see, satisfactorily resolved. ] (]) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Filed under: sometimes you hurt articles by treating COI editors as the enemy. The problem here is two users who should really know better edit-warring over the course of ''months'' to reinstate TikTok diet influencer silliness into a Misplaced Pages article, repeatedly reinstating ] content (implicitly, if not explicitly). We currently treat a little "avoid antifreeze" bubble in a diet book (which includes Breyers in a list of brands) and a book published by one of RFK Jr's antivax publishers as ] for including the insinuation that an FDA-approved and much-conspiratorialized additive is harmful. They've been repeatedly removed, but two editors keep putting them back, whether because of a misunderstanding of ]/] or in pursuit of COI purification. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I take your point but I think you're misjudging the situation somewhat. Prior to the opening of the current RfC it was approximately 6 or 7 users in favour of inclusion vs 3 or 4 favouring exclusion. I only reverted the attempts at exclusion because those attempts were contrary to the talk page consensus. | |||
| *:I'm perfectly open to the suggestion that that consensus position was wrong but the simple fact of the matter was that there was ''at that time'' no consensus in favour of exclusion. | |||
| *:It has only been in the last couple of days that the requesting editor has been able to demonstrate a consensus in favour of exclusion. And that's great, I have no problem with that at all. In fact I welcome it. | |||
| *:My understanding is that editors wishing to make changes to article text should not do so if there is a consensus against what they are trying to do, and that under such circumstances an edit can be (indeed ''should be'') reverted. If I'm mistaken on that score then I'm perfectly happy to take instruction. However, I really want to stress that my actions were based primarily upon that reasoning and were made in good faith. ] (]) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@], you should not revert something because other editors want it to be reverted. You should only make content changes that you personally support. This is necessary for BRD to work. See ] for an explanation of why. ] (]) 17:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{re|Rhododendrites}}, the antifreeze matter is ] since I believe everyone's pretty much agreed it doesn't need to be in there. Zefr has taken issues with me, Axad12, NutMegCoffee and possibly some others. They've tried to get the article "set in place" to their preferred version, but that was declined admin {{u|Daniel Case}} who determined it to be content dispute ]. Zefr inferring alleging I was <s>"uncooperative"</s> <u>not collaborating/cooperating in the way that he was hoping</u> in DR, but I don't believe that to be so. <u>There was nothing intentional on my part to not cooperate.</u> I'll see if {{re|Robert McClenon}} would like to share their observation on that since they closed the dispute. | |||
| *:https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Breyers/Archive_2#c-Rusalkii-20240814014600-Inkian_Jason-20240801145900 here's another uninvolved editoring erring on the side of inclusion. A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus. Reading through the current plus the archived discussions, up until the RfC, the general consensus is in support of having PG mention and Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus. As I mentioned, if consensus changes with the RfC, I'm not opposed to going with that. ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (adjusted ] (]) 13:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)) | |||
| *::For the record, I never stated the word "uncooperative" at DRN or the Breyers talk page, but rather "non-collaborative", as discussed in the thread with Robert McClenon below. | |||
| *::"Set in place to their preferred version" and "Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus" should be translated to using "facts verified by reliable sources", which is the simple goal for the Breyers article that Graywalls has obstructed over months. | |||
| *::It's incredible that Graywalls says even today above, knowing the comments on the RfC and months of being presented with facts and sources about why propylene glycol is safely used in thousands of manufactured foods: ''"A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus."'' | |||
| *::Here's your chance to tell everyone: | |||
| *::Why do you feel propylene glycol was used in Breyers frozen desserts (in 2013, not since)? What concern do you have about it, and what government or scientific source says it's unsafe in the amounts regulated by federal laws? Give a sentence here that you think meets consensus and uses a reliable source. ] (]) 01:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::You're right, you did not use that specific word. I've corrected my response due to wording. ] (]) 13:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===A Non-Mediator's Statement=== | |||
| There very well may have been some disruptive behavior here. But people tend to act out when no one listens or responds to them. That's not an excuse, it's just human behavior. On ANI, I often see a quick rush to ban/block which is a way for frustrated people to silence someone who is irritating them (whether intentionally or unintentionally). It's a knee-jerk reaction and I think in this situation, the parties would be better served by having DR sort through all of the claims and counterclaims and propose a scenario where the parties can work better together. ] (]) 21:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I am not entirely sure why ] has pinged me about this dispute, saying that I "closed this dispute". The accuracy of the statement that I "closed this dispute" depends on what is meant by "this dispute". | |||
| :'''False premise:''' Strangesad is not a "new editor". She has been involved in the Jesus existence "debate" for a while. Deleting , and acknowledging that the paragraph was constructed with consensus, is '''not bold'''. It's disruptive fringe-view-pushing and ]. That along with deleting other people's comments are unacceptable behavior.--] (]) 00:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::443 edits since:2012-10-26 - I personally draw the line at 500 but you're welcome to draw it where you'd like. As for the rest, a DRN would certainly sort out whether or not it's true. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :@Noformation and Newjerseyliz: It's actually refreshing to read your points here—they are those of editors who have not yet been worn down by the tendentious rhetoric of editors like Strangesad. This is exactly how they work. There is nothing overtly egregious about her behavior on casual glance, but you have to take a long view and see what effect she has on other editors over time. There are always fresh editors to appear and act as apologists every time she lands at ANI because they only see a cross-section. I encourage you to watchlist and babysit an article like ] that editors like Strangesad target for a month or so, and you will change your tune. --] ] 00:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::LB, my singular point is that if what you're saying is true and if a DRN is filed and consensus is upheld then that's all you have to point to the next time Strangesad edits against the supposed consensus. You're basically admitting that unless one has followed her edits for a while it's hard to see the overall problem, so how do you expect me to support a topic ban when you fully understand why I can't see the overall problem? And again, why is everyone involved so against a discussion at DRN? What could possibly go wrong if everyone here is correct on both the conduct and content issues? If the involved editors would put as much time into a DRN as they are into arguing that one shouldn't take place then the case would be half way finished by now. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Dispute resolution is useless for handling civil POV pushing—since a case can be made that religion is nonsense and that Jesus never existed, arguing about that at DR would result in a pointless sequence of "my source is better than your source" exchanges. The problem is that Strangesad is actively pushing the view that Christianity is bogus, and that kind of editing is a misuse of Misplaced Pages. For example, in {{diff|Resurrection of Jesus|prev|538634838|this edit}} Strangesad adds "Resurrection is impossible..." to the lead of ] where the ''editor'' argues that since three references define death as irreversible, it follows that resurrection is impossible. Many edits of that nature have occurred since February. Strangesad is on a campaign to make sure that as many articles as possible convey the message that Christianity is bogus. It's fine to present the views of notables like ], but it is not fine to use Misplaced Pages for POV pushing—the encyclopedia needs to reflect standard scholarship and ANI needs to protect editors who follow that principle. A topic ban of Strangesad should be enforced until a case is made that they have learned what ] means. ] (]) 01:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I closed the ] thread, ], on 12 December. I obviously didn't resolve a dispute that has been continuing for another three weeks, and the claim that I closed the dispute looks to me like an attempt to confuse the jury. ] had opened the DRN thread on 3 December, complaining about the insertion of the word ] and of the mention of ]. I was not entirely sure beyond the mention of ] what the issues were. There were questions about what the procedure was for handling a ] dispute; I think that Zefr was said to be the one. There was a long question that may have been about whether ] is voluntary; DRN is voluntary. Then Zefr said that the case could be withdrawn because no one else was commenting. The disputants other than Zefr never did say exactly what the article content issues were, perhaps because they didn't want to discuss article content, and were not required to discuss article content. If anyone is implying that I resolved or settled anything, I have no idea what it was. | |||
| Let's come back to Earth. My view of how to improve the Jesus article can be found at the FAC . My view is not that the article should say "Jesus never existed." I don't think Jesus never existed. I've said this many times (including in the FAC). | |||
| 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) | |||
| My views concern neutrality. One example I give at the FAC concerns the source Bart Ehrman. My critics accept him as reliable. He states "bona fide scholars" question the existence of Jesus, and that their arguments are intelligent and well-informed. Ehrman is used as a source in the article, but those particular comments are not allowed Indeed, attempting to add them is used as an example of my POV-pushing anti-Christian agenda etc. | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| It is true Ehrman also says virtually all scholars agree Jesus existed. The explanation of the contradiction is that he is writing a popular book, and the language isn't rigorous. Digging deeper into his book reveals that the "virtually all" consensus consists of New Testament professors (many of whom are ministers) and religious studies professors. Whereas, when he says there are bona fide scholars who disagree, he is using a broader definition of scholar. To me this is relevant, and I think it misrepresents the source to hide this point in the article. | |||
| ::Was that purposely mis-stated to be provocative and mislead the discussion here? | |||
| ::I said you were <u>non-collaborative</u>, which describes your behavior throughout your editing history on the Breyers article, its talk page, and the DRN. You refused collaboration at DRN, which is the whole point of the process. DRN FAQ: ''"refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building."'' | |||
| ::You were notified about the , and you posted a general notice about it on the , so you were aware of the process, but ignored it. Meanwhile, your editing history over 6-12 Dec shows dozens of edits, | |||
| ::You made no attempt to collaborate at DRN, posting only one off-topic | |||
| ::I requested closure of the DRN on 12 Dec due to non-participation by you and the others. On 13 Dec, . cc: {{u|Robert McClenon}}. ] (]) 00:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====A Possibly Requested Detail==== | |||
| Okay. If the question is specifically whether ] was uncooperative at ], then I can state that they were not uncooperative and did not obstruct or disrupt DRN. Graywalls took very little part in the DRN proceeding before I closed it. They were not required to take part, although they say that they would have made a statement if the case had stayed open a little longer. The antagonism that I saw was between ] and ], and I collapsed an exchange between them. I did not read what I am told were long previous discussions, because I expect the disputants at DRN to begin by telling me concisely what each of them wants to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Graywalls was not uncooperative at DRN. | |||
| ] (]) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay. ] is making a slightly different statement, that ] did not ] at DRN. That is correct. And I noted above that their mention that I had closed the dispute depended on what was meant by the "dispute". and looked like an attempt to confuse the jury. ] (]) 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Zefr did not use the word uncooperative although did say uncollaborative and I used the two interchangeably in my ping. I did participate in it ]. I haven't participated in DRN until that point, so I wasn't really sure how it worked. ] (]) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===The actual content that led to this dispute=== | |||
| Two month ago, ] included this shockingly bad content: {{tpq|As of 2014, some flavors of Breyer's ice cream contains propylene glycol as an additive. Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze and it is clear fluid made by "treating propylene with chlorinated water to form the chlorohydrin, which is then converted to the glycol, an alcohol, by treating it with a sodium carbonate solution." Propylene glycol is formulated into Breyer's fat-free and Carb Smart ice cream to make it easier to scoop.}} The notion that an article about an ice cream company should include a detailed description of how a ] food additive is manufactured is bizarre enough, as is the cherrypicked and glaringly misleading assertion about "antifreeze", but the reference used to support the Breyers claim was a book called ''Eat It to Beat It!: Banish Belly Fat-and Take Back Your Health-While Eating the Brand-Name Foods You Love!'' written by a quack/crank diet profiteer named David Zinczenko. I invite any editor to take a search engine look at Zinczenko's body of work, and come away with the conclusion that his writings are anything other than fringe and unreliable. Despite the glaringly obviously non-neutral and tendentious problems with this shockingly bad content, editors including most prominently {{u|Graywalls}} and {{u|Axad12}} dug in their heels, fighting a reargard action for nearly two months, determined to make this mundane routine ice cream company look as bad as possible. Their self-justification seems to be that big bad corporations have ''no right whatsover'' to try to remove atrociously bad content about their products from Misplaced Pages, and that any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association. I am not an advocate for corporations ''per se'', but I am an advocate for corporations being treated ] like all other topics, rather with disdain and contempt, which was the case here, as I see it. I do not know what the best outcome is here, but I certainly encourage these two editors to refrain from any other unjustified and poorly referenced anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end. ] (]) 07:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :A striking and shocking aspect of this sordid situation is that two editors, {{u|Graywalls}} and {{u|Axad12}} were able to concoct a false "consensus" supporting various versions of this garbage content. And then when another editor tried to start a RFC about the appallingly bad content, {{u|Axad12}} tried over and over and over again to stop the RFC and defend the atrocious content rather than correcting it, aided and abetted by {{u|Graywalls}}. When the RFC actually went live, it soon became clear that many editors agreed that the content these two editors advocated for was utterly inappropriate. ] (]) 08:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Cullen, | |||
| :As per my comments above, my motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time. I did not {{tq|concoct}} that consensus, at least 5 users other than me were against excluding the material. | |||
| :I have never had any particularly strong opinion one way or the other on the content issue and I try as best as I can not to get involved in content disputes. I have not {{tq|dug in heels}} or attempted to promote any kind of fringe opinion and nor have I engaged in {{tq|anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end}}. | |||
| :Similarly I do not hold the view that {{tq|any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association}}, or any opinion even vaguely resembling that view. On the contrary, I have often implemented COI edit requests on behalf of corporations or have pointed out to corporate employees how such requests would need to be amended to conform with sourcing or other requirements. Repeatedly engaging in that activity would presumably make me very {{tq|evil}} indeed, in my own eyes, if I held the view that you attribute to me. | |||
| :I reverted the Breyer edits in good faith because there was no consensus in favour of them. If I was incorrect on a point of policy in that regard then fair enough, however please do not attempt to attribute to me sentiments which I do not harbour. | |||
| :Also, I did not attempt to stop the RfC {{tq|over and over and over again}}. I removed the tag twice, then requested guidance from administrators and immediately replaced the tag when requested to do so. The tag was removed, in all, for a matter of minutes and had no meaningful impact on the progress of the RfC. I have accepted elsewhere that I now appreciate that the basis on which I removed the tag was inappropriate. I have also stated that {{tq|From my standpoint wasn't a process that I was familiar with - but I can see from the many excellent contributions here that this is the best way of resolving content disputes}}. I have also stated that I welcome and support the new consensus. ] (]) 08:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , {{u|Axad12}}, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. ] (]) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I {{tq|obviously dislike}} Breyers or (their parent company) Unilever, or indeed that I consider either to be {{tq|evil}}? | |||
| :::To the best of my recollection, I've only ever made 3 mainspace edits to the Breyers article - each time on the stated basis in the edit summary that the edit I was reverting was contrary to consensus. | |||
| :::I've re-read the extensive talk page discussions in recent days and I can only see that I ever commented on the COI angle and the nature of the consensus. Those comments were based on my understanding of policy at the time. I do not see {{tq|anti-corporate diatribes}} or evidence that I {{tq|obviously dislike}} Breyers or Unilever. | |||
| :::Indeed, I do not hold any particularly strong views on Breyers, Unilever or any other corporations. ] (]) 09:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I said, {{u|Axad12}}, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to ] to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. ] (]) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My activity on that talk page has solely been in relation to pointing out what I felt (rightly or wrongly) was a valid COI concern and observing that from Aug to Dec there has never been a consensus in favour of exclusion. | |||
| :::::Anything beyond that is simply you attributing motives that do not exist. | |||
| :::::I have never stated or implied that {{tq|a corporation does not deserve neutrality}} and nor do I hold such a view. | |||
| :::::I happily admit that I'm quite animated and enthusiastic about COI issues and reverting edits which appear to be contrary to consensus. With the benefit of hindsight probably I should have let go of those issues at an earlier stage and vacated the field for those who actually had an appetite to argue on content grounds. | |||
| :::::I'd also point out that for a significant part of the last 2 months I had actually unsubscribed from the relevant talkpage threads and only ended up getting involved again due to being summoned to the Dispute Resolution thread. If I had been {{tq|determined over the last two months to maintain various versions of biased non-neutral content}} then hopefully it stands to reason that I would not have unsubscribed in that way - thus resulting in a situation where I was actually completely unaware of much of the talkpage and mainspace activity over the period that you refer to. ] (]) 10:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your {{tq|motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time}}. You are also obligated to ''actually'' look at the disputed content and the sources supporting it. Why didn't you do that? Why were you unable to see what multiple editors in the RfC are commenting about? You shouldn't just blindly revert content like that, without taking a look for yourself to see if the complaint about the disputed content has any merit, like it being reliably sourced and due for inclusion.]] 10:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That's a very fair question. | |||
| :::::::The answer is that I was inclined to believe the opinions of editors much more experienced than myself who were against exclusion, particularly the editor who turned down the original COI edit request (whose work on COI edit requests I have the greatest of respect for). | |||
| :::::::User Whatamidoing has already pointed out above that my error lay in accepting those users' opinions. I agree with Whatamidoing's observation there. | |||
| :::::::I can only say that what I did was done in good faith based on my understanding of policy at the time. I now know where I erred (in several different ways) and I am glad to have received instruction in that regard. | |||
| :::::::However, I really cannot accept the repeated suggestion that I vindictively masterminded a long anti-corporate campaign to keep bad material in an article. That suggestion is fundamentally not true. ] (]) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been.]] 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yes, I entirely accept that. | |||
| :::::::::For clarity, when I said {{tq|my understanding of policy at the time}} I meant ''my understanding of policy'' at the time - I wasn't trying to suggest that the policy has changed since I made those edits. | |||
| :::::::::What I am saying is that those edits were not made with malice, they were made because I accepted the opinions of other users more experienced than myself, opinions which I now know that I ought to have questioned. ] (]) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — ] (]) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::As I said earlier in this thread, I am 100% supportive of the new consensus in favour of excluding the previously disputed material. | |||
| :::::::::::Virtually all of my time on Misplaced Pages is spent at COIN and dealing with COI edit requests. I'm not the sort of user who spends their time edit warring over POV fringe material and generally being disruptive. | |||
| :::::::::::So, the last thing I would ever do is attempt to reinstall material where a very robust consensus at RfC has indicated that it should be excluded. | |||
| :::::::::::I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that I can be trusted in that regard. ] (]) 12:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Judgement isn't about following consensus, it’s about making considered decisions. — ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Yes, quite so. I have acknowledged my error in that regard in my first response to Isaidnoway, above, re: the very useful input I received from Whatamidoing. ] (]) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Axad, if I read what you wrote correctly, and please correct me if I misunderstand: ''I will stay away from that article because I support the current consensus''. My concern is what if consensus was to shift on that article? ] ] 17:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Apologies if my earlier response was unclear. My point was that I have absolutely no intention of edit warring over the previously disputed material (or any other material) so I don't see what purpose it would serve to ban me from the article. | |||
| :::::::::::::I have only ever made (to the best of my knowledge) 3 previous edits to the article (1 in November and 2 in December?). These were all on the basis of a misunderstanding on a point of policy which has been pointed out to me above and which I have happily acknowledged and accepted. The issue at stake was not that I harbour any partisan view in relation to the content dispute, it was that I edited to reflect the views of other editors whose opinions I respected on the matter in question. | |||
| :::::::::::::I do not see any reason for the community to anticipate that I would made a similar misunderstanding of policy going forwards. | |||
| :::::::::::::Hopefully this clarifies... ] (]) 17:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been expecting something to happen around ], whom I ran into several months ago during a ]. What I noticed back in October was that Axad12 seemed to be ''clerking the noticeboard'', making prosecutorial noises, and sometimes unsupported accusations (ex: {{tq|...the existence of COI seems quite clear...}} , {{tq|...in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest...}} , {{tq|As I said, the fact that there was a significant undeclared conflict of interest in relation to editing on Paralympic Australia-related articles was demonstrated some years ago.}} ) towards what they thought of as COI editors (this was about whether ] had failed to adequately announce their conflict with Paralympic Australia, where they've been openly helping as a volunteer on our community's behalf for many years, and after they had just made an ]). I often find such clerking of noticeboards by relatively unseasoned users to be troublesome; Axad12 has 490 edits at COIN, about 12% of their total 3801 edits (but about a third of the roughly 1500 edits total on COIN since September). If you use a hammer all day, you might begin to think that all objects are potentially nails. ] (]) 12:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Rereading the discussion this morning 90 days later, it reads worse than I made it sound above. An uninvolved admin and chastised Axad12 in that close. The OP asked the thread closure be reversed, so the close comments were moved down to the end of the thread. ] (]) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think it would be a good idea for {{u|Axad12}} to take a break from ] and associated matters and concentrate on other areas of Misplaced Pages for a few months. I was going to use a cliché here, but I see BusterD's already used it in the last sentence of the post before last, so won't. ] (]) 14:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Only so many ways to screw in a lightbulb. ] (]) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In fairness, the overwhelming majority of my posts at COIN over the last year or so have been simple helpful contributions. The two matters discussed above were atypical and in both cases I've taken on board the advice I was given. | |||
| :::::If (per the figures above) I've been making about a third of all the contributions at COIN over that period then my behaviour would have been reported here long ago if I was either disruptive or incompetent. | |||
| :::::That said, I won't deny that I've been seriously considering retiring from Misplaced Pages over the last two months. The only reason I've not done so is because other users have specifically encouraged me to carry on because they value my work at COIN and on COI issues generally. | |||
| :::::All I can say is that what I have done, I have done in good faith and when I have occasionally erred I have learned lessons. I have acknowledged above that I've made mistakes and I'm grateful to those who have given me advice. ] (]) 15:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You've been reported here now. Over stuff that's current, and applicable. In that matter, you seemed to believe your expertise in COI matters allows you to decide what constitutes a valid RFC. That seems like a problem to me. I'm providing evidence on related behavioral matters. Having made one third of all recent edits on a noticeboard ''is not the high achievement you might think it is''. Stay or retire, but learn to better assume good faith here, even when dealing with COI contributors. Most accounts are fine. You've been working in a narrow area where you deal with many bad faith users. I can understand why that might wear on any editor. The proof will be if you can incorporate these valid complaints into your future action. ] (]) 16:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Buster, I know that we've had crossed words in the past so I'm grateful for your understanding and your measured response above. Yes, I deal with many bad faith users and yes it does wear on me sometimes. | |||
| :::::::I don't claim any great expertise in COI matters but I do have the time to dedicate to the project and I've picked up a decent awareness of the methods that can be used to detect and prevent UPE/PROMO etc activity. | |||
| :::::::I believe that in the past when I've been given advice on points of policy I've taken that advice on board and would hope to continue to do so in the future. ] (]) 17:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This comment is not about you, but you might be interested in it: I've been thinking for years that a rotating duty system might be helpful. Of course we're all ], but we might be less stressed, and get more representative results, if we each spent a week at ANI and a month at RSN and a week at CCI each year than if one editor spends all year at ANI and another spends all year at RSN (and nobody is at CCI – anyone who is looking for an opportunity to deal with really serious problems should please consider spending some time at ]. The few regulars there will be so grateful, and who knows? You might find that you like it). ] (]) 18:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I do think that it's worth zooming out and looking at the article as a whole. Comparing the version from to the makes it obvious that the tone of the article has become vastly more promotional, with much more focus on glowy feel-good aspects that are only mentioned in lower-quality sources (the story about the original creator hand-churning it?) And the ''context'' of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) to the weird {{tq|In 2013, Breyers introduced frozen desserts made with food additives (section above) that were intended to create smooth, low-calorie products. However, the new desserts evoked complaints by some consumers who were accustomed to the traditional "all-natural" Breyers ice cream.}}, which 100% reads like marketing-speak (downplaying the reaction by making it sound like it's just that people loved the old version ''so much''. In fact, the current version doesn't mention Breyer's cost-cutting measures at all, even though it's a massive aspect of coverage.) That doesn't necessarily justify the version above, but it's important to remember that this was originally a one-word mention in a larger list - {{tq|Following similar practices by several of their competitors, Breyers' list of ingredients has expanded to include thickeners, low-cost sweeteners, food coloring and low-cost additives — including natural additives such as tara gum and carob bean gum; artificial additives such as maltodextrin and propylene glycol; and common artificially separated and extracted ingredients such as corn syrup, whey, and others}}, the longstanding wording, is not unreasonable and doesn't really imply that there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol, just that it's an additive. I think the context of that larger shift to a much more promotional tone to the article is significant (and looking over talk, most of the actual dispute has focused on that.) --] (]) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree that the longstanding wording doesn't really imply there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol. But the doesn't even mention "maltodextrin and propylene glycol", that I can find, so those two particular additives were not even verifiable at the time. And then propylene glycol was removed, and when it was as "a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze", was really when this dispute seem to take a turn for the worse to keep this content in the article.]] 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@], about this {{xt|And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources)}} – I don't know what other sources say, but the ''cited'' sources don't say that at all. The cited sources are both from Canadian dairy farmers' marketing associations, saying that their product is good and costs more than imported oils, but doesn't actually ] a claim that Breyers uses imported oils, or that Breyers has done anything to cut their costs. ] (]) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::(As this is strictly a question of content, please consider replying at ] instead of here.) ] (]) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{re|Aquillion|WhatamIdoing|Isaidnoway}} would you all mind if I copy over the thread, starting at Aquillion's "I do think that...." over to Breyer's talk? ] (]) 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I don't mind, but my contribution to this thread is relatively minor. ] (]) 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Thanks, and a Diddly Question==== | |||
| I would like to thank ] for providing the background and content information. I also have a possibly minor question for ]. They edit-warred to try to stop the RFC on the content, and said that there was an {{tq|exceptionally serious abuse}} of the ] process. I may not have done enough background research, but I don't see where they have identified who has been the paid editor or undisclosed paid editor, or what the ] content is. If there has been paid editing, who has done it, and have they been dealt with? ] (]) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Robert, probably the best single overview of the COI issue is given in this post . | |||
| Holding this position, even if wrong, does not mean I am (as Johnuniq puts it) "actively pushing the view that Christianity is bogus." It entails no position on the validity of Christianity at all. | |||
| :My impression at the time of the events, and subsequently, was that the activity was designed to distort the COI edit request process. I still feel that what happened re: the COI edit requests was irregular but I note that no other user seems to have supported me in that regard so I've not taken the matter any further. Similarly, while I felt that those events had a bearing on the RfC I now accept that the RfC relates solely to the content matter specifically under discussion. ] (]) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I find your characterization of events inaccurate. "we have the resubmission of the request to remove the disputed material in a COI edit request thread here " | |||
| ::But this was not a resubmission. was to remove a list of ingredients (including propylene glycol) which was sourced to a blog and which the COI editor says is outdated and doesn't reflect current ingredients. Meanwhile, the link you give as an example of "resubmission" was the COI editor requesting the removal of . Both requests involve propylene glycol, but they are clearly separate requests concerning separate content. | |||
| ::We want COI editors to propose changes to talk pages. The fact that this COI editor, apparently frustrated by a lack of responses to their requests went to the to request someone look at their edits, and then went to an active participant of said Wikiproject and requested they look at their requests, is not suspicious or abnormal. And I think it's highly inappropriate how Axad12 argued at length on the talk page that User:Zefr was "cultivated" by the COI editor "to do their bidding". I support other editors in recommending Axad12 take a break from COI issues. ] (]) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd just like to stress here that I only linked to my post above because Robert McClenon asked for the background to the COI element. I was not trying to re-open that issue or to request that any action be taken on that issue. I have already accepted that there is absolutely no support for the position I adopted there. ] (]) 04:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::This doesn't answer my question. The link is to a conversation between ], ], and administrator ]. The links from that conversation show that there is antagonism between Axad12 and Graywalls on the one hand and ] on the other hand. They show that there is discussion of ], but they show no direct evidence of ] editing by any editor. They don't answer who is said to be a paid editor making edit requests, aside from the fact that paid editors are supposed to make edit requests rather than editing directly, so I am still not sure what the issue is. I haven't seen any evidence of abuse, let alone of {{tq|exceptionally serious abuse}} that warranted edit-warring to prevent an RFC. ] (]) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The paid editor is ] who is open and transparent about their COI. The edit request which began this episode was when Inkian Jason ] where they pinged ] about having uploaded a photo of the company's logo and asking if they would be willing to add it to the article. Secondary to that they also asked about the appropriateness of the recently added propylene glycol content. The COI issues centered around whether Inkian Jason "cultivated" Zefr by pinging him to remove the added propylene glycol text after they had ] about the various ingredients used in the ice cream (which included propylene glycol). ] (]) 05:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal 2: Article Ban of Axad12 from Breyers=== | |||
| All of the accusations here have this character. The article misrepresents what sources say, and its selection of sources is dominated by ministers, priests, and publishing imprints with a stated mission of promoting Jesus. I question whether the sourcing is accurate or neutral, and am immediately accused of being anti-Christian. ] (]) 06:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| (Proposal 1 has been lost up in the early postings.) I propose that ] be ] from ] and ] for six months. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Robert, I believe I have acknowledged and accepted my various errors in some detail above. I would be grateful for the opportunity to take on board and apply the very valuable input I have received from various more experienced users over the course of this thread. I'd therefore suggest a counter-proposal, that I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr and refrain from making any future comment on the matters under discussion in this thread (once this thread is complete). In addition, if I go back on any of those voluntary undertakings I would be happy for it to be upon pain of an indefinite site ban. ] (]) 04:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Axad12, I wonder what your intent is with your counterproposal. Robert McClenon has proposed an article ban for 6 months. Your counterproposal is, in effect, an indefinite ], an ] with Zefr, and a ] on the topic of propylene glycol in Byers, all without the usual escalating blocks for violations, instead jumping straight to an indef. While this would solve the issue, it's much more draconian. What's your reasoning for requesting harsher restrictions? ] (]) 04:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The purpose of the counter proposal was simply to indicate that I have only good intentions going forwards and I am happy to demonstrate those intentions upon pain of the strongest possible sanction. Evidently I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking, as I'm aware that eyes will understandably be upon me going forwards. | |||
| *:::As I've said before, I'm a good faith user and I'm amenable to taking instruction when I have erred. I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that without being subject to a formal ban. ] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I fail to see a distinction between what you proposed and a formal ban. Your proposal is on {{tq|q=y|pain of an indefinite site ban}}. "A rose by any other name" comes to mind here. Your voluntary adherence to the terms of the proposal would be indistinguishable from being compelled into adherence by threat of an indef. If you still want this course of action, fair enough, I just don't think it'll do what you're envisioning. ] (]) 05:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I really don't recommend that, Axad. Sure, take a break from that article if you want to. But it's really easy to forget about a dispute years later, or even for a company to change names and suddenly you're on that article without knowing it. ] (]) 04:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::For clarification, I would be happy to undertake voluntarily any measures that the community may suggest and upon pain of any sanction that the community may suggest. I believe that there is value to undertaking such measures voluntarily because it allows one to demonstrate that one can be trusted. | |||
| *:::Also just a brief note to say that in about an hour and a quarter's time I will have no internet access for the next 12-14 hours. Any lack of response during that period will simply be for that reason and not due to a wilful refusal to communicate. Hopefully I have indicated above that I have been happy to respond to all questions. | |||
| *:::No doubt matters will progress in my absence and I will find out my fate upon my return. ] (]) 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' as less stringent than what Axad has proposed above within this section, but still prevents further disruption. ] (]) 06:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' because {{u|Axad12}} seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. ] (]) 08:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. I also oppose Axad12's counter proposal. --] (]) 10:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Given Cullen328's comment. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN=== | |||
| :No one here is concerned with whether or not another editor is anti-Christian. What matters is whether an editor is consistently pushing a fringe view, and is causing disruption by repeated IDIDNTHEARTHAT deflections. If you are going to address my statement, please engage with it by responding to the diff. ] (]) 06:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Clerking at COIN seems to have given ] the idea that everyone whom they don't know is probably a paid editor, and something has given them the idea that they can identify "exceptionally serious abuse" without providing direct evidence. I propose that ] be ] from ] for two months. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Robert, just a brief note to say that I do not believe that {{tq|everyone whom don't know is probably a paid editor}}. The overwhelming majority of my contributions at COIN are simple constructive contributions and the matter described above is highly atypical. ] (]) 04:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' because {{u|Axad12}} seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. ] (]) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. --] (]) 10:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Given Cullen328's comment. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Complaint against ]== | |||
| :: It is really maddening the way Strangesad just says the same thing over and over. No many times you tell her that Michael Grant and Bart Ehrman are/were not priests or ministers of religion, she will then switch to saying "they wrote popular books" until the next time she says all the sources in the article are priests or ministers of religion. She fought for weeks to put "Resurrection is impossible" into the lead of the article ], just look at the talk page , disappeared for a while, then came back to battle over the Jesus article. I left her a message today - "The article Christ myth theory has been re-written with a full and neutral discussion of G A Wells,Ellegård, etc. Please have a look at it, I believe it should answer your concerns on this matter. The main Jesus article has a link to the Christ myth article. It would make the main article too long to go into the detail needed to explain it properly and explore the various views", she takes absolutely no notice or makes any response. I don't like to advocate for people to be banned or blocked but I do know something needs to be done to stop this, how anybody who edits in these areas is expected to stand this sort of thing all the time I do not know, no wonder some of the most valuable contributors have left.] (]) 06:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| *'''Refer to ArbCom'''. Clearly this is not a matter that DRN can ever hope to solve. ] (]) 12:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| | result = There is no merit to the report against GiantSnowman. There is a rough consensus against, or at the very least no consensus for action toward Footballnerd2007 based on the mentorship proposal put forth and accepted and no further action is needed here. ] ] 02:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Notice also how Strangesad rejects all the sources used in the section of the article she objects to but never specifies or suggests who she wants to use instead beyond demanding that the unnamed ""bona fide scholars" referred to by Ehrman be included, see the discussion at where I told her who, of contemporary scholars, he means by that, to wit Robert Price and Hermann Detering and suggested she find some quotes from them herself which could then be considered, but she does not even seem to read what people say to her and continues to insist that others find citations to her satisfaction from these "bona fide scholars" and revise the article to suit her.] (]) 13:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :ArbCom requires previous attempts at dispute resolution. None of the editors berating me have attempted a non-berating conversation. Indeed, the incident that began this thread was my attempt at the most basic kind of dispute-resolution: a conversation on the Talk page. FutureTrilliionaire, with the support of several editors here, shut that down. ] (]) 14:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{Notice|1=See ] below. |heading=This complaint has been withdrawn.}} | |||
| ::I had decided not to comment more on this (as I seriously think Strangesad utterly enjoys all the havoc she creates), but as I see that she is again playing the martyr game, I thought a small recap of the facts might be relevant. Strangesad laments that nobody has talked to her. That is a two-way street, Strangesad. Your first edit of topics related to Jesus consisted of deleting a well-respected sourced that displeased you . Your next edit consisted of deleting even more content . After that you spent a considerable time edit warring about inserting a claim nobody but you wanted, leading to you eventually being blocked for edit warring.. When you first came to the talk page , the very productive user whom you eventually managed to push away from Misplaced Pages with your constant harassment responded politely and tried to inform you about ] . So kindly avoid trying to portray yourself as the poor victim of anything. People responded politely to you at first, it was only after your repeated edit warring and ] that people eventually grew tired. Disruption is not only vandalizing a page once. That's easy to fix. It's users who refuse to listen for months, thereby wasting lots of time of other users, that are the most harmful to the project. And as I said, I'm quite sure creating chaos of this kind if one of Strangesad's main reasons to be here. She may be many things, but she isn't unintelligent so I cannot in good faith believe she did not understand ] or the principles of consensus already in February.] (]) 15:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <s> Good Morning, | |||
| :::The first diff in your comment is for an edit I made that was never reverted and is part of the current consensus. The rest of your comment is similar. ] (]) 18:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The Jesus article has now achieved FA status, and the FA reviewer who promoted the article has said to Strangesad "''it appeared to me when judging consensus, as it appeared to the other reviewers, that your idea of neutrality is to put in more information and sources to support a fringe theory, which is not what WP is about''" which is exactly what she does, along with myriad textbook examples of ], ], ],], etc., etc., etc. ] (]) 16:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Refer to arbcom''': My interactions with the editor in question leave me the impression that she is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push a certain point. My own request for suggestions of sources went unheeded twice, as if they were not there. Indeed, she went on a vector about how she does not believe the point of view she's fighting to have inserted in the article (see ). — ] (]) 06:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ** Yes, Crisco ''"My own request for suggestions of sources went unheeded twice, as if they were not there,''" I have had that same experience with Strangesad more often than I care to remember. During the discussion you refer to Strangesad says ''"I said, over and over.... I've said so about a million times....I've said this a million times....How many times does this need to be said?''" Indeed, indeed, she does repeat exactly the same things ad infinitum without heeding what others say to her. It needs to stop. Also in that discussion she makes the revealing comment ''"I don't care what the sources say."'' Could it be possible to devise a clearer statement of complete opposition to the entire basis of WP? ] (]) 13:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The opposite is true. Not caring what the sources say is a statement of complete compliance to the entire basis of WP. We care about whether they are reliable, not whether we agree them. You know this. You have chosen to misunderstand or misrepresent what I said. Then, when I point out that you haven't really listened to me, you will accuse me of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, beating a dead horse, etc. Crisco 1492 is a pure case study. The entirety of my interaction with that editor spanned barely an hour. Nonetheless, | |||
| Crisco is now quite certain ArbCom is required. ] (]) 19:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Anybody can open an ArbCom case. It's not something an admin does after assessing consensus. If you believe in it, do it instead of just yakking about it. ] (]) 19:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Or we could just topic-banned this exceptionally disruptive and combative editor and save loads of people loads of time to do something constructive on Misplaced Pages. As I already stated, Strangesad seems to cherish the drama boards and all the attention she gets. Even a brief look on how what percentage of her edits are at ANI or to deliberately beating dead horses to get other users agitated is very revealing. Strangesad is on Misplaced Pages with two purposes. To combat Christianity (which she does poorly, lots of Christian doctrine can be challenged by using good sources) but most of all to waste as much of the community's time as possible. She would love an ArbCom case but I see no reason we should give her that satisfaction. We had this same never-ending discussion in the spring, and it was eventually decided to give Strangesad one last chance. Now we are here again. If Strangesad isn't topic banned, we'll no doubt be here soon again.] (]) 20:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I'd go for a topic ban too. I tried to approach strangesad with an open mind, but the completely missing the point first reply and the deliberately ignoring my question of the second reply convinced me that the concerns posted here have merit. One hour may not seem much to you, strangesad, but you're forgetting I also had time to look up your other actions with other editors, and found the same issues. — ] (]) 03:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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 . | |||
| === Arbcom is not the answer === | |||
| Arbcom takes only cases where the community has demonstrated its inability to handle the problem. Do all of you commenting "refer to armcom" realize that if you actually took a stance on the issue and argued for an action (whether it be a topic ban, a block, or no action), we could be done with this? We need to stop passing the buck and deal with this user. She is here to push fringe views, and not here to build an encyclopedia. Such editors should be shown the door with haste. --] ] 00:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Throughout the interaction, GiantSnowman has engaged in behavior that appears to contravene Misplaced Pages's behavioral guidelines, including but not limited to: | |||
| :I've said 1) we need more peer-reviewed and non-promotional sources, and 2) I don't care what they say. Exactly how is it promoting anything to say I don't care what the sources say? You seem hate-filled. ] (]) 01:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''Casting aspersions without evidence:''' | |||
| :: Well OK then Laser brain, you have convinced me to "stop passing the buck" and '''support a topic ban''' for Strangesad for anything to do with religion, broadly construed. You are an admin, can't you just do it? ] (]) 01:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * 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:''' | |||
| ::: And the topic ban for anything to do with religion should definitely include talk pages! ] (]) 01:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Admins cannot impose topic bans. --] (]) 08:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * The user's tone throughout the discussion has been hostile, escalating to direct personal attacks: | |||
| ::::: That's not true. They can if there is consensus here at ANI. See ]. Smeat75: It would not be appropriate for me to take administrative action against Strangesad since I have been involved in the dispute. --] ] 10:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * Referring to me as a “liar” multiple times. | |||
| :::::: I already read it very carefully, Laser brain. The section ] states explicitly: "''Except as noted above, individual editors, including administrators, may not directly impose bans''", and the only case "noted above" that extends to admins is discretionary sanctions. Consensus here at ANI would count as the community imposing the ban. Imposing and enforcing (with blocks) are different. --] (]) 14:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * Suggesting that I have been “deliberately disruptive” without presenting any factual basis. | |||
| :::::::It's a bit more complicated than that, and I think you and LB are talking at cross purposes. In this situation, if an uninvolved admin determines there's a consensus for a topic ban, that admin can then "impose" the ban on behalf of the community. Also, discretionary sanctions aren't the only exception. Other kinds of sanctions permit admins to impose topic bans. Putting all of that aside, the central problem here is that this topic (with all of its subtopics) is an unholy mess. So, you're going to have to find a very brave admin willing to determine what the consensus is. A long time ago, the topic lost focus. BTW, don't look at me. IIRC, I'm not uninvolved in this discussion, although I haven't been following it for some time.--] (]) 20:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''Violation of ] and ]:''' | |||
| : How about an RFC/U? That's generally considered a prerequisite to ArbCom, and might solve the problem on its own if we're lucky. ] (]) 02:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * 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. | |||
| ::::RFC/U's, as I understand it, have no power to enforce anything, therefore it would be a process of endless repetition from Strangesad of saying the same things which, in her own words, she has said a million times already, and would achieve nothing as it would leave her free to go on saying them several million more times. I don't understand the point of this long discussion here at the administrators' board if an admin is not going to take some action, and now I join the others who have already called for a topic ban on Strangesad, to include talk pages, otherwise she will clutter those up with endless repetition of the same things she has said a million times before, on any religion related topic. I would call for an indefinite ban had she not shown in a few contributions that she can contribute something to areas other than religion. ] (]) 03:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| : And Strangesad continues inserting exactly the same tendentious, repetitive nonsense in various places - altered the FAQ on the Jesus article - , the Jesus article, just promoted to FA, itself ,changing the definition of "Christ myth" from how the linked to article defines it, which was just re-written a couple of days ago after ''years'' of discussion and a consensus ''finally'' arrived at,repeating exactly the same stuff about sources on the Jesus talk page she has said "millions of times" (her own words) before, , and ]ing to try to find different answers to the same old junk . How much longer is this going to be allowed to continue?] (]) 13:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * In this ANI thread as well as in the previous one , the community has amply demonstrated its inability to deal with the behavioral disruption surrounding the content dispute proper. (There was not enough consensus to indef block then, and there isn't enough consensus to topic ban now, after a sufficient amount of time and reasonably wide participation.) Therefore, referral to ArbCom is entirely appropriate, because there is no indication that similar events won't reoccur. This case is quite similar to the one currently being considered by ArbCom on the Tea Party movement. It has enough disruption spearheads proper (SPAs) and supporters from the wings (who prevent community action against the SPAs) so that it will never be settled at ANI or any other community venue. ] (]) 14:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I haven't counted up the number of editors who support a topic ban here but I would be surprised if the consensus does not now support one. This needs to be dealt with ''right now'', not embarking on some long drawn out process involving more repetition from Strangesad and waste of other peoples' time.] (]) 14:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Counting those who suggested referring to Arbcom as opposing immediate (community-imposed) topic ban, I get a rough count of 12 supports, 9 opposes. That's a majority, but it's hard to see it as consensus, as the opposes are at least as well referred to policies are are the supports. --] (]) 17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| If any additional information or clarification is needed, I am happy to provide it. My intent is to ensure a respectful and collaborative editing environment for all Misplaced Pages contributors. | |||
| : So "consensus" does not mean a majority? it means a subjective judgement as to the quality of the references to policies? I have no intention of wasting my time putting together a "case" of "evidence" about Strangesad, anyone who is interested should look at her user contributions, there are not that many, and it will be very clear what her agenda is here. ] (]) 19:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's right; consensus doesn't mean a majority and does depend on quality of argument. See ] and search for "majority" in the text (there are two instances). There's more in the essay ]. --] (]) 21:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your time and consideration. </s> | |||
| :::Yes, but that is an essay about building consensus in writing articles, not guidance for admins in determining consensus for what action to take about someone who has been discussed on this board. I think it really ought to be counting the number of editors who support an action, in this case a topic ban, as otherwise coming here is simply a waste of time.] (]) 22:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] • ] ⚽ 12:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The original purpose of this ANI was Strangesad's complaints about FutureTrillionaire's actions. This ANI has been open for 12 days and participants in the debate have come and gone. Lots of words written, lots of opinions expressed on a range of issues. Trying to assess consensus from the entirety of these numerous comments is a challenge for an uninvolved Admin. | |||
| :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. | |||
| While I don't support a Topic Ban, I think if that is the goal of some of the participants here, you should open a separate ANI and have THAT proposal be the focus of the discussions. This isn't to defer decision-making but the present conversation is so unwieldy, messy and personal that it is hard to objectively see what the problem is. Focus, present specific diffs indicating the problematic issues instead of just assailing someone's character or approach. Any act of blocking or banning right now is coming out of pure frustration and not because of evidence of disruption or lack of competence. | |||
| :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 === | |||
| You need to a) isolate and focus on what the problem is, b) show evidence supporting your view and c) suggest a solution. You can't just vote, "Off with her head" and because 2 or 3 editors agree with you, have your will be done. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="Purple">'''''N'''''ew'''''J'''''ersey'''''L'''''iz</font> <sup>]</sup> 15:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * I propose a ''']''' for Footballnerd2007, appealable no sooner than six months from now (and then once per year thereafter), alongside a ban on using LLM's which would remain in effect until specifically contested. At the time of writing, Footballnerd2007 has only 142 edits, a ''significant'' number of which are right here at WP:ANI. They are clearly a massive ] time sink. I urged Footballnerd2007 to withdraw this complaint and warned about ] and that clearly didn't land. I think it's time for everyone else to get back to regular editing. --] (]) 12:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*'''Support''', obviously. The more they have responded, the stronger my concerns have grown. ]] 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:I have decided to withdraw my complaint with immediate effect in order to avoid the loss of my editing privileges. I'm going to write a long piece (without using LLM) explaining my actions later when I have time. I'm sorry for any disruption caused, I have always acted in good faith. ] • ] ⚽ 13:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::Demonstrably not, when you've been dodging all along the question of whether you've been using LLMs, and only now -- when the tide is running against you -- stating that at last you'll respond at length without? ] 13:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::FN2007 claims to be a new editor, and to have spent a significant amount of time reading Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines etc. If so, they will have known not to re-factor other user's talk page posts, but they did that anyway. That cannot be good faith editing. ]] 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::I'll respond to this in depth later today. ] • ] ⚽ 13:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::I concede that I've been backed into a corner and now I need to do the right thing, stop with the defensive act and own up to my mistakes which I'll do in my statement later this afternoon. ] • ] ⚽ 13:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::So you only need to so the right thing after being backed into a corner? I think we can do without such editors. ] (]) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::I had my legal head on with the philosophy "defend until you can no more" - I now concede on reflection this is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages and that my actions were not the right way to go and for that I will take full responsibility in my statement. ] • ] ⚽ 13:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::It's too late to withdraw now. You have to take responsibility for your behaviour. ] (]) 13:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*{{ec}}<s>'''Support'''</s> - on top of what's been posted on this thread, FN2007 has ] by archiving without a link to the archive on the fresh talk page, without responding to ]. They also ] to add things they didn't say when closing a RM discussion, and haven't responded ]. These things alongside their LLM use (and subsequent wikilawyering "technically I only said I didn't use ''ChatGPT''" responses), refusal to listen to good advice, and everything else in this topic, I think a community ban would be a good idea. ] ] 13:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC) ''Update'' - striking support for cban, I think footballnerd's recent responses and CNC's offer of mentorship indicate that we may be able to avoid it. ] ] 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:The archiving of talk page was an attempt to "wipe the slate clean" and move on, I didn't see how I could reply to the advice constructively. As for the wikilawyering, again I concede that I was out of order and that I did use AI assistance to write my complaint which was unwise. I do however, maintain that I did not lie as my comments about using ChatGPT were accurate, however this was using technicalities and involved me being rather economical with the truth. ] • ] ⚽ 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::You could have simply said "thank you Liz for the advice". And if you 'wanted to wipe the slate clean', why did you start this new thread? ]] 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::I will go back and thank her for that. Because I had been advised that your actions could have violated WP policy and thought it would be a good way to deflect the blame, in heinsight it was absolutely the wrong course of action. I would like to draw a line under this whole sorry situation and move on with the reason that I joined once my statement has been published and the subsequent discussion has concluded. ] • ] ⚽ 14:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:(another {{ec}} To clarify, I don't think Footballnerd is doing anything malicious or deliberately trying to time-waste. I think they are a misguided new bold editor who unfortunately doesn't listen to advice and is stubborn to self-reflect. If this cban goes ahead I urge them to appeal in 6 months with a better understanding of how wikipedia works, with a more cautious editing style and more acceptance of community opinions. ] ] 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::I am not being malicious, there was only one motivation for my actions - wanting to help. | |||
| *:*::My comments on this and the above thread have been ill judged. | |||
| *:*::As for the ban, I'd like to ask that I be spared at this moment in time in view of my above comments and the concession statement that I will be posting when I return home. ] • ] ⚽ 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::You seem to be spending a lot of time/making a lot of posts saying "full statement to come!", rather than actually making that statement... ]] 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::Because I'm posting from my phone and I'm not at home. When I return to my PC later today I'll make the statement. ] • ] ⚽ 14:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*<del>Support CBAN.</del> Using a chatbot to generate discussion then denying it when called out is already deeply contemptuous. Turning around and filing a chatbot generated revenge report for people not believing your lies about not using a chatbot? Words fail. ] (]) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|{{ins|edited 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC); see below.}}}} | |||
| *:*:FTR I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT but I admit that I was somewhat economical with the truth and am guilty of wikilawyering - overlap of my professional life. ] • ] ⚽ 14:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::You are still not clearly and unequivocally admitting what you did. ]] 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::What you want me to admit? I admitted using AI but not ChatGPT and tried to use wikilawyering to get away from this. ] • ] ⚽ 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::Unless I missed something, that was your first clear admission of using AI. Your earlier comment of "I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT" is not the same. ]] 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't use a Chatbot form of AI nor did I use ChatGPT but I did use AI assistance (which I didn't deny). So to be unequivocally clear - I never lied but was economical with the truth, I am guilty of 'wikilawyering' and I did deploy the assistance of Artificial Intelligence on a handful of occasion. ] • ] ⚽ 14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::Thank you - but you repeatedly failed to own up to using AI when questioned on it, and your latter responses here do nothing to deal with my personal concerns. ]] 14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::I admit that I did, I just saw the line of "I didn't use ChatGPT" as an easy 'get out of jail card'. ] • ] ⚽ 14:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::While that might be technically accurate when you answered that you did not use Chat-GPT, you were intentionally being deceptive in your answers multiple times. It might be slightly different if you were asked ''specifically about Chat-GPT'', however multiple times you were ''specifically asked about the broad term of LLM''. Your current claim of, {{tq|never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT}}, falls on deaf ears because it is clear that you were dodging the questions, and indeed intentionally addressed only Chat-GPT for the purpose of deception instead of honesty. ] ] 17:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::'''Soft-struck''' prior comment because now I see you have admitted to such activity prior to my comment above. ] ] 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:{{a note}} for ], just to inform you there is a ] that you may not have seen. I was about to send generic pings to !voters of this section, but it appears all other editors are aware of this proposal already (or voted afterwards at least). This isn't intended to influence your decision, only to provide you updated information. ] (]) 23:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::{{rtp}} Withdrawing support for CBAN in light of ] combined with acceptance of mentorship by {{u|CommunityNotesContributor}} (thanks for the ping: I've been offwiki).{{pb}}{{Ping|Footballnerd2007}} I'm sure the point has got across, but please respect your colleagues here. Using an LLM (of any brand) in discussions is disrespectful of our time; assuming we won't notice is disrespectful of our competence. Please engage with the spirit of other people's communications, rather than with the precise words chosen. Misplaced Pages is very much unlike a courtroom: we're here to work together on a shared project, not to win arguments against each other. I look forward to your earnest acculturation. ] (]) 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Support''' as this behavior is clearly ]. </s>] (]) 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' CBAN as this editor has caused a monumental waste of the volunteer time of other editors, which is our most precious commodity. This is an encyclopedia, not a robot debating society. ] (]) 18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. First choice would be an indefinite block. Despite the user's sudden acts of contrition, I don't trust them. I don't see them as an asset to the project. As for their recent statement that some think is AI-generated, my ''guess'' is it's a mixture, maybe we should call it AI-assisted. However, I wouldn't support an indefinite block if it were just that. What preceded the complaint by GS and their conduct at ANI was egregiously disruptive.--] (]) 18:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I say give them some rope. There is good discussion going on below, and I don't think anything is gained by blocking an editor who does at times add value. We can always revisit this later - and presumably the action would then be quick and obvious. BTW, I thought we all used AI to some extent - certainly when I misspell words like "certainyl" I then accept the AI in chrome changing the spelling. Or even improving the grammar if I turn on those options. Also ]'s numerous draft articles in his userspace always confounds me. I've asked them before to write these articles in draft-space where there can be a collaborative effort, rather than their userspace where they won't let anyone else edit. ] (]) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Haven't voted in this proposal yet, am abstaining for now per trying to avoid advocacy as potential mentor. The two points I will however question is: would a CBAN solve these issues or postpone them until a later date? Would a 1–2 month mentorship more likely bring about the results of reform or failure much sooner? If we want to talk about ] as we have do so, it might be worth ] the time wasted in not mentoring a newish editor into the folds of the encyclopedia. ] (]) 00:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Nfitz - that is a nonsense, editors can and do edit my user drafts whenever they want. My issue was with them moving one into mainspace. ]] 16:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose:''' CommunityNotesContributor has offered to mentor him, and the mentoring conditions have been accepted. Let's see what comes of that, and we can always revisit the subject of a ban after CNC reports back. ] 04:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose''' - A mentor has been provided. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support mentorship''' offered below by CNC, but I still have significant concerns, which I expressed after FBN's response below. ] ] 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as too soon. An alternative for mentoring was proffered instead.]] 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===MENTOR proposal=== | |||
| :*Number of edits Smeat75 has made aimed at communicating with me on the Jesus Talk page, since the beginning of this dispute: 2-3 (depending on how you count) | |||
| {{quote|] commitments to uphold by ] for a suggested one–two month period. Mentor: ]. | |||
| :*Number of times he's reverted my edits: 3 (including an uncivil edit comment: "remove ignorant nonsense" ) | |||
| :*Number of comments he's made about me on this ANI thread: 17 | |||
| :It's not hard to engage people and care about why they think the things they do. Sometimes you learn something, and have the terrific experience of liking and respecting someone who is different from you. ] (]) 15:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| # Abide by all policies and guidelines and ] to advise given to you by other editors. | |||
| ::::: In addition to the messages on the Jesus talk page Strangesad refers to, I left her a message on her own talk page , which she blanked without response (somebody else put it back) and another message in another discussion which she did not respond to or give any sign that she had even read. I have reached the conclusion, after numerous efforts to communicate with her, that it is pointless as she never pays any attention to anything anyone says. ] (]) 19:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| # 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) | |||
| :::But, once in a while, and I have myself dealt with a few such similar cases recently, the people who want others to talk to them may be attempting to use discussion as a diversionary tactic. It is not required for anyone to calmly and patiently go through with each and every new editor who might question something exactly on what basis the current consensus, if there is one, was arrived at. Sometimes, the obligation really falls on the person who wants to perhaps waste the time of others in possibly tendentious editing to maybe make a reasonable effort to understand how the current consensus was arrived at, and, honestly, reviewing the article's talk page generally can explain a lot. I don't think that there is necessarily grounds for a topic ban, as per Laser brain above, but I do believe that there is grounds for believing that Stragesad may be engaging in disruptive or tendentious editing. With any luck, ArbCom might accept a case relating to early Christianity soon. If they do, there is a very real chance of discretionary sanctions of some sort being at least requested on articles relating to early Christianity, like this one. However, it might well be reasonable, should problematic conduct continue, after a lot of discussion regarding it here and on other noticeboards, for an admin at that time to sanction the problematic editor. ] (]) 18:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree to those principles and am grateful for the mentorship opportunity! ] • ] ⚽ 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Certainly, nobody has a default obligation to explain the current consensus. You incur that obligation when you complain endlessly about someone on ANI, make dozens of disparaging comments about her character, motives, and beliefs, revert her edits with comments like "ignorant nonsense", and call for her to banned. The effort Smeat75 and Jeppiz have put into attacking far outweighs their efforts to communicate. Jeppiz has not discussed any of these current editing disagreements on any Talk page at all, at least not in many months. Surprising as it may seem, I don't accept that the starting point for discussion is that I am a trolling piece of shit whose sole motive is the tear down the efforts of others. Taking that assumption is not going to change my behavior (or anyone else's). I am here to improve to the project, and I believe my criticisms of this article will improve it by making it more neutral. ] (]) 00:10, 19 August 2013 (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==== | |||
| ::::Just skimming up through the comments again, I see a lot of talk about past and present misconduct and not much about the content of the dispute. It does seem like there is so much division on religion pages about origin issues. But the lack of respect and loss of assumption of good faith remind me more of the ARBCOM case about Tea Party than anything having to do with religious topics. They just are a subject people feel passionately about and, unfortunately, there are contrasting views on interpreting the few primary sources that exist so that makes the possibility of conflict almost inevitable. | |||
| *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) | |||
| :::: This might well end up at ARBCOM but presenting a case for review requires a commitment of time and energy for whomever decides to take that on. Otherwise, I still recommend a second ANI focused on the particular problem that you see and hope that the conversation can stay on topic. More unasked for opinion from <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="Purple">'''''N'''''ew'''''J'''''ersey'''''L'''''iz</font> <sup>]</sup> 19:56, 18 August 2013 (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) | |||
| :::::As a point of order, ANI is '''specifically''' for behavioral issues, '''not''' content disputes. The entire point of an ANI discussion is that someone's ''behavior'' has become a problem, not as a means to resolving a dispute over content. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 20:28, 18 August 2013 (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. | |||
| === STOP feeding, please === | |||
| :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) | |||
| It's quite disheartening to see everybody continuing to play Strangesad's game. In case someone didn't yet understand, '''Strangesad is not here to build an encyclopedia.''' While clumsy trolls do the obvious vandalism act, they don't really harm the project as they are just reverted and perhaps blocked. Those who truly manage to disrupt the project are those who target popular pages, make sure they engage lots of other users there, drag out the disputes as long as they can, and in addition manage to involve users at ANI, ArbCom, RfC etc. Strangesad is a master at this. She has next to no actual edits on Misplaced Pages, but hundreds of edits on contentious talk pages of articles, and on ANI and AN. Strangesad has some 300-400 edits of that kind, and each of them usually trigger 5-10 other comments from other users. So Strangesad has singlehandedly managed to bring about thousands of such comments. It's a proof of her skills that she repeatedly manages to sound as if she was dragged her. Scroll up the page and check, it was Strangesad who brought this discussion here. Strangesad is a troll, pure and simply. What is more, she is one of the most successful ones, as she never engages in any overt vandalism. She makes sure to thread the line so that no admin will have the guts to intervene (as is clearly the case, look how long this discussion has dragged on), but still managing to cause maximal disruption. It's a skillful game, but I do wish people would stop feeding her. I end by citing from Misplaced Pages's own article on ]<br> | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ''Trolling is not necessarily the same as vandalism (although vandalism may be used by trolls). A vandal may just enjoy defacing a webpage, insulting random users, or spreading some personal views in an inappropriate way. '''A troll deliberately exploits tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people'''.''<br> | |||
| ::I have taken up the mentorship offer. ] • ] ⚽ 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| and | |||
| :::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) | |||
| <br> | |||
| ::::Let's wait and see their 'statement' before we decide which route we want to go down. ]] 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ''The basic mindset of a troll is that they are '''far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians''': accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality.''<br> | |||
| :::::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=== | |||
| ::Well yes Jeppiz I agree with that, but I am alarmed to see numerous comments on this lengthy discussion saying "no need for a topic ban", "take it to DNR", "take it to an RFC/U", "take it to arbcom", in other words, drag it out for more months or years when it needs to be dealt with right now, stop the disruption by an admin giving Strangesad a topic ban, which is what most people here have been calling for - also alarming to note that most editors calling for an action here does not necessarily constitute consensus.] (]) 23:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Good Afternoon all, | |||
| Can I start by making something unequivocally clear: my behaviour over the past 24 hours has been unacceptable and has resembled that of a lawyer acting in court, trying to defend my actions in an overly strategic way. This course of action was wrong, and I apologise for it. | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Peteforsyth & Russavia == | |||
| 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. | |||
| On 19 June I blocked {{user|Russavia}} indefinitely for disruption and this block was overwhelmingly supported by the community . On 24 June AGK locked Russavia's talkpage for a month as a consequence of using his talkpage to continue the disruption and threatened to remove his talkpage access permanently if this continued . Following the expiration of that lock Russavia has been using his talkpage in a manner clearly designed to solicit desired edits on the project. For example, the following diff shows him striking out comments once they have been actioned . Since then a further 4 edits designed to solicit edits have been made. | |||
| 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. | |||
| On 9 August I revoked Russavia's talkpage access as I felt that it was being used for an inappropriate purpose. I felt that another recent ANI discussion concerning Apteva was relevant as their talkpage access was removed while blocked for using the page to solicit edits while blocked. While Apteva was more blatant than Russavia, I see no difference in substance between their actions - especially given that Russavia has been blocked indefinitely and, at the time, Apteva had been blocked for a month. | |||
| I also want to address how I behaved today. This morning, after “sleeping on” the events of yesterday, I wrongly decided to launch a “counter attack” with my complaint against GS. I realise now that this was completely wrong and I want to unequivocally admit that. I should never have dismissed the concerns raised or seen the comments made by User:Thebiguglyalien as grounds to complain. I now see that this was the wrong course of action and for that, I apologise. | |||
| My block of Russavia's talkpage was challenged by {{admin|Peteforsyth}} - see discussion on my talk page who subsequently undid it as well as removing the standard block settings preventing account creation and ip-autoblocking (basically turning a hard block to a soft block). I see absolutely no logic for this alteration and no satisfactory explanation for the change has been provided - referring to blocks being preventative rather than punitive seems to step around the strong consensus endorsing my original block. I am also concerned that Peteforsyth is not neutral with regard to Russavia - He is clearly friendly with Russavia on Commons and recently supported him in de'crating and de'admining discussions as well as a March post on Russavia's commons talkpage expressing his admiration . I have asked Peteforsyth to clarify this but he did not respond to this question. | |||
| 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. | |||
| I basically have 3 questions that I would appreciate feedback on: | |||
| * Is it acceptable for an indefinitely blocked user to solicit edits on their talkpage? | |||
| * Is Peteforsyth sufficiently neutral to have undone my talkpage block without seeking a consensus here & was it OK to convert Russavia's block to a softblock? | |||
| * Should we leave the softblock be or restore the hardblock? | |||
| As noted on my talk, I'm on holiday and have sporadic internet access so may be not be able to step back to this discussion regularly. Thanks ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :According to previous discussions on this noticeboard, Russavia was ''de facto'' community banned. Peteforsyth is a supporter of Russavia on Commons. He has expressed his personal view that the dispute between Russavia and Jimmy Wales will "blow over". That completely overlooks the Jimmy Wales topic ban of Russavia put in place by Newyorkbrad. Now that the dust has settled from mid-June, it might be worth formalizing a community ban of Russavia either here or on ]. ] (]) 05:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Responding to the 3 questions in order: If the solicited edits are not themselves problematic, I have no idea. Probably not a ] violation, as such the conversion was permitted, but unwise. (unwise both due to the potential appearance of bias, and because an admin action should only be reversed prior to discussion for very good reason) I can think of no justification for the change to a soft block, and so '''Support''' restoring the hardblock. ]] 05:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * I do not understand why concerns about copyright (see ) or images not conforming to ] (like ) lead to the removal of the talk page access . In , Spartaz claimed that ''In the case of indefinitely blocked users, talkpages should not be used to post material about article content.'' Is it really the intention to have notifications about copyright problems suppressed just because an editor is blocked? --] (]) 06:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] • ] ⚽ 16:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{AIV|n}} Just an observational note. The block is a hardblock, and Russavia came into #wikipedia-en and made the following comment: | |||
| :Thank you for this. ]] 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{quotation| russavia an admin around? a hardblock in conjunction with an account creation prevention -- this would mean that any IP i've edited from in the last 3 months would be prevented from editing or creating an account?}} | |||
| ::You're welcome, I'd really like to put this situation behind us and move on. ] • ] ⚽ 17:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Just wanted to point that out. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 06:20, 12 August 2013 (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) | |||
| ::Indeed it is now a soft block . ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:28, 12 August 2013 (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) | |||
| :::Dusti, aside from being wrong about the block, do you know that posting IRC logs on-wiki is considered a blockable offence by some? ] (]) 15:35, 12 August 2013 (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) | |||
| *Peteforsyth is WAY too ] to make that decision by himself. Perhaps he could justify the restoration of the talk page access, but not the other things. I think we may need to run a CU to check if Russavia has circumvented his block as a result of this ridiculous decision. ] ] 07:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Same. I don't find GPTzero and pals particularly useful benchmarks. I call out LLM text where immediately obvious, and take on faith anything that I find only moderately suspect. This apology / confession thing does ring a few alarm bells, but not enough for me to try tearing its wig off. Hopefully we'll gain a constructive contributor after all this. ] (]) 12:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{U|Nfitz}}, please quote or diff one such "writing" so I can try it myself. (And ping me, please.) ]] 10:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It was a bit short, ], but . ] (]) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well there's something very puzzling going on here. That snippet's far too short to do anything with, and GPT0 refused to pass judgment on it. So I tried something longer of Phil B.'s ({{tq|{{small|I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor.}}}}) and it came back "99% human". ]] 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, I suppose it's better to be 99% human than 0%. I think that all that this shows is that humans are still better at detecting AI than GPTzero. ] (]) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :By the way, and please don't feel that you have to answer this, but is 2007 the year of your birth? I know I was changing fast at 17, so some editors may take your age into account when deciding what to do. ] (]) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the aim of transparency, I will voluntarily answer that - yes I was born in 2007 and (not sure how relevant it is) I suffer from ]. ] • ] ⚽ 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well geez now I'm curious what overlaps with Wikilawyering. ] (]) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies. ] • ] ⚽ 14:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I appreciate the maturity in acknowledging your errors. I’d like to clarify this as it’s something I avoided mentioning. | |||
| :The use of AI is not prohibited but heavily frowned upon. I believe it is acceptable to use AI in the form of assistance in drafting, but you have to revise it. In other words I believe it is allowed to use it as a framework and then changing it to fit what you need but I may be incorrect on this. Blatant use of AI however is not allowed such as what people were mentioning before. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :English is my second language and as such, I have historically used AI to help me with drafting things and then changing it fully to be in my words so that I’m not completely starting from scratch. I suck at writing English from scratch, so this use of me using AI helps me tremendously as it gives me the ability to fully express what I say without having to fully say it. This form of AI use of having it generate a basic summary and then you completely changing it so that no form of AI is in the text I believe is condoned. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :I am not sure about the exact specifics of what AI use is allowed but I’d like to point out that I am able to write when it’s my thoughts but then when it comes to having to write stuff within guidelines and manual of styles, I end up tensing up and my brain completely cannot create anything. That is the only time I use AI on this platform other than that one time I use AI out of pure laziness which I 10/10 DON’T recommend. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :I am not sure if this above is correct so I would appreciate if someone here especially @] clarified if this is allowed or not. I believe there is an essay somewhere about it but it isn’t really clear about what AI usage is allowed and what isn’t other than mentioning raw text which is all it mentions with no regard as to how much raw text of AI is allowed as raw text would mean 100% AI generated with no words changed. | |||
| :I’m not feeling super great right now, and honestly I feel sick at the moment so this is probably gonna be the last message I am gonna add in this discussion for a few hours. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Cheers,<br> | |||
| :] (]) 19:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are looking for ]. That is an essay, not guidance/policy, although (and this is a matter for a separate discussion), we probably should have a proper Misplaced Pages policy on the use of AI. ]] 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was about to begin a reply with "]",{{dummy ref|TOMATS}} but it looks like that month-ago discussion has not yet been closed or archived. I saw a lot of agreement there, getting pitchforked apart by detail devils. A well read closure should help move us forward with the word­smithing. ] (]) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Courtesy pings to increase discussion as the following pings all commented in the sections prior. | |||
| :@] | |||
| :@] | |||
| :@] | |||
| :@] | |||
| :{{ping|Black Kite}} | |||
| :{{ping|Bugghost}} | |||
| :{{ping| isaacl}} | |||
| :{{ping| CommunityNotesContributor}} | |||
| :{{ping| Randy Kryn}} | |||
| :{{ping|Bbb23}} | |||
| :{{ping| Cullen328}} | |||
| :{{ping| Simonm223}} | |||
| :{{ping|Folly Mox}} | |||
| :{{ping| Bgsu98}} | |||
| :{{ping|Yamla}} | |||
| :Sorry for the delay CNC. | |||
| :Cheers, <br> ] (]) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::If I'm missing anyone, let me know and I will ping. ] (]) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please don't send mass ping ] to all participants without a specific reason (increasing discussion is not a specific reason for sending notifications for this specific place in the thread). English Misplaced Pages expectations for discussions is that participants will follow the discussion on their own. ] (]) 02:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seconding Isaacl - these pings were unecessary. Editors who wanted to follow this discussion would have subscribed. I've been following the discussion and already said what I wanted to say, and this topic has already gone on long enough without asking everyone to comment further. ] ] 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My personal opinion is that LLM content is not able to be brought into compliance with Misplaced Pages copyright restrictions and is highly disrespectful of others in article talk. As such I don't believe there is any place for LLMs and other chatbots in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Since we're here (at the most visible venue): ] (2023) concludes inconclusively. {{Slink|Special:Permalink/1265594360|Copyright of LLM output}} (December 2024) seems to indicate potential CC-BY-SA compliance varies by which giant tech behemoth's proprietary AI implementation is used. Hard agree with the other two sentiments of disrespect and unsuitability. ] (]) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That's interesting. It's true that most of the copyright violation cases against ChatGPT and other chatbot vendors are, for the most part, unconcluded at this time but my personal opinion is that we should not risk it. ] (]) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes, of course, a very good statement of contrition and hope for future editing (hopefully not all AI). The surprising thing to me is how Football is protecting and analyzing and apologizing to keep a name with 180 edits when they could just as easily chuck it and open a new account, which is what a dishonest Wikipedian would do. Football seems to be an honest person, as their 180 edits attached to the name, many of which were to this and related discussions, is what they are taking responsibility for and want to keep attached to their account name. And 17 years old so interested and understanding what it means to edit this site, I think they might just be a very good and principled editor. ] (]) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' the last change mentorship that has been offered by CNC, as it is the best step forward. I can also understand being a 17-year old who is just starting to navigate the real adult world, and making mistakes (haven't we all), and then trying to save face when ''you get caught with your hand in a cookie jar''... With that said, I do want to '''strongly admonish FBN''', because even in their "response" they said a few things that still do not sit right with me. For example {{tq|I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone }} however, Folly Mox asked about their prior statement of "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering and their age, they said simply {{tq|That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies.}}. That is in addition to their own statement earlier in the "response" stating that they kept using the phase that ''they didn't use chat GPT'' even whens specifically asked about LLM, and that they {{tq|now realise was evasive}} -- I believe that it wasn't until this ANI that they realized they were being decepitve. I also take great pause at the statement of {{tq|to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy}}. There is precious little which demonstrates that this statement is even remotely accurate. Even in raising this ANI, very few of the instructions were followed. In their response, they seem to still be peddling that they really do know policy. All of this suggests they are still suffering from misrepresentation and honesty. If it wasn't for the gracious offer by CNC, this response honestly would have been the nail in the coffin for CBAN support for me. ] ] 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:49.206.48.151 == | |||
| :Point 1, doing so would normally be, in my book, meatpuppetry but given that they're blocked anyone acting on their behalf is basically a sock (not in the classic sense, I hope people understand what I mean). Point 2, Peterforsyth could argue that their friendly relationship with Russavia on Commons is off-en-wiki, but I would argue that given the closeness of Commons and En Wiki, Peterforsyth could in no way be considered uninvolved to be performing such admin actions. Point 3, admins should not be unilaterally converting imposed hard blocks without consultation. ] (]) 08:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::Responding just to your first question: it all depends on how it's done. Since good blocks are imposed to prevent disruption, a reasonable request for what's really an improvement should definitely be fulfilled, and any rule that prohibits it is ]. Of course, requests for things that damage articles should be denied, and unreasonable requests (e.g. attacks on someone else) are a great reason for shutting down talk page access. ] (]) 11:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Please keep ] off my talk page . See also . --] (]) 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed in general, but I don't think we want to encourage people to become meatpuppets who proxy edit for people who are ''de facto'' banned. If Russavia came across something glaring and posted it to his talk page in the hopes someone could help, that would be fine. But if he is repeatedly asking for people to edit on his behalf, then I agree with removing access. I also support others in stating that the hard block should be restored. ]] 13:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Note''' Whatever the issues over talkpage access, the IP block and account creation blocks need to be put back, they are entirely standard settings and Pete did not address why on earth he had done that in his response to Spartaz. ] (]) 12:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't think this was an appropriate use for a talk page of an indefinitely blocked editor. By indefinitely blocking someone we have decided that we do not want them contributing to the encyclopedia. Talk page access is primarily given for the purpose of discussing the circumstances surrounding the block, not for making more contributions. Whether the edits are constructive makes no difference - blocked editors are blocked from making any sort of edit, not just from making unconstructive edits. If anything I would consider use of a talk page in this way to be a form of ] by showing that the block is ineffective. Nor do I see why the hardblock was turned into a softblock, as hardblocks are almost always used in situations where the blocked editor was being actively disruptive. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **Agreed; '''reset block settings''' to before Peteforsyth changed them. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 15:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support talk page access''', though I have no opinion on the rest. AGK shouldn't have revoked his talk page access in the first place since Russavia was simply responding to an article written about him in the Signpost. Now he has just been commenting about legitimate issues with content. Revoking talk page access under these circumstances is unduly punitive. As Russavia is merely blocked rather than banned he is allowed use of his talk page for things other than appeals regarding his block.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 16:44, 12 August 2013 (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) | |||
| A couple comments, since it seems people want them. | |||
| :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) | |||
| * Russavia's edits to his talk page in no way relate to the stuff that he was banned for. Since I restored his privileges, he has ] that have existed on the site for 4 to 9 years -- clearly and uncontroversially problems that should be addressed. That's it. No fanning of flames, no drama. In my view, ]. This is a markedly different circumstance than ], which among other things involved the use of the {{tl|helpme}} template. If anybody can't handle what's going on, all they have to do is unwatch Russavia -- problem solved. | |||
| ::They continued . ] (]) 15:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Yes, of course ] who works with Russavia. He has been around a long time, does a lot of good work; I have learned a lot from him and enjoy his company. This is a far cry from saying I endorse everything he does, or am some kind of meatpuppet. If there is relevance, I fail to see it. My actions have been motivated by what is best for Misplaced Pages, not by a sense of personal loyalty. | |||
| :::Blocked, thanks. ]] 15:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * The hardblock-to-softblock conversion is something I did for a different reason, and something I had expected would be entirely uncontroversial. I have had more than one student who, when attempting to create their first Misplaced Pages account, are prevented from doing so, and after some digging the reason has turned out to be an autoblock that had absolutely nothing to do with them. To me, this seems like a significant problem in the recruitment of new users, and I would think that autoblocks would typically be used very lightly in consideration of that unintended consequence. I have never heard an allegation that Russavia has socked; doing so seems to me out of step with his approach to editing wikis; and I looked through to confirm that socking has never been at issue. With all that in mind, I thought that removing the anti-socking aspects of the block would be a simple and uncontroversial change. I guess I was wrong, and this is probably not the best venue to address what now seems to me like an overly reactive general approach that has evolved here in relation to blocks. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| With all that said, I'm done here -- this is not the kind of thing I log into Misplaced Pages to work on. I'll probably check back to see what is said, but overall I don't see this as an issue worth the ink that has been spilled on it. I think we all have better things to do. -] (]) 16:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you don't want to be involved in discussions about this sort of thing, don't go messing around with high-profile blocks like this one as it is pretty much guaranteed that this sort of hint will attract attention on the drama boards. ] (]) 18:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == 2403:580E:EB64:0::/64: disruptive changes to UK nationalities == | |||
| :'''Status quo ante''' - Quite clearly an ill-advised and possibly bad-faith maneuver on PeterForsyth's part, given their Commons connections. ] (]) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocktannia rules the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] is an intermittent but disruptive editor whose last edit was today (my time) and who seems to have quite a bee in their bonnet about describing people or things as English ... they very much prefer them to be described as British. They use highly emotive and inflammatory edit summaries to make their point, ranging from ] to ]. They have been warned in ] and ] in ]. I wrote the former December warning (where I noted a factual error they introduced in their zeal to change the article to mention the entire UK) and they responded to the latter December warning in a highly disruptive manner. I think some sort of block is in order, at the very least. It's hard to communicate with /64 editors like this but I and other editors have tried our best, additionally including ], which they haven't violated in their last two article edits (though one could argue ] violated their warning). ] (]) 15:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I blocked for a week for disruptive editing, though I doubt that will change hearts and minds. ] (]) 16:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == New Family Family Rises Again == | |||
| * Not to put too fine a point on it, blocked means blocked. If a user is blocked, the inherent assumption is that they may not edit the English Misplaced Pages except to make a block appeal. If that assumption is incorrect, the appropriate action is not to grant them talk page access and give them a limited, hindered route to editing by proxy; it is to unblock them. And to "un-revoke" their talk page access because the edits, of themselves, are constructive is to entirely – I regret to say – miss the point. '''Revoke talk page access and refer Russavia to an appeals venue.''' (Full disclosure: Last month, I protected Russavia's talk page for a month, thereby temporarily revoking his talk page access.) ] ]] 13:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ** I'm not sure that's an assumption which is particularly prevalent. The user talk page is used for all sorts of notifications (ANI, copyvio, SPI) which may be unrelated to their block but where some sort of response would be expected or solicited. Besides this, many blocked users, like Russavia, use their talk pages to discuss page content issues, and this is the first I've noticed anyone object to this practice. It would help if the community would actually codify its attitude towards this behaviour. —] (]) 14:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|New Family Family Rises Again}} | |||
| *** I forget the bit of WP:ALPHABETSOUP where it's at, but a blocked user's talk page is supposed to be used ''only'' for unblock requests. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 18:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **** I've heard that said before but never seen the policy that supports it. Can someone point to it, please? I've never been able to imagine a rationale behind such a restriction. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption. A blocked editor mentioning copyvios on his talk page is not being disruptive. --] (] · ] · ]) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support talk page access''' - I do not find the edits that are at the heart of this complaint to be problematic. As this is an editor with a history of figuring out where the boundaries are and then walking 3 steps over with his pants around his ankles, shaking his backside at the world like Bart Simpson, I don't anticipate that he will stay within the bounds of such directed, content-related criticism for long. There will no doubt be a time when the cudgel needs to be wielded again, but I don't find anything the least bit wrong with the "corrections to be made" approach. ] (]) 15:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support talk page access'''. I do not see any point in blocking talk page of a blocked user unless it is used for personal attacks, harassment, soapboxing of particularly offensive POV and similar disruption. Seems to be the case here as I do not see Russavia using talk page for disruptions (at least recently). Some users do not have the right temperament or skills to work with the article space directly but they are productive discussing article content on their talk page. Usually such type of work reduces tensions and helps the problem editor to learn the correct way of editing in article space. Not sure about account creations and autoblocks. Usually it is a bad idea, if Russavia has any special circumstances related to the matter, it is really should be discussed offwiki ] (]) 00:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Status quo ante''' - it just looks like the ultimate gamer is starting to game again. What part of "no, we don't want you contributing, everything you do is disruptive" doesn't he understand? ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 04:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Status quo ante''' - obviously. Why would I need to add anything to what Smallbones said? That's it, really. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 05:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support talk page access''', until and unless he starts to '''''actually''''' use his talk page disruptively. Don't care if he's soft- or hard-blocked - no evidence has been presented supporting the view that he's likely to sock. --] (] · ] · ]) 06:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' hard block but with talk page access. Talk page access is a useful valve to allow venting of the frustration at being blocked. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 05:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *In the absence of any policy or guideline which unamiguously says that this is an inappropriate use of the user talk page, I '''support talk page access'''. —] (]) 07:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reinstate hard block, with talk page access''' - I'm now going to !vote here, and there's a reason why I feel Russavia should have talk page access. It's not because he hasn't been disruptive there - he's clearly editing by proxy. But that's the thing - it's clear. If we retract that access, he will STILL edit via proxy, but we won't be able to track it as easily. ] ] 08:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks everyone for your comments and thoughts. I get the sense that the hardblock should be restored but that there isn't a consensus to shut off Russavia's talkpage at this time. Can some kind soul make this happen or do we think the consensus is clear enough for me to do it myself? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Probably obvious from my earlier comment, but no objection here. I agree with your reading of the sentiment, though I can imagine others interpreting it in various ways -- lots of views expressed here. -] (]) 20:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given that there are no objections to this (and Pete agrees), I've just reinstated the blocks on account creation and IP addresses here; Pete, you could have done this. I've been strongly critical of Russavia in the past, and remain so, but this seems to be entirely uncontroversial per the above two posts and the clear consensus of the discussion. I'll leave it for another admin to judge the consensus around revoking talk page access again, as this seems less clear. ] (]) 12:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ===Peteforsyth proxy editing for Russavia=== | |||
| :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) | |||
| These edits were made on behalf of Russavia. Peteforsyth has added links to Russavia's user talk page for the file deletion requests. They do not seem clear-cut, since Nyttend had already added "freedom of panorama" tags after Russavia's talk page posting. Because the case for deletion of the images was not clear-cut, these edits seem ]Y and would appear to create an awkward situation for any administrators trying to deal with the deletion requests. ] (]) 04:17, 15 August 2013 (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}} | |||
| == MAB Teahouse talk == | |||
| ===Russavia=== | |||
| Notification of ] per . ]] ]]] 08:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I didn't want to, but I one-hour protected the talk page of the Teahouse due to MAB going there. The Teahouse itself is already protected. Obviously they're going there precisely to make things as difficult on us as possible, but I don't know what else to do. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Suspicious/problematic behavior of Moheen Reeyad, TilottamaTitlee, and Leelabratee == | |||
| :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've noticed some problems with editors {{user|Moheen Reeyad}}, {{user|TilottamaTitlee}}, and {{user|Leelabratee}}. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| * Moheen Reeyad copied the toolserver note {{user|Magnus Manske}} uses on his talk page, changing the links, despite the fact he doesn't have a Toolserver account, possibly attempting to pretend to have one. | |||
| : |
:::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) | |||
| * Moheen Reeyad and TilottamaTitlee regularly edit each others' userpages and trade barnstars . | |||
| ::::<small>In relation to "MAB" issues, is it just me, or is anyone else reminded of when the notoriously difficult Queen Mab speech was pretty much hit out of park in 1997's ]? ] (]) 🦘 12:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * Moheen Reeyad and TilottamaTitlee both have userpages that look like articles. When I tagged them as userpages , Moheen Reeyad untagged them . | |||
| * Leelabratee, who doesn't participate in AfC other than what I mention here, has approved several AfC's by Moheen Reeyad, many of which should not have been created: ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| :* Note that ] linked to ], but the link was piped to make it appear as an article. | |||
| * Leelabratee submitted ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] ], ], ], ], ], and ] to AfC and accepted them himself, all of which Moheen Reeyad and/or TilottamaTitlee subsequently worked on. | |||
| * Leelabratee also accepted these AfC submissions of his own, though I don't see a connection to Moheen Reeyad or TillotamaTitlee with these ones: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. | |||
| * Moheen Reeyad repeatedly adds links to his userspace from article space (entry originally added by {{userip|202.65.173.11}} ) (Leelebratee did this first ) (Leelabratee added the original ) | |||
| * Moheen Reeyad repeatedly requested a redirect from mainspace to his user page: | |||
| * Moheen Reeyad removed content from Leelabratee's talk page | |||
| I think that, at the minimum, meatpuppetry between these users exists (note that according to their userpages, TilottamaTitlee and Moheen Reeyad are dating), and AfC was definitely used to evade scrutiny of articles. ] (]) 16:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I've just noticed ], being actively edited. ] (]) 16:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::And Leelabratee accepted <del>it</del> a different one by him. ] (]) 20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Wow, this doesn't look pretty. Just to begin with, encyclopedia articles must not be linked to userpages at all, see ]. To create a userpage that looks like an article and then link to it as if it was one, is worse. It's either a crass attempt at self-promotion by masquerading as somebody who has a Misplaced Pages bio, or just some kind of fit of bad judgment. The removal of Jackmcbarn's userpage tags makes it difficult to believe in the second alternative. I hope somebody has time to deal with it, as also the apparent misuse of AfC and other problematic behaviour outlined above — I have to go to bed now. ] | ] 23:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC). | |||
| :* Ugh, indeed. I too have to go to bed as it's 1am, but I've redirected a few obviously NN band members to the band article and deleted a template with no links - that's as far as I've got so far. Some of the articles ''are'' obviously notable, but I'm sure not all of them are. I've sent the userpages to MfD as well. ] (]) 00:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I went ahead and started AfDs on a couple of the articles that were definitely not notable and promotional, linking only to sales sites for the books. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 00:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Just a note: I brought up a ] in June. Granted, it wasn't about potential sock/meatpuppetry, but there were serious editing concerns. ] (]) 00:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Since I posted the report, Leelabratee has accepted the following AfC submissions, all by Moheen Reeyad: ], ], and ]. In addition, Moheen Reeyad created ] on his own. ] (]) 02:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Upon further investigation, Leelabratee has also accepted these AfC submissions of their own: ], ], ], and ] (though the last two have such a move web that I'm not sure). ] (]) 03:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :As a RFC "regular" I've also noticed these odd activities - substandard drafts being accepted but didn't connect these users with each other. Unfortunately much of this activity coincided with a backlog drive which also revealed other problems. We're currently working on a few ideas for filtering out reviewers with insufficient experience and knowlege of the minimum acceptable standards for articles - which would probably also help to uncover abuses such as this. ] (]) 07:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{facepalm}} ... As an AfC regular, and the man who dragged Arctic Kangaroo up to ANI a few weeks back, I can only repeat my increasingly regular calls for the ability to review submissions to be stripped and given out only by consensus at ], which would solve all this for the long term. ] ] ] 09:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::That wouldn't have stopped this, because for some of the articles, Leelabratee just moved them to mainspace and removed the AfC template manually. ] (]) 12:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Untangling this=== | |||
| * I've only got a few hours before I'm away for a few days, I'm afraid, but I'm currently leaving warnings on the three user's talkpages to stop their activity on creating new pages and AFC submissions until this is sorted out. I'll then try to have a look at some more of the articles. ] (]) 08:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :* I've tagged a few more articles and deleted some that clearly fail speedy deletion criteria - and I've also opened an SPI - ] because some of the stylistic and spelling similarities between the three users' creations is far too close to be a coincidence. Good luck to whoever takes this up. ] (]) 09:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::* On that note, could an admin keep an eye on them and warn/block if they carry on creating articles/using AFC? Thanks. ] (]) 09:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'm going through their submissions. The trouble is, they aren't entirely obvious spam / promotional so they can't be speedied via ], and ] might be borderline notable - though I think that's more by luck than judgement. The numerous articles relating to ] might be notable, but the current articles give no indication why or cite any reliable sources - but again I think this is sufficient to avoid CSD. I've reduced a couple to redirects. ] ] ] 09:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: | |||
| == User:Moarnighar == | |||
| :::* My apology for my behavior. But, I want to contribute here. In sometimes I was confused as like my previous work. I committed, in future I should be careful. ] (]) 13:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Moarnighar}} | |||
| *'''Checkuser confirms that the three accounts are the same individual. Indefblocks for abuse of multiple accounts.''' Confusion doesn't go far in accounting for such abuse. I've blocked the three accounts; could somebody else add the appropriate tags to the pages, please? I'm having trouble finding them. (The tags, not the pages. :-)) ] | ] 09:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC). | |||
| ::You want to use ], probably with ] as the master - I can add the tags but a) I'm not an admin and b) it's probably better if the admin doing the blocking also does the tagging. ] ] ] 14:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::All now blocked and tagged. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 16:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Thank you very much. I agree with tagging MR as the sockmaster. I will now ask for help with something else that I don't know how to do (is there no end to the incompetence of this admin?). I would suppose from the circumstances that there may be some real names here — at least one. Is it possible to do the <nowiki>__NOINDEX__</nowiki> thing for this particular ANI thread, or to hide it in some other way? It's really desirable that Google doesn't find it, IMO. ] | ] 20:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC). | |||
| :*ANI and its archives are already noindexed, so no worries there. ] (]) 02:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Based on ] as well as earlier evidence, I'm inclined to think that this wasn't sockpuppetry, but rather meatpuppetry, although that may just be semantics at this point. ] (]) 03:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * pinging editors from ]: {{ping|Rsjaffe|Callanecc|Spicy}} | |||
| *I'm impressed by your capacity for assuming good faith, but as you say it makes little difference. Thank you very much for bringing the problem to attention, Jackmcbarn. Perhaps somebody could close this now. ] | ] 03:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC). | |||
| * pinging editors from ]: {{ping|Gidonb|GreenC|Allan Nonymous|Rainsage|Aaron Liu}} | |||
| :Have all of the articles been reviewed to see if they're worthy to keep? I only see a few that have been edited since I posted this. ] (]) 03:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * also pinging {{ping|Alpha3031}} | |||
| :Honestly, from looking this over, I ''could'' see it as a family situation, with multiple people using different accounts from the same computer. That said, the fact that apparently they're - ] or ] - gaming the system in that way means there's no practical difference from outright socking. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 15:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == User:Maxximiliann == | |||
| == Kosem Sultan - warring edit == | |||
| ===Section on Maxximiliann=== | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{archive top|Per the consensus, Maxximiliann is blocked indefinitely from Misplaced Pages per ], ], and his "agreement" to the block as a "protest". ] (]) 05:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{User|Maxximiliann}} is continually attempting to alter articles about historical topics relating to the Neo-Babylonian period to suit an alternative chronology which is a theological opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses. When facts are presented at Talk, he does not respond with any sources to support his view, and instead attempts to dismiss the evidence with childish retorts (e.g. ). | |||
| 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 | |||
| If not blocked altogether, the editor should be topic-banned from editing articles relating to Jehovah's Witnesses or the Neo-Babylonian period. | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{User|Dougweller}} has already warned the editor about edit-warring. | |||
| 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: | |||
| See: | |||
| 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) | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| --] (]) 01:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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). | |||
| :Herewith I file a Counterclaim against {{User|Jeffro77}}. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :The changes I've attempted to implement are solidly based on archaeological evidence (]), historical evidence {{User|Jeffro77}} '''''himself''''' has presented (See: ] 04:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)), the research presented by other Misplaced Pages editors (See: ], ], ], ] & ] among others.) and grade school arithmetic, to wit: | |||
| :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) | |||
| :Since King Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E.. Cyrus' first regal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E. This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E. or "the seventh month (Tishri)" as Ezra 3:1 states. Since this date for Israel's repatriation after its seven decade exile in Babylon ( Chronicles 36:20,21; Jeremiah 25:12; Zechariah 1:12; Daniel 9:2; Zechariah 7:5 and Jeremiah 29:10 among others) is based on the pivotal year of 539 B.C.E, and is, therefore, authoritative, this makes: | |||
| == SPA User:Muzaffarpur1947 and persistant removal of negative information about ] == | |||
| # Ab 607 BCE the legitimate year for the final siege of Jerusalem | |||
| *{{userlinks|Muzaffarpur1947}} | |||
| # 617 BCE the year for the second siege of Jerusalem and | |||
| 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. | |||
| # 618 BCE the year for the first siege of Jerusalem | |||
| :These are just simple, straightforward conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence. Really, I don't see what all the fuss is about. | |||
| :However, since Jeffro has made it clear he intends to ignore the evidence and coerce his point of view on all Misplaced Pages pages pertaining and related to these historical events, it is with sincere sadness that I respectfully request he be topic banned from editing all articles discussing this period in ancient Jewish history. ] ] 01:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The editor's claim that ''This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E.'' is a fabrication. Most sources give 538 for that event. The "preponderance of the evidence" does not support these theological opinions of Jehovah's Witnesses. There is a '''great deal''' of evidence in support of the secularly accepted Neo-Babylonian period, and this is not countered by theological superstitions. Further, ''even if'' the ''scriptural'' passages are considered in context, they don't support the '70 years' as a period of ''exile'' anyway, but of ''nations being subject to Babylon'', and a ''later'' release from exile. | |||
| ::The supposed "simple, straightforward conclusions" are based on a faulty premise and contradict all secular sources (and not merely 'my point of view') about the Neo-Babylonian period.--] (]) 01:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' - I would like to hear ] first before any further discussion as a more reliable and neutral editor. Otherwise, based solely on above it could be ]. The very first link offered by Jeffro77 shows him/her reformatting the Talk page and creating subsection '''JW chronology''' over references like the NIV Student Bible which suggests that Jeffro77 is back to ] behaviour with too much time combatting JWs.<small> As far as the actual issue I justed posted a German academic source at the bottom of Jeffro77's ] section which makes it clear that the "JW Chronology" comes from a historically questionable verse in Book of Daniel - regret I have no English source to hand, but the German academic doesn't ascribe Daniel 1,1 to JW authorship.</small> ] (]) 01:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The German source you provided explicitly states that any 607-based chronology ''is wrong''.--] (]) 02:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::In relation to the other complaint, I gave the section a name (it previously had ''no name'') because the other editor had tacked it onto a stale discussion from several years ago; I have no objection to renaming that section heading. The chronology ''these days'' is held almost exclusively by JWs. However, there ''are'' other minor Bible Student groups with common origins to JWs that also hold to these views. More accurately, the interpretation of the '70 years' in question is a teaching borrowed and adapted from ], from which JWs and various other Adventist groups developed.--] (]) 02:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Jeffro you're not getting it: this is ANI, not Sunday School, the issue is not my German academic's opinion of the reliability of Daniel 1,1 - no one here cares about what is "right" or "wrong" (moreover I don't see "wrong"/"falsch" anywhere in the ref I provided). The issue is ] behaviour which your reply above ''"'70 years' in question is a teaching borrowed and adapted from ], from which JWs and various other Adventist groups developed"'' (both factually wrong and confirms the simplistic combative frame of thinking here) just confirms. ] (]) 02:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your source states, "Diese Datierung widerspricht nicht nur allen historisch zuverlässigen Quellen, sondern auch den Darstellungen in den übrigen biblischen Büchern" (Literal translation: "This dating contradicts not only all historical reliable sources, but also representations in the other biblical books")--] (]) 02:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I also notice that although In ictu oculi claims to be neutral in this matter, he made a jibe about 'Sunday School' when I briefly responded here to a matter ''he raised'' about a German source, yet he made no such objection to the POV comments made above by Maxximiliann.--] (]) 07:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Argumentum ignoratio elenchi. Since when is truth established by consensus? Try again.] ] 02:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Since Misplaced Pages ]. ] (]) 03:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I would also clarify that the concern expressed by {{User|In ictu oculi}} is based on only a subset of Maxximiliann's assertions. There are various changes sought by Maxximiliann in various articles that contradict reliable sources, and not ''just'' the ''more broad'' interpretations about only Daniel 1:1 raised by Iio. Considered ''in full'', the position taken by Maxximiliann is peculiar to JWs.--] (]) 03:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: "''The editor's claim that This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E. is a fabrication. Most sources give 538 for that event''" Have I got this right? Are people really arguing over ''one year'', could even be just a few months,when this ancient event of somewhat dubious historicity supposedly took place?] (]) 02:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::One year can matter a lot when you are a Jehovah's Witness trying to keep the house of cards that is your entire worldview from falling apart. Misplaced Pages should of course not see it as its mission to help keeping up that house of cards, but should simply provide the year most commonly used in reliable, non-sectarian sources - i.e. 538.] 02:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That difference of ''one year'' is only ''one'' of several changes the editor wants to make. He also wants to shift the fall of Jerusalem from 587 to 607, and he wants to move the earlier siege from 597 to 617. He wants to do this throughout Misplaced Pages. I recommend that {{User|Smeat75}} read the actual discussions cited at the beginning of this section.--] (]) 02:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As with the involving the Haymarket affair article here on Misplaced Pages, the overriding imperative needs to be the truth as sustained by evidence, not the upholding of they tyranny of the majority by fallacious argumentum ad populum. ] ] 02:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You seem to have missed some of our important policies which clearly shows that consensus and reliable secondary sources decide what goes in our articles - not anyone's private and unsupported interpretations of primary sources. Misplaced Pages is basically ruled by the the consensus of qualified opinions.] 03:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A subjective interpretation of scripture does not trump all of the '''evidence''' on which the secular history of the Neo-Babylonian period is based.--] (]) 03:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support short topic holidays for both as per both's proposals''' - Maxximiliann from Bible chronology, Jeffro77 from Jehovah's Witnesses. ] (]) 03:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::In ictu oculi has not disclosed that he has previously disagreed with me about theological issues and is not a neutral observer in this matter.--] (]) 03:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::In this I'm neutral, I see you both behaving in a way that would benefit from a holiday. Jeffro77 I couldn't care less about "theological issues" and do not recall having seen you post anything related to "theology" - what I have seen (that ] comes to mind) is single-minded pattern of ] edits, and have previously warned you about your focus on one religious group and conducting what looks more like "JW-hunting" suitable to a forum or blog than en.wp. In addition to your WP:Battleground behaviour on Talk pages and making it an issue of which church editors belong to, additionally in this case you need to provide a diff for where Maxximiliann self-identified as a "JW" - if you can't that would be an additional reason for holiday from "JWs" and contributing something else to the project. ] (]) 03:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You are definitely not neutral. (In ictu oculi's personal bias was demonstrated in , where he lied about me in support of another editor's lie about me. Both editors ignored the actual order of events, which was evident from the diff supplied in my response.) But aside from that, I ''don't care'' about to which religion any particular editor ''belongs''. Anyone is welcome to ''believe'' whatever they like. They ''are not'' welcome to push those beliefs onto Misplaced Pages articles about historical subjects that are extremely well attested by secular sources.--] (]) 03:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] is a ]. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 04:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::OK. In ictu oculi said: "However if you actually look at the link Jeffro posted in evidence all it shows is AuthorityTam notifying the page of the ANI, and Jeffro being caught calling AT a "liar," and then AT posting Jeffro's own words to show that he hadn't lied and Jeffro seems to have forgotten what he said at ANI." In that case however, 'AT' had actually posted my "own words" (where I ''provisionally'' agreed with a recommendation by ''another editor'') '''from 3 days later''' than the original accusation made by 'AT' (who claimed I was 'moving to have that user blocked'). 'AT' in fact ''had lied'' about the order of events, and then In ictu oculi ''also lied'' by saying that 'AT' had not lied, which he did in order to make it appear that ''I'' had lied.--] (]) 04:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As to In ictu oculi's claim that this is merely a matter of ''me'' on some 'JW-hunt', see also concerns raised by Dougweller about Maximmiliann's edits.--] (]) 05:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{ec}}:::::::I ran into Maxximiliann when he started changing dates and the name of God in biblical articles. I ended up giving him two 3RR warnings, one for ] and the other for ]. I just noticed when I logged on a few minutes that he gave me similar 3RR warnings although I only edited Exekiel once and Nebuchadnezzar II twice. From a quick look at my edit summaries, I reverted him for changing dates and the name of God with no explanation, changes that in some cases then contradicted other articles. I also posted asking for help at ]. Note that I've also notified Til about this discussion as he was also involved in it there and with some of the articles. ] (]) 05:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::], thanks, you would then agree with topic holiday for Maximillian? Be interested to hear what Til E says too. As regards Jeffro's involvement, do you see any diff for where Maxximiliann self-identified as a "JW" - much as none of us like JWs, given the recent Scientology "outing" on ANI etc, we shouldn't be attributing religion to other editors. ] (]) 06:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"much as none of us like JWs" | |||
| :::: If you are prejudiced, ], you should only speak for yourself. Imagine if there was an "e" between the J and W and maybe then you can see the blatant religious intolerance. You might disagree with the opinions of members of a particular religious denomination but you don't speak for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::], I fully agree, but the point is that I'm just being honest, declaring my weakness; I don't like anyone who knocks on my door when I'm watching TV, but two times now I have been the one standing up for two different editors accused by Jeffro77 of being JWs. I agree 100% with you that it's a small step from JW to any other religious group - imagine if there was an "e" between the J and W in Jeffro77's posts; the question ] is do you support Jeffro's attribution of religious affiliation to a User and characterizing the edits as "J W" ? Should en.wp be a place for religious hounding? What do you think? ] (]) 02:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Quit the irrelevant posturing. I didn't 'accuse' editors ''of being JWs''. The fact that an editor may be a JW is not the point at all, as I've already clearly stated here several times. I stated (correctly) that an editor is allowing his own bias to heavily influence his dogmatic insistence of broad changes throughout Misplaced Pages. Not only has he quoted JW literature (without citing his source), but he is also pushing for a rewrite of history that is '''only important to JWs''', the editor's personal bias is ]. As I've already stated—repeatedly—whether or not he is officially a member of that group ''is entirely irrelevant''.--] (]) 03:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whether Maximmiliann is formally (or even ''informally'') a ''member'' of Jehovah's Witnesses has no real bearing on the fact that he is using Misplaced Pages to promote a minority view of history that is peculiar to that religion.--] (]) 07:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{ec}}:::@In ictu oculi Yes, I'd agree with a topic holiday for Maximillian. I have seen no statement by him that he is a JW and I agree we shouldn't be attributing religion to other editors. However, I'm not sure this also means that if we see a pov being pushed that we can attribute to a particular religion that we can't point that out as Jeffro has done at ] (although he's also called these view's Maxximiliann's views). Eg., we can say that a Creationist viewpoint is being put forward by an editor, surely? I'll also note that Maximillian moved from edit-warring to overtagging, eg (by the way, do I spot some OR there from earlier editors as well as statements that need attributing so as not to be pov?)] (]) 07:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Doug, thanks again. Then I don't see anyone opposing a topic holiday for Maxxiimillian. | |||
| ::::As for Jeffro77, the "I smell a JW!" approach is a bit different from someone noting that an argument (not person) tends to denying evolution, round earth or greenhouse gases. We generally don't need editors saying "I smell a Catholic!" "I smell a Pentecostal!" in the middle of esoteric Talk page discussions and these are borderline incursions into breach of ]. And Jeffro77 is persisting here at ANI with identifying another user's religion, despite his own acknowledgement that the chronology is not exclusive to that group: | |||
| ::::{{quotation|The Methodist Review - Volume 37 - Page 420 1855 "Jehoiachin fell about the year B. C. 606. At this date commences the seventy years' captivity. Judah was therefore carried to what we have called Babylon proper; for, as is apparent by the dates already given, Nineveh was now included in ..."}} | |||
| ::::The only problem would be that a topic holiday for Jeffro77 might be tantamount to a full ban, since he/she seems to make no edits outside JWs. Perhaps then rather than a like-for-like holiday, a '''Warning''' not to attempt identifying other user's religion and then personalizing Talk on that basis might be in order? ] (]) 09:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You're seriously citing a periodical from '''1855''' to support your claim that the editor is promoting beliefs of some group other than Jehovah's Witnesses? Not only was that ''before'' the more recent discovery of a great deal of archaeological evidence from the Neo-Babylonian period, but the year for the fall of Jerusalem also has no special significance in Methodist belief. I already previously indicated that various ''minor'' Adventist groups hold to ''similar'' chronologies based on a view that developed from ] (and evidently other groups held ''similar'' views in the 19th century as well). The fact that such groups were ''more prevalent'' in the 19th century also has no bearing. I already explicitly stated that it doesn't matter whatsoever whether the editor is or is not ''a member'' of Jehovah's Witnesses, even though the edits are ] with the beliefs of that group (and not merely ''similar'' to the beliefs of a group from the '''19th century'''). If the editor is a member of ''some other minor religion'', or of ''no religion'', the fact remains that his desire to distort the history of the Neo-Babylonian period is entirely inappropriate.--] (]) 11:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It also strikes me as odd that In ictu oculi insists on charging me with 'borderline personal attacks', when it was ''he'' who said earlier today ''on this page'' that "none of us like JWs". He clearly has his own reasons for wanting some kind of remonstration against me, which he's done during the last year almost every time I've particated in an ANI. My best guess is that he has maintained a grudge after a dispute with a "pro-JW editor" "spilled over" into an article he watches (where he labelled me a "anti-JW/ex-JW editor", though I don't identify as either). Perhaps he just doesn't like atheists editing articles about religion. Who knows? Whatever the case, I haven't done anything improper here by preventing a biased editor (whether he be a JW, a Bible Student, or a Methodist from 1855) from trying to get false information put into all articles relating to the Neo-Babylonian period.--] (]) 12:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Jeffro, yes that's about right, your anti-JW activities spilled over into a mainstream Christianity article I had watchlisted, and I remembered it. Spot on. My view that en.wp is not a place for this kind of activity is not a "grudge," it is a view that en.wp is not a place for this kind of activity. I would say the same of an editor whose Talk page contributions are centred on anti-Catholic anti-Muslim anti-Mormon or anti-Bahai edits too. | |||
| :::::::And no I'm citing a Methodist periodical from 1855 to show that (whatever my own view on taking a verse from Daniel as historically reliable) the view isn't limited to the group you are going after. | |||
| :::::::I do not give an expletive deleted what group Maxximillian belongs to - and neither should you. If you want to play religious heresy-hunter, then please go do it on a religious forum. Your approach doesn't help dealing with edits like Maxximillian's and en.wp doesn't need a sectarian approach to keep fundamentalist chronologies out of history articles, there are plenty of editors willing to stand up for that anyway. ] (]) 15:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Your claims about others holding a strong belief about 607 are tortuous at best, and derive no support at all from the fact that groups '''in the 19th century''' held similar views (but not ''strongly'') '''before the actual chronology was more clearly established'''. In fact, groups then believed it was '''606''', and even Jehovah's Witnesses didn't adopt '''607''' until the 1940s. I do not care whether editors are JWs, and I've engaged with various ''unbiased'' JWs (i.e. they are able to edit without relying on personal biases) on Misplaced Pages over the years; you've never heard about those '''because they weren't causing problems'''. I have only ever objected to editors injecting ''bias'' into articles (which I have done in the case of both 'anti-' and 'pro-JW' editors) or when being lied about by other editors. I've sometimes even been accused of being 'pro-JW' by other editors with a negative bias toward the religion. If following up the bias of other editors happens to occasionally affect your happy little world, well that's just tough. The fact that I have occasionally complained about biased editors doesn't make me the bad guy.--] (]) 00:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It ''may be'' that Maximmiliann's views about both ''biblical chronology'' and importance of the name ''Jehovah'' just happen to co-incide with those peculiar to JWs, though that is extremely unlikely, and entirely unimportant. The views he is pushing (therefore ''his views'') are ''also'' the views ''uniquely'' held by JWs. (Some extremely small Bible Student movement groups—which have common origins to JWs—hold to a ''similar'' chronology.)--] (]) 07:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I was invited to give my comments here. This is a good demonstration of the fact we must admit that there are in existence ''conflicting views of history'' between differing schools of thought (the more so for BC times.) The JW school of thought and their view of history is but one example. So much of the reconstruction of events that long ago relies on assumptions, conjectures and interpretations made by historians who are 'mainstream' in one country, 'fringe' in the next country. The JW school of thought has enough of a following that it should be mentioned in the appropriate context on the relevant articles, in the relevant subsections, with attributation to them. I have no problem with a fellow editor subscribing to JW or any other belief system - as long as one doesn't try to make the entire project conform to one's own belief-system to the exclusion of all others. JWs follow methods for arriving at dates that are uniquely their own, not shared externally, and Maximilliann surely realizes this. Different schools of thought attribute different amounts of face value to different pieces of evidence, which is why one will hold a given shred of evidence at no value and ignore it altogether, and another may give that same evidence maximal face value while ignoring some other evidence. This is even among the critical historians who try to examine all primary sources whether Hebrew, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hittite, etc. etc. for their respective potential intended uses as propaganda in BC times. So accomodating the JW viewpoint in a dedicated subsection seems reasonable enough, but certainly not presenting it as the only correct view. ] /]/ 13:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your suggestion is quite different to Maximmiliann's 'request' for the dates to be "corrected" in all articles relating to the Neo-Babylonian period: "Given the whole host of articles pertaining to this period in ancient Jewish history that need to be corrected to these dates, I kindly solicit your help to make these changes effective as soon as possible." | |||
| ::I have no objection to articles about relevant ''events'' having a ''brief'' subsection indicating notable alternative view(s). Such subsections would need a clear indication that they are not mainstream, and should not become preachy treatises. Such a subsection may be appropriate on articles such as ], though I do not see that it would be appropriate or necessary to modify ''every'' article for which JWs posit a different year (the 20 years they add to the Neo-Babylonian period affects the timing of ''all'' earlier events, in addition to other variations in their chronology before, after and during the Neo-Babylonian period), nor at every article that happens to mention the year for events they consider notable. I do not believe such sections would be appropriate at list articles in the form "''Year'' BC", as it would dominate the content.--] (]) 14:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Comment - Maxxiimillian wrote above ''simple, straightforward conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence. Really, I don't see what all the fuss is about'' whenever I see that from an editor on the project for all of 4 days, about material from 2,500 years ago, I would say topic ban immediately. --] (]) 14:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::His newness to the project generally works in his favor, not against him, per ]. But his responses I have seen at ] consist largely of rhetorical retorts like "''And how exactly does that change the fact that your entire argument is just naked casuistry of the worst kind?''" I would give him a chance to acclimatize to our more tolerant culture, and explain that he can help properly elucidate this viewpoint in the appropriate places as Jeffro outlined, but if he doesn't shape up soon and continues to insist his view is the only correct one, he can and should be topic banned. ] /]/ 14:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::You've made some very salient points which I have certainly taken note of. And, for the record, I would be more than happy with a subsection explaining the controversy surrounding the use of 587 BCE as opposed to 607 BCE in relevant articles just as the opposing opinions of Albright, Thiele and others are also represented. In my humble opinion, I think this would be very much in harmony with ].] ] 15:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There really isn't much "controversy surrounding the use of 587 BCE as opposed to 607 BCE". 587 has broad acceptance. Dogmatic adherence to 607 is ''controversial''. The view certainly isn't as notable as the views of Albright and Thiele, but as already stated, it should not be a problem for articles about relevant events to have a brief subsection explaining the JWs' alternative date. Such subsections must be based on ''reliable sources'' (which may include JW literature for expressing the JW belief, though secondary sources would be preferred), and not merely on subjective interpretations of scriptures.--] (]) 01:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Regrettably, although you might be happy with a separate subsection, I believe ] overrides the opinions of any one editor. Also, there is a real problem of any article of this type, where there seem to be religious opinions on a topic which might not have much if any support in the independent academic world, that an article could quickly be overburdened by material on the alternative view(s). Largely because of that, I believe that we have made it a point to follow the lead of, basically, the leading reference sources of all kinds. Jeffro is an experienced editor around here, with some familiarity with policies and guidelines, if also, maybe, a bit ''too'' anti-JW, and I think between Maxximiliann and himself they might be able to determine whether there is sufficient basis to establish notability of a separate article on the alternative dates given by the JWs to biblical events, and/or whether they would meet ] guidelines in the main articles, or whether there might be (maybe) reason for thinking that some sort of ] article including this material and other might be best. But I would very much urge Maxximiliann to familiarize himself with the relevant policies and guidelines first. Otherwise, I would tend to support Til's statements in general myself. ] (]) 18:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't follow. What religious opinions have I expressed? ] ] 19:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've just discovered that at ] he has written "I propose that, especially in articles written in English, "Jehovah" be used as God's proper name." ] (]) 21:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And how precisely is suggesting that English names be used in articles written in English a religious statement? ] ] 02:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well, that's fairly clearly a rather clear statement of not only a religious opinion, regarding "Jehovah" being God's proper name, but also one which fairly clearly and I think exclusively is held by the JWs. ] (]) 00:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Regarding Maxximiliann's question, ''What religious opinions have I expressed?'' He quoted a JW publication at ] (without providing his source), and it's been fairly evident all along that he is expressing the views of Jehovah's Witnesses. As I've already stated, the fact that an editor is either a member or supporter of the religion is ''unimportant'', but it is not appropriate to deny a conflict of interest. | |||
| :::::::You are mistaken. That "Jehovah" is the English translation of the Hebraic Tetragrammaton is well attested to by many, many scholars. ] ] 02:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I do not object to Til Eulenspiegel's suggestion about a ''brief'' subsection at existing articles about events that are significant in JW belief. I do not believe there is sufficient notability (i.e. discussion in reliable secondary sources) for a separate article on the matter. The JW belief about 607 BCE is currently expressed in various articles about Jehovah's Witnesses: ], ], ], and ].--] (]) 00:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::With all those articles already covering it, one would have to conclude that it has received due mention here somewhere. I'd have to check on articles on the Siege itself to see if the JW belief gets much attention in them. I don't know one way or another, but I tend to think that really independent academic sources on the subject probably don't give the religious views of what is apparently one fairly significant, but still rather small as percentage of the population, group's variant ideas about dating much if any attention at all. ] (]) 00:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I note the segue from "in articles written in English, "Jehovah" be used as God's proper name" to the argument that "That "Jehovah" is the English translation of the Hebraic Tetragrammaton is well attested to by many, many scholars." That's not an argument for using Jehovah instead of any other name in our articles, something that can't be decided here or on an article talk page. Since I know for a fact that Yahweh is used by many scholars writing in English, M's argument fails but does indicate the type of argument he uses - which simply isn't helpful. Again off-topic here, I'm concerned about using non-mainstream dating even in a subsection unless it is significantly discussed in reliable mainstream sources - otherwise where do we draw the line, and how to we maintain ] in articles? ] (]) 06:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''' - Maxximiliann is now resorting to personal attacks..--] (]) 07:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, calling people bigots isn't really going to help anyone, is it? Anyone think that we shouldn't block here? ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 15:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, just blocked 24 hours for personal attacks. ] (]) 18:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::At his User Talk page, Maxximiliann has responded to the block by asking, "How is it that I incurred such a penalty when In ictu oculi at the outset identified Jeffro as a bigot, yet, received no sanction?" This raises the fact that not only is Maxximiliann still continuing the same personal attack, but also that In ictu oculi has made false accusations about me at this ANI as well. | |||
| :::I correctly indicated that the editor is pushing a JW POV in articles. In ictu oculi insisted that other groups hold to the same position. To 'support' this he provided two sources: 1) A German source that says a particular interpretation of Daniel 1:1 might seem to support 607/606 but it contradicts all historical sources and all other biblical material; 2) A Methodist periodical from 1855—before a great deal of more recent archaeological evidence—that mentioned 606. Other editors have also stated that Maximilliann is in fact editing from a JW perspective. Basically all I'm guilty of is knowing more about the subject than In ictu oculi. Please instruct In Ictu oculi to leave me alone.--] (]) 9:29 am, Today (UTC+10) | |||
| ::::''"Basically all I'm guilty of is knowing more about the subject than In ictu oculi"'' - true in one point, in that you know more about Jehovah Ws than I want or need to, just as I hope you recognise that en.wp Religion editors know far more than you about Christianity outside Jehovahs Witnesses. However I stand by the observation, based entirely on your own appearances, that you are in effect an SPA whose main activity on en.wp is detecting, baiting and combatting one particular Christian group. And it surprises me that there's apparently either indifference or even tolerance and approval at ANI for this activity, and that not a single editor feels it is worthy of a '''Warning'''. To extend what NewJerseyLiz noted any editor who made the section edit you did identifying another editor's views as new section "Jew views" rather than new section "JW views" would rightly be nuked off en.wp. ] (]) 00:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Rubbish. You claimed that other groups believe the same chronology. You provided two sources that ''do not support your claim''. You were ''wrong'', and that's ''all''. It's notable that In ictu oculi is either unaware of or chooses not to mention the many times I've indicated other editors' bias ''against'' JWs. For example, see parts of ], ], ] where {{User|Alastair Haines}} (now blocked) was vigorously trying to assert that JWs cannot be listed as 'Christian'. (I also note that another editor ({{User|Lisa}}) has previously suspected similarity in approach by Alastair Haines and In ictu oculi, though I don't assert that they're the same person.)--] (]) 00:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::NewJerseyLiz explicitly responded to the inappropriateness of ''In ictu oculi's own comment'' that "none of us like JWs". Yet In ictu oculi imagines that NewJerseyLiz's statement implies something about ''my'' edits, merely because I correctly identified a quite obvious POV. Dougweller and John Carter have also stated that the POVs expressed by Maxximiliann are those of Jehovah's Witnesses.--] (]) 07:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The claim by ] that Jeffro's main activity is "detecting, baiting and combatting one particular Christian group" further betrays his own ignorance, bias and combative attitude. Jeffro has been praised by many editors for his insistence on Misplaced Pages policy and his tireless efforts to counter the efforts of zealots who try to both censor criticism of the JWs (contained in RS material) and turn JW-related articles into JW PR propaganda. Reading this thread, there is a stark contrast between the behavior of Jeffro, who fights to keep articles balanced and unbiased, and Maxximillian, who is striving to transform encyclopedic material to fit the JW world view. ] (]) 03:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I supported a block for Maxximillian. The issue now is Jeffro77 and BlackCab's use of en.wp. ] (]) 03:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well, this should be interesting. ] (]) 04:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''' - since his block, Maxximillian has continued to label me a "bigot" at his User Talk page. He is basing this opinion on the false representation of me by In ictu oculi (Iio) that Iio's own statement that "none of us like JWs" is somehow comparable to my identification of a JW teaching as a JW teaching. Iio claims that changing "JW" to "Jew" demonstrates his point (a misrepresentation of a statement made by {{User|NewJerseyLiz}}). Whilst the change in semantics ''does'' demonstrate Iio's bias regarding groups whom ''he'' alleges that 'we all don't like', it would not be 'bigotted' or 'discriminatory' to identify a Jewish teaching ''as a Jewish teaching''. Indeed, if an editor insisted that some unique Jewish tradition be used as the basis for replacing some otherwise well-established fact across all of Misplaced Pages (though I'm not aware that there has been any attempt to do so), it would be entirely appropriate to identify it as a Jewish view.--] (]) 13:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: I didn't expect my comment to ] to have such "legs". It was really just a corrective statement directed to him, to be more careful with language, and not a condemnation of him or any other party. Every single person has their own biases but at least in the Misplaced Pages universe, we try to set aside biases in the interest of obtaining accurate representations, regardless of our personal allegiances. I apologize to Iio if my words came across as reproving or harsh. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="Purple">'''''N'''''ew'''''J'''''ersey'''''L'''''iz</font> <sup>]</sup> 21:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''<font color="#CD3278">Comment -</font>''' Jeffro introduced the Jehovah's Witnesses, ], mind you, as a red herring in a debate on ancient Jewish history to distract from the fact that (1) ] decreed the repatriation of the exiled Jews in Babylon in the year 539 BCE, (2) the Diaspora and (3) 538/537 BCE + 70 ≠ 587 BCE. How does this obvious antipathy for them not clearly evince his for Jehovah's Witnesses? ] ] 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Excuse me interrupting the thread here, but I would like to point out that the reference Maxx quotes above says "''Traditionally'' the Babylonian Exile...lasted 70 years." I have just been reading a lot about the "Exile" and re-doing the WP article on it, and all sorts of "traditional" beliefs about it are now disputed or disproved by archaeology. All the Jews were not taken into Babylonian captivity, only a minority, the decrees of Cyrus in the book of Ezra may not be genuine, there was probably not a single event when the Jews returned, more a gradual process. Therefore it seems to me that endless squabbling about the dates of events that did not take place, or may not have taken place, is a fairly futile exercise.] (]) 02:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Indeed. Regarding the decree in ''Ezra'', it's unsurprising that Jewish texts recorded Cyrus' decree as the will of their god, whereas the Cyrus Cylinder records it as the will of ''Marduk'' (Babylonian). Cyrus ''allowed'' Jews to return in his first year as king, but many Jews ''remained in Babylon''. It's also notable that Maxximiliann dogmatically insists on 537 for the initial return, though most sources say 538; this is clearly in favour of JW views about 607. I've tried to tell Maxximiliann several times that a subjective interepretation of scripture doesn't trump all the archaeological evidence about the period.--] (]) 03:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Firstly, it is ] that the view you're pushing is that of JWs, and you've also pasted material from JW literature at another Talk page. On to your numbered points: | |||
| ::#The reign of Darius the Great (which you've since corrected to Cyrus) didn't ''begin'' until 522 BCE (even in JW chronology). You're confusing him with 'Darius the Mede' (as named in the Bible, but elsewhere called ]) who was the General who captured Babylon in 539 BCE for ''Cyrus''. Further, it was ''Cyrus'' who made the ''decree'' for the Jews to return, not Darius. | |||
| ::#Your Google Books link reveals that the words ''Babylon'', ''exile'', ''70 years'', ''Jerusalem'', and ''encyclopedia'' appear together on ''the same page'' in ''one encyclopedia'', which is evidence of nothing. Babylonian records (''BM 21946'', ''VAT 4956'', '''thousands''' of contemporary business records, etc) confirm not only the accepted history of the Neo-Babylonian period, but also the Bible's own statement that the '70 years' was a period of Babylonian dominance rather than a period of Jewish exile—in fact, exiles were taken on numerous occasions, and most of them were taken about ''11 years prior'' to the fall of Jerusalem. You are welcome to provide ''any'' secular source that supports 607 for the fall of Jerusalem. Claiming that the exile didn't ''begin'' until ''all the Jews'' were exiled to Babylon is like saying World War I didn't begin until every country in the world was involved (though not ''all'' countries were). Varous sources also indicate that Judea was not 'completely depopulated', but that parts of Judea remained populated throughout the entire period (e.g. The Babylonian Gap, Ephraim Stern, Biblical Archaeology Review, 26:6, November/December 2000, page 51: "I do not mean to imply that the country was uninhabited during the period between the Babylonian destruction and the Persian period." Stern also states that "the northern part of Judah" was "spared this fate.") | |||
| ::#Because it was Babylon's dominance, and not the ''exile'' that lasted for 70 years, your arithmetic is not relevant. Also, since most sources indicate 538 (rather than 537) for the return of the Jews, it would seem natural that you would therefore insist on ''608'' (or at least "608/607"), yet you are insisting that the correct year 'must be' ''607'' (a JW teaching). | |||
| ::It is not "hatred and utter intolerance" to confirm that no secular sources support the view you want presented throughout Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 00:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The '''''only''''' reason you introduced the Jehovah's Witnesses into this discussion was to exploit the widespread hatred, prejudice and bigotry many feel towards them, including that of Misplaced Pages editors and admins. How does this not evince your own personal for Jehovah's Witnesses? ] ] 01:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have provided clear evidence that the chronology you are pushing is not supported by any secular sources. Your accusation is irrelevant ''ad hominem'', and itself constitutes a continued personal attack.--] (]) 01:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As stated previously, you're welcome to present any sources supporting your views about 607 BCE.--] (]) 01:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And I have. Unless you're insinuating the ] is an artifact of the Jehovah's Witnesses, not ancient Persian, or that all the secular scholarship that states the Jewish Diaspora lasted 70 years are really publications edited by the Jehovah's Witnesses. ] ] 01:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The Cyrus Cylinder provides support for events in 539 that are not disputed. It says nothing about 537. Most sources give 538 as the year for the return. | |||
| ::::::"All the secular sholarship" '''does not''' claim that the ''exile'' began at the destruction of Jersualem. Most of the exiles were taken in 597 BCE, and that is the year from which the Bible enumerates the exile (Ezekiel 40:1 explicitly indicates that the ''exile'' was several years prior to the ''fall of Jerusalem''). Many scholars give the exile as a round period starting from the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (at which time a tribute was paid, which included slaves). None say the exile began in 607. The Bible's own statement that ''all the nations would serve Babylon 70 years'' (Jeremiah 25:11) is entirely consistent with the fact that Babylon conquered the Assyrians in 609 BCE and remained the dominant power until 539.--] (]) 01:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Your exegesis continues to be painfully rudimentary especially given Ezra 1:1; Jeremiah 29:10; 2 Chronicles 36:21; Jeremiah 30:3; Daniel 9:2; Zechariah 1:12 and Jeremiah 27:22 and the scholarly consensus that establishes the length of the Diaspora at . ] ] 02:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Stop. Your Google Books link doesn't say ''anything'' about ''anything''. I have already indicated at another Talk page that you are taking those specific scriptures out of context (you've added a couple of others that I didn't specifically address before, but they add no weight to the chronology you're pushing). However, this page is not for in depth discussion of those. Interested editors can review my responses at the Talk pages indicated at the beginning of this discussion. Specific information about the context of the scriptures misused by Maxximiliann is indicated . (Not to mention the fact that your interpretation of scriptures does not trump all the evidence for the established Neo-Babylonian period.)--] (]) 02:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' First, I haven't had the time or the wherewithal to read through all of the comments here or go back to Talk Pages and see where this all started. But it seems like the crux is a different historiography of Early Christianity. Many churches and sects highlight particular aspects of history that they find notable or that illustrate some point that resonates with their theology. It seems like this is basically an issue of ]. General articles about Early Christianity should reflect the mainstream consensus of acknowledged biblical scholars (such as members of the SBL) who combine expertise in textual and historical analyses. | |||
| : If a particular church or sect has a different understanding than mainstream scholarship holds (which is likely as they have theological allegiances that academics are trained to set aside), these differences can be written into that church or sect's own Misplaced Pages article. | |||
| : While this approach might result in a middle-of-the-road perspective for general articles on Christianity, I think, ideally, a reader should be able to read any of these pages and not be able to discern the religious (or nonreligious) views of the editors who contributed to it. | |||
| : I should disclose my own background is in Religious Studies from a secular university and I remember one graduate student who was TA'ing a class in Early Christianity who was accused by one student of promoting fundamentalist Christianity. Considering she was a conservative Jew, she thought that this was a compliment, that her presentation had been so fair, balanced and free of bias. I think this is a worthwhile aim for Misplaced Pages. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="Purple">'''''N'''''ew'''''J'''''ersey'''''L'''''iz</font> <sup>]</sup> 21:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I kindly suggest you do take the time to investigate the relevant issues since, as I've continually highlighted, this is a matter regarding ancient Jewish chronological history and has absolutely nothing to do with the historiography of Early Christianity. ] ] 21:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maxximiliann has been making POV edits based on their own readings of primary sources, and their talk-page comments are even worse in their use of flawed arguments and primary sources. And they have just said above that they plan to continue. Although for the record, I don't agree with NJL's assertion that we should be working to appear biased in favour of any religious group at any one time, but rather to appear biased in favour of historical facts as accepted by the scholarly community. For the record, I found this thread because it was mentioned immediately above a thread I started last night on ]. ] (<small>]]</small>) 00:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Argumentum assertio. The ] is an archaeological artifact and the fact that the Jewish Diaspora lasted is well established by secular scholarship. Try again. ] ] 01:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(EDIT CONFLICT) I'm not saying you're wrong about the length of the exile. I am saying ]. Also, you seem to consistently use the non-standard phrase "argumentum assertio", a phrase which other Wikipedians should not reasonably be expected to understand since, for all intents and purposes, it appears to have been coined in the last few months on various internet forums by the non-notable apologist Joseph O Polanco. (Note that with the exception of your own comment on Misplaced Pages, all of the other examples in the last search ].) ] (<small>]]</small>) 02:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Well, I guess that is what happens when you read the argumentative comments and not the substance of the dispute. I was way off by a few centuries. While I had the context of the disagreement incorrect, I think my points about setting aside ones own bias is still valid. I'm trying to focus on core Misplaced Pages principles and not in the fight over details. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="Purple">'''''N'''''ew'''''J'''''ersey'''''L'''''iz</font> <sup>]</sup> 01:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Fine, I agree with you entirely. But setting aside one's own bias is not the same as using an encyclopedia to make theological assertions that appear to defend others' religious views. Misplaced Pages articles on Christianity and all other religions should be written from a ], not a ] or a ]. ] (<small>]]</small>) 02:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Maxximiliann's claim about secular sources here is misdirection. As stated above, the Cyrus Cylinder provides support for events in 539 that are not disputed, but says nothing about 537 or 607. His Google Books link only indicates that ''one encyclopedia'' once used the words ''Babylon'', ''exile'', ''70 years'', ''Jerusalem'', and ''encyclopedia'' on ''the same page''. His claims about what secular sources say about the exile are also misleading, as none count it from the fall of Jerusalem, and even the Bible confirms that the ''exile'' began years before ''the fall''.--] (]) 02:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Comment - Can user Maxximiliann please be indefinitely blocked already and this thread shut down. Enough is enough, but I expect more drahma and time sink in the future until he finally gets shut down. Oh well. --] (]) 02:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support call for ''topic'' block''' now, - enough ] | |||
| *'''issue warning''' to Jeffro77 for this . Or alternativley '''issue a barnstar''' if everybody here agrees that is appropriate and according to ]. ] (]) 02:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I correctly identified a JW teaching as a JW teaching. Your own bias in the matter has been thoroughly indicated in this discussion already. You should politely excuse yourself from any continued discussion, and refrain from making future false accusations about me.--] (]) 02:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::(EDIT CONFLICT) I haven't checked what exactly the facts ''M'' is claiming are, but the 70 years figure, as far as I remember, is not exclusively a JW teaching. IIO having a bias does ''not'' disqualify him from participating (examine my edit history and you might be able to determine my "bias" as well). I don't think an indef block is appropriate yet. ''M'' is new and doesn't understand how we work on Misplaced Pages. They need mentoring to show them that we don't treat talk pages like message boards, but rather to make rational arguments based on reliable, third-party sources, and we don't synthesize primary sources. I think a '''topic ban''' on '''ancient Hebrew/Israelite history, broadly construed''', until they can prove they have learned how to collaborate constructively, would be more appropriate. ] (<small>]]</small>) 03:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'70 years' ''on its own'' is not uniquely a JW teaching. ''70 years of exile starting from the destruction of Jerusalem in 607'' is uniquely a JW teaching. | |||
| ::::Iio's "bias" to which I refer is a grudge ''against me'', as previously indicated in this thread; I was not referring to his ''ideology''.--] (]) 03:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} Maxximilian, I've reviewed this entire thread, and to me, the consensus is very clear: your edits on this topic area are ] to the building of the encyclopedia. So, I'm going to offer you a choice before I close this thread: would you prefer a topic ban from all articles relating religion, broadly construed, or would you prefer an indefinite site block? If you provide no response or a response which is not a direct answer to this question, I will go with the former. ] (]) 03:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Amazing! The exposition of truth a “disruptive activity.” Guess nothing's been learned from you guys inadvertently perverted history. | |||
| :Thing is, math doesn’t lie. 538/537 BCE + 70 ≠ 587 BCE. It can’t. | |||
| :If my insistence on this reality is cause for punitive sanctions then, as an act of formal protest, I opt for indefinite site ban. Why in the world would I have anything to do with any movement that places argumentum ad populum fantasy above truth? ] ] 04:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| ===Additional section on behavior of Jeffro77=== | |||
| * I request that after Maxximilian is blocked the thread be kept open for 24 hours to allow editors to comment on whether is appropriate according to ] without the bigger and unanimously agreed problem of Maxximilian distracting from the lesser but still problematic issue. ] (]) 03:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dougweller has already indicated in this discussion that it is appropriate to identify a particular POV as what it is. Dougweller and John Carter also specifically identified Maxximiliann's edits as JW POV. ''You'' are the only one who keeps ranting about my correct identification of M's POV, after ''you'' incorrectly claimed that other groups hold M's POV, and I've already demonstrated in this dicussion that ''you'' are not a neutral observer.--] (]) 03:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't like unilateral refactoring of talk pages. And honestly (it may be my lack of experience of Jehovah's Witnesses) but "JW chronology" bears a superficial resemblance to "Jew chronology". But that's just my opinion. At most it merits a light slap on the wrist. If IIO is right, and Jeffro intends on engaging Jehovah's Witnesses articles in a problematic (non-NPOV) manner, this will come to light later and can be dealt with then. ] (<small>]]</small>) 03:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Maxximiliann started a new discussion inside a thread at the top of the Talk page from several years ago. It was uncontroversial to move his comments to a new section at the bottom of the Talk page per the guideline for Talk page layout. Other editors have also indicated that it is appropriate to indicate a particular POV as what it is.--] (]) 03:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Did you give any indication that ''M'' wasn't the one who gave it the title "JW chronology"? I'm sorry if you did, but it looks to me like you took a comment that had been made (rather clumsily) by another user, and put it in a completely different context than that other user intended. Note that I am sure you are ''correct'' in asserting that ''M'''s view is the JW chronology, but taking another user's comment and putting a different heading on it ''even if you are right'' is still the wrong way to go about it. Take this from someone who spent 4 months last year being careful while dealing with an obvious COI user who everyone agreed was wrong. ] (<small>]]</small>) 05:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It was evident from refactoring the page that I added the title, as M's comments originally had ''no new title''. However, it was already explicitly stated in ''the old section'' in question that it ''was also about a JW POV''. I indicated early in this ANI (after In ictu oculi's somewhat surprising complaint) that at no point did I have any objection to ''changing'' that section heading. I'm also not aware that M specifically objected to that section heading.--] (]) 05:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What exactly do you mean by "evident from refactoring the page"? Do you mean that if someone went and checked the edit history they would know it had been you who added the title? ] (<small>]]</small>) 05:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks Hijiri88 I'm more concerned about the '''section title''' than the refactor. But to clarify I can't actually comment on "Jehovah's Witnesses articles" because I don't look at them, my only previous exposure to this is when it spilled over into a mainstream article: ] which concluded pleasantly enough with a broad input, but there was some JW/anti-JW Battleground and ] issues going on earlier. If ] and ] do confirm that they do approve that specimen diff, then I'm cool. ] (]) 03:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The ''old thread'' also explicitly made reference to 607 as something that "only JWs teach". Additionally, the opening statement of ''the old thread'' was a copy-and-paste from the JW publication, ''All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial'' (page 282). So Maxximillian's POV was identified as a JW POV from the old thread anyway. | |||
| ::::In ictu oculi states that his 'exposure' began when discussion "spilled over" into a "mainstream" article (which was itself originally written as a ] for the primarily JW POV of the 'torture stake vs. cross'). After lengthy discussion (March/April 2012), it was agreed to refactor the article. It was also promised to add other details that were deemed possibly significant, such as number of nails, etc, but that has not happened since. This is an ''encyclopedia'', and ''all articles'' are ''mainstream''. It isn't my fault that editors occasionally disrupt pages that are either directly or more loosely related to their POV. Nor do I have any reason to 'justify' my involvement on the JW WikiProject.--] (]) 04:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To be completely fair, I don't see the difference between someone in 2011 replying to a 2005 post, and someone in 2013 commenting in a thread that had apparently been live-but-moving-very-VERY-slowly since 2005. ] (<small>]]</small>) 05:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Not a huge difference, but moving the new material to the bottom could be seen as a way of making sure new readers saw it, and is something I might have done. When you do that you have to add a section heading. I'm not that familiar with JW beliefs, and you could argue that it should have been more neutral, but if it is clear that's what the thread is about then I don't see a serious problem. If it's not, then it should have been more neutral. ] (]) 05:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well, while I don't exactly hold it against J77 given what he was putting up with from ''M'', it is pretty clear that he was already involved in a dispute with ''M''. And so he might have tried to be a bit more careful with his wording of the section title. Also, referring to posting in an old thread that others had been commenting infrequently over the last eight years (including on J77's side) as "hi-jacking" is not really fair. ] (<small>]]</small>) 10:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The 'hi-jacking' was ''my own'' action. If you look at the history, you will see that I initially moved ''the entire section'', because I'd initially thought that M had put a brand new section ''at the top of the Talk page'' (as he has done at various other Talk pages), and this was indicated in the edit summary of my initial edit. However, when I looked closer and realised he had ''appended to an old discussion'', I ''restored'' the section I'd inadvertently hi-jacked, and I gave M's ''new'' comments ''a new heading''.--] (]) 13:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::First, I want it noted that I agreed that some of Max's edits were apparently pushing JW POV, but having not reviewed his other edits I can't be sure that they also have uniformly done the same thing. Regarding the section heading, I kind of agree with Doug (if that is what he said) that moving it into a separate section wasn't unreasonable, but, maybe, there might have been a slight bit of prejudice based on the previous discussion, which isn't necessarily a good thing, but not in my eyes really something that would deserve much attention or call for review. I'm not sure if the most recent versions of the ''Timetables of History'' type books include this in their listings, although I find it kind of hard to believe that they wouldn't, but I would assume that whatever years they might give it would probably reflect the recent scholarly consensus. ] (]) 15:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Herbxue == | |||
| User: {{userlinks|Herbxue}} | |||
| Page: {{pagelinks|Acupuncture}} | |||
| The user Herbxue has been engaged in an edit war on the Acupuncture article. The user was warned previously about 3rr . A few months ago, violated 3rr warned . Most recently, violated 3rr (, , ) and warned again . He continued the edit war ( ), engaged in on the talk page, and showed of the edit warring. He gives and edit wars . | |||
| In summery, the user is an ] with a history of bias/disruptive editing in acupuncture-related articles. Recently, he's escalated to personal attacks and edit warring, including 3RR violations. ] (]) 03:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, Im glad you posted this because its time for an admin to look into this issue. This mostly has to do with the questionable scientific basis of acupuncture, which is obviously a very controversial issue. But to be fair, I dont think Herbxue has any intent to engage in edit wars and I do feel that he is putting in a lot of effort to engage in discussions on the talk page and, until recently, was not that active in editing at all. At least not before I made that controversial edit regarding the effects of acupuncture. In any case, I hope any admin looking into this matter would be '''neutral and impartial, without any prejudices against this topic and its editors''', or else the dispute won't end. -] (]) 06:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for referring to the talk page discussions, A1Candidate. On all the recent controversial issues, I have either defended existing text, suggested compromises in wording on Mallexikon's edits to satisfy Dominus, suggested compromised wording on the issue of "theory" to satisfy Dominus, and more recently suggested mutually agreeable wording on the placebo issue. All this was met with immediate unexplained reverts by Dominus, who clearly has a strong POV, stating that acupuncture is practiced by "quacks". Dominus and Tippy have repeatedly restored wording that is controversial and not supported by the sources. When repeatedly asked to justify their edit using the source, Tippy responds by accusing ME of edit-warring. It is amazing that Tippy has the nerve to accuse me of edit warring when I have been the one trying to engage in the actual content issue while Tippy lectures me with WP policy that he himself is violating. | |||
| ::Please see my talk page and the acupuncture talk page under the subjects "medical procedure?", "theories?" and especially "its effects are due to placebo" to get a feel for how things have progressed the way they did. You will see a clear pattern of me trying to reach consensus and being reasonable, while Dominus and Tippy show a pattern of disruptive and disrespectful editing.] (]) 14:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would agree with the sentiments of both A1candidate and Herbexue. There has been a habit of drive-by editing/reverting by Tippy and Dominus at the acupuncture article, with no apparent effort shown to AGF or to even read the sources or verify the text that they are editing. Herbexue has made repeated requests at their talk pages and at the acupuncture talk page to address the article content, but the focus has been left on Herbexue himself rather than on the content or edits.] (]) 15:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Note''': this page is covered by ] under ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 15:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * Taking a quick glance at this since no one else is commenting: while I am skeptical of acupuncture and am inclined to think the page needs to be edited to be less promotional, it looks there's a good chance of a ] here. I have to get on my high horse a little bit. You can't just write something on Misplaced Pages and cite as a source something that directly contradicts it. My view is that ranks among the highest crimes one can commit on Misplaced Pages, especially if it is deliberate (but even if it is just negligent, as in the case of the ]). To bring this to ANI at this point seems remarkably brazen, as if there's an assumption that neutral parties can't read or comprehend sources. The article lead says right now: "General scientific consensus maintains that the effects of acupuncture are due to placebo, and is therefore solely dependent on a patient's expectation of treatment outcomes". Three scientific reviews are cited. As , none of the sources support this statement. The only one that comes close is the Ernst paper, which only says: "In conclusion, acupuncture remains steeped in controversy. Some findings are encouraging but others suggest that its clinical effects mainly depend on a placebo response". The others two say () "A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was found, which seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias" or () "For chronic low-back pain, ''acupuncture is more effective for pain relief and functional improvement'' than no treatment '''or sham treatment''' immediately after treatment and in the short-term only". Note that edit-warring goes both ways, but if someone is '''deliberately misrepresenting academic sources''' in Misplaced Pages, that seems '''much more problematic''', and the party which should be looked at closely is the one working to include misrepresentation. Now, maybe one of these reviews, particularly the last one, really needs to be dropped. The argument can be made and hashed out, perhaps with the help of people at RS/N or something. It looks like Dominus is at least making an attempt to explain why some high-quality sources should be discounted (altho concluding consensus, when every source talks rather about controversy and uncertainty, seems untenable at this point), but I don't see the same at all from Tippy, whose comment when accused of lying was simply "no, u". I can't promise to be engaged in this conversation as I'll be traveling most of tomorrow. My hope is that future participants here resist the urge to slip into an alternate reality where the brazen source misrepresentation is not happening, simply because of the subject at hand and many people's preconceived opinions. Sometimes problems are just so obvious and incontrovertible that they have to be acknowledged. ] | (] - ]) 04:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would be pleased address the content and sourcing issues you've raised. If you are able to spare the time, please bring them to the talk page. ] (]) 06:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The above is possibly the most breath-taking ''missing-the-point'' comment I have seen at Misplaced Pages. ] raised a report at ANI only to receive a detailed statement explaining that using a source to assert a fact when the source does ''not'' assert that fact is one of the highest crimes that can be committed at Misplaced Pages, and that Tippy is apparently supporting the statement of a fact when the three sources <u>do not verify</u> the statement. I saw the Jagged affair mentioned above, and agree that misuse of sources ''is'' far worse than vandalism and personal attacks and hoax articles. Tippy needs to assess the position and respond at ANI: Is it the case that some attempts to oppose fringe views have been excessive? Is Tippy going to remove the unverified assertion? Is Tippy denying what ImperfectlyInformed wrote above? The community must reject misuse of sources even when the misuse is "in a good cause". ] (]) 00:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I believe the sources do verify the assertion. I don't think that has any relation to the user conduct issue I've raised above. Even if Herbxue were correct on this issue, that doesn't change the fact he's a disruptive ], with a history of edit-warring. I don't think there should be two parallel content conversations taking place here and on the talk page. ] (]) 02:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The argument at ] seems to be that a medical trial looks for evidence that a proposed treatment is more effective than a placebo, and therefore pretty well any source can be used to verify "{{xt|the effects of acupuncture are due to placebo}}" because that default position applies until evidence to the contrary is available. The fact that the three sources do ''not'' support that statement is (apparently) not relevant because the reader should understand the default position of medical science. While there is a lot of merit in those statements, the article simply must be reworded (for example, to assert that the only known benefit is from placebo) as it is not satisfactory for a source to be used where verification relies on the editor "believing" the source verifies a statement which does not appear in the source. The question of whether there is a problem with another editor's behavior is very much secondary to whether Misplaced Pages's voice should be used to assert something that is not in the any of the three sources. ] (]) 04:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Were the reverse true, we would not discuss user conduct on the talk page of the Acupuncture article. Similarly, I don't think this is the appropriate venue to discuss changes to the article. If an admin wants me to rehash the argument here, I'd be happy to do so. ] (]) 04:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Bumping this. I hope an admin has some time to take a look. ] (]) 03:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == TJRC == | |||
| TJRC block needed. | |||
| ; Barrage of blatantly false accusations; Comments being deleted (from Copyright status of work by the U.S. government talk page and from within tags in the article). | |||
| (revived discussion) | |||
| Please see this DRN, which received no input, even after a relisting : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=567171893#Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government | |||
| Re. links and diffs to involved pages, editors, proposed solutions : see the DRN, please… --] (]) 23:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :As far as I can tell, TJRC deleted your Talk page comments , apparently because he believed that you were editing his comments. I can see why: the formatting, quite frankly, is a mess. Indented quotations may be standard in scholarly works, but indenting on Talk pages means another editor is writing, so when you mix and match indented sections and single sentences per line you become impossible to follow. In addition to that, half of your discussion is on the Talk page and half is in edit summaries. Use the Talk page to discuss. Also, there's no need for , , or . You're absolutely right that TJRC shouldn't have made the revert on the Talk page. I feel that he's probably been overzealous in tag removal, too, but he's trying to get a clear justification for the tag but not getting one from you. Please just ] and answer his question without unnecessary indenting and copying attacks from further up the page. ] (]) 02:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for (if I'm reading you correctly) confirming that TJRC did delete my talk page comments, shouldn't have, and explaining that his accusation that he was reverting a violation of WP:TPO by me was mistaken. I hope TJRC will recognize/acknowledge it too. I couldn't make sense of the false accusation at the time, but see HOW he went wrong now. If you can suggest a better way to include those quotations in the talk page, I'm all ears; if it's a mess, then perhaps we can agree on something better. It seems pretty readable to me; I certainly wouldn't call it a mess; what minimal markup will improve it? IIRC, the quote template makes a worse mess. | |||
| ::I'm not sure if you managed to miss the content of the mainspace edit of the diff I provided, but in addition to the deletion you linked to - of THREE questions of mine, I wrote that TJRC " " - and in fact he deleted my answer and and and and - the answer he deleted 5+ times is: "Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government; they are subnational entities." Because I had answered the question 5+ times, it sure felt like gross violations of ], and had me wondering about ]. What makes me certain that TJRC DID in fact SEE and READ the answer is TJRC's later edit summary, "''"'''Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government'''" == "does not apply to .. District of Columbia or Puerto Rico''" which proves he read it because it quotes from it. I do strive to always ], however ] doesn't mean one must put up with ] over and over and over and over and over. | |||
| ::That's why I suggest pointing out to TJRC that it's not constructive to demand an answer to a question when the question has been answered and TJRC has himself DELETED THE ANSWER. | |||
| ::I'll try to find wisdom in your criticism, and try to fathom why you assert I haven't answered his question as to you why I placed the tags when I have, "Multiple times. Multiple ways."! I'll even answer it again, for a 6th? 10th? time! --] (]) 05:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| First, I have to say, it would have been nice to have been notified of this discussion. I know Elvey had a complaint at the end of July (notified by a bot ], but I was pretty much off-Misplaced Pages for about a week, and when I went to AN/I, it was already gone). | |||
| Woodroar is correct; I had reverted Elvey's edits of my comments only once, and I had intended by my edit summary to make it clear why. I do disagree though, that I shouldn't have made the revert on the Talk page. ] says it pretty clearly: "If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found." I object to the interruptions, and, exactly as ] says, the interruptions should be reverted; and I reverted them. | |||
| As a matter of disclosure, after Elvey deleted my non-interruption comments yesterday () and re-instated his interruptions, I did undo that edit, as well, also based on TPO. | |||
| Elvey's links to what he thinks are deletions of talk page comments are actually removals of the tags; they're not even edits to the talk page all. | |||
| I believe now that Elvey believes that his comment in the tag is self-evident and not in need of further explanation. So when I've asked him what he thinks is confusing, he thinks he's already answered. However, I don't see why he thinks the statement is wrong or unclear, so I'd like to find that out and address it. I think it's clear, but if Elvey doesn't, at least one person finds it confusing and it's worth fixing. | |||
| I would also like to distinguish between the two templates Elvey applied here. His first (and second) claimed that the section was ''inaccurate'', because "Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government"; but that's pretty much a paraphrase of what the section actually says: the prohibition against copyright of works of the U.S. government does not apply to District of Columbia or Puerto Rico -- ''because Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government.'' So the claims of inaccuracy were just plain wrong. After a couple taggings of that, he's now revised that to "confusing" (with the edit summary "Same difference"; however, I see a big difference between a claim that a passage is inaccurate and a claim that a passage is confusing). | |||
| I do think though, that Elvey has some fundamental misunderstandings of US copyright law, and the very different roles that the United States government and the individual state governments play in it. Those misunderstandings, coupled with his confidence, makes this a pretty challenging issue to resolve. Add in his general incivility, and tendency to throw accusations, and this is a pretty frustrating experience for all involved. ] (]) 22:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :TJRC, I think you need take on some simple tasks, or a break if you're getting frustrated! Your multiple false allegations that I violated ] with edits that are addressed by Woodroar, but seem to have gone over your head. They're upsetting and disruptive. FACT CHECK his claim that he "reverted Elvey's edits of my comments" and you'll see that the diffs show no such thing. | |||
| :I'm sick and tired of TJRC's false allegations. Some people aren't able to grasp the subtleties of how Misplaced Pages works or lack the maturity required to edit effectively. They may still be able to do some easy jobs, but they'll probably run into trouble if they try biting off too much. TJRC fits this category. | |||
| :Finally, TJRC's accusation that he wasn't of notified of this discussion is ! And since I've revivied this discussion, I'll notify him again. | |||
| :TJRC needs to be blocked. He has a very very poor grip on reality. A user who deletes another's comments 5+ times and denies it when diffs are provided, who makes so many blatantly false accusations has got to go! I've told him over half a dozen times that subnational entities are to be discussed in the article with subnational entities in the title, but he ]… We have a history; he throws around false accusations like they're going out of style. --] (]) 22:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Full disclosure: Elvey has been following me around lately because he's angry with me for disagreeing with him on a legal article. It's kinda creepy, but I'll put that aside. At the outset, I see hardly any diffs in support of what appears to be a claim of refactoring. Elvey mentions a revived discussion, but I'm sure what he's referring to. After that, he took Woodroar's criticism and transformed it into a confirmation of this report. I could also do without the exclamation points, the inflammatory rhetoric, the shouting (caps), and all the rest of the drama. I deeply sympathize with TJRC. My limited interaction with Elvey indicates that (1) he has no grasp of legal principles and (2) he has great trouble connecting sources with article assertions. As a consequence, he makes rather bizarre claims about content, as well as outlandish claims about others' conduct.--] (]) 22:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :BBB mentions anger and following in a completely one-sided review. Perhaps it's him who is angry and following, because our most recent interaction was that I chastised him on his talk page for inexplicably . (See how much better the article is now, perhaps thanks to the 'unbiting' of the newbie!) IIRC, encouraging new contributors has been determined to be top priority 'round here. | |||
| :I don't recall referring to or using the word refactoring. I have provided many diffs showing my comments being deleted (from Copyright status of work by the U.S. government talk page and from within tags in the article). Hardly any? Hardly. | |||
| :I would urge TJRC and others to reread what's been said to understand '''''why''''' Woodroar said, "You're absolutely right that TJRC shouldn't have made the revert on the Talk page."--] (]) 02:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ;Comment by TJRC | |||
| I will admit that I am now running out of patience with Elvey. | |||
| First, on the comment editing. I don't have a lot more to add beyond what I wrote above. ] says that when an editor objects to someone putting interruptions in his comments, he can revert them. I did. Elvey refuses to abide by that and continues to reinsert them. I want that stopped. It is important to me that Elvey's misunderstandings of the subject matter, and his hostile tone, not be attributed to me, which is the primary reason why I wish to rely on WP:TPO. | |||
| I will also note that I did not manage to get all of his interruptions out, and have held back on removing them further because he's already pissed off enough, and I have no desire to exacerbate the situation. | |||
| I rather politely for this on his talk page: | |||
| :; Editing inside another editor's comments | |||
| :Hi, Elvey. I suspect what might be getting you upset in ] is less the actual content than my objection to you inserting your comments ("interruptions" in Wikiparlance) in the middle of mine. | |||
| :I don't like that practice, because it very quickly makes it hard to track who said what, particularly as the conversation gets longer and more iterative (and this is certainly one of those cases). | |||
| :] discusses this. Although that type of editing is not prohibited, "if an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found." Since I do object to that, I reverted your interruptions. I'm happy to continue to engage, but please continue to make your replies independently rather than inserting your text amid my existing comments. Thank ! | |||
| Elvey , with the edit summary "False allegations from TJRC - AGAIN - this time of editing inside his comments". | |||
| Furthermore, Elvey's reinstatement of his interruptions was not only contrary to TPO, but in the process he is removing the little actual progress made to addressing the underlying issue. Take a look at the talk page in . There is a section '"Innaccurate"/"confusing" tags' that is trying to address his issue in good faith. Despite the incivility of his response there, at least some headway is being made. Elvey's next edit was to delete that section, for the sake of reinstating his interruptions. | |||
| Elevey continues to be wrong in claiming that his diffs show me editing his comments, except for the three I now document; the two discussed above, and again today, all pursuant to ]. His diffs are edits of the article, not the talk page. | |||
| The notification issue is a sideshow, but just to be clear, Elvey did not notify me of this AN/I, or his reinstatement of it today. As I said I got a notification by a bot (not by Elvey) of a different AN/I in mid/late July, but that occurred during a rare period where I actually had a life and it was archived before I could respond. Elvey then added a comment to that notification, but it did not not mention any new AN/I or include any link, or anything else to suggest that it was in reference to anything other than the AN/I archived a couple weeks earlier. | |||
| To the extent that Elvey has any valid issue about the potentially confusing passage, I also would like to address any valid issue he has, but I'm now frankly reaching the end of my patience. ] (]) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :TJRC, can you provide diffs where Elvey is editing inside or moving your comments? It seems like this claim is a source of much of the reverts—not the ''only'' reason, of course—but I just can't see it, even after spending ''far too much time'' a few days back and again today. In the where you bring up ], Elvey strikes out and amends his own comment (nothing unusual there), moves his reply from 2 to 3 indents so that appears as it should (a good thing), and expands some of his comments (again, nothing unusual). In short: he's editing his own comments, not yours, and in ways that general improve discussion. I think it would help everyone involved to move forward if this could be cleared up. ] (]) 01:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The original inline reply appears to be . --] (]) 02:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you, I see it now. which . ] (]) 03:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Forgive me, I haven't read the entire thread but just bits and pieces. I have a simple question though. Is this an ongoing problem? I keep checking out the diffs and keep ending up with stuff from early June. I don't understand why we are discussing stuff from earlier June unless it's an ongoing problem. Whatever mistakes may or may not have been made, it seems clear there's no reason to block someone for something from June which isn't ongoing. If the dispute itself remains unresolved, then it will need to be resolved somehow and it's unfortunate if the DRN discussion didn't achieve a resolution but there are other steps which can be tried (none of which are ANI) and more importantly, any attempt at resolution should concentrate on the locus of the dispute, not whatever mistakes may or may not have been made in deleting comments over 2 months ago. If you feel you already gave an answer and it was deleted, rather then spending all your time arguing over whether or not the deletion was appropriate and the answer was already given, either rephrase the answer and give it again or show the diff to the person who you feel didn't read it so they can read your earlier answer. In other words, concentrate on resolving the dispute rather then assigning blame. ] (]) 12:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are the two recent false accusations of not notifying of ANIs (diffs above) an ongoing problem? Is the recent false accusation that I "re-instated interruptions, TPO." not indication of an ongoing problem? Does a slew of recent false accusations, recent evidence of IDHT warrant admin action? You seem to have glossed over those issues. | |||
| ::TJRC has repeatedly . I've restored them, as he's not undoing a TPO violation by deleting my comments. LOOK AT THAT DIFF. IT'S NOT REMOVING ANY SORT OF INTERRUPTION! TJRC refused to fix the mess he created, so I have now done so, by restoring the comments he and I and others have made since then, without deleting my comments. --] (]) 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It's still a live controversy. As Elvey notes, albeit in his wikidramatic and divorced-from-reality way, he continues to insert his comments into mine, and will not respect my wishers per TPO. | |||
| :I would like to point out that I am not, at this time, requesting that Elvey be blocked. That's his request with respect to me. Elvey has had gaps in editing before, and I have no reason to believe that a block-enforced time away from Misplaced Pages would improve his behavior any more than his other absences have. Such a block would be punitive, and being human, I can't say I wouldn't relish that, but my objective side has to admit that that wouldn't really serve the purpose that blocking is intended to serve, to prevent the disruption of Misplaced Pages. I have no reason to believe that Elvey would not continue his disruptive behavior upon lifting of the block. | |||
| :What I would like out of this discussion is two things: First, I do not want Elvey's comments appearing in mine and over my signature. I do not want his misunderstandings about copyright law to be attributed to me by a reader who is not careful to notice the interruptions. I do not want his invective and incivility attributed to me. I do not seek to delete his comments. I just want them out of mine. I would welcome an edit by an admin or other uninvolved editor to do that (for example, move them out of my comment and position them indented after it, with appropriate signatures), and then to close out that section in the talk page to prevent further edits to it by either Elvey or myself (and for both Elvey and me to respect that closure). | |||
| :Second, I would like Elvey to be counseled on how to behave as an editor. The comment issue aside, the underlying issue giving rise to it is that he has tagged the article as confusing, but will not enter into a civil discussion of why he believes it is confusing, and will not work in a good-faith and civil manner to resolve the issue he believes he has identified. I would like to see a commitment from Elvey that he will behave according to that counsel. | |||
| :I'm not sure that last bit is going to work, but I am still willing to give it one more try. My sense, though, is that Elvey's comprehension abilities are low. He does not appear to understand TPO. His tagging in the article shows he does not know the difference between a claim that something is inaccurate and a claim that it is confusing. His comments above show that he does not know the difference between removing a tag in an article and editing a comment on a talk page. His claim to have notified me about this AN/I shows that he does not know the difference between adding a comment to a bot's discussion of a different AN/I, with no indication of any kind that he has opened (and then re-opened) a different AN/I notifies a reader of those new AN/Is. In the discussion above, it ended with him being counseled to knock it off and to engage in good-faith discussion, and his take-away was, not to knock it off an engage in good-faith discussions, but, as Bbr23 points out "he took Woodroar's criticism and transformed it into a confirmation of this report." That's five different instances of his miscomprehensions, and that's just in this discussion alone; let's not even go into his substantive edits in articles. | |||
| :Furthermore, if Elvey is unable to civilly and reasonably discuss the tag he has placed on the article, I want to be able to remove the tag. There is no reason that the article should be held hostage to someone unable to engage in reasonable discourse. I should not have to choose between engaging in an invective-laden bunch of rants to try to ferret out what confuses him, and cleaning up the article. | |||
| :I said above that I'm not ''at this time'' seeking a block on Elvey. I do reserve the right to change my mind on that; if Elvey dos not agree to straighten up his act and behave, and then follow through on that agreement, I probably will be requesting either a block or a topic ban on legal-related articles. ] (]) 20:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Certainly we both have made significant contributions to the project. Certainly, both of us have made mistakes. I fixed the huge mess on the talk page caused by his attempt to address the TPO issue, early yesterday, August 16th but he seems to have ignored this. Why, TJRC? It feels like IDHT, as usual - it's as if he sees wikipedia is a game he's trying to 'win'. TJRC, please engage. Please, take a look at the page now, and the recent edits that got it there. '''Please consider taking back the false accusations you've made''', and/or at least taking a serious look to see whether the diffs and explications of what I assert are your false accusations are valid and responding. To some extent you've done that - e.g. regarding the two notifications of the AN/I discussions, though with poor results. With respect to your accusation of TPO, it seems you still failed to review the diffs, like the . Yes, I did use ALL CAPS, in particular because it was so overdue that TJRC really "LOOK AT THAT DIFF. IT'S NOT REMOVING ANY SORT OF INTERRUPTION!" It is more overdue than ever. Please let us know if/when you've taken another look at that diff, TJRC, and what Woodroar said about it, OK? Then I'll apologize for using CAPS in a last-ditch effort to get you to do so. | |||
| <big>I'd really like to see some admin action taken here:</big> | |||
| '''I request admin input''' - as to who is "divorced-from-reality" with respect to each of the claims that I didn't notify him of discussion at AN/I, in particular! (Refer to diffs above.) | |||
| '''I request admin input''' - as to who is "divorced-from-reality" with respect to TPO - looking closely in particular at the in its entirety, which he still vociferously defends, and my edits to ] yesterday, August 16th ! (Which took a lot of work - 7 edits - don't miss the edit summaries, but . Given , his calls for an admin to prevent further edits to that section demonstrate an amazing unwillingness or inability to cooperate, as that is a pretty foolproof two-click solution to his (rather paranoid) "I do not want" concerns. I think my comments make it clear that I understand the issue of interspersing responses into another's posts. And that TJRC kept editing my comments (in particular reverting my edits, over and over) in a way that bore no relation to that issue, like a bull in a china shop -- he did NOT remove interspersed responses, though clearly he still thinks that's what he was doing with that edit, which he redid over and over and over. | |||
| I don't know if a solution is for TJRC to be counseled on how to behave as an editor; I think an editing restriction, such as ] holds more promise. I would like to see a commitment from him that he will behave according such a restriction. He seems to be blind when it comes to applying "<nowiki>[[</nowiki>WP:" shorthand to his own edits, but on acid (seeing violations that are not there) when it comes to applying policy to others' edits, but I'm at a loss as to what restriction short of a block can address that. Personally, I'd be happy to accept any mentoring - I'd be happy to have someone to bounce edits or comments off before I hit 'Save page'. The false accusations aside, the underlying issue giving rise to the conflict it is quite simple- it's about what goes in the article with respect to CA, FL, DC, and PR, and why. I feel that he is avoiding a civil discussion, and not working in a good-faith and civil manner to resolve the issues. | |||
| TJRC has repeatedly and and and and . I would like him to acknowledge that he has done so. I would like him to acknowledge that that there was nothing at TPO to justify of my comments, which he repeated several times. I've restored, as he's not undoing a TPO violation by deleting my comments. If you look at that diff, you'll see - It's not removing any sort of interruption! Again, TJRC refused to fix the mess he created, so I have now done so, by restoring the comments he and I and others have made since then, without deleting my comments. --] (]) 04:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I've got nothing to add based on Elvey's latest comment. It would be repetitive. | |||
| :With respect to the TPO issue, Elvey has made a few edits that may be helpful. First, a series of edits to remove his comments from the middle of mine, consistent with TPO. That version can be seen , He then follows up reinserting his interruptions , but with the edit summary "TJRC - if you must insist on this no- interruption business, this is the edit to undo". Based on that edit summary, I am construing this as an invitation to undo to put it in the no-interruptions state, and am doing so now. I reserve the right to confirm that the text of my comment remains what I entered and to tweak my comment to ensure that it is. Elvey, please either indicate either that this is acceptable, or if it is not, undo . In either case, please do it without additional drama. | |||
| :With respect to the continued editing problem, that still needs to be resolved. I need for Elvey to commit to civil discussion on the talk page. His recent edit to the article itself does not bode well. He simply struck all the well-cited accurate information that confuses him, going back to his preferred text. His similar edit back in June has been reverted by another attorney-editor, {{User|Prosfilaes}} (who, if I recall correctly, is also an IP attorney), . ] (]) 09:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Holy editwar, Batman! == | |||
| {{archive top|1=Holy closed, Resolvedman. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 21:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| Would someone with more patience than me take a look at the exercise in ] currently ongoing at ], before someone does something stupid and gets themselves blocked over what's arguably the most trivial article on the entire project? As the one who originally declined the prod on it, I'd consider myself involved so don't want to start handing out warnings myself. – ] 10:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Holy chocolate fireguard Admins to the rescue! ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 10:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) I've restored the deleted content, and I note that I'm the third user to do so. It was deleted after the AFD started, and as per the AFD notice on the article, "...the article must not be blanked ... until the discussion is closed". In my opinion deleting the entire list from a "List of..." article can be equated to blanking, therefore re-inserting the content is appropriate. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've warned the user who was blanking the content. Let's assume that they get it now and won't continue to revert - especially since their next revert will break ]. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::To be fair, the revert after ''that'' would break 3RR, seeing as only the last two are within the last 24 hours. But agreed that this is holy lamearoni, Batman. <small>Also, nobody notified ] of this conversation, so I have now done so.</small> - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 15:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ec}} Argh. Well, to be fair, I use both hands while typing, so I can't exactly pull one away for counting. :) <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::His response has a ring of ] about it, though he's now discussing and not reverting, so I wouldn't support a block. ] ] ] 15:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''Honestly?''' Why was this even posted here? —]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 19:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I would guess it's because we wanted to stop you getting blocked. ] ] ] 20:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Cute''' My guess is that it wasn't an altruistic attempt to keep me from being blocked but precisely the opposite. Either way, it's a waste of time. —]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 07:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::If I'd wanted you blocked, I'd have blocked you; you're not a new user, and know perfectly well that when an attempted ] is rejected and an attempted ] is overwhelmingly against you, the appropriate response is not to blank the article three times in a row. If you really believe a thread that ''doesn't even mention you'' is somehow worse for you than the alternative of an unsightly {{tl|uw-delete4im}} on your talkpage, it's your prerogative, but I can't imagine many others would agree. – ] 10:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps you're confused by the sequence of events, because if this thread had not been started, I'm pretty sure that there's a good chance you would have continued blanking the content and then would have been blocked. I'd would say that this is a pretty good result -- assuming you understand what you were doing wrong. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == ] and political agenda == | |||
| Many of Redhanker's edits appear to be pushing a specific agenda and not adhering to NPOV. For example: | |||
| :] - | |||
| ::*"Police found no direct evidence of involvement of Uamsho, a militant Islamist group which some have speculated could have ties to Al Qaeda." This is a speculative and uncited claim. | |||
| ::* "Nevertheless, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Islamist preacher Sheikh Issa Ponda Issa who is a supporter of the radical group." Uncited | |||
| ::*"Two Catholic priests had been shot and killed there in previous months." Uncited and unrelated to the article. I surmise this inclusion violates NPOV. | |||
| ::*"Friends of the girls speculated that they were targeted because they are Jewish." I'm not sure about this but I suspect this violates NPOV. | |||
| ::*"Many press reports omitted any reference to the religion of the victims, or likely religion of the attackers in a city that is largely Muslim." Uncited and grossly irrelevant to the main article. This is definitely pushing a certain point of view. | |||
| :] | |||
| ::* This entire article seems to just be on how the person is anti-Israel and pro-Iran. | |||
| ::* All the citations are from unreliable blog sources. | |||
| ::* This article grossly violates NPOV by placing all the weight of the article on his political position and absolutely nothing on anything else. | |||
| :] | |||
| ::* This is a relatively unnotable organization. I cannot find any significant coverage of this company in reliable sources. Yet, this company has an article for the line "The ADL criticized the site for spreading disinformation such as the false Holocaust claim that Nazis "manufactured soap from their Jewish victims" to prove that Holocaust is a historical falsity." | |||
| :Category:Pro-Iranism | |||
| ::* This is a category created by Redhanker. It was deleted per this discussion ] | |||
| :] | |||
| ::* This was an article created by Redhanker. It was deleted under CSD:A3. | |||
| All in all, what I've listed and far more that can be found in his edit history points to a pattern of pushing a certain political position on Misplaced Pages and not adhering to NPOV. ] (]) 02:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :This hostile ANI appears to be a response to my observation that Transscendence appears to engaging in a pattern of deleting articles about notably violent attacks with wide national and international media coverage, most of which end up being kept because of extensive media coverage and notablity. The edits above are nearlyh all based on content in the mainstream press or official government sponsored news sources. | |||
| :One particular editor ] has been very deleting articles which have no apparent connection other than most are of very violent mass attacks which have not been connected to terrorist motives | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :Removed | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :] (]) 05:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::POV-pushing does seem to be a problem. For instance, Redhanker using ] to list lots of links which weren't Iranian, or which weren't news agencies, but mostly "sourced" by citing a news article on some rather controversial topic around Iran... ] (]) 13:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I'm afraid that there's a rather strong post-Wikimania slump at ]. If anyone would be interested, some more participation would be helpful. You should probably read through ] first. Thanks! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 13:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and recent edits == | |||
| {{archivetop|Indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account by ]. ] | ] 20:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC).}} | |||
| ] is a new user who has recently been making edits to multiple pages, including ], ], ] and ] and multiple disambiguation pages. On the first, the user added their name to the 'creators' section of the comic book character, along with a statement that the article was written by the user: . For the second, the user again placed their name is a creation credit for the franchise: In the next two articles, the user first put in credits and a link to a personal website, and in the second has put in a large message saying that the article was the user's own work: . Here is the user's for further examples of such behavior. --] (]) 14:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I've indefinitely blocked him as a vandalism-only account, although it's possible there's some degree of immature incompetence. He created a ridiculous article about himself that was speedy deleted. Per the article, he's about 14 years old, but some of the stuff that was in the article strains credulity, so it's possible that the age is made up. In any event, he's causing disruption and has not made a single useful edit in the brief time he's been here. I would have preferred that he'd been formally warned, but I don't see the point in going through the process.--] (]) 15:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| Diffs are pretty much . ] 15:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible vandal ] == | |||
| == Evading Article-Ban == | |||
| I don't understand the motivation behind the edits coming from this IP -- whether they are vandalous or not -- but it seems that someone should have a look. ] (]) 14:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=], and it was a ], not a ]. Closing this. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *The {{tl|WPAVIATION}} template doesn't use the auto= argument, so the IP went around and removed such in most of the edits. I don't really see a problem, unless I'm missing something? - ] | <sup>] and ]</sup> 22:30, 17 August 2013 (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) | |||
| *That, and you didn't notify the editor... I . - ] | <sup>] and ]</sup> 22:36, 17 August 2013 (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) | |||
| ::One person suspected a ] and ] it was a case of disruptive editing. | |||
| :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 == | |||
| ::The edits don't just span aviation; they are all over the place. Many are Wikiproject Biography, which does have an auto= argument. I still have no idea what the motivation behind these edits are. | |||
| {{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) | |||
| Earlier today a ] into {{user|Loubnan}} was closed resulting in {{user|Abou-alGhadab}} being blocked as a sock puppet. The case, however, was somewhat convoluted due to possible links to other previously blocked accounts. I suspect that both {{user|Fabol-lebnen}} and {{user|Georgesleb}} were also controlled by the same person. Another editor brought up a possible link to {{user|Lelosejean}}, who has some 38 known sockpuppets. While it would be nice figure out exactly which accounts are linked, and who the actual sockmaster is, my more pressing concern is with this user's use of unregistered accounts. One of the things that lead me to suspect a link between Loubnan, Abou-alGhadab, and Fabol-lebnen was that all three used IP addresses in Beirut, all in the same range to inappropriately remove deletion tags from article which they had created. See IP's in ] and ]. A quick look at the page histories of article's edited by these three users, reveals even more IP's in the same range editing almost exclusively articles on Lebanese football. Given this person's willingness to disrupt the encyclopaedia, I'm wondering whether a range block of his/her IP accounts is in order, and if not, what other options there are to prevent future disruptions. ] (]) 19:37, 17 August 2013 (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) | |||
| :The IPs suggest three different basic ranges: | |||
| :::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 == | |||
| :Blocking depends on the net evaluation of the worthwhile edits versus bad edits (socks, vandals, etc) within those ranges. Are there any good edits coming from those ranges? If not then softblocking is plausible. If so then the ranges can be adjusted more tightly. A checkuser could also determine whether hardblocking would be effective for shutting down his named accounts or if that would cause too much collateral damage. <br /> — ] ] 20:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *{{IPlinks|103.109.59.32}} | |||
| :I would add to that list. There are three in that range between the two sock categories and quick check of the range contribution reveals seven more suspect addresses. That being said, blocking the four ranges in their entirety is clearly in appropriate. At least half the edits appear to be unrelated to Loubnan. Unfortunately, I do not have the technical knowledge of how IP addresses work to make the range more restrictive. If it helps, I can compile a list of those IP's that have edited disruptively or that I suspect of being sockpuppets. ] (]) 20:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::After a bit of looking into the IP's, I think I've figured out the sequence or registered sockpuppets. | |||
| # {{user|Georgesleb2}} - Blocked for removing BLPPROD tags and block evasion using IP's | |||
| # {{user|Georgesleb}} - Obvious sockpuppetry went unnoticed. Stopped editing of his own accord. Currently not blocked. | |||
| # {{user|Loubnan}} - Sockpuppetry went unnoticed. Blocked for the same reasons as the first two accounts | |||
| # {{user|UltrasLebene}} - Blocked as a sockpuppet of Loubnan | |||
| # {{user|Fabol-lebnen}} - Sockpuppetry went unnoticed again, but blocked anyways for the same reason | |||
| # {{user|Abou-alGhadab}} - Blocked as a sockpuppet of Loubnan | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::Part of the reason why I brought this up it because in the ] into the first account {{user|King of Hearts}} claims to have implemented a rangeblock using ] (though it doesn't show up in the block logs of any of the suspected IP's), which begs the question is something similar appropriate here? ] (]) 21:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your #4 above is misspelled and should read {{user|UltrasLebnene}} as being blocked. You may get someone to write an abuse filter...I suggest letting King of Hearts know of this thread and ask for his input.<br /> — ] ] 22:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == User:CNMall41 is Removing reliable sources and contents == | |||
| == I would really like someone more experienced to take a look at this. == | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :I've deleted the sandbox and left a note on the user's talk page.--] (]) 21:16, 17 August 2013 (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. == | |||
| :: This always makes me curious. Yeah, I know too much work to do to waste the time. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="Purple">'''''N'''''ew'''''J'''''ersey'''''L'''''iz</font> <sup>]</sup> 21:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you Bbb23. What should be done with pages like that in the future by the way? I'm not sure AnI was the best venue... ] (]) 21:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's one of those cases were no policy specifically covers it. AN/I is sort of the all around fallback place to bring an issue you don't know how to deal with, but that you feel needs prompt attention. Alternatively, it could have been raised on the talk page of an active admin, (of via some other form of contact) but that can be hit or miss, and if you don't know them already, its not a particularly good solution either. Could tag it as a CSD and let it be handled that way, but it didn't really fit any CSD category, and while Bbb23 listed it as G10, I'd really say it was more of an IAR deletion, either way, it needed to go, and I doubt there will be any objections. In the end, I'd say bringing it to AN/I is as good a solution as any. ]] 01:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Monty, your insight into what I did is exactly right. I knew it had to go, but I couldn't come up with a clear, policy-based rationale. Faced with a choice between IAR and G10, I decided to stretch G10, mainly because I dislike IAR.--] (]) 15:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK, thank you all. ] (]) 05:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been persistently well removing sourced content from the articles ], ], ], ] where the content discusses the involvement of people under the age of 18 in those subjects, on the basis of some of the people involved also being over 18. Glancing at their edit history you can see that they have ]red on all four of those articles, although they may have stopped short of breaking 3RR in most cases they are continuing to be disruptive and acting as those they are ]. In they changed the content to state that Burusera products are legal for under 18s to sell, despite clearly understanding that they are not - I would say that amounts to deliberate disruption/vandalism. ---- ]-'']'' -- 19:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hello I have recreated the sandbox at the moment it is blank. ] (]) 07:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't see the point of that.--] (]) 15:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>Courtesy ping, {{ping|Cassiopeia|KylieTastic|p=}} also have tried to warn this IP user.</small> -- ]-'']'' -- 19:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] concern regarding ] == | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| User has lots of edits to ] that I am unable to parse, as well as a similarly difficult-to-understand on my talk page once I nominated it at AfD. Not sure what noticeboard is appropriate here, or if action is necessary at all; perhaps not, but I thought more eyes would be useful regardless. -- <span style="font-family:monospace">] ~/] ]# ▄</span> 00:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked ] <sub>]</sub> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{IPlinks|92.22.27.64}} | |||
| Can we get help with an editor who is repeatedly adding poorly sourced, fringe theories into ]? They have been warned several times (, , and ). This started due to insertion of poorly sourced fringe material, such as , into the article, including in the lede . Then there was some edit warring , and . Then accusing editors of covering up "mass child rape" when they attempted to clean up the article , , and . The editor doesn't want to engage and keeps reinserting dubious text, including implications about BLPs. ] (]) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Also note the causal transphobia as well definitely neads a block. ] (]) 20:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looks like the IP has been blocked for a week. ]] 21:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Edit warring on US politicians around the ] == | |||
| : I'd also like to add that this user has been running amok on ] all weekend, adding sometimes incomprehensible text, linkspam, and circular links despite being told not to. They've not shown any willingness or inclination to respond to talk page messages—they just go back and re-do whatever they did and ignore the message. --] ] 00:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| ::A topic restriction may be useful as this editor appears to be too close to the subject matter at hand. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| | result = The Lord of Misrule is blocked for edit warring and there is no merit to their retaliatory report. If disruption returns when the block expires, escalating sanctions can be considered. ] ] 04:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| *{{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) | |||
| :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 === | |||
| ::See also ] - just started by AspieNo1... ] (]) 01:23, 18 August 2013 (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) | |||
| :What subject? ] (]) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@], see the directly above discussion. '']''<sup>]</sup> 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Tendentious editor == | |||
| *I have been attempting to guide this editor into the ways of Misplaced Pages, but with little success. The one major area to look at here is the user's name and the topic(s) chosen. A little research into the user will show that they are on the Asperger's spectrum, and have some difficulty in functioning in expected ways in our world (0.9 probability). It is likely that the user is Damon Matthew Wise himself, or, quite possibly one of his offspring, and that the user is doing a mighty fine job within the limitations of the complicated condition that afflicts them | |||
| :That said, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia. It does not make concessions for people whose perception of the world differs from the more usual way the majority of us appear to see it. | |||
| :So what is to be done? | |||
| :Clearly the behaviour is not antisocial, it is simply not helpful in the articles edited by this user. The DMW article is incoherent, incompetent and below acceptable standards, and the user seems incapable so far of understanding how to improve. And Misplaced Pages makes no allowances for those with impaired or different intellectual faculties. It seems to me that we need to find a mentor experienced in Asperger's folk who can break through and guide this editor with care. | |||
| :We also need to consider their work with more than usual care. That which is rescuable should be rescued. With DMW I find it hard to rescue more than a stub, perhaps referenced with http://www.bettertogether.ie/2011/content/damon-matthew-wise which seems relatively authoritative, albeit not ]. That article is at AfD at present and is being shredded, comments-wise, by folk who have no need to understand the mind of the creating editor. I'd like to see a ] action to close that against consensus as a ''keep'' after a surgical operation on DMW to remove the... well, whatever it is that gets in the way of our understanding it. | |||
| :Out of this incident should come the germination of the idea that Misplaced Pages is ''inclusive'' and can and will work with Asperger's folk, and has a team of volunteers who will and can go the extra dozen miles to help and guide them into working in our ways. ] ] 08:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*] is highly relevant here. ] ] 10:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::* If you're volunteering to work with this editor, by all means let's close this and move forward. Lesson 1 needs to be that if he does something and other folks object to it, he shouldn't keep doing it without working to understand why it wasn't appropriate. That and the ability to communicate with other editors are probably the minimum threshold for contributing here. Thus far, this editor hasn't shown either ability. --] ] 11:28, 18 August 2013 (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) | |||
| :::*I am not competent. I am, however, trying to find someone who is. See my talk page. ] ] 17:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks like this article page history has been an edit war between the two of you. You both responded at ], why not try to continue that discussion or, eventually, try ]? Neither of you have had made much use of the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll just note that this editor, who has only made 51 edits, hasn't edited in 3 days so they may not respond here immediately. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::They would probably respond only after being reverted again by me or the other editor. Since their one and only response, they've left the discussion hanging again while actively editing the article. ] (]) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== User:Adillia == | ||
| {{Userlinks|Aidillia}} | |||
| Canoe1967 and a number of other editors have consistently accused or insinuated that wikipedia editors who disagree with them are shills for Monsanto (e.g ], more recent efforts are more subtle). "''This seems further evidence that the editors who, for whatever reason, seem to want to make sure large companies look as good as possible, vastly outnumber the '''indies''' left on wiki''", by {{user|Petrarchan47}}. emphasis mine. . "''Note that I didn't enter this realm of articles because of a pre-existing concern about GMOs. I was drawn to them pretty much only because (about this time a year ago) I was disturbed by what seemed like a pattern of corporate manipulation at the ] page.''", by {{user|Groupuscule}}. . See ] for more context. | |||
| :Here are two previous related ANI threads: ] | |||
| ]. ] (]) 01:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I've been avoiding that user ever since we were blocked for edit warring on ] but they keep going at every edits I made, specifically the recent ones on the files I uploaded like ] and ], where the file are uploaded in ] and abided ] but they keep messing up. I'm still at lost and not sure what's their problem with my edits. Additional: I will also hold accountability if I did ]. | |||
| Following on this campaign of harassment, in an article about a march, ], Canoe1967 is continuing to use the talk page as a place to dump unreliable links, despite being asked not to, about Monsanto hiring PR accounts on the internet etc . The obvious insinuation is that those who disagree with his edits are Monsanto employees or whatever. The section he has created to make claims about PR agents has no obvious connection to the article or its content. ] (]) 00:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you missed the point of my OP in that thread. Mainstream media did not cover the event well. Smaller, as you claim, 'less reliable sources' reported this. The removal of these smaller reports is the same as the main reports did. How can we expect mainstream media to report that they censored themselves? They probably didn't do it at Monsanto's request but the other sources claim it is rather odd not to cover a 2 million person march as much a 300 person march. If it is sourced then there is no harm in inclusion. Protests are designed to get media attention. If that media attention is reported as odd then those reports warrant inclusion with credit to who is making the claims.--] (]) 01:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::This "campaign of harassment"? Dramatic. Even outsiders are obvious pro-GM activity at Misplaced Pages. But to IRWolfie, this recognition is just crazy. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 05:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>It should be noted that if you expect to find something, odds are, you will. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 05:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::Those "outsiders" are an Anti-GMO group and are also involved in genetics bashing more generally . I'd like to draw the admins attention to a comment posted at that link where someone mentions a private anti-GMO emailing list: ''I’m on an email list where I’ve heard several people complain about the extreme bias of the Misplaced Pages page, “The Seralini affair”. They have been trying to edit it to add balance and accuracy but their edits are reverted soon after''. Editors like Petrar are using commentary from these Anti-GMO websites to continue their conspiratorial campaigns (as Petrar's talk page says: "''This user disapproves of mindless PR firm sockpuppets spreading paid POV around Misplaced Pages.''"). ] (]) 10:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * I'm interacting with this user on ]. I didn't realise there was ] going on. The user has a huge misunderstanding about what constitutes a reliable source. ] (]) 06:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am not sure what you mean by coatrack. Which article is the coatrack? I also wonder why was removed from the article. If we can assume this isn't an RS then should we just blacklist it? I think the editor that removed it has a "huge misunderstanding about what constitutes a reliable source." You asked me on the talk page as to which source I was going to use and what edit I was going to make. I have never edited that article but that question seems like I need your permission first. You may wish to read ]. Can I assume that if I do add a sourced edit to the article then it will just be reverted regardless? I have mentioned the Professor and a doctor with over 100 peer reviewed papers being added to the article. I should let you choose which source and what edit to make to make sure we get it right. I promise I would remove it.--] (]) 07:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. ] ] 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::This group of editors also deliberately misunderstand basic reliable sourcing. It has been explained to them that newspapers aren't generally reliable for cutting edge or controversial science, but they continue to propose newspapers as sources for everything, and make statements like the above "If we can assume this isn't an RS then should we just blacklist it". They refuse to get that reliability is context dependent. @TippyGoomba Not for lack of trying, see for example, which was two days ago. ] (]) 10:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::LOL, refusing most sources as being unreliable is also a form of POV-pushing, IRWolfie. And I have seen you do just that on many, many articles relating to food safety and organic food. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 10:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::::The Banner added claims, several months ago, into an article claiming regular food causes cancer and contains poison, here is the diff, and discussion ] as well as cherry picking papers which the papers that cited it lambasted ]. That's the context, but it has no relevance to what is being discussed here, ] (]) 13:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: |
::] you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::] i upload as per their official social media. But rather used a poster version, and in the end i revert it. Same like what u did to me on ]. I don't know what is this user problem, first upload the incorrect poster than re-upload again with the correct poster which i already uploaded, then need a bot to resize it. (So unnecessary) <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Since Monsanto has over all its GMO studies then any peer reviewed study should be brought into question. This my RS is better than your RS isn't the way to go about it. Should we include a line as a qualifier after every GMO peer reviewed study? 'Other studies need to be legally approved by Monsanto.' 'Studies to counter these claims are illegal without Monsanto approval.' I should email a local supply company and see if I can get a copy of the contract just to verify to myself that Scientific American isn't using fringe sources for false claims.--] (]) 14:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I reverted that because it was too early to say that the poster is indeed the main one at that time when it was labeled as . You know that we rely more on ] ] ] rather on official website or social media accounts as they are ], so I don't know why you were offended by a revert. ] ] 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If you search for the word "contract" in the GM Food Controversies article, you will find that there is a link to the Monsanto contract ''already in the article'' and a discussion of it. It is in the ]. (Note - the link to the actual contract in the article was broken - found another one after a few minutes of searching and replaced it) And there is already a section about scientific publishing and the difficulties that indpendent scientists have had getting access to the GM seed. Please, please do your homework before making these great statements. Other, good faith editors have been working on this for a long time! This is a repeat of the Starlink thing, where you didn't read the article before adding repetitive content about the Taco Bell Recall and you haven't responded to a single thing we have said about it and where it is currently located. But you are quick to denounce and ignore the working editors as bad faith POV pushers and you keep doing that, ''even here''. ] (]) 02:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *When Canoe made a post at ] that seemed to me to imply that some editors were "shills", I left a message that you can see on their user talk page, and they came to the article talk page and clarified that they had not intended it to cast aspersions on editors, but rather, they were trying to express concern that readers might think that our content was being manipulated. That's probably not the best explanation, but I was willing to let it go at that. Canoe then posted, in talk, a series of suggested sources that other editors considered to be low-quality; that is what IRWolfie is referring to here. I don't think that posting possible sources on a talk page is something that requires an ANI complaint, and I think that this complaint probably does not require administrator action, in itself. That said, it's painfully clear that this drama over whether or not editors are working on behalf of business interests, or whether other editors are using aspersions to that effect, without real evidence, in order to try to gain advantage in POV disputes, is just going on and on and on. I've said it before, and it hasn't sunk in yet: if you have a valid concern, please take it to ], and if you don't, then don't say it. --] (]) 14:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] and ]. I have other ] in real life. ] ] 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you're that busy, please stop reverting my edits/uploads without any clear explanation. Just like what you did on ]. You will just engaged in ]. I've also seen you revert on ]; someone reverted it to the correct one (which I uploaded), but you still revert to your preferred version without leaving an edit summary. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 08:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have partially blocked both of you from editing filespace for 72 hours for edit warring. I think an IBAN might be needed here. ] (]/]) 03:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Support''' an indefinite two-way interaction ban between D.18th and Aidillia. They've also been edit warring at ]. Also look at the move log there, which is ridiculous. These people need to stop fighting with each other. ] ] 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === User:D.18th === | |||
| ::Just to indicate that the discussion Canoe started was really about purported shills/COI, Here is what he dropped in the middle of it: . "''. I will keep looking. --Canoe1967''" He dropped a link to a Monsanto IP that edited the Roundup article ''8 years ago'' in the middle of his thread, ] (]) 14:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Withdrawn. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::I did not start the discussion for that purpose nor use those terms. Putting thoughts to my posts and words in my mouth is very bad faith bordering on lies and attacks. If you can't provide decent input then either don't bother or expect to have it ignored. I posted the COI edit to counter claims that Monsanto never edits GMO articles. There are probably more but I think I have made my point.--] (]) 15:05, 18 August 2013 (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) | |||
| ===My own issues=== | |||
| I don't participate in these boards much, and have not brought an action here before. I don't much like drama. I don't like to fight with anybody nor do I like getting people in trouble - I like to work things out. | |||
| <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) | |||
| However, two editors in particular, ] and ], have been engaging in a campaign of personally attacking me and a group of other editors, both directly and in a canvassing manner, on the Talk pages of other editors, accusing me and others of bad faith, shill, COI, POV-pushing editing (which I will refer to from now on as "paid editing" for lack of a better term). I have asked each of them to stop, nicely, several times, and finally warned them that I would start an ANI if they continued. Neither has stopped. As ] has already opened a discussion, I am joining his/her thread. I have not done this before, but the behavior of these editors is making Misplaced Pages an inhospitable place for me and in an ugly weed is growing that I think should be pulled up. | |||
| :{{re|Aidilla}} You have failed to notify {{User|D.18th}} of this discussion, as the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires. I know they already reported you above, but they may not be aware of your one in return. You will need to show clear diffs supporting the allegations that you've made; expecting us to act on this report with no such evidence is likely going to result in ]. Regards, ]. (] | ]). 04:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], you can't remove a post from ANI once it has been responded to by another editor. If you want to rescind your complaint then strike it by using code, <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will show up as <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{done}}, thanks! <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:Azar Altman and User:Farruh Samadov == | |||
| I request that an administrator at least sternly warn each of them, and maximally block each of them for some amount of time. | |||
| {{atop|result=All of the named parties have been indefinitely blocked with checkuser blocks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Azar Altman}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Farruh Samadov}} | |||
| {{user|Azar Altman}} was ] for uncivil conduct and MOS violations. Shortley after their initial 72-hour block on December 27, a new user named {{user|Farruh Samadov}} appeared. One of their edits at ] is , the capital of Uzbekistan, in violation of ]. They did this three more times (, , ). And then Azar Altman reverted again twice (, ), leading me to suspect that Farruh Samadov is a ]. Both users edit in the Uzbekistan topic area and both user talk pages have warnings for MoS violations, but Samadov has never used uncivil language, as Altman did on their user talk and in their second edit I linked. –] (]]) 04:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I opened a a couple hours ago. It is indeed highly suspicious that Farruh Samadov was created only a few hours after this block was imposed. ] (]) 04:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I recognize that declared and undeclared paid editing is something that Misplaced Pages should be concerned with, for sure, but I also ''very strongly'' believe that the behavior of these two editors, who have turned simple differences in perspective into a witch hunt, where they continually make accusations in inappropriate places with no evidence, is a kind of McCarthyism (where "paid editor" replaces "communist") that thwarts Misplaced Pages's goal of having a vibrant community of editors who work together with civility to create a great encyclopedia. I believe they are acting in good faith -- I believe each of them honestly believes that I and others are acting in bad faith, and I believe that each of them honestly wants to make Misplaced Pages better, but their methods and behaviors are destructive and this behavior needs to stop. As they will not stop themselves, I am asking that they be stopped. | |||
| ::Pinging @] who was involved in the prior ANI and performed the block. ] ] 04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Suggest these accounts to be blocked as soon as possible if sockpupperty is confirmed. ] (]) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], yes, that's how that goes. ] (]) 13:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Regardless of SOCK, suggest that Azar receive another block of at least a week for continued disruption shortly after the block was lifted. They were reverted twice (as noted above) for the same edit by two different editors (Laundry and Melik). Their most recent edit summary was {{tq|Stop discriminating by violating Misplaced Pages rules.}} when MOS was specifically mentioned in the prior edit summary and they are abundantly notified about edit warring and not reverting-reverts. ] ] 05:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Sockpuppetry in Philippine articles == | |||
| The other editors editors being attacked are individuals who have each found him- or herself interested in the suite of genetic engineering articles for a long time, and include me, ], ], ] and to a lesser extent ] A few months ago ] became more active on those pages, and much more recently, mostly via the March Against Monsanto article, ], ], and ] have gotten involved. The older group of editors I have come to be very familiar with -- all are science-oriented or scientists, as far as I can tell, and all seek to follow all the pillars in editing especially with regard to NPOV and reliable sourcing. We do not coordinate in any way, that I am aware of. | |||
| 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) | |||
| ''']''' Canoe first showed up in the GMO suite in an ANI about March Against Monsanto. Canoe's first edit there is - in that edit he/she wrote: "I came across it offwiki because of a phone call. They knew I edited Misplaced Pages and wondered why Monsanto seemed to be controlling our content.". Canoe's , a few minutes later, was in the MaM article, where he/she deleted content with the pejorative and attacking edit note "Monsanto may control the media but not Misplaced Pages. This section is due without the tag in that case." And his/her edit notes and comments continued in that spirit. Another comment Canoe made in the MaM ANI was "I could care less about the article. What I do care about is the possible outside POV pressure on it which is why ArbCom should be consulted." - . His/her last, and telling comment in the ANI about MaM is . THe last comment made by Canoe in the MaM ANI is Copy/pasted for your convenience, because this one is key: ""Addendum. It was more than just that. I have been banned from editing ] for a week. I had never heard of the GMO controversy until the phone call I received. Since then I created ] which I tried to include in ] at first. My addition was notable and sourced but one reason for the reversion was 'article too big already'. I then created it as a stand alone. Since then it was re-directed to yet a fourth article, ], which I reverted. I expect the next step will be an Afd attempt. I still don't care about the GMO POVs that some editors claim exist but I do care about how it effects Misplaced Pages. Put these articles on your watchlists to see if any further antics arise.--] (]) 10:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)" | |||
| :It seems like this should be reported at ], not at ANI. That's where the checkusers are at although they are generally reluctant to connect an IP account with a blocked sockpuppet. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == VZ Holding == | |||
| Three key things: 1) Canoe notes that he/she was canvassed external to Misplaced Pages, and 2) Canoe notes that he/she was blocked for edit warring; 3) Canoe makes it clear here that he/she knows little about the issues involved but is determined to fight perceived COI editing. And this is pretty much what has unfolded on the two GM-related articles where I have encountered this editor - very uncivil conversations where it is hard to arrive at consensus on content because Canoe won't deal with facts about the content, but instead personally attacks and keeps shifting ground to get the article to be just as he/she wants it to be. | |||
| {{atop|1=OP has been pointed to ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{articlelinks|VZ Holding}} | |||
| VZ Vermögenszentrum - this user named after their ] is heavily editing their bank wikipedia page. should be banned or warned at least. --] (]) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I asked Canoe about the phone call on his/her Talk page - the query and its response are . Seems like the initial phone call was not canvassing, but it certainly seemed to set Canoe off on a conspiracy theory that Monsanto is controlling GM-related content and everybody working them, or opposing his/her changes, has COI or POV-pushing issues. The discussion I linked to at the start of this paragraph was very, very difficult for me, as Canoe would not stay on topic, respond to what I actually wrote, and continually threatened to "contact the media about" the putative COI editing, go to Arbcom,telling me "I have told you more than once that you should take a break from editing GMO articles but you seem to just continue with BS which will probably lead to drama boards if you don't clue in." and on and on. I made a minor change on his/her Taco Bell Recall article and Canoe went off on me, wildly - please see the topmost discussion on Talk, . Simultaneously Canoe, myself, and others were having a dispute in the Talk pages of the GM controversies article about where content about the Starlink/Taco Bell content should go - again Canoe's behavior there was oriented toward personal attacks about COI and POV-pushing, and Canoe had no interest in dialog, establishing the facts, or compromising, but has continually insisted that the content go where he/she wanted it to go. That discussion is . If it is more helpful to Administrators I will go back through those discussions and pull out more specific things that Canoe wrote, but you don't have to look far. | |||
| :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) | |||
| is the 3RR ANI resulting in a warning for March against Monsanto editing - Aug 3. (note - he/she was previously 48 hour blocked for edit warring on another article, ) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == SeanM1997 == | |||
| Here is another attack on me, not mentioning me by name or notifying me: . | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub>}} | |||
| *{{User|SeanM1997}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| There are more, but this is too long already. | |||
| 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) | |||
| '''With respect to ]''', this goes back to editing I did on the ] article and his/her frustration in general with the terrible situation that developed in that article. If editors are not familiar with this article, some brief background. There is an employee of BP named Arturo who works on that article, in excellent compliance with Misplaced Pages's policies - posts suggestions on Talk, never edits, discusses politely. Two camps of editors arose on that page - one that wanted the article to remain tightly focused on BP and its business; another that wanted to include expanded content on environmental, legal and political issues (oil spills including Deep Water Horizon and all the issues around that; safety violations, trading scandals, greenwashing, etc). Things got very ugly there and for a long time a group of corporate-oriented editors had the article in a fairly ugly stranglehold leading to a lot of anger and frustration. This really broke out when an article was published claiming (wrongly) that BP was re-writing its wikipedia article. In any case, I helped break that open (see and a group of editors, including ] who had been working virtually alone for a long time, ] who had been involved in the past and came back after the article published, and others, started adding lots of content. When I felt they went too far and resisted, I became an enemy to them and ] became so negative toward me, personally, that I just left the page. Ever since, ] has been accusing me of being a shill. | |||
| :Reading SeanM1997's talk page is a depressing saga. I have indefinitely blocked the editor for persistent addition of unsourced and poorly sourced content for years, despite being warned repeatedly. The editor can be unblocked if they promise to provide references to reliable sources 100% of the time. ] (]) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It should be noted that SeanM1997 has in the past posted a tweet to support something, then used a news story referencing his tweet as a source to insert into an article. Despite many years and many many conversations, they don't/won't understand the concept of independent reliable sources. ] ] 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Deegeejay333 and Eurabia == | |||
| The BP article was very hard, very charged, and I think is the root of a lot of this McCarthyism that ] is engaging in. | |||
| Much of the activity of the infrequently active user {{userlinks|Deegeejay333}} appears to be attempts to whitewash anything to do with the ], attempting to present it as "fact", despite the fact that scholarly sources have consistently defined it as a conspiracy theory (see , ). I think this makes them ]. ] (]) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In a discussion on the BP Talk page, Petrarchan actually proposed that forming "an organized team somewhat like CREWE, even if more loosely organized and with few members, is actually a good idea. If Wiki editors are now seriously being asked to do what we are doing at this page, we need to take a moment and reflect on what that really means. We are up against a PR department of one of the most powerful, wealthy companies in the world. And they are not about to stop caring A LOT about what this page says. They have loyal editors here who seem much more organized and less emotional than those of us interesting in removing spin. If that doesn't change, nothing will change with regard to the POV in the article" - which comment you can see . | |||
| : Notifed their talkpage . Despite their long periods of inactivity, their most recent activity is today . ] (]) 17:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The rest of their edits on unrelated topics seem unobjectionable. I think page blocks would get the job done in preventing further disruption (I can't get around to doing that right now, but that's my two cents). ] (]/]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really? You see nothing wrong with {{diff|Nathan Phillips (activist)|prev|879336081|these}} {{diff|Enhanced interrogation techniques|prev|871177370|edits}}? --] 17:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah. It does kind of look like this editor is ] except to do battle with the terrible forces of Misplaced Pages leftism. ] (]) 17:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I did a quick look; I didn't look at all of their edits. I agree that edit is also problematic. ] (]/]) 17:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::White-washing ] was also the very first edit they made at Misplaced Pages as well as their most recent. This is an ongoing issue. ] (]) 18:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Wigglebuy579579 == | |||
| I believe that this is what Petrachan has been doing recently -- namely, convinced that a cabal is controlling the GM articles, he/she has been canvassing to try to "loosely organize" a group to "fight back", as Petrarchan, ], ], <del>and ],</del> and ] did in working on the BP article (which you can see if you review their user Talk pages - they constantly encouraged one another and discussed what was going on in the BP article in their Talk pages. ''] was peripherally involved in that.'' And in the battleground that the BP article had become, and how hard it was, I understood that. I also found it disturbing with regard to canvassing and organizing out of sight of the article's Talk page, but I was already walking away from the BP article so I said and did nothing. I am, however, deeply engaged in the GM suite of articles and committed to their excellence, and I am calling Petrarchan out for canvassing and personal attacks for this behavior now. I don't even know if it is intentional (as in conscious) as much as we are all creatures of habit. But the behavior is no good. (note - edited to respond to Binksternet's objection below. Deleted Binkster from the list and noted peripheral involvement in italics. My apologies. ] (]) 00:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)) | |||
| *{{Userlinks|Wigglebuy579579}} keeps engaging in disruptive editing behaviour: | |||
| # they created dozens of articles by copy-pasting AI-generated text; | |||
| # they ignored all warnings onto their talk{{nbs}}page; | |||
| # they duplicated draftified articles by simply recreating them. | |||
| {{U|Miminity}} and I have been cleaning the mess for hours, warned him several times, but he just ignores everything and starts again.<span id="Est._2021:1736271756958:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt">{{snd}}] (] <b>·</b> ]) 17:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| : I would support indefinitely blocking this user. Their output is entirely low quality AI-generated slop, and they are contributing nothing of value to the encyclopedia while placing considerable burden on others. ] (]) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :], can you provide some examples so we don't have to search through their contributions? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Some pertinent examples ] (moved to mainspace by Wiggle and then back to draftspace) and ] (exactly the same scenario as previous). These are all obviously AI generated based on their formatting. ] (]) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Liz}} Examples include: | |||
| :::#], ] and ]; | |||
| :::#] and ]; | |||
| :::#] and ]; | |||
| :::#]; | |||
| :::among others. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Ping|Liz}} This editor left a message on my talkpage and again it is clearly written by AI. ] '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 00:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Are any of the references in ] real or are they all hallucinations? I'm having trouble finding them on web searches. They're also suspiciously old even though there is more recent relevant literature. — ] ] 01:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The ] essay recommends G3 for articles for which text-source integrity is completely lacking. — ] ] 01:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|rsjaffe}} Using BookFinder.com, Citation #1, #3 (might be a dupref of 1) does exist but has different author, Citation #2 does exist and is correct. #4 is dupref of #2. A quoted google search and a google scholar search about #5, 8, 9, 11 (The journals does not seem to even exist) yields no result. No result for 6, 7, 9, 10 (Nagaland State Press does not seems to even exist) 12 '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 02:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would like to hear from @], but, if the results of the reference searches on the other drafts are like this, then all those drafts should be deleted as unverifiable. LLM output can look very correct while hiding significant falsehoods, and it will be impossible to sort fact from fiction in those articles if they haven't been validated word-for-word with real sources. — ] ] 03:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Click all the link on the ], all of them are {{tl|failed verification}}. Either the page does not exist or the website itself does not exist. The JSTOR sources leads to a completely unrelated article. I think by the looks of it, this draft is safe to delete | |||
| ::::{{ping|Wigglebuy579579}} care to explain? '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 03:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*] and ], thanks for supplying examples that can be reviewed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:BittersweetParadox - Overlinking == | |||
| I note that his/her userpage now has a label stating: "This user disapproves of mindless PR firm sockpuppets spreading paid POV around Misplaced Pages." and a quote, "The question is whether privileged élites should dominate mass-communication, and should use this power as they tell us they must, namely, to impose necessary illusions, manipulate and deceive the stupid majority, and remove them from the public arena. - Noam Chomsky". These are clearly important issues for Petrarchan. However as I mentioned, this user is convinced I am a COI editor and that I am a POV-pusher, and while we avoid working on articles where the other is working, he/she continues to write negative things about me in Talk pages, and canvasses other users to get them to join his/her anti-paid editing campaign. We unfortunately encountered one another again on the March Against Monsanto article. | |||
| '''This comment''' by Petrarchan really makes clear where Petrarchan has ended up, really convinced that I and others are paid editors and that Misplaced Pages is completely in our corrupt grasp. Simple differences in perspective have become blown up into a battle between good and evil. | |||
| *{{userlinks|BittersweetParadox}} | |||
| Anyway to the point. | |||
| This user is persistently ]ing throughout most of their edits that aren't dealing with categories or redirects, see for example: | |||
| There as an ugly discussion of edits I made in the BP article on the Talk page of an administrator, ], made without notifying me, which you can see in the deleted entry - SlimVirgin deleted it after I called it to her attention . | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * (unexplained citation removal as well) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| I have also ] regarding this, but they have seemingly chosen to ignore that warning, as they are still continuing with the same behavior: | |||
| It continued anyway, (I am the "a certain editor who materialized recently and held himself out as a 'mediator'", who is negatively characterized) and (where Petrarchan says I "deserved the 'shill' remark") - again without notifying me. | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| This is also not the first time the issue has been brought up to the user, as they were previously warned in ], where even after claiming to understand the issue/say they won't do it again, . With their ignoring of warnings regarding overlinking, it unfortunately appears that an ANI discussion may be the only way to solve this ongoing issue, apart from a block. ] (]) 17:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Also groundless complaint against me by Petrarchan to Slimvirgin, which was replied to by SV . | |||
| ==Repeated pov pushing == | |||
| And again Petrarchan brought a conflict with me to SlimVirgin without notifying me - this one about GMOs - in that instance Petrarchan wanted to introduce health-related content based on a flimsy article, which I had reverted, and when Petrarchan brought that to MEDRS as per SlimVirgin's advice, the source was dismissed as failing MEDRS which Petrarchan has brought up bitterly several times as another example of me being a shill - see for one. | |||
| {{atop|This is a content dispute and ANI is not the venue to resolve those. {{U|Hellenic Rebel}}, you've had multiple editors tell you that you are not correct. Please take the time to understand why. ] ] 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] , despite the disagreements, continues to try to impose his personal opinion, for which he cannot cite any source that justifies him. Clearly original research. | |||
| That is all the past stuff. The more recent stuff is more disturbing to me, as I mentioned above, because now Petrarchan appears to be trying to round up another coalition to ] again, now on pages I am committed to. | |||
| Canvassing behavior against me and the rest of the "evil GMO cabal" is and (that one with Canoe) and with ] and many other places on V's Talk page, with ] , more of it going on with ] joining in the canvassing/attacking and conspiracy theorizing, and with ], and . | |||
| Anyway, I freaking hated doing this. Horrible, unproductive waste of my time. But again, this McCarthyism - this constant making of accusations and personal attacks on Talk pages has got to stop. Thanks for your patience. I know I am out of patience. ] (]) 18:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I feel I have adequately responded to these claims before but since you request responses again then I will do so. We go with what sources say on Misplaced Pages and not edits by those 'already familiar with the subject'. You edited the recall article with copyvio material from the source, falsely stated that Kraft did the recall, and then claimed that your minor typo fixes didn't require you to read the source, which you hadn't. I had read COI differently than others and accepted that is does need to be re-worded to avoid its vagueness. One does not need to be a paid editor to be a COI editor. Too much POV for one side of an article related to ideals or field of work is enough to be POV and COI, IMHO. You keep mentioning that I am not discussing in good faith and I keep asking you the same questions. If the sources say it is X then we go with X. The recall was a health issue as reported by the sources. None of the sources claim it was an environmental issue yet it remains in the environmental section. It was recently added to the allergen section as well, even though the sources didn't mention that it was controversial because of the rare possibility of reaction. It was controversial the way it was handled before, after, and during the recall. Seemingly ignored reports before it happened, misleading statements made after it happened, as well as other concerns mentioned in the sources.--] (]) 19:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a very good summary of the issues. <small>although I wouldn't say I've been interested in the GM articles for a long time, I doubt I edited them before 4 months ago</small> ] (]) 19:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| See also, talk with ] ] (]) 19:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*The post here is probably TL;DR for ANI (maybe even for RfArb), but let me try to boil it down to what my own take is on it. Jytdog names a lot of editors, but some of them seem to me to be innocent bystanders, so let's please focus on Petrarchan and Canoe. --] (]) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I keep seeing TL;DR mentioned everywhere and have yet to find a page on it. I still haven't got a clue what it means but since it is directed at me it is time to ask. Please explain RfArb as well to save me time searching for it.--] (]) 20:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*I think that Petrarchan's conduct centers on ], while Canoe's is a mixture of ] and (sorry) ].--] (]) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Both essays an not policy nor guideline but worthy of response anyway. One does not need competence nor an ideal to RGW to simply paraphrase articles with material from sources.--] (]) 20:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*And as I said above the section break, editors who, like Petrarchan and Canoe, are worried about paid editing (something I regard as a potentially legitimate concern, although I'm just not seeing evidence of it at ]) should either bring their evidence to ], or stop casting aspersions on other editors. Continuing down the ] road leads to disruptive behavior.--] (]) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think I have ever accused an editor for editing at the request of an employer. I have stated above that the COI policy is worded vaguely and I had interpreted it as any editor that uses a POV from their ideals or field to edited articles. A discussion at COIN may help clarify this but until the guideline is clarified then others may believe as I did.--] (]) 20:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*And it has mostly been asymmetrical: a lot of aspersion-casting ''against'' editors like Jytdog, but little or no reciprocation, beyond simply angry replies.--] (]) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't feel I have replied in anger. It may be simple frustration that I don't get response. Such as why when the sources say it is a health issue then it keeps getting relegated to the environmental section when none of the sources claim it was environmental.--] (]) 20:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*I've pointed this out to Petrarchan: , to no effect. | |||
| :*I've pointed this out to Canoe: , , to mixed effect: . --] (]) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I feel this is a difference of opinion on the vague COI policy. If our articles seem like they are POV to the reader then they may see it as COI editors.--] (]) 20:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*Jytdog asks for something between warnings and blocks. At this time, blocks would be over-the-top. And ultimately, everyone is going to have to come under scrutiny. | |||
| :*'''But it would be very helpful if an uninvolved administrator would go to ] and ], and warn each of them to take any concerns to ], but not to cast aspersions on article talk pages.'''--] (]) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::If someone wishes to discuss it at COIN then I would as well. We may be able to clarify the wording of the COI policy at least.--] (]) 21:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*For now, an "official" warning is plenty, but escalating blocks may become necessary if the warnings are ignored. Let's hope a warning is enough. --] (]) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I suggest that all editors involved be limited to the talk pages of the articles. Once consensus is reached on edits then we can put in an edit request for changes. This has been at ANI and other boards with little solution in sight that I can see. It may yet end up at ArbCom. Other fresh and neutral editors should be allowed to edit the articles though.--] (]) 21:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Per ], I've moved Canoe's comments to here <small>reverted by Canoe</small>. TL;DR means "too long, didn't read", see: ]; it was directed at Jytdog. ] is where one can ask the Arbitration Committee to accept a case. Jytdog believes that, even if you did not explicitly say something like ''I think Jytdog is a paid shill'', your comments often come across as implying that editors who disagree with you are doing something like that. The issue here is the "casting of aspersions", not, for example, paraphrasing. --] (]) 20:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I didn't say that you replied in anger. I said that other editors replied to you in anger. --] (]) 20:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}About ], Canoe seems determined to insert comments within my bullet point comments above, and I'm not going to keep edit warring over it. --] (]) 20:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I feel they warrant a response from me in the order you wrote them.--] (]) 20:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Replying since I've been tagged. I do think this is a behavioural issue rather than a content one. User has been repeatedly warned on their talk page by several users about edits to the article in question but has belligerently refused to engage in constructive discussion about said edits. | |||
| Alright then, here are my original comments, un-refactored: | |||
| :User was clearly warned about continuing this in the closure message of the last ANI discussion not to resume the edits but the response on the article's talk page was notably dismissive of said warning. | |||
| :*The post here is probably TL;DR for ANI (maybe even for RfArb), but let me try to boil it down to what my own take is on it. Jytdog names a lot of editors, but some of them seem to me to be innocent bystanders, so let's please focus on Petrarchan and Canoe. | |||
| :Quite honestly I think this is a case of ]. The user in question has just plead that they have special knowledge we don't and has steadfastly refused to demonstrate in reliable sources the contents of their edits. Despite being informed of how consensus works they have resorted to counting votes and even in that case just dismissing the views of those against him for contrived reasons. ] (]) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*I think that Petrarchan's conduct centers on ], while Canoe's is a mixture of ] and (sorry) ]. | |||
| :: My friends, anonymous user and @], and also dear user and adminis that are going to see the previous POVs. The article had a specific version, which you decided to dispute by causing a correction war, that could easily be seen at the . The administrator in order to reach to a consensus, which obviously couldn't happen, and there was no corresponding participation. Four users in all, the two of us presented our arguments in favor of the original version, Rambling Rambler (and somewhat monotonously and without proper documentation, the anonymous user) presented yours for the version without seats. At the end, you threw in an ad-hominem against me, to top it off. You made a call, no one else did anything, time passed. What makes you believe that the article will remain in your version, while the original was the previous one and there was no consensus?<br/>P.S.: Rambling Rambler, please stop bombing links to wikipedia policies and then trying to interpret them and "fit" them to the issue. This practice resembles clickbait, you are simply trying to show that you are knowledgeable about politics and appear superior, and this is annoying. ] (]) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*And as I said above the section break, editors who, like Petrarchan and Canoe, are worried about paid editing (something I regard as a potentially legitimate concern, although I'm just not seeing evidence of it at ]) should either bring their evidence to ], or stop casting aspersions on other editors. Continuing down the ] road leads to disruptive behavior. | |||
| :::@] an admin locked the page, and then anybody respond even if we make pings. That means that they just locked the page because there was an edit war, and and no one dealt with the article. The discussion ended weeks ago and also you've made a public call. If somebody wanted, they would have closed the discussion. So I don't think it's a case of IDHT, because the time intervals in which someone could engage (either to participate in the discussion, or an administrator to close it) had exceeded the normal. ] (]) 19:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*And it has mostly been asymmetrical: a lot of aspersion-casting ''against'' editors like Jytdog, but little or no reciprocation, beyond simply angry replies. | |||
| ::::I'm not going to reopen the content aspect of this here. I have made you aware, '''repeatedly''', of our polices when it comes to including claims. You need to provide reliable sources and the burden is on those wanting to include challenged statements to meet consensus to include them. You have now just admitted there is no consensus yet you felt entitled to reintroduce challenged material. | |||
| :*I've pointed this out to Petrarchan: , to no effect. | |||
| ::::This is precisely a "I don't have to" issue. ] (]) 19:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*I've pointed this out to Canoe: , , to mixed effect: . | |||
| ::::Also tagging @] as they probably have a view on this given their previous action. ] (]) 19:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*Jytdog asks for something between warnings and blocks. At this time, blocks would be over-the-top. And ultimately, everyone is going to have to come under scrutiny. | |||
| :::::@] I will prove you that you actually interpret policies as you see fit, and you don't pay attention to what they say. ]:<br/> Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long '''after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive'''. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise. '''The community's rejection of your idea is not because they didn't hear you'''. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the others are telling you. Make an effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with".<br/>You can see the bold parts. It's obvious from those, that this policy does not refer to cases where four user with two different opinions participated. It refers to cases where one or a minority of users refuses to accept the community's decision because they believe their opinion is superior. In our discussion, my version never rejected from the community, it was rejected only by you and the anonymous user. In this case, either you believe that the majority or the community in general is you and the anonymous user, or you are simply trying to propagate your position. ] (]) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''But it would be very helpful if an uninvolved administrator would go to ] and ], and warn each of them to take any concerns to ], but not to cast aspersions on article talk pages.''' | |||
| ::::::You were linked ] during the discussion and clearly acknowledged it. | |||
| :*For now, an "official" warning is plenty, but escalating blocks may become necessary if the warnings are ignored. Let's hope a warning is enough. --] (]) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: So you are aware of it, which bluntly states: | |||
| ::Thank you for boiling this down, Tryptofish. Your summary reflects my intentions, sort of. '''The main ''policies'' I am concerned with are ] and ] and with respect to ], the guideline against ].''' Petrarchan and Canoe justify their behavior with concerns about paid editing but fail to take any official action about that, and instead just attack and attack on Talk pages. If these editors "focused on content and not contributors" while working on these articles there would be no problem. Also. sorry to all about the length. I have not done this before and wanted to present as much content and detail as seemed reasonable. I guess it was too much. ] (]) 23:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::''The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.'' | |||
| There does appear to be rampant paranoia in the GMO related articles by some editors that believe there is some sort of conspiracy that the articles are being controlled by paid shills for Monsanto. Absolutely no evidence for such a thing but they seem to have firmly convinced themselves that this must be the reason why the positions that they constantly push for, are continuously getting rejected by the overwhelming majority of other editors. Rather than accept the extremely rational explanations of wikipedia policies regarding ], ], ], ], ], given countless times by other editors, they refuse to accept these are the actual reasons, and believe there is a massive conspiracy that all the other editors are in on and are controlled by Monsanto and constantly accuse the other editors as such. This conduct is problematic and a warning here toward these editors would be helpful. ] (]) 21:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In your previous reply you have admitted that there isn't consensus. | |||
| :::I haven't read all the comments by other editors. I have never used the term 'shill' directed to another editor nor accused them of working for Monsanto. I think I did mention that if that is there field of interest then that may cause an inherent POV to articles. If our readers detect this as biased edits then it reflects badly on all of us for not maintaining NPOV. As to sources I already mentioned on the talk page that some sources are years old and about 30% of the March article sources don't even mention the march. They seem to be added to coatrack the article from both sides. It may end up being NPOV but full of fluff that has nothing to do with the subject. The subject is the march not the GMO controversy. There is a background section but last I looked that had its own GMO controversy sub-section. Not needed IMHO because it is just dragging the same material from the other article.--] (]) 21:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You have broken policy and are just once again stubbornly refusing to adhere to it. ] (]) 20:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, and to be as clear as I can be: there will be multiple conduct and content issues as this goes along, but for now, there is a '''single''' conduct issue: '''the repeated casting of aspersions that editors are editing on behalf of Monsanto, without evidence'''. --] (]) 21:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] There was a long time period in which we did not have any edit in the discussion. The original version was the one with the seats. The admins at that cases, lock the article at a random version (otherwise there should have been a clarification from the admin). So the lack of consensus concerns your own version, not the original one, to which I restored the article. Finally, I need to point out that you have made a series of problematic contributions, such as misguiding users by referring them to Misplaced Pages policies that are not related to the subject as I demonstrated exactly above, but also the ad-hominem against me which you proceeded together with the anonymous user in the article discussion. ] (]) 20:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think you keep missing my point. Inherent POV edits will cause a biased article if not kept neutral. If our readers detect this then it will reflect badly on all of us. I tell everyone I meet to never trust our articles. I tell them how to find the sources that back up the material, read those, see who wrote them, and then make their own judgment on how the articles portray facts, truths, weight, and POV.--] (]) 22:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This wall of text is the exact problem at hand here. You won't follow our site's policies but instead are just making up your own as to why breaking policy is now fine. The "discussion" was barely dormant and as you admit there was no consensus on including the material you demand be included. Ergo, per policy it can't be included. | |||
| ::::::::Frankly you are incapable of editing in a collaborative manner. I think the fact that you've been blocked repeatedly both here and at our Greek equivalent for disruptive behaviour and edit-warring demonstrates this very well. ] (]) 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::@] The problem here is that you don't understand the policy. The one who needs consensus to make edits, is the one that wants to make a change at the page. In our case, maybe the random version in which the page was locked was your version, but that does not change the fact that you were the one who wanted to make a change. You need consensus, you did not achieved it. Also, that is '''ad-hominem''' again, and now you checked and my greek WP blocks? ] (]) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It is not ad hominem to bring up your history of blocks for edit warring and disruption when the topic of discussion is your conduct. | |||
| ::::::::::The policy, which I quoted for your benefit, '''literally''' says the onus is on the person who wants to '''include''' the disputed content '''which is you'''. You want this claim to be on the article and myself and others have disputed it. ] (]) 21:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::@] there is not such as disputed content. The party has 5 members affiliated with it, and there is source about it. Your edits where those which need consnensus, because you are the one which want to change the original. ] (]) 21:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::The fact myself and others have said it's not supported and therefore shouldn't be there is literally a dispute... ] (]) 21:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::@] yes it is a dispute, but if there is not a consensus that your dispute is valid, the version that remains is the original one, that is also supported by source. ] (]) 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There has never been a specific version of the article. A few hours after adding the uncited 5 MPs, the edit was undone. It is also worth noting that the original contributor of the addition about mps, Quinnnnnby never engaged in an edit war or challenged our disagreements, as you did. ] (]) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I did, but you also did. So the only user to act properly at that case was @]. And guess with what opinion Quinnnnby agreed at the discussion... ] (]) 20:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Hellenic Rebel}}, Rambling Rambler is actually right: if you wish to include text which has been disputed, you '''must''' include sourcing. You cannot just attempt to force the content in, regardless of what consensus you believe has been achieved. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 21:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@] this is exactly why I am saying that the users propagandize: there was a source used! ] (]) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Then it's time to discuss that source on the Talk page ''instead'' of just ramming into the article. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@] there was a discussion on the page. The source states that 5 MPs of the Hellenic Parliament are in the new party. And the users, after their first argument that it should have a parliamentary group was shot down (as it was obvious that this policy is not followed in any party), they moved on to a logic that the source should say verbatim "5 MPs '''stand'''" for the party... ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@] I have lost hours of my life to "discussing" this at this point. They're entirely either refusing or simply incapable of understanding that because they have sources for Claim A that doesn't mean they can put a similar but still different Claim B on the article. They however insist they can because unlike us they're "Hellenic" and therefore know that Claim A = Claim B while refusing to accept this is ]. ] (]) 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Automatic editing, abusive behaviour, and disruptive(ish) wikihounding from ] == | |||
| *Jytdog is off the rails here. There's no way that I am part of a "cabal" working on the BP article. Rather, I am a veteran Misplaced Pages editor with many and varied interests. Whatever kernel of truth might be extracted from Jytdog's concerns must be separated from the preposterous and unsupportable "cabal" accusation. What a load of malarkey. ] (]) 23:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that this was ill-phrased and dumb to name editors who played some roll in an old content dispute in an ANI thread about a different topic. However, let's not lose sight of the real issues raised here. ] (]) 23:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A13ean I am sorry that I neglected to mention you as one of the consistent editors. My apologies - I knew I was forgetting somebody. ] (]) 23:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hi Binksternet, sorry to drag you into this. A13ean and Binkster - The BP stuff was ''not'' the focus of my remarks - I was trying to provide context as to where I think Petrarchan might be coming from. I concur that Binkster was '''not''' in the center of the group working on BP .... but what I wrote is based on stuff like and and . Again, I apologize and I agree that you were not hot and heavy in the BP article nor in the loosely organized support group that worked to change the BP article. ] (]) 23:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I corrected the text above. My apologies for being inaccurate. ] (]) 00:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I like Petrarchan47's spirited participation on Misplaced Pages, and I agree with him that it is difficult to try and identify who might be paid by a corporation and who is simply volunteering. Perhaps indeffed ] was a paid editor who was disruptive at the BP article; I guessed as much but the truth will likely never be known. I also agree with Petrarchan47 that a corporation paying editors creates an uneven playing field for NPOV representation of the subject. However, the bigger picture is that NPOV can be addressed without slinging around accusations of paid editing, but only if there are enough neutral editors to counteract the paid editors, whoever they may be. Petrarchan47's wish to have more neutral editors for such work should be seen in that light—the defense of NPOV. People discussing the issues here should not lose track of the ultimate goal of having an encyclopedia which hosts neutral information. ] (]) 01:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Thanks for reaching for some middle ground, Binskster. But Petrarchan's and Canoe's methods are not appropriate and the good intentions do not excuse the behaviors. That is the point of this ANI. Good intentions run amok. ] (]) 01:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see how adding sourced material relevant to the articles to keep them neutral can be 'Good intentions run amok.' These articles have been claimed to be POV as well as coatracks of other articles. I have edited them very little as my edits are reverted within minutes. The endless talk page discussions seem to go no where as the one I tried at DRN. The volunteer closed it as stalled. The article content is still stalled but at least it is closer to NPOV.--] (]) 02:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] appears to be making lightning speed edits that are well beyond the capacity of any human to review, in addition to article content that's coming across potentially LLM-like in nature. Since December they've made over 11,000 edits, many across multiple articles within a sixty second window. | |||
| == Disgusting personal attack and racial remarks == | |||
| I attempted to ask about the policies around this at ] and was met with a tirade of obscenities and abuse (which I want to give them a slight benefit of the doubt on, I'd be upset at being accused of being a bot if I wasn't): | |||
| {{archive top|1=The page is filled with ]s today. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 21:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| In an RfC ] made unfounded ] accusations against me after I supported a contrary movement against his attacks in the RfC. After reviewing the posted diffs I commented on his exaggerations of the complaint against a fellow editor. In an effort to have my observation stricken from the RfC (see edit history comment) he wrote | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| '''FTR''', this IP is the '''Rogers Cable troll''' from last year's Beatles mediation who is on record calling people "fa**", "je**" and "nig****". She was also blocked for a year for '''harassment'''. For more detail, please see here: ]. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 20:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| These words are extremely offensive stating that I am a sockpuppet troll of another editor making racial comments to rabble rouse support. This is in order to have my comment revealing some of his edit history removed from the RfC records. Even if any of these vulgar attack comments were true GabeMc's accusations and attacks are ] and uncivil violating the ] policy and unfounded. | |||
| As far as I can tell this peaked with a total of 89 edits in a four minute window between 08:27 to 08:31 on December 28, 2024. Most are innocuous, but there are content edits thrown in the mix and recent articles were written in a way that indicates it may be an LLM ( not definitive, though if you are familiar with LLM output this may ring some alarm bells, but false alarms abound). | |||
| As far as the RfC is concerned I have never had contact with any of these editors before. ] (]) 03:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Following the quite hot thread at ]'s page, it's quite clear that whoever is operating that bot threw my entire edit history into the mix, because the bot systematically edited ''every single article'' that I had edited, ''in reverse order'' (over 100 so far since this came up about an couple of hours ago), going back a reasonable amount of time. | |||
| I am also not a "she". Perhaps a further attempt at irritation? GabeMc obviously has the wrong person. I share an ISP with 3,9000,000 other people. Who would make a dramatic guess that stupid? ] (]) 03:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :You wouldn't happen to be the same person who clashed with GabeMc with , would you? That IP is currently blocked. I'd like to assume good faith, but the IPs are pretty close together and seem to share the same hatred of GabeMc. ] (]) 03:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Read my comments above. Why is it as soon as an IP editor states something factual or non-factual an offended editor screams "sockpuppet" as a cheap tactic to avoid issues and introduce nonsense? You wouldn't happen to be another account of GabeMc, would you? I'd like to assume good faith but both of you use the same tactic. You both use the same comments in your edit histories. If every report everywhere is due to hating some other editor then we have a lot of hate, especially here. I don't know GabeMc and that was stated in my report. I also have no interest in music articles. Look at my edits. Why is it when somebody attempts to help out by presenting observations they are evil if they use an IP? IPs lay their locations out to the public. Pseudo-named editors don't. ] (]) 11:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The problem is that it's clear that a bot was instructed to just make an edit, without concern for what those edits are, so you end up with , , or at a rate far faster than any editor could address. | |||
| :*If they're not the same person, I'll eat my hat. Same MO, same ISP, same "I'm a different person from the umpteen other IPs I've used" attempt at defense. ] ] 07:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Nonsense and moronic conclusions. If I am the same person, what else would I say? If I am NOT the same person what else would I say? If this the best logic you have that I defend myself using typed words the same as somebody else did, Misplaced Pages is in real trouble. Please see my response to Mark above. Same MO, same conclusion. Does this make you another account of GabeMc? Start eating. ] (]) 11:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Didn't we also link this IP to {{IPuser|99.251.120.150}} who is also on the same ISP, also currently blocked, and also performed the same disruptive comments when ]? Why has nothing been done?—] (]) 11:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And looking at shows a strikingly similar editing behavior that I've noticed in this report and every other comment he has made under this current IP. It is clear that whoever was operating {{IPuser|99.251.125.65}} in 2012 is operating {{IPuser|99.251.120.150}} and {{IPuser|99.251.120.60}} in 2013, along with other problematic edits as {{IPuser|99.251.112.162}} and {{IPuser|99.251.114.120}}.—] (]) 11:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Clearly you still haven't accepted my observations of your disruptive behavior here and still angry about it. You previously attempted the sockpuppet distraction and are still posting AN timewasting nonsense links to unrelated edits hoping an admin will take your word without research. Most admins dig a little deeper than that ] (]) 12:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, it's clear that you're the same operator of these other 4 IPs that have caused problems in the past and have been blocked several times. Geographic proximity and some editing behavior prove this. And need I remind you that ''I'' was not the one who originally raised the issue of the sockpuppetry. Your accusations do not deflect the fact that you have operated these other IPs in the past and caused disruption.—] (]) 14:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Is that a ] coming? ] (]) 12:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * I came upon this thread from outside...my only comment is this: when one seems to go out of one's way to a) edit exactly like another IP, b) have the same "attitude" as another IP, and c) edit the ''same'' subjects as another IP, it's quite obvious that you will be taken to ''be'' that same IP. The odds of two people on a shared Rogers range acting ''the same way'' is ridiculously improbable. If you're NOT that IP, then it's time to change articles and attitude PDQ and back away slowly <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 12:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :* Maybe I will make an additional comment: read ] ... nothing Gabe has said meets the definition. As such, titling the "incident" as a "disgusting personal attack" is inflammatory rhetoric. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 12:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Where do you see me editing the same articles? Do you see Beatles or other ancient music articles in my edit history? Your comments appear to be prejudice (perhaps IP editors?) and not based on any real observations. When GabeMc online spews that I used the "nigger" word and whatever the other words were supposed t be, it's racial. Don't attempt to excuse GabeMc's behavior here. That is racial. That is personal. That is an attack. That is uncivil. That shouldn't be allowed or tolerated. ] (]) 13:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| This one is easily one of the strangest situations I've ever encountered on Misplaced Pages. ] 20:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just in case you were quoting something you haven't read yourself here is the first point in your indicated ] | |||
| :::<blockquote>Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| :::] (]) 13:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes, so show me '''exactly''' where Gabe called '''''you''''' something that was racial, sexist, homophobic ... etc. Show me. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 14:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's right. All I can see from is that he claims that another IP that he associates with you said those words. No where in those edits directed towards you does he call you any of the slurs.—] (]) 14:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why hasn't the IP just been blocked yet for wasting the community's time with ridiculous accusations and attempting to distort policy to fit these accusations? ] (<small>]]</small>) 16:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Lemme reiterate the comments I made at the RfC/U: "There a number of red flags about you. They center around the fact that you're an IP in the first place, that you haven't made a lot of edits, but you have found your way to Misplaced Pages-space and commented primarily to assail Gabe. Generally speaking, this is highly unusual for an IP to find his way to Misplaced Pages-space so quickly; most IPs with the number of edits you do work almost exclusively in mainspace; many (but not all) IPs who go quickly to Misplaced Pages-space, particularly to make comments about a particular editor, have been exposed as sockpuppets." This don't ''prove'' you are a sockpuppet, but in combination with the fact that you share an IP range with a vandal, it highly ''suggests'' it <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 14:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 18:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| :I'm flattered that you've looked into my activity on Misplaced Pages so closely. But if you'd be arsed, you'd understand that it is very simple to do an insource search using a regular expression to find a lot of stylistic errors, like no space after a sentence. If you love being on my back so much, good on you, but I'd wish if you got off. ] (]) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Protecting Danzig == | |||
| ::1) That doesn't explain how consistently abusive you have been | |||
| ::2) While I'm aware that an overwhelming percentage of the errors you're editing out are ones that can simply be addressed by regex, I'm very clearly raising the content edits as opposed to formatting ones. ] 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :How about we take this off of ANI, of all places? ] (]) 21:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, this feels quite appropriate considering your abusiveness and that your retaliation involved damaging some articles. I said there I was asking a policy question and was happy to let it go, you've edited over 100 articles from my edit history in direct sequence in response to that question, which is just strange behaviour for an editor. ] 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Obviously, if there's someone who's making bad decisions on Misplaced Pages (You), I want to check if he has messed up articles. Please tell me what articles you think I have damaged. ] (]) 21:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, I'd appreciate if you would stop casting aspersions about me being an LLM. ] (]) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I said then, and as I'll say again: If there's not an LLM involved in this situation, then I'm sincerely sorry. It was a combination of clearly assisted editing and the verbiage used that looked concerning. ] 21:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There was no assisted editing. Stop spreading that blatant falsehood. This is why I say to take this off of ANI. It is stuff that is made up in your head that has no basis in reality. ] (]) 21:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<s>Unless you're doing regex with your eyes, clearly you're using assistance. And the fact you're (still!) doing something that fixes the same type of typo almost as fast as I can click "Random Article" indicates you're doing more than just regex. You're finding these articles somehow.</s> <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 22:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I am doing an "insource" search using regex. ] (]) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I learned about insource searches recently and was able to find spam by the boatload immediately. It is a great tool. ] (]) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Ah . I wasn't aware one could do that. I retract. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 22:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And, I would appreciate if you would stop calling my edits strange and odd. ] (]) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You had over 100 edits in a row directily in chronological sequence, from newest to oldest, of my exact edit history excluding wikiprojects and talk pages. I'm allowed to find that a little strange. ] 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why shouldn't someone call strange and odd edits strange and odd? ] (]) 21:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I suggest you stop with the personal attacks before you get blocked. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe I'm a little less forgiving than Tarlby, so I would suggest that {{u|KMaster888}} should be blocked/banned already. Knowing how to write regular expressions doesn't give anyone the right to ignore policy about such issues as civility and hounding. ] (]) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have not ignored policy on either civility or hounding. The fact is, there are no automation tools that I have used, and this has been constructed as a theory entirely as a falsehood. It is annoying that one Misplaced Pages user constantly spouts falsehoods about me. ] (]) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll just ask you straight up.{{pb}}Do you feel any remorse for this statement? {{tq|remove asshole}} {{pb}}Could you explain why you felt it was best to choose those two words when blanking your talk page? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And again: {{tq|@The Corvette ZR1 @Tarlby stop clogging up ANI with your comments.}} ]<sup>]</sup> 22:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::, , , , , ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And this: and this: ] (]) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That was because Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. I would say the same to you as I said to the other editor: get off my back. ] (]) 21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You have to abide by the rules like the rest of us. And cool it with the hostile edit summaries. ]] 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are clearly ]. Attacking other editors instead of backing off, inappropriate edit summaries, what next? ]<sup>]</sup> 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There ought to be a gossip noticeboard that doesn't clog up ANI. ] (]) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I will dispute what you said. I AM HERE to build an encyclopedia. Why do you think I would have given 10,000 edits worth of my time if I didn't care? ] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I would say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, ] and ] tell me the contrary. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Regardless of their editing or otherwise, KMaster888's comments in edit summaries ''and here'' indicate they're ] in a way that indicates an inability to participate in a collaborative encyclopedia. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The product of Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which is a body of written and visual work. It is first and foremost about the product, not the community. In this sense, it is indeed a collaborative encyclopedia, but it should not be considered an encyclopedic collaboation. ] (]) 23:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: ] over what "collaboration" is doesn't help when you're in blatant violation of ] of the ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'm not Wikilawyering. I would also encourage you to come to a discussion on my talk page over small potatoes instead of at ANI. ] (]) 23:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: is wikilawyering. And this is at ANI, so the discussion is taking place at ANI. Answering the concerns about your conduct that were raised here on here is how you resolve the issue, not "don't talk about it on ANI", as the latter gives the impression of trying to sweep them under the rug - especially since your edit summaries MrOllie linked above make it clear this is very much not "small potatoes". - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's some more diffs of KMaster888 being uncivil. From my user talk page. . I think these are forgivable if in isolation since KMaster888 may be frustrated by false accusations of being a bot, but if it's a pattern, it may need addressing. | |||
| :The ] and ] of my user talk page and of this ANI is also a behavioral problem that, if a pattern, may also need addressing. It is disrespectful to interlocutor's time and brainpower to dominate discussions by replying to everything. –] <small>(])</small> 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unless there are specific discussion rules, I should not be penalized for responding to comments that involve me. ] (]) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The problem isn't you responding to those comments. It's about HOW you responded to those comments. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are, in fact, {{tqq|specific discussion rules}} - ] and ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Propose indefinite block=== | |||
| {{archive top|1=]. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 21:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked and TPA revoked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello sysops I need your help | |||
| *{{userlinks|KMaster888}} | |||
| They demonstrate a severe inability to interact in the collegiate manner this project requires. The edit summaries are not merely uncivil, but dismissive: ignoring colleagues is worse than just being rude to them. Their behaviour on Novem Linguae's talk pretty much sums it up.{{pb}}Whether they are actually a bot or running a scruipt doesn't really matter: WP:BOTLIKE is pretty cl;ear trhat "it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance". So 10,000 edits or not, the edits smack of being bot/script-generated, and may also be WP:STALKING.{{PB}}I also don't set any store by the excuse for "wiping ass with comments", "improve asinine comment" and "remove asshole" being that {{blue|Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly.}} WMF servers going down (or not) do not cause aggressive edit summaries, and we are not fools. The fact that the same attitude pervades through this discussion—"everyone, get off my back"—suggests that this is default behaviour rather than a one off. ]'']''] 23:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You're saying "they" like it's more than one person. I am one editor. ] (]) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not in that sense. We use they/them pronouns as to not assume an editor's gender. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above reasoning. ]] 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Looks like {{noping|Cullen328}} beat us to that indef. ]] 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per ] behavior. Their blank talkpage, on which they encourage discussion, has a nonexistent archive. ]] 23:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:That is not true. The archive page is at the subpage of the talk page, /archive. ] (]) 23:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support -''' While I wouldn’t have had the same suspicions about their editing as Warren, their extremely uncivil reactions to it and further questions here, along with the further attention they’ve drawn on to prior recent behaviour has effectively demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in meaningful interaction with any other editor who disagrees with them. ] (]) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Apparently some IP from the 114.70.44 range is vandalising the Danzig article | |||
| :Maybe revoke TPA too? This is beyond the pale. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I went here to get Danzig semiprotected | |||
| ::Wow… ] ] 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}I have indefinitely blocked KMaster888 for personal attacks and harassment, and disruptive behavior. ] (]) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If an article needs protecting, make a request at ]. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">]</span></sup></small> 08:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:After their latest personal attack, I have revoked their talk page access. ] (]) 23:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Support'''. is beyond the pale. This is clearly a person that lets rage get the best of them, and is not responsive to feedback. Not sure if we should close this, or let it play out and turn into a CBAN. –] <small>(])</small> 00:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::shirt58 The IP is trying to change my refs for the 1466 to 1793 period to gdansk but per the Gdansk/Danzig vote | |||
| *'''Good block''' and I'd have done same if you hadn't been here first. Regardless of whether the edits were improvements, no one has the right to treat other editors as KM888 did. ] ] 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| for that period Danzig must be used ps now it's Willy drives a Car | |||
| it sounds like a Duck of willy on wheels | |||
| Yours sincerely ] (]) 10:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Good block''' It'd take a hand-written miracle from God for them to change their ways anytime soon. | |||
| : I have indef-blocked {{user|Blakeleonard}} as a trolling-only account. The claim that he had been changing stuff to "Danzig" only for that time period where it is sanctioned by the Gdanzig vote is a blatant lie. Previously, on ], he was saying that he simply disagrees with the guideline and wants it overturned (but still wants us to use semiprotection in order to help him achieve this.) This is the same user who just a few days ago added an AfD tag to ] on the grounds that its editors had a COI. ] ] 11:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 03:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ===Investigating the hounding claim=== | |||
| == Suggestion of organised violence == | |||
| Above, there is a claim that KMaster888 is ] Warrenmck by editing 100 pages that Warrenmck has edited. The suggests that there's only an overlap of 45 pages (42 if you subtract out my user talk, KMaster888's user talk, and ANI). {{u|Warrenmck}}, can you please be very specific about exactly which pages overlap? Maybe give a link to KMaster888's contribs and timestamps of where this range of hounding edits begins and ends? This is a serious claim and probably actionable if enough evidence is provided. –] <small>(])</small> 23:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Note that there are >100 ''edits'' across the pages, since they tended to edit in a spree. The number of pages you found seems accurate, even accounting for the possibility of a few outside of this exchange. I’m not sure what exactly I can do to show the relationship to my edit history beyond I guess go pull said histories and compare them? But I wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority of the interactions you see were from that narrow window after your talk page. | |||
| I know it is a vague suggestion and I do believe that the person to whom it is addressed has more sense, but should not be revdel'd? - ] (]) 10:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :A threat with violence is a tacit admission that one has lost the actual argument. ] (]) 11:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry for the drama, by the way. ] 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible Problematic IP Range == | |||
| ::Ah that makes sense. I didn't think of the multiple edits to a page thing. No worries about the drama. –] <small>(])</small> 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please don't apologise for this. Nobody should have to put up with such behaviour. ] (]) 09:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:FMSky == | |||
| Since ] does not get properly archived, I'm posting this here. A vandal appears to have access to several IP addresses in the range starting with "2602:304:AF53:3E99". I first ran into ], who semi-cleverly managed to mess up the ] article. I described what (s)he did ]. Basically, saving an old revision and claiming the article was fixed/improved. In June and July, the same vandal tactic was used from other IP addresses starting with "2602:304:AF53:3E99", including ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. Of course, this is just what I've been able to find as an IP editor with very basic privileges. Vandals like this ''do'' sometimes get away with what they do. Only today (18 August) I noticed that vandal's change to the ] article on 13 July. That's more than a month after the incident and six different editors had been improving on the revision of 18 May 2008(!) that the vandal had put back. Another entry for my collection of problems caused by ] on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 17:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=]. PolitcalPoint blocked for a month for BLP violations. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :With ], the range in question, ], is probably one user, and it was previously blocked by ] for a week on 13 July for vandalism. I'd suggest a reblock of the range.--] ] 18:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|FMSky}} | |||
| ::], I'm normally hesitant to perform rangeblocks, especially with ipv6, but you know what you're doing, so I've blocked the range for two weeks. Does the block cover all of the IPs that were linked here, or do I need to block some of them individually? And did I really just block ], or do I misunderstand something? ] (]) 18:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, the rangeblock is comprehensive for this vandal. You did indeed block that many addresses, ''but'' 1 - by design, very few IPv6 addresses will actually be used from a given block, and 2 - there's probably zero collateral because this is an AT&T home IPv6 range for a single home.--] ] 18:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Update: I just noticed that the range is already covered by a wider (/48) block by ], but this range seems to have been problematic in particular, and this newer /64 block expires after the /48 block.--] ] 19:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Eighteen quintillion addresses for one home...wow. We're going to need a ''ton'' of new Internet-capable devices to exhaust ipv6 addresses if we can allocate that many to one home! ] (]) 20:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been persistently engaging in ] by constantly reverting (see , , and ) in bad faith over the course of more than a week in order to prevent the insertion of sourced material that states that ] had "{{tq|touted working for her father’s anti-gay organization, which mobilized to pass a measure against ] and promoted controversial ]", which is a discredited, harmful, and ] practice that falsely purports to "cure" ].}}" backed by two ] cited (see and ) in support of the specific wording inserted into the article. | |||
| == ] removing information referenced by reliable sources at ] == | |||
| For my part, I have consistently maintained a strict self-imposed policy of 0RR, never even once reverting ], listening to his concerns and taking his concerns seriously, tirelessly working to address his concerns with two ] cited (see and ) in support of the exact same wording that ] originally objected to (see ), then, when reverted again by ], I patiently continued to ] and ] (see and ), which he ], then when reverted yet again by ] (see ), explained to him the entire series of events (see ), which ] replied to by blatantly lying that I had not addressed his concerns (see ), which, when I pointed that out and showed him the ] that I cited in order to address his concerns (see ), ] replied by saying verbatim "How is that even relevant? Just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean this exact wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia." (see ). | |||
| ] is removing information posted at ] that is referenced by ]. I have reverted him twice but he just keeps doing it. Could someone help please? —] (]) 21:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Warned edit warrior. ] <small>(])</small> 21:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I'm completely exasperated and exhausted at this point. If even using the ''exact same wording'' as the ] cited in support of the specific wording inserted into the article is ''still'' unacceptable to ], then I'm not sure what I'm even supposed to do to satisfy him. ] is clearly engaging in ] in bad faith and is ]. --] (]) 23:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Violation of ban in less than an hour == | |||
| :@], your for "discredited, harmful, and pseudoscientific practice that falsely purports to "cure" homosexuality" doesn't mention Gabbard or Hawaii or her father's organization. Have you read ]? ] ] 23:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::More the case that trying to assert conversion therapy as discredited is a COATRACK, unless there was appropriate sourced coverage that associated Gabbatd with supporting a discredited theory. We can leave the blue link on conversion therapy carry the worry of explaining the issues with it, it doesn't belong on a BLP.<span id="Masem:1736293194333:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::The wording does not "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" as the latter part of the wording, as supported by the second ] (see ), explains what ] is for the benefit of readers. --] (]) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you kidding me lmao. I didn't even notice that. That makes it even worse --] (]) 23:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Only commenting on this particular angle: {{ping|Schazjmd}} when dealing with fringe ideas, it ''is'' sometimes the case that sources provide weight connecting the subject to a fringe idea but which do not themselves adequately explain the fringe theory. If it's due weight to talk about something like conversation therapy (or creation science, links between vaccines and autism, etc.), we run afoul of ] if we don't provide proper context. These cases are rare, however, and this isn't a judgment about anything in the rest of this thread. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 02:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The user was previously blocked and was only unblocked after agreeing to 0RR on BLPs. This was violated in the 3 reverts here and the concerns weren't adressed: , , . See also the previous discussion on PoliticalPoint's talk page that I initiated -- ] (]) 23:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|FMSky replied by saying verbatim "How is that even relevant? Just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean this exact wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia.}} I love how you, in bad faith, left out the most relevant part that I added: "And the statements weren't even attributed to someone" --] (]) 23:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::As ] (see ), those were edits, not reverts, over the course of more than week, and as also ] (see and ) your concerns with the wording were in fact addressed with two ] cited in support with the ''exact same wording'' that you objected to, verbatim. You are blatantly lying again, as the statement is, in fact, attributed to Gabbard herself as it is she herself who "touted working for her father's anti-gay organization", which is backed by the first ] (see ). --] (]) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, these were reverts, as the wording I originally objected to was restored numerous times --] (]) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Those were edits over the course of over a week. The wording that you originally objected to was restored only with two ] that use the ''exact same wording'' verbatim. --] (]) 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you used the same wording as the sources without an attributed quote you've committed a copyright violation. ] (]) 00:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Restoring removed content even without using the undo feature is a revert. ] (]) 00:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::See above, Gabbard isn't even mentioned in one of the sources, which is insane and negates the need for any further discussion. This content should not be on her page & is probably the definition of a BLP violation. --] (]) | |||
| Besides removing obvious SYNTH, I notice that FMSky reworked unnecessary overquoting; looks like good editing on FMSky's part. ] (]) 00:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| With edit at 01:14, which seems to have been made less than an hour after notification on their talk page at 00:29, ], the subject of the lengthy discussion currently at the top of this page, has violated the ban imposed earlier. Thoughts? ] (]) 01:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Another thing I just noticed is that the article is special-protected: {{tq|"You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message."}} No such discussion was initiated on Gabbard's talk page --] (]) 00:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I hadn't noticed the message until after I posted my comment. However.... | |||
| *I have blocked PoliticalPoint for a month for BLP violations, an escalation of their prior two-week edit warring block. I had originally intended to just p-block them from Gabbard but I am not convinced they understand the issue and that the problematic editing wouldn't just move to another page. Should they eventually request an unblock I think serious discussion sould happen w/r/t a a topic ban on BLPs or American Politics. ] ] 01:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating ] == | |||
| ===Admin violating (or not knowing) rules regarding topic bans=== | |||
| *{{userlinks|Bgsu98}} | |||
| ''Update I've started a separate thread on the propriety of the ban. Please comment there rather than below. | |||
| * The rule: "the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors '''who are not involved''' in the underlying dispute" | |||
| * In addition, the action seems to ignore improprieties in those wanting to ban: 1) Canvassing by FutureTrillionaire, in particular, canvassing an editor (Jeppiz) who had tried to ban me 3 times previously, 2) A vote by an editor who was clearly an SPA with 90% of its edits devoted to undermining and banning me (Not here Anymore). | |||
| Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.<br /> | |||
| ''I'd like an accounting of the alleged consensus, noting which are considered "involved." ] (]) 01:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I noticed an editor named {{u|Bgsu98}} who had been mass-nominating figure skater articles for deletion. It is too obvious to me that he doesn't do even a minimum search required by ] before nominating. (I must note that most of the skaters he nominates for AfD aren't English, so a foreign language search is required. Sometimes you need to search on a foreign search engine. For example, Google seems to ignore many Russian websites recently.)<br />I have counted 45 articles nominated by him at ]. And it is worrying that people seem to rely on the nominator's competence and vote "delete" without much thought. | |||
| I should note that {{u|Bgsu98}} doesn't seem to stop even when an article he nominated has been kept. He nominated ] (a national medalist) two times with the same rationale (]). One can really wonder why he does this. | |||
| :It's also a little peculiar to not count those voting for ArbCom as wanting something other than a ban. Following the rules about involvement, and counting those suggestions for RFCs and ArbCom as "not ban", the consensus is the opposite of what this admin "decided." ] (]) 01:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm sure you'd like a lot of things. Fact is, the topic ban is there, and you broke it. Don't break it again or you will be blocked. The rest is a lot of wikilawyering (well, there's also some unwarranted conclusions) which you may take up on AN. Clear? ] (]) 02:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. More information is here: ]. What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of ]. It seems that no one acted on this change until {{u|Bgsu98}} came. | |||
| P.P.S. As I stated on the WikiProject Figure Skating talk page I linked above, I think it was very unfair to change the rules. Especially since web sources tend to die out after some time. | |||
| So, Jc37 just declared a community consensus to topic ban, based on the now archived discussion at the top of the page. There is no such consensus. | |||
| P.P.P.S. I would also like to note that I am polite, while {{u|Bgsu98}} has already accused me of "bad-faith accusations and outright lies" (). --] (]) 01:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| First, and most importantly, the definition of consensus: "the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of '''editors who are not involved''' in the underlying dispute". At least half the editors wanting a topic ban are involved in the underlying dispute. The short list: FutureTrillionaire (who canvassed, promised to withdraw his vote to ban to make up for canvassing, and then voted to ban anyway), Cliftonian, Quadell, Johynuniq, Not here anymore, Stfg, and Laser Brain. All of these editors have edited the articles covered by the ban in opposition to my edits, or opposed my edits prior to the ban proposal. They are not impartial, uninvolved editors. The whole point of the '''editors who are not involved''' clause is to avoid editors ganging up to get rid of editors they dislike. | |||
| :as the closer of several skating AfDs, I have no issue with a DRV if @] or any other editor believes I closed it in error. However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules. That isn't grounds for a DRV nor a report against @] who is nominating based on community consensus. ] ] 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In addition, the ban proposal only came about because FutureTrillionaire canvassed Jeppiz, in violation of rules. Jeppiz had three times before proposed to ban me. (Nobody else has ever proposed banning me). Sure enough, after canvassing Jeppiz and immediately getting a ban proposal, FutureTrillionaire immediately supported it. | |||
| ::I agree with Star Mississippi. But just to give some scope, this cleaning house, mostly of ice skating junior champions, is not recent, it's been going on for at least 6-9 months now, it was originally done through the use of PROD'd articles. But while there have been some objections raised over the past year, Bgsu98's efforts have mostly received support from editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Over the past two weeks, through the use of AFD, we have seen dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of annual national skating championship articles either deleted or redirected. But I just want to note that these AFDs wouldn't have closed as "Delete all" or "Redirect all" without the support of other AFD participants. Very few editors are arguing to Keep them all. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. ] ] 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] claims to be polite, yet wrote : ''"random people at AfD don't care about actually checking the notability and just vote "delete per nom"''. Pinging ] who also found that comment objectionable. I have made an effort to thank editors who have participated in my AFD's, regardless of whether they have always agreed with my findings, because AFD's that end in "no consensus" do nothing but waste everyone's time. | |||
| :He has been adversarial and confrontational in every communication to me. From ]: ''"By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD... Like, you nomitated ] 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale... Are you planning to nominate it 100 times?"'' | |||
| :I always appreciate constructive feedback when it's delivered in a courteous and professional manner. ] seems incapable of courtesy or professionalism. ] ] 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*C'mon, ], civility goes both ways. We can discuss the value of these articles and the AFD process without attacking each other. Flinging mud doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*:I apologize, ]; I am just at my wit's end with this editor. ] ] 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Here's my take, ]. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:As I have been pinged on this discussion I thought I would 1 confirm I did find @] to be somewhat rude and condescending in their repeated assertions that those who vote on these skating AFDs do not do any research and are basically sheep just voting delete and 2 most of these nominated bios are a few sentences or just a table of stats copy and pasted so @] I doubt anyone spent hours putting them together. Finally I feel @] is now looking to use any procedure they can to try and besmirch @] and derail their valid efforts to remove some of the seemingly thousands of sports bios that do not meet current Misplaced Pages guidelines and are of interest to few, if any, general reader. If anyone is in need of reprimand or sanction over this matter (which has been blown out of all proportion), it is @] ] (]) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Let me help you out here, Moscow Connection. As it happens, Bgsu98 is a veteran editor with both tens of thousands of edits and a long history of editing skating articles. He is not, as you imply, some bomb thrower hellbent in laying waste to skating articles. Moving right along ...<p>(2) Your curious assertion that he was the first person to AfD no-longer-qualifying skating articles is inaccurate; I did so myself, right after the NSPORTS changes, and I recall several editors also doing so.<p>(3) The Bialas AfDs did not close as Keep, as you wrongly assert. They closed as "no consensus", with almost no participation and multiple relistings; that's ''exactly'' the kind of situation where renomination to seek an actual consensus is appropriate.<p>(4) Rules change on Misplaced Pages, by the bucketload. I have a hard time seeing what is "very unfair" about this, unless "very unfair" is a secret code for "I don't like it, so it's unfair." And ... seriously? You've been on Misplaced Pages for fifteen years, have over sixty thousand edits, have participated in nearly a hundred AfDs? I'd expect this level of confusion from a first-week newbie, not from an editor of your experience. ] 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Given it is acknowledged that large numbers of articles on figure skaters do not meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria ({{tq|What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE.}}), I’m not really seeing anything unexpected here. — | |||
| :] (]) 12:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Potential company editing? == | |||
| Even aside from all this, there is some odd accounting. Were the editors who supported something other than a ban, such as an RFC or ArbCom, considered as neutral or not favoring a ban? | |||
| {{atop|1=Closing by OP request. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Bouchra Filali}} | |||
| *{{articlelinks|Djellaba}} | |||
| The user ] uploaded ] to the page ]. They share a name with a fashion company and seem to have replaced the original image on the article with a product from their company (see revision 1268097124]). I reverted their edit and warned them, but due to my concern, and following advice from an administrator on the wikimedia community discord, I am reporting this here as well. I have also asked for advice on what to do with the commons file, and will be filing any necessary reports there. ] 04:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :They have only made one edit on this project which was adding an image to an article, it looks like they uploaded the image on the Commons. Have you tried talking about your issues with them on their Commons user talk page, ]? This doesn't seem like it's a problem for the English Misplaced Pages. We don't even know if they'll be back to make a second edit. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I asked the commons folks on discord and it seems that, since they uploaded an image that they own, all is well. I have to admit that I was a little hasty here, I've never used this noticeboard before. Feel free to close this if you feel there is nothing more to discuss, I'll monitor the user in question. ] 06:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:Smm380 and logged out editing == | |||
| There is also the editor, Not here anymore, who created an account soely dedicated to opposing my view (and supported a ban). | |||
| *{{userlinks|Smm380}} | |||
| *{{IPlinks|195.238.112.0/20}} | |||
| I have this editor twice about logged out editing because they are evidently editing the article ] both logged in and as an IP. This makes tracking their edits more difficult since they have made hundreds altogether in recent months (and they are only focused on this specific article). The IP edits seem to come from ] (at least most of them) and they are often made shortly before/after Smm380 decides to log back in. See for example edit by Smm380 and edit by the IP a few minutes later regarding the same section. This is now especially a problem because they are deciding to make as an IP. | |||
| In general, they have not listened to prior warnings. I have given them multiple warnings about adding unsourced text, but they are still continuing to unsourced text without including citations first. But they have not responded to any of my warnings or explained why they are still doing this. ] (]) 09:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I would like an accounting of how consensus was determined in this case. And, I'd like the topic ban removed until then. It simply does not meet the official definition of consensus found in the banning policy.] (]) 02:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *You already said all of that. No, not going to happen. You may appeal a ban on AN, not here. ] (]) 02:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:26, 8 January 2025
Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
- Before posting:
- Consider other means of dispute resolution first
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion Centralized discussion- Refining the administrator elections process
- AI-generated images depicting living people
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
| 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 |
| 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
| 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 |
| 337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 |
| Other links | |||||||||
Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from User:DarwIn
User:DarwIn, a known transphobic editor from pt.wiki, is harassing me here after his actions led me to leave that wiki permanently. He has also harassed me on Wikimedia Commons. I don't know what to do anymore. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace. This is severely impacting my mental health. Skyshiftertalk 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You don't seem to have notified the other editor. This is mandatory and this section may be closed if you fail to do so. Use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ on that user's talk page. Additionally, you don't seem to have provided specific diffs demonstrating harassment. Please do so. --Yamla (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- On pt.wiki, DarwIn proposed the deletion of articles I created about transgender topics (Thamirys Nunes and Minha Criança Trans), using transphobic arguments, including misgendering and questioning the validity of transgender children. After translating these articles to en.wiki, he is targeting the DYK nomination, again focusing on his personal transphobic beliefs - as it shows, he doesn't even know how DYK works. He insisted multiple times trying to include his transphobic comment on that page and has just edited it again. On Commons, for extra context, DarwIn unilaterally deleted images related to these articles, despite being clearly involved in the dispute.
- Again, I just want to collaborate with trans topics in peace. Skyshiftertalk 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. However, context is important. This is harassment that began on pt.wiki, has spread to Commons, and is now here. The history has been provided, but, sure, I can provide the diffs instead. He has unilaterally edited the DYK page and put a "disagree", despite this being not how DYK works. This is because he really doesn't know, as he only sporadically edits here and only came back to harass me. His comment is explicitly transphobic and doesn't focus on the article itself at all. After his comment was reverted by me, he insisted saying that I shouldn't call it transphobia, despite it being transphobia. After being reverted again, he reincluded the comment. I asked him to stop harassing me, but he has edited the page again.
- I just don't want to be targeted by that editor here. I've left pt.wiki in great part for that reason. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace here. Skyshiftertalk 13:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like yet another cross-wiki troll by this user. Already blocked at the Portuguese Wikipédia and Wikimedia Commons, the account is now promoting their POV here, including spreading lies, hideous slurs and baseless accusations against me like "known transphobic", after two of their creations were taken to community evaluation at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for lacking notability. The user is also a known sockpuppeter, with an open case for sockpuppetry at the Portuguese Wikipédia. In any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this case in yet another project apart from the strictly needed, so do as you please. Darwin 13:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been blocked on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which you are well known for abusing whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. Darwin 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- And here's explicit transphobia. It's her daughter, no matter how much you hate the idea of trans children existing. The story you've told is also completely distorted. Skyshiftertalk 13:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which you are well known for abusing whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. Darwin 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been blocked on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I simply don't want this editor targeting me with transphobic stuff here after he target me on pt.wiki (and left it permanently in great part for that reason) and Commons. I am considering taking medication because of these events. Skyshiftertalk 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would suggest Darwin review MOS:GENDERID. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? Darwin 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn, the bottom line is that you don't get to question that. As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is not the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them any good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. Darwin 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We're here because this "questioning" appears to be bleeding into transphobic harassment. I would support an indef based on edits like this Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. Darwin 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn, the bottom line is that you don't get to question that. As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is not the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them any good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The story told above is completely distorted to fit the transphobic's narrative. Simon223, if you want to get the full story, read Thamirys Nunes' page or read its sources (with the help of a translator if needed). Skyshiftertalk 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. Darwin 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including MOS:GENDERID) - otherwise you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. Darwin 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just so everyone knows, the facts are being quite distorted here. It wasn't really an imposition — her daughter, did not want to play with "boy toys", even when being forced by her mom. That's why the mom said she plays with "girl toys" and everything else. The references on said articles weren't thoroughly read, apparently by everybody here.
- Adding to this too: DarwIn, in some edits to the article in the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, added "quotes" on the word trans and some other parts of the articly, as if was his duty to judge if the girl is trans or not. Anyways, I think what happened in ptwiki stays there.
- And I want to make clear that I'm only stating the things that happened so everyone knows. I do not support blocking him. Eduardo G. 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. Darwin 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Four year olds are generally not considered babies. You really need to drop this - and probably to avoid editing in the WP:GENSEX area.Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest a topic ban is imposed. GiantSnowman 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would support a topic ban from WP:GENSEX. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Topic ban from GENSEX and BLP, broadly construed, is fine for me. GiantSnowman 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do understand this Misplaced Pages rules on BLP. Isn't that not enough for you? Darwin 16:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. GiantSnowman 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed the part when I very clearly stated there that I retired myself from that DYN debate. Darwin 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. GiantSnowman 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman nice try, but I don't edit on that topic, anyway. Let's calm down and enjoy the Christmas season. Darwin 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. Darwin 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You fundementally misunderstand the scope of WP:BLP and the concept of topic area as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. Darwin 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it was a collective you. Darwin 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The collective you did not pursue you here either. Only the OP appears to cross over. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it was a collective you. Darwin 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. Darwin 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You fundementally misunderstand the scope of WP:BLP and the concept of topic area as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. Darwin 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would support a topic ban from WP:GENSEX. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed this yesterday but intentionally didn't mention it since I felt there had already been enough nonsense. But since DarwIn is still defending their offensive comments below, I'd note that the child was 4 years old in 2019. It's now 2024 and they've evidentally seen a medical professional. If at any time they express a desire for a different gender identity we will of course respect that whatever her mother says; but at this time BLP full supports respecting a 8-9 year old and not treating her as a baby. Nil Einne (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- None of this is relevant. We follow sources and MOS:GENDERID. There is obviously no Misplaced Pages position on when someone is or is not a "baby" and should have their self-identification reproduced in their biography. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest a topic ban is imposed. GiantSnowman 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including MOS:GENDERID) - otherwise you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. Darwin 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? Darwin 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would suggest Darwin review MOS:GENDERID. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- They cannot be trusted. Above they said "I'm retiring myself from this topic" and yet has continued to post. GiantSnowman 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've continued to post where? Darwin 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've already walked away from it yesterday, why you're insisting on that lie? Darwin 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? GiantSnowman 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have my own disagreements with that guideline, and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. Darwin 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? Darwin 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn This one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. Darwin 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn Easiest way to defuse this is to post a bolded and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" Darwin 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is not an appropriate statement, it has your bias/agenda throughout it. Very concerning. GiantSnowman 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" Darwin 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn Easiest way to defuse this is to post a bolded and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. Darwin 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn This one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? Darwin 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. Darwin 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have my own disagreements with that guideline, and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? GiantSnowman 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Heres the main point I can see RE "Cross-wiki harassment." If DarwIn claims they do not regularly edit this topic space and had not previously participated in DYK discussions how did they come to find themselves there just in time to oppose the contribution of an editor they had extensive negative interactions with on another wiki? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- that's old stuff, I already posted a note there retiring from that space yesterday. I'm really puzzled on what all this fuss is about. Darwin 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't about the transphobia, this is about the harassment (they are seperate by apparently related claims). So how did you find yourself commenting on that DYK? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I expressed my disagreement with that note, justifying with my opinion, and there's not even any misgendering issue there, AFAIK. Not sure if expressing that opinion here is forbidden or not, but in any case I've posted a note retiring from it already yesterday, so I've no idea what more do you want. Darwin 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- precisely because we are currently in the process of evaluating the notability of that bio and association she created at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, so it's just natural that related issues on other wikis get monitored too, that's part of the process. You don't agree with that evaluation, and that's perfectly OK. To each Misplaced Pages their own stuff 🤷 Darwin 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's the wikipedia articles created yesterday that we are evaluating, not any kind of DYK note. Darwin 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? Darwin 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because of edits like this . Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- answering an accusation of being a dictator after flushing away the copyviios she uploaded. What's the problem? Darwin 17:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that diff is the undo. Thats you edit warring apparent harassment onto someone's talk page on another wiki with a kissing face as the edit summary... In that context this does look like cross wiki harassment. Do you have a better explanation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just answered the troll there with another, as I was on the middle of something else. Yes, I know, not the nicest thing to do, but whatever. And why are we discussing Commons here now, anyway? Darwin 17:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We're discussing cross wiki harassment, that makes edits on any wiki relevant to the discussion. You appear to have been harassing them on commons and then followed them here to continue the harassment because a temporary block there (which you appear to have had a hand in) prevented them from being active there. You absolutely can not do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I answered a troll, if there was any harassment was from that account towards me, not the opposite. Please don't invert the situation. Darwin 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits on enwiki had nothing to do with trolling or other behavioral issues from that account, if your edits on enwiki were to address valid concerns informed by your experience on other wikis we would not be having this discussion. It was also you restoring your comment which they removed from their talk page, thats you trolling them and it makes their dictator claim look not like trolling but rather accurate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I confess I've no idea why we are still having this discussion, as they were just that. But for the 50th time, these interactions have stopped long ago, and for a similar amount of time I've devotedly accepted and committed to all your rules. Darwin 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion we're still having this discussion because you are stonewalling, perhaps its a language barrier but you don't come off as trustworthy or engaging in good faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I confess I've no idea why we are still having this discussion, as they were just that. But for the 50th time, these interactions have stopped long ago, and for a similar amount of time I've devotedly accepted and committed to all your rules. Darwin 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits on enwiki had nothing to do with trolling or other behavioral issues from that account, if your edits on enwiki were to address valid concerns informed by your experience on other wikis we would not be having this discussion. It was also you restoring your comment which they removed from their talk page, thats you trolling them and it makes their dictator claim look not like trolling but rather accurate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I answered a troll, if there was any harassment was from that account towards me, not the opposite. Please don't invert the situation. Darwin 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We're discussing cross wiki harassment, that makes edits on any wiki relevant to the discussion. You appear to have been harassing them on commons and then followed them here to continue the harassment because a temporary block there (which you appear to have had a hand in) prevented them from being active there. You absolutely can not do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just answered the troll there with another, as I was on the middle of something else. Yes, I know, not the nicest thing to do, but whatever. And why are we discussing Commons here now, anyway? Darwin 17:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that diff is the undo. Thats you edit warring apparent harassment onto someone's talk page on another wiki with a kissing face as the edit summary... In that context this does look like cross wiki harassment. Do you have a better explanation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- answering an accusation of being a dictator after flushing away the copyviios she uploaded. What's the problem? Darwin 17:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because of edits like this . Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? Darwin 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's the wikipedia articles created yesterday that we are evaluating, not any kind of DYK note. Darwin 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- precisely because we are currently in the process of evaluating the notability of that bio and association she created at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, so it's just natural that related issues on other wikis get monitored too, that's part of the process. You don't agree with that evaluation, and that's perfectly OK. To each Misplaced Pages their own stuff 🤷 Darwin 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I expressed my disagreement with that note, justifying with my opinion, and there's not even any misgendering issue there, AFAIK. Not sure if expressing that opinion here is forbidden or not, but in any case I've posted a note retiring from it already yesterday, so I've no idea what more do you want. Darwin 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't about the transphobia, this is about the harassment (they are seperate by apparently related claims). So how did you find yourself commenting on that DYK? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- that's old stuff, I already posted a note there retiring from that space yesterday. I'm really puzzled on what all this fuss is about. Darwin 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I believe it may help too, if Darwin will promise to avoid interacting on main space with Skyshifter. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway. Darwin 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think Darwin should avoid interacting with Skyshifter on all spaces on en.wikipedia.org. It's clear Darwin has made Skyshifter feel uncomfortable, and I don't appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. Darwin 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary one-way interaction ban, broadly construed, as in effect. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway yes, that's correct. Darwin 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary one-way interaction ban, broadly construed, as in effect. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. Darwin 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think a one-way interaction ban between the editors would be for the best here. While I think there is some merit to a Gender and Sexuality tban, as some of Darwin's recent edits appear to be about righting great wrongs in the topic area, I believe the interaction ban would solve most of the issues raised here. Isabelle Belato 17:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? Darwin 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- All your edits related to the subject, both here and on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. Isabelle Belato 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato You're evaluating my edits on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages to punish me in the English Misplaced Pages? Darwin 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger Can you explain how my general edit history in wiki.pt is relevant in any way to an accusation of cross-wiki harassment? Darwin 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato You're evaluating my edits on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages to punish me in the English Misplaced Pages? Darwin 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- All your edits related to the subject, both here and on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. Isabelle Belato 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? Darwin 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Would recommend that Darwin walk away from the general topic. This would avoid any need for topic bans. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Clarification
- Hello @Nil Einne - and others. Please recall that my opinion was specifically over the declaration of the child gender by her mother at or before her 4th birthday, by her mother own account based on classical gender stereotypes. It's specifically about that. I've no way to know what gender the child is or will eventually be in the future, and gladly accept whatever she chooses - as I would if she was my own child. I've eventually been harsher than needed in the DYK comment because that specific situation where a minor is extensively exposed with full name, photographs, etc. by her parents on social networks, newspapers and whatelse is generally condemned in my country, to the point of eventually configuring a crime here. Obviously Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with that when it comes to the spread of information, but in my view - obviously wrong, from the general reaction here - exposing the child in yet another place, let alone wiki.en main page, was a bit too much.
- As for misgendering, I am one of the founders and former board member of ILGA Portugal, which after 30 years still is the main LGBT association in Portugal, though not an active member for many years for moving away from Lisbon, where it's headquartered. For more than 30 years I've been on the fight against homophobia and transphobia, not specially in Misplaced Pages, but on the streets, where it was needed in the 1990s here in Portugal, when the whole LGBT thing was just starting and most people couldn't even tell the difference between a drag queen and a trangender woman. I was beaten up, lost my 2 front teeth on homo/transphobic street fights (the first one at 18 years old, for publicly defending from booers in the audience a trangender girl which was acting at a local bar )- and whatelse. I never had even the least impulse to misgender any of the many trangender people that always have been around me, and the few situations where that may have happened were online with people that I knew for years as being one gender, and took a while to sink they are another, because online there's not the ever helping visual clue. So it's kind of disheartening to be treated like this in a strange place by people I don't know just because I expressed an (harsh, agreed) opinion defending the age of consent for children, and condemning their parents interference on that.
- The TBan is not very relevant for me, as I seldom edit here and despite the activism of my past days LGBT is not my primary interest on Misplaced Pages, but I'm considerably saddened by the misunderstandings, bad faith assumptions, false accusations that have been told here about me, though eventually the flaw is not in the whole group that has their own rules and culture, but in the newcomer which don't understand it well in all its nuances, as was my case here.
- Finally, as the misunderstandings continue, I never came here after Skyshifter, which as is public and she knows, I've always considered a good editor and helped several times with articles and what else (which is also why I felt confident to answer with a 😘 when she called me a dictator in another project, though it was obviously not the most appropriate way to answer it, and for which I apologize to Skyshifter). In this last row I wasn't even directly involved in her indefinite block in wiki.pt, despite being mentioned there. I didn't even touched the articles she created here on Thamirys Nunes and Minha Criança Trans or addressed she here in any way. I came here because of the DYK note, which, as said above, I thought was an exaggerated exposition for that case here on the English Misplaced Pages. As you extensively demonstrated here, it is not, and I defer to your appreciation. Despite that, after this whole situation I've not the least interest on interacting in any possible way with Skyshifter, with or without IBan.
- And that's it. Hopefully you'll excuse my verbosity, specially in such a festive day, but I felt this last clarification was needed. I also present my apologies to all those who may have felt offended by an eventual appearance of cockiness or defiance which I inadvertently sometimes transmit in my speech. I'll return here if specifically asked to, otherwise I'll leave the debate for this community. Again, stay well, and have an happy new year. Darwin 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Proposed Community Sanctions
I offered DarwIn an off ramp above and their response was to reiterate their views on a highly controversial subject and their responses to concerns about their interactions with Skyshifter have been entirely unsatisfactory. This looks a like a pretty clear case of IDHT revolving around their strong disagreement with one of our guidelines. Frankly, I came very close to just blocking them after their response to my suggestion. This discussion has already dragged on long enough. For purposes of clarity, nobody is required to agree with all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. And yes, gender is a highly controversial subject. I have my own disagreements with parts of MOS:GENDERID. But as the old saying goes, themz the rules until they aint. Editors are free to disagree with community P&G, but are not free to ignore or flout them. It's time to settle this.
Proposed DarwIn is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to WP:GENSEX broadly construed and is subject to a one way IBan with user Skyshifter, also broadly construed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I note that Darwin has agreed above to the IBan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - He's already agreed to avoid that general topic area in future & Skyshifter. PS - If a t-ban is imposed? limit it to six-months. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why should the community accept voluntary TBAN and IBAN which can easily be reneged on when we can impose it as a community sanction and ensure that any violation is actionable? TarnishedPath 01:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support topic ban and IBAN, both broadly construed - sorry GoodDay but I do not trust this user's words, and so we need a proper sanction. GiantSnowman 18:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Just read through the above and good grief. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I said above I would support this proposal if it was brought forward, and I do. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why it should be a one-way iban? Skyshifter started this topic with the characterization of their opponent as "a known transphobic editor". A normal editor would be blocked just for writing this. I am not sure a iban is needed, but if it is needed it must be mutual. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's actually a fair point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent WP:RGW impulse. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 You have been misjudging me - It was quite the opposite, actually, if it's worth anything. Darwin 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the WP:GENSEX area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 OK, I didn't knew the child used those pronouns when she was 4 years old, I commit to use them here if I would ever talk about that issue again (which I definitely will not, anyway). Darwin 20:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the WP:GENSEX area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 You have been misjudging me - It was quite the opposite, actually, if it's worth anything. Darwin 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent WP:RGW impulse. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's actually a fair point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- If they weren't before they are now... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, to be clear, I oppose a one-way IB. I do not find this argument convincing. Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support this seems like a reasonable set of restrictions, I hope they can stick to it Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I never edited in that topic here, as far as I can remember, not is it a primary interest I have, so it certainly will not be difficult to hold, even if it comes out to me as incredibly unbased and unfair. Darwin 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits to DYK were within that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back And those were the only ones, and I voluntarily stopped them yesterday immediately after being reverted. How does that configure the kind of systematic behaviour that would justify a topic ban? I really apologize, but in this moment the way I see this is a kind of Salem witch hunt, with people accusing me of all kind of slurs and abominations, even when they are in directly opposition to my stance here. You seem to be punishing me for my opinions and the way I (supposedly) think about a very particular issue (if 4 years old have self determination or not), which comes out to me as really unfair and unworthy of a project like this. Darwin 20:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is that in direct opposition to your stance there? Your edit summary says "forgot that English has the neutral pronoun, which is useful in these cases. fixed." which suggests that it is in line with that stance Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I'm sorry, I seem to have missed your point. What is wrong with correcting the gender to a neutral pronoun in such a situation? Darwin 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This edit might help you get the point. At this point your conduct on this page is becoming a serious behavioral issue... you can't lie, sealion, obfuscate, and misdirect endlessly without consequences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I can fix those too as I did yesterday, if you think it's important 🤷🏽♂️ Darwin 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are not supposed to edit comments after they have been responded to in that way. But by fix do you mean change to "she" or do you mean change to "they"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Change to "she", following this wikipedia rules, certainly. So if I can't fix them, what do you propose instead to mend it? Darwin 20:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given the sheer quantity of lies and obfuscations from you (the truth is apparently a last resort) the only fix I can see is a formal one, a topic ban and an interaction ban. Up above you so easily went from "I never edited in the topic area" to "those were the only ones" that I don't even think you understand that you were caught in a blatant lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back There was not any "lie", please stop assuming bad faith. I thought you were referring to the main space only, which I believe is a fairly assumption to do, if the used word is "editing". Darwin 20:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- At best you're saying that you lack the competence on enwiki to adhere to any voluntary restrictions. This will be my last comment unless pinged by an editor other than you, my apologies that this has been an unpleasant process for you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Darwin has a long history of editing in WP:GENSEX albeit generally less controversially. an example. Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 That's documented with the sources and all, and the proposition there was that the tupinambá was gay, not a woman. It's not even gender related. So you desperatly want something to justify a TB, bring it on. I'm fed up with what seems to be a circular and nonsense discussion on this board, where whatever I say is a lie and with bad intentions. I don't even edit here in the gender topic, but if it makes you happy, bring it on. Darwin 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- DarwIn WP:GENSEX covers gender and sexuality. You have been saying you aren't interested in the topic area. It appears to be one of your main areas of interest on en.wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 Thanks for clarifying that. Fact is that I don't edit much here. I've occasionally added or fixed some LGBT related stuff in the past when it crossed my main interest, History, but it certainly is not a primary interest, despite being LGBT myself. Darwin 20:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- DarwIn WP:GENSEX covers gender and sexuality. You have been saying you aren't interested in the topic area. It appears to be one of your main areas of interest on en.wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 That's documented with the sources and all, and the proposition there was that the tupinambá was gay, not a woman. It's not even gender related. So you desperatly want something to justify a TB, bring it on. I'm fed up with what seems to be a circular and nonsense discussion on this board, where whatever I say is a lie and with bad intentions. I don't even edit here in the gender topic, but if it makes you happy, bring it on. Darwin 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back There was not any "lie", please stop assuming bad faith. I thought you were referring to the main space only, which I believe is a fairly assumption to do, if the used word is "editing". Darwin 20:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given the sheer quantity of lies and obfuscations from you (the truth is apparently a last resort) the only fix I can see is a formal one, a topic ban and an interaction ban. Up above you so easily went from "I never edited in the topic area" to "those were the only ones" that I don't even think you understand that you were caught in a blatant lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Change to "she", following this wikipedia rules, certainly. So if I can't fix them, what do you propose instead to mend it? Darwin 20:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are not supposed to edit comments after they have been responded to in that way. But by fix do you mean change to "she" or do you mean change to "they"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I can fix those too as I did yesterday, if you think it's important 🤷🏽♂️ Darwin 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This edit might help you get the point. At this point your conduct on this page is becoming a serious behavioral issue... you can't lie, sealion, obfuscate, and misdirect endlessly without consequences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I'm sorry, I seem to have missed your point. What is wrong with correcting the gender to a neutral pronoun in such a situation? Darwin 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is that in direct opposition to your stance there? Your edit summary says "forgot that English has the neutral pronoun, which is useful in these cases. fixed." which suggests that it is in line with that stance Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back And those were the only ones, and I voluntarily stopped them yesterday immediately after being reverted. How does that configure the kind of systematic behaviour that would justify a topic ban? I really apologize, but in this moment the way I see this is a kind of Salem witch hunt, with people accusing me of all kind of slurs and abominations, even when they are in directly opposition to my stance here. You seem to be punishing me for my opinions and the way I (supposedly) think about a very particular issue (if 4 years old have self determination or not), which comes out to me as really unfair and unworthy of a project like this. Darwin 20:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits to DYK were within that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I never edited in that topic here, as far as I can remember, not is it a primary interest I have, so it certainly will not be difficult to hold, even if it comes out to me as incredibly unbased and unfair. Darwin 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Bushranger. charlotte 20:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. As GoodDay noted, the problem appears to already be addressed. If the problem persists then go for a sanction. Look we let people argue their point here and it does seem like most of the support is because editors feel Darwin isn't contrite enough, not that they expect the issue to continue. Note that I'm not weighing in on any interaction bans. Springee (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Springee. This entire issue could have been dropped days ago when DarwIn acknowledged he would walk away, and instead seems to have been needlessly escalated again and again and again. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Pppery: days ago? I think you might have misread the time stamps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support the TBAN; personally I'd have indeffed several outdents sooner, but here we are. No opinion on the IBAN. ⇒SWATJester 23:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Given what's happened, I think an enforceable topic ban is better than Darwin stepping away. IMO the BLP issues is far more concerning than gensex one so I'd support a BLP topic ban as well, but it seems likely a gensex one would be enough to stop Darwin feeling the continued need to express their opinions on a living person. Since Darwin is going to step away anyway and barely edits en, it should be a moot point and if it's not that's why it's enforceable. As for the iban, while I don't think Skyshifter should have described Darwin in that way when opening this thread, I think we can accept it as a one time mistake under the stress of apparently being followed and given questionable way Darwin ended up in a dispute here with someone they'd had problems with elsewhere I think a one-way iban is justified. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? Darwin 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times #c-DarwIn-20241229133200-Skyshifter-20241229132800, #c-DarwIn-20241229152900-Simonm223-20241229150600, #c-DarwIn-20241229154200-Blue-Sonnet-20241229154000, #c-DarwIn-20241229154100-Simonm223-20241229153800, #c-DarwIn-20241229160700-GiantSnowman-20241229154400, #c-DarwIn-20241229172200-Ad_Orientem-20241229171800. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like thought police. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here. Darwin 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. Darwin 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:DarwIn, I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. Liz
- @Liz: Thank you for the wise advice, I'll be doing that. Darwin 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: you can think whatever you like about living persons. I have a lot of views on living persons which I would never, ever express on wiki for various reasons including BLP. Also you defence is bullshit. No one ever asked you to make accusations around living persons to defend your actions. And yes it is fairly normal that editors may be sanctioned if they feel they need to do such things about living persons on ANI as part of some silly argument or defence. I recall an editor who was temporarily blocked after they felt the need to say two very very famous extremely public figure living persons (and some non living) were sex predators to prove some point at ANI. And I'm fairly sure a lot of people have said and feel those people are sex predators including some Wikipedians I'd even probably agree in at least one case, they just understand it's not something they should be expressing here. Nil Einne (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- For clarity, what I mean by my last sentence is that I'm sure quite a few people would agree with the statements. I'm sure such statements have been made elsewhere probably even in opinions printed in reliable sources (I think the editor did link to some such opinions). I'm sure even quite a few Wikipedians would agree that one or more of these people are sex predators, I think I'd even agree with it in at least one case. However most of us understand that our personal views of living persons, especially highly negatives views are generally not something to be expressed on wiki except when for some reason it's important enough to the discussion that it's reasonable to say it. When you keep saying something and in the same paragraph acknowledge the English wikipedia doesn't consider your opinion relevant, then it's clear there was no reason for you to say it. You're still free to believe it just as I'm still free to believe all those things about living persons that I would never express on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:DarwIn, I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. Liz
- I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. Darwin 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like thought police. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here. Darwin 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times #c-DarwIn-20241229133200-Skyshifter-20241229132800, #c-DarwIn-20241229152900-Simonm223-20241229150600, #c-DarwIn-20241229154200-Blue-Sonnet-20241229154000, #c-DarwIn-20241229154100-Simonm223-20241229153800, #c-DarwIn-20241229160700-GiantSnowman-20241229154400, #c-DarwIn-20241229172200-Ad_Orientem-20241229171800. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? Darwin 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Darwin's replies and conduct here indicates that he simply doesn't get it.
- MiasmaEternal☎ 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per GoodDay and Springee. Ciridae (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support TBAN per Bushranger. Darwin has already agreed to the 1-way IBAN — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Given the history at pt.wiki, I think this is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. There should be no interaction between the parties, which Darwin has agreed to.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The agreed-upon IBAN takes care of the ongoing issue. While the edits related to the child were problematic, this doesn't appear to be case of significantly wider problems in this topic area, and the full scope of MOS:GENDERID may very well be surprising to editors who don't do much in that area. I don't think there's been near enough here to no longer WP:AGF. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Support TBAN/IBANWeak support TBAN/Strong support IBAN - WP:NQP suggests that queerphobia is inherently disruptive. calling a queer activist a "troglodyte", the previous history of abuse on pt.wikipedia, and the current responses from Darwin indicate WP:NOTHERE behavior. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- "A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago , is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. EEng 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. EEng 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK boomer. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you certainly put me in my place with that one. EEng 21:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK boomer. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. EEng 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- "A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago , is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. EEng 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand. Speaking up for the witch is a sign I too might be a witch. I'll try to be more careful in future.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misgendering BLPs is disruptive. A Johnny Cash related username is not. Suggest the IP WP:DROPTHESTICK - while we may disagree with Boynamedsue regarding their interpretation here they have done nothing wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. It's stopping a disruptive editor from continuing to edit disruptively. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) NQP is an essay. Essentially it's an op-ed piece. It does not carry any force in the realm of WP:PG, and the views expressed there are controversial. (See the essay's talk page.). IMO words with some variation on "phobe/phobic" &c. are being routinely weaponized by people on one side of hot button cultural/political debates as part of an effort to demonize those on the other side of these debates. As such, I am inclined to view the use of such terms as a specie of WP:NPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- fair enough, i'll remove my vote for TBAN.
- sidenote, I have no qualms with labeling a behavior as queerphobia. I don't think calling out discrimination or disruptive attitudes is inherently a vio of NPA. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- ... I am indecisive.. I'll add weak support for TBAN, I still think the topic area should not have folks who are disruptive like this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pervasively misgendering a child based on the belief that a child cannot express a desire to transition is a form of transphobic behavior. If it was a similar comment made about a BLP on the basis of religion or skin colour there would be no mention of WP:NPA. Misplaced Pages is generally good about handling racism. It is a perpetual stain upon the reputation of Misplaced Pages that it's culture continues to worry more about the feelings of people who take transphobic actions than of the victims of the same. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as unnecessary given the commitments already given. WaggersTALK 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
| Let's not. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC). Edited to include edit conflict comment. CNC (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
| This is affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As a ptwiki user that know what's happening but talked to both sides of the discussion throughout it: This whole discussion started as a beef between Skyshifter and DarwIn. Skyshifter didn't accept some changes DarwIn made to an article "of her" (quotes because articles doesn't have owners. I respect her pronouns), and when discussing with DarwIn, called the whole Portuguese Misplaced Pages project a sewage (here)/in her UP, thus being banned and the ban being endorsed on the block discussion (in portuguese). The discussion was based on the references for the article, was solved in the ptwiki with an outburst from Sky, and that was it. This whole problem was brought here for a single reason only: Beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. A single change or a single opinion on a DYK shouldn't be reason for a TB or IBAN anywhere in the world, especially considering that it was a difference interpreting the references. I know that my statement won't change anything, as there is an apparent "consensus" on TBanning and IBANning him, though I wanted to make things clear for everyone. I am totally open for questioning regarding any of my statements above, and I will supply you with any proof I have and you need. Just ping me here and if the inquiry/proofs are extremely important, please leave me a message on my portuguese talk page (direct url). It can be in English, just for me to see you need me here. Cheers. Eduardo G. 03:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) JardelW is a user who was banned from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages due to his detestable behavior. This individual used the same Telegram group that he is now criticizing. The editor was banned from this group due to his behavior, in which he called respected users of the community "worms, scoundrels, trash and deniers". And DarwIn is one of the administrators of the group where he is banned, so you can already imagine why he is here. Now, once again he is trying to destabilize the community by defending an editor who called the entire project a sewer and made unproven accusations against an administrator. At this point, the account is practically banned and the article that caused the discord has its deletion or merge defended by several editors. By coming here, JardelW and Skyshifter are, in a way, stating that the entire community is prejudiced. Yet another offense enters the list as proof of Jardel's destabilizing behavior. Furthermore, this user already tried to carry out the same destabilization by contesting on meta the banning of IPs, a consensual decision among hundreds of editors. And when he was still blocked, went to Meta-Wiki in an attempt to intervene in the Misplaced Pages domain, where he is banned, simply because he did not agree with the deletion of an article. And this without presenting any evidence. It is clear that Jardel's objective here is to take revenge on the community, and he will be punished for it. InvictumAlways (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
|
- InvictumAlways - this is your second edit ever, and your account was just created today - how did you get to this ANI post? jellyfish ✉ 05:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I saw a discussion in the group and created the account to not appear as an IP. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Jardel The objective of the channel is to be a more relaxed place. And it's not official, as you said yourself previously. Angry moment? Are you sorry? After your block, you attacked editors on a social network, as attested by a CheckUser: . And there are no prejudiced comments. That's a lie. Where are the links? And how much time have you devoted to the project when all you do is attack others? Enough of this nonsense. I ask that an administrator evaluate the conduct of this account. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't realize the discussion was closed. Sorry. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Supporting both IBAN and TBAN. Someone who actively believes in misgendering should not be allowed into this area when they have already demonstrably made another editor uncomfortable. The snarky reply to GiantSnowman does not convince me they would respond well if another editor brought up a similar concern in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can't we give this child and her mother some privacy? What is it about gender issues, as opposed to other medical or developmental issues, that seems to give everyone a right to comment? Let's just report what reliable sources say and leave it at that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- talkpages def are covered by BLP as per the policy page.and the policy gives wide latitude about what the subject may have redacted if they object to info, even if they had previously or somehow otherwise placed that info in public domain.
- concerns about privacy have to weigh against dueness but arguing the book gives dueness to try to be internet sleuths and discover and identify a child is probs not gonna pass the smell test.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Misplaced Pages, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Children cannot consent, their parents can. (CC) Tbhotch 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would totally agree, but that is irrelevant here, nothing Darwin did was related to revealing the child's identity. He criticised the mother in strong terms on talkpages and this is what the BLP argument comes down to.--Boynamedsue (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ask yourself whether Misplaced Pages would even entertain this discourse if the identity was anything other than a trans one. The answer is a flat no. Darwin's interpretation of the mother's interpretation of her daughter's identity is inappropriate for the project, is disruptive and is openly antagonistic toward trans editors. I think nothing more can be gained from endlessly debating whether we should pretend there is a carve-out to BLP requirements for children within oppressed minorities. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Misplaced Pages, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support TBAN, no comment on IBAN. This is blatant POV harassment. (CC) Tbhotch 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Editors in this topic area can and often do disagree on the underlying issues, which often helpfully ensures that all such material on Misplaced Pages follows our policies and guidelines. However, the responses to Ad Orientem's request and various replies above shows that the proposed remedies would be appropriate given the BLP issues in play here.-- Patar knight - /contributions 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose any sanctions I’m sorry if I’m interfering in something I’m not involved with, but I’ve been watching this discussion and I think it’s needlessly toxic. What I’m seeing is a misunderstanding of some inappropriate WP:OR on a hot-button issue sparking a dispute that turned into “DarwIn is a transphobic bully” which I don’t think is true. I think the two main parties should simply avoid each other voluntarily and the situation will quickly de-escalate. Dronebogus (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support TBAN, indifferent to IBAN. Having followed this topic for a few days, it's convinced me that a topic ban for both GENSEX and BLP is entirely appropriate in this instance. My initial scepticism passed after reading responses from the editor and realising that the understanding of BLP policy appears to be even more incomplete than I originally thought. The deceleration from the editor to avoid such topics voluntarily is irrelevant, as combined with the lack of understanding over the concept of broadly construed, commitments have already been made and broken within this discussion alone. So respectfully, I believe this WP:NOTHERE type editing, whether it is attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or simply WP:BLUDGEONING discussions, is nonetheless disruptive and uncivil at times. CNC (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dronebogus. I'd say "we're better than this" if I believed it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Skyshifter, if anything, is harassing Darwin in this instance. Darwin has agreed to an IBAN, never mind that he's expressed desires to deëscelate what has become the longest thread on AN or ANI as of writing. JayCubby 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support This is a pretty explicit case of POV harassment. Their replies to the topic likewise do not give me faith they will adhere to a self imposed limitation. Darwin claimed to have agreed to step away before the ANI was created, but the edit history shows that Darwin continued editing the page up until an hour before Skyshifter created the ANI. Thus, there should be an actionable sanction. I fail to understand how it is Skyshifter doing the harassment at all as Cubby suggests. Darwin even called skyshifter a troglydite (here) to boot. Relm (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh my fucking god. This whole thread is nuts. I wish I could pardon my french but this is CRAZY.
- Never in a million years would’ve I expected myself to be responding to a thread like this but I mean here I am.
- Although Skywing’s concerns of harassment are valid especially if he’s being tracked across Misplaced Pages’s website, as far as I know, there are no guidelines that state someone can be punished for actions on another Misplaced Pages.
- I support the notion of Darwin being topic banned from gender related articles (especially trans ones), for the simple fact that his conflict of interest with transphobia has clearly caused a disruption to the Misplaced Pages community.
- I oppose with the IP-ban because if anything this SHOULD’VE ended a week ago when Darwin voluntarily said he would not edit those pages as well as avoid any interaction with Skywing.
Reader of Information (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. Relm (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand, I meant that. Apologies. I misunderstood what it stood for. I would prefer if the IBAN was two way instead of one-way. Seems hardly fair in my honest opinion when both I suppose are equally responsible and to share the blame. This is a messy situation so putting the blame on one when both are equally responsible seems hardly fair. But that's my two cents.
- NOTE: I don't condone homophobia or queerphobia or whatever the term is (I'm not really informed enough in this situation to know what Misplaced Pages calls it so I'm adding both just in case) so please don't take it as me defending either side as that is NOT my intent.
- Cheers,
Reader of Information (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- This reply reminded me of the essay WP:CLUE. CNC (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol. It is accurate. That literally is what it is I suppose lol. Reader of Information (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This reply reminded me of the essay WP:CLUE. CNC (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. Relm (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose any sanctions against Darwin per Dronebogus. I wish we were better than this, but like TBUA, I don't actually believe that we are. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support both TBAN and IBAN. Their behaviour at DYK might have been mitigated if they had taken responsibility here instead of doubling down. A TBAN and IBAN will reduce disruption. TarnishedPath 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at Special:Diff/1267644460 accusing me of coming to their talk page to "
further troll me with this nonsense warning
". TarnishedPath 01:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at Special:Diff/1267644460 accusing me of coming to their talk page to "
- Support both. I'm baffled that some people above are saying "well, they agreed to stop voluntarily" - did they not read the massive post Darwin made above? It amounts to an extended "I'm sorry that you were offended." Trusting that someone will avoid the same mistakes in the future on their own requires that they understand and admit to those mistakes, which is obviously not the case here; how can we trust that an editor will abide by a self-imposed restriction when they won't even meaningfully acknowledge the errors that made that restriction necessary? Therefore, sanctions are necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support both. To make sure I haven't lost my goddamn mind, I read this discussion twice. I personally believe Darwin is in the wrong here. His behavior on enwiki violates both GENSEX and BLP sanctions (), and he doubled down when he had the chance to defend himself (Special:Diff/1267644460 and comments above). Even if we play devil's advocate and assume Darwin's claims about Sky being a troll/vandal and sockmaster (which is a heavy accusation to make) on ptwiki are true, her work on enwiki has shown that she's changed for the better. This is coming from a person who has interacted with Sky a couple of times (Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Virtual Self (EP)/archive1, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Virtual Self (EP)/archive2, Talk:Quannnic/GA1); she is an amazing editor on here. For the sake of everyone involved and to avoid another mess like this, the sanctions above should be enforced. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 08:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Skyshifter taking matters from another Misplaced Pages to seek revenge.
| 100% affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This entire subsection is about Eduardo Gottert casting aspersions on Skyshifter and providing no diffs or evidence of this "revenge" except for statements about what is going on on another language Misplaced Pages which have no bearing on what occurs here. I'm closing this now before this WP:BOOMERANGs on to Eduardo Gottert and editors start proposing a block for personal attacks. Baseless counter attacks are generally dismissed at the English Misplaced Pages ANI. Please do not reopen this section. Liz 09:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. On the 29th of December, User:Skyshifter started an AN/I based on a claim that User:DarwIn, a sysop at ptwiki, was cross-wiki harrassing her. To make up those claims, she used as a single proof, of him editing on a DYK nomination here. AFAIK, DYK nominations are open for debate. She accused him of transphobia, a very harsh word, over some 5 edits on the same page, and all the other arguments in her accusation were from the ptwiki with absolutely no relation to the English Misplaced Pages, and she tried to "force" that it was a cross-wiki harrassment, when it wasn't. The sole reason for that AN/I is a beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. But all of this happened only, and just because of her banishment for the portuguese wiki. She is the cross-wiki harrasser in this situation, as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log. This is all for revenge of some articles that are being debated and will be either deleted or merged with other articles, and especially over her permanent block on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, after calling the whole platform a sewage (here and in her UP), casting aspersions over other users and using ducks and meatpuppets to revert back the articles (one of her meats is currently being blocked from ptwiki too, see it here, with all the proofs). The block discussion taking place at the moment has 10 administrator votes in favour of the block, and absolutely no contrary opinion whatsoever. Despite some not-so-good arguments from DarwIn in the AN/I above, it is more than clear that the reason for the opening of the said AN/I was personal and for revenge. I'm open to any questions regarding this topic, as there is plenty of evidence to sustain my claims. All of this that she's doing would clearly fall under pt:WP:NDD, here called WP:ASPERSIONS I think, and disruptive editing/WP:POINT, and in the AN/I above she's commiting WP:BLUDGEON, repeating the eye-catching word "transphobia" over and over, without sustaining her argument accordingly, seeking to block a sysop at other 3 projects and rollbacker here, with the sole objective of tarnishing his block log, just for revenge and self-fullfillment. Eduardo G. 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
|
John40332 reported by CurryTime7-24
John40332 has been blocked sitewide. Reader of Information (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved from WP:AIV – ToBeFree (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
John40332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Psycho (1960 film) (diff): account is being used only for promotional purposes; account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. User's recent edits have been dedicated almost invariably to inserting links in classical music-related articles to an obscure sheet music site. Behavior appeared to be WP:REFSPAM and WP:SPA. Personal attempts to curb this behavior or reach a compromise were rejected by user. Further attempts to engage with them at WT:CM resulted in WP:ICANTHEARYOU, despite three other editors informing user that their edits appeared to be spam or some kind of advocacy. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not a bot and not spamming, you just keep WP:HOUNDING me repeatedly, I cited sources to the publisher of the books in question. You appear to suffer from WP:OWN and act like I need your consent to edit the articles you feel that belong to you. You also know I'm not a compromised account, you spam Assume_good_faith on your reverts but you're mostly bullying other editors into submission.
- You've been asked to stop disrupting editing https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:CurryTime7-24#January_2025 , and continue to harass any edits that touch "your" articles.
- You also keep saying I add citation to obscure music sites, just because you don't know something doesn't make it obscure. Additionally, you are the only person raising this as an issue because you're extremely controlling of the articles, you don't own Misplaced Pages and hopefully some other editor or admin can remind you of that. John40332 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that SheetMusicX is a reliable source for these articles? If so then someone (it may be me but I don't guarantee it) should take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I note that several editors have queried this, not just CurryTime7-24. John40332 is clearly not a spambot or compromised account, so please avoid over-egging the pudding. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is reliable and listed with other respectable publishers, it's the homepage of the Canadian music publishing house Edition Zeza, their books are part of the National Library Collections, WorldCat.org shows their books in libraries around the world etc, I shouldn't even have to dig this far because 1 editor decided he WP:OWN Misplaced Pages. The links I had included provided relevant information about the articles I was editing (orchestration, dates, duration etc). Cited information from a publisher of said work, which is exactly what WP:SOURCEDEF suggests doing. John40332 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- The editor's history does seem suspicious. From 2014 to 2023 they made a total of 24 edits to article space, almost all of which were to Charlie Siem and Sasha Siem. Then after more than a year of no edits, in the last 5 weeks they have made 38 edits to article space, of which all except three added a reference to sheetmusicx.com. This is a commercial site that sells sheet music. As far as I can see, every reference added was a link to a page that sells a particular piece of sheet music. This certainly seems like WP:REFSPAM. CodeTalker (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- So is the problem that I'm actively contributing now, or that the cited sources aren't good enough? You guys are grasping at straws at this point.user:CurryTime7-24 added links to commercial sites diff1 , such as to Fidelio Music (to which he appears to be an affiliate) and yet no one raises a flag. Even when I added a source without removing his, he removed mine diff2 to keep only his link to Fidelio Music. John40332 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is no "you guys" here. You have exactly the same status, as a volunteer editor, as I do. I have no idea who CurryTime7-24 is, or whether that editor is an affiliate. I just know about reliable sources and that we should not be linking to any commercial site, except possibly to the original publisher of a work. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- So is the problem that I'm actively contributing now, or that the cited sources aren't good enough? You guys are grasping at straws at this point.user:CurryTime7-24 added links to commercial sites diff1 , such as to Fidelio Music (to which he appears to be an affiliate) and yet no one raises a flag. Even when I added a source without removing his, he removed mine diff2 to keep only his link to Fidelio Music. John40332 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that SheetMusicX is a reliable source for these articles? If so then someone (it may be me but I don't guarantee it) should take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I note that several editors have queried this, not just CurryTime7-24. John40332 is clearly not a spambot or compromised account, so please avoid over-egging the pudding. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:COIBot has compiled a page, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/Local/sheetmusicx.com of edits with links to this website. This list was not created by CurryTime7-24 but by a bot looking for instances of conflict-of-interests. All of the problems you are concerned about, John40332, would not exist if you would just stop posting links to this website. If you would agree to stop referring to sheetmusicx.com, you wouldn't be "hounded" or be defending yourself and we could close this complaint. Can you agree to that editing restriction? And, if you can't, then why are you insisting on linking to this particular website? Liz 02:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because it's a valid source according to:
- WP:REPUTABLE - "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources"
- WP:SOURCEDEF - The publisher of the work (and not only the first ever publisher, any reputable publisher of a work)
- WP:PUBLISHED - "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form."
Interestingly, "someone" (and I'm not saying it's CurryTime7-24) came to my talk page yesterday to write "kill yourself", I can only think of 1 person who is hounding me this much though, but that doesn't seem to be taken seriously. John40332 (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not "interesting", that's despicable; as is your insinuation. As for sheetmusicx as as source: for what? That they published some work? Why is that noteworthy? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a source for information about the work. Yes it's despicable, and as I said, no one takes it seriously, I'm not insinuating anything, admins can look into the IP themselves. John40332 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, you would prefer that this dispute continue on, which could lead to sanctions for you, rather than simply stop using this website as a reference? To me, when I see that kind of behavior, it's typically a sign of a paid editor. Liz 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no dispute, it's a reliable source and user:CurryTime7-24 makes a fuss about it because of his WP:OWN syndrome and potential WP:COI with his affiliation with Fidelio Music.
- Why are you against a source that complies with WP:RELIABILITY ? John40332 (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because your use of that source is pretty clearly intended as promotional. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's hard to understand how you can say "there's no dispute" when there is quite obviously a dispute; six editors in this thread alone have questioned your use of that source. You have invoked WP:RS to claim that the website is an acceptable source, but I'm not sure you have understood what that guideline says about commercial sites; they are allowed as references only to verify simple facts such as titles and running times. You have not used sheetmusicx.com for such purposes; you have used it to tell the reader where they can purchase sheet music (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc). CodeTalker (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I used it to add relevant information that didn't exist on Misplaced Pages.
- When I added "Psycho A Narrative for String Orchestra" diff that exists since 1968 and never mentioned on Misplaced Pages, but CurryTime decided to harass me there too.
- When I added the orchestration for Tambourin Chinois diff, which CurryTime decided to remove too.
- I used information by the publisher to confirm facts, as per WP:RS, if commercial sources are not allowed to verify contributions, then why is everyone so quiet about CurryTime's affiliation to Fidelio Music links ? So far these comments are a good example of WP:HUNT, first I was accused of spamming, then of being a bot, then that my account was compromised, then that the source used wasn't reliable, if you run out of ideas try my religion or ethnicity. John40332 (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you added the bit about Psycho - which included the link with the same phrasing as on the other edits where it was obvious "buy this music here". Your edits are either promotional or are indistinguishable from being promotional. That is why they are being removed. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly said that CurryTime7-24 is an affiliate of Fidelio. Can you show us your evidence of that? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here he removed my source to add Fidelio Music diff1
- Here again to make sure only Fidelio Music exists diff2
- And obviously here, deleting what I added to include Fidelio Music exclusively diff3
- Here he completely deleted everything I added about the piece as part of his WP:HOUNDING diff4 John40332 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- That may be evidence of something, good or bad, but it's certainly not evidence that that editor is an affiliate. But, anyway, the action that hould have been taken a few days ago has now been taken, so we can stop talking now. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, you would prefer that this dispute continue on, which could lead to sanctions for you, rather than simply stop using this website as a reference? To me, when I see that kind of behavior, it's typically a sign of a paid editor. Liz 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a source for information about the work. Yes it's despicable, and as I said, no one takes it seriously, I'm not insinuating anything, admins can look into the IP themselves. John40332 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be nice if an admin would compare the IP address 181.215.89.116 that told me to kill myself on my Talk Page, to existing users, now that would be fun to find out who is so against my edits, because so far the only action was a suspension. John40332 (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Checkuser is not for fishing. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- In any case the most obvious guess is: some unrelated troll who saw your name on this board. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Checkuser is not for fishing. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
It appears that there is consensus here and at WT:CM against linking to Sheet Music X. Is it possible for an admin to propose a resolution here? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The only consensus is your WP:OWN syndrome, the sources linked are reliable and fit for purpose. People have questioned my use of the source, not the reliability of it.
- You created this complaint stating that I'm a spammer, a bot or a compromised account, has that consensus been reached too ? John40332 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, John40332, you are wrong about the lack of consensus, and there is clear consensus against you linking to that commercial sheet music sales site. So, either you agree to stop doing so, or you get subjected to formal sanctions. Which will it be? Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So CurryTime can throw random accusations until something sticks? John40332 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, then. John40332 is indefinitely blocked from article space. The editor is free to make well-referenced, formal edit requests on article talk pages. The editor is warned that continuing to attempt to add links to Sheet Music X may lead to a sitewide block. The editor is advised to read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I made well referenced edits directly from a reputable publisher. Enjoy the power trip. John40332 (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please refrain from personal attacks which violate policy. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let me quote Misplaced Pages's page for Power Trip "(...) someone in a position of greater power uses that power unjustifiably against a lower-ranking person, typically just for display of dominance.", since you showed up just to block me when I haven't even edited anything else until this incident was cleared. I didn't spam, I'm not a bot, my account isn't compromised, I referenced a reputable publisher that due to CurryTime's WP:COI and WP:OWN made him start this issue. John40332 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Put that shovel down before you are indef blocked completely. increase indef block to all namespaces for battleground mentality. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let me quote Misplaced Pages's page for Power Trip "(...) someone in a position of greater power uses that power unjustifiably against a lower-ranking person, typically just for display of dominance.", since you showed up just to block me when I haven't even edited anything else until this incident was cleared. I didn't spam, I'm not a bot, my account isn't compromised, I referenced a reputable publisher that due to CurryTime's WP:COI and WP:OWN made him start this issue. John40332 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please refrain from personal attacks which violate policy. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I made well referenced edits directly from a reputable publisher. Enjoy the power trip. John40332 (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, then. John40332 is indefinitely blocked from article space. The editor is free to make well-referenced, formal edit requests on article talk pages. The editor is warned that continuing to attempt to add links to Sheet Music X may lead to a sitewide block. The editor is advised to read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So CurryTime can throw random accusations until something sticks? John40332 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, John40332, you are wrong about the lack of consensus, and there is clear consensus against you linking to that commercial sheet music sales site. So, either you agree to stop doing so, or you get subjected to formal sanctions. Which will it be? Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Vofa and removal of sourced information
NO ACTION AT THIS TIME Participants reminded to attempt communicating with other editors before reporting their behaviour to ANI. asilvering (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This seems to be an ongoing issue.
Vofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has lots of warnings about disruptive editing in their user page and a block.
Most recent example of removal of sourced information:
I checked the source and the information is there on page 7.
Previous examples include: . Also see: Talk:Finns#Vandalism_by_user:Vofa Bogazicili (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I just noticed that there is indeed an unsourced paragraph.
- The reason for removal of sourced information would then be "removed text not relevant to Chagatai Khanate and Golden Horde in introduction". However the source does mention
The first of the changes leading to the formation of the Turco-Mongolian tradition ...
and then gives Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate as examples. I don't see any WP:V or WP:DUE issues. - I am concerned about removal of sourced information that does not seem to have a rationale based on Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines Bogazicili (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi there. The matter seems to be resolved. I did remove an unsourced paragraph and general claims not relevant to the introduction. I do not see a problem with it. You seem to have linked three edits I made. In the first edit, I had to revert because I accidentally chose the minor edit option. In the second edit, I have restored the previous version, but without a minor sign. I did not remove any sources (based on what I remember) I hope to see through my edits and understand what I did or did not do wrong. Please, avoid making an ANI in bad faith. Vofa (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- You removed source information. The part that starts with
The ruling Mongol elites ...
- @Asilvering: from the editor's talk page, you seem to be a mentor. Removing sources or sourced material without explanation, or with insufficient explanation or rationale, such as "Polished language" , is an ongoing concern with Vofa. Bogazicili (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im not sure why I’m being stalked, but the edits you’re showing as examples of myself removing sources are more than two months old. I’ve stopped removing sources. Vofa (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: This issue is still continuing Bogazicili (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- And you previously spoke to Vofa about this where...? -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- asilvering, I hadn't talked about removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale.
- I did talk about this however . See: User_talk:Vofa#December_2024
- I don't seek or expect a permanent block over this. But as a mentor and an administrator, maybe you can comment on removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale. Bogazicili (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bogazicili, that's a threat, not an explanation. If you have a content dispute with an editor, which is what this appears to be, you need to be able to talk it out with them on the article's Talk page. @Vofa, please be careful to make sure your edit summaries explain what you're doing. I see that there was an unsourced statement in the link Bogazicili just supplied, so I presume that's what you meant by "unsourced". But the other statement you removed did have a source. It's ok to split your edits up into multiple edits if you need to do that to explain them properly, but you could also just give an edit summary like "removed unsourced; also, removed statement " that addresses both changes. -- asilvering (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Asilvering, I would not characterize this as a "content dispute". I was not involved in most of those articles. I got concerned after seeing edits market as minor removing sources or sourced material without any or proper explanation. That is not a content dispute, that is an editor conduct dispute. Bogazicili (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- What Vofa does at articles related to Turko-Mongolian history is not a content dispute but vandalism. It took me a lot of time to manually revert the hoax years and figures he added in Turkmens article to decrease their population and he also removed sourced basic info from the lede of the Merkit tribe which I had to restore. These are just some of few sneaky vandalism examples that I caught among the pages I patrol by Vofa. If you see his talk page, he has been warned a lot of times by many other editors for such mischief. Theofunny (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Theofunny, Vofa hasn't edited the Turkmens article since before they were blocked. That is obviously not an ongoing issue. As for Merkit, I also see no discussion of those edits. If you have a problem with how someone is editing, you need to communicate with them. -- asilvering (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Asilvering, my concerns were removal of sourced information or sources without proper rationale or explanation. Do you think that was communicated enough to Vofa in this topic, or do we need further communication? I'm asking in case Vofa continues this type of behavior. Hopefully that won't be the case. Bogazicili (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im going to repeat this again;
- I have not removed any sources since I was warned about it.
- I do not see an issue with my recent editing.
- You should communicate with me on any issues that you have with me. Vofa (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vofa, do you see any issues with this edit: Bogazicili (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you implying if I see an issue with this edit of mine or with your removal of said edit? Vofa (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vofa, the former. I am asking if you see any issues yourself with your own linked edit. Bogazicili (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not see an issue with the linked edit of mine. Vofa (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, really the issue was Bogazicili's, and it has now been solved in the usual way (by restoring only the sourced content). Apologies, @Vofa, for misreading it earlier. -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Asilvering, I disagree. I did miss the unsourced paragraph. However, removal of sourced content has been an ongoing issue with Vofa. They should not have removed sourced content to begin with.
- There was also a previous discussion in ANI:
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1170#User:Vofa
- Asilvering, again, is the threshold of communication met if removing sourced content by Vofa persists in the future? Bogazicili (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Basically, I'm not trying to get Vofa blocked, but they should be more careful in future when they remove sources or sourced content. They should have a reasonable rationale based in Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines, and they should explain that rationale properly. Bogazicili (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed they should. And you should not restore unsourced content once it has been removed. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- asilvering, the difference is I already acknowledged it multiple times. Is that not obvious? Bogazicili (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bogazicili, I'm going to close this report. No administrative action is required here at this time. You should make a habit of communicating on the article talk page when you get into a conflict with another editor, but you should always try to communicate with other editors before coming to ANI about their behaviour. This should be your last resort. If you make an earnest effort to communicate and are ignored, by all means report here. If there is edit-warring or obvious vandalism involved, please take that to the relevant noticeboard. -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- asilvering, the difference is I already acknowledged it multiple times. Is that not obvious? Bogazicili (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed they should. And you should not restore unsourced content once it has been removed. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Basically, I'm not trying to get Vofa blocked, but they should be more careful in future when they remove sources or sourced content. They should have a reasonable rationale based in Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines, and they should explain that rationale properly. Bogazicili (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not see an issue with the linked edit of mine. Vofa (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vofa, the former. I am asking if you see any issues yourself with your own linked edit. Bogazicili (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you implying if I see an issue with this edit of mine or with your removal of said edit? Vofa (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vofa, do you see any issues with this edit: Bogazicili (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Vofa (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Asilvering, my concerns were removal of sourced information or sources without proper rationale or explanation. Do you think that was communicated enough to Vofa in this topic, or do we need further communication? I'm asking in case Vofa continues this type of behavior. Hopefully that won't be the case. Bogazicili (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Theofunny, Vofa hasn't edited the Turkmens article since before they were blocked. That is obviously not an ongoing issue. As for Merkit, I also see no discussion of those edits. If you have a problem with how someone is editing, you need to communicate with them. -- asilvering (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This member often vandalises, in an article about Oirats he wrote huge numbers without backing them up with sources and tried to prove it was true. This is rabid vandalism. Incall 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Incall, vandalism has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages; an edit being unsourced does not mean it was vandalism. Do not cast aspersions on other editors in this way. @Vofa, you are edit-warring on Oirats. You need to stop doing that immediately. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have not edited Oirats. I have stopped edit warring. Vofa (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Incall, vandalism has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages; an edit being unsourced does not mean it was vandalism. Do not cast aspersions on other editors in this way. @Vofa, you are edit-warring on Oirats. You need to stop doing that immediately. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bogazicili, that's a threat, not an explanation. If you have a content dispute with an editor, which is what this appears to be, you need to be able to talk it out with them on the article's Talk page. @Vofa, please be careful to make sure your edit summaries explain what you're doing. I see that there was an unsourced statement in the link Bogazicili just supplied, so I presume that's what you meant by "unsourced". But the other statement you removed did have a source. It's ok to split your edits up into multiple edits if you need to do that to explain them properly, but you could also just give an edit summary like "removed unsourced; also, removed statement " that addresses both changes. -- asilvering (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- And you previously spoke to Vofa about this where...? -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- You removed source information. The part that starts with
- Hi there. The matter seems to be resolved. I did remove an unsourced paragraph and general claims not relevant to the introduction. I do not see a problem with it. You seem to have linked three edits I made. In the first edit, I had to revert because I accidentally chose the minor edit option. In the second edit, I have restored the previous version, but without a minor sign. I did not remove any sources (based on what I remember) I hope to see through my edits and understand what I did or did not do wrong. Please, avoid making an ANI in bad faith. Vofa (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Incivility and ABF in contentious topics
Hob Gadling's uncivil comments and assuming bad faith on multiple contentious talk pages is not necessarily egregious but I suppose it is problematic and chronic, consistent and ongoing. I would appreciate some assistance. Here are some diffs from the past few days:
Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883
WP:NPA
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324
Profanity
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966
Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877
Unicivil
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441
Contact on user page attempted
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795
Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Think this calls for a fierce trout slapping and some direct words. I cannot really endorse a forced wikibreak according to WP:COOLDOWN, as this is just an angry user and frankly, I don't see direct personal attacks, I just see unfriendly behavior and prick-ish attitude, no outward disruption of the project either. Also, I have to ask for further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions, as
some diffs from the past few days
are not indicative of chronic issue. The holiday times, like Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Years' can be some of the most stressful times for people during the year. Not saying I like seeing this, but I can understand the feeling. BarntToust 04:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Would I be the person to provide you with that
further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions
? I did think that it would be more than a WP:FISHSLAP, since that's forone-off instances of seemingly silly behavior
and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern warning. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would I be the person to provide you with that
- @Lardlegwarmers: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. Hob should know better, and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. But I would caution you about WP:BOOMERANG and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your inappropriate recently deleted user page, removing sections from other people's talk page, and it seems like you're having a problem handling a WP:DISPUTE and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith.
- Furthermore it does appear that you might be WP:FORUMSHOPPING because your attempts at WP:POVPUSH for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. passively accusing editor behavior, directly accusing a specific editor bad behavior, claiming WP is political, RSN Report #1, RSN Report #2 to push for an article edit request, bringing the Covid discussion over to the teahouse, and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding Misplaced Pages's policy and guidelines and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards WP:CONSENSUS. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. TiggerJay (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address unique issues as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. (
All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution.
]) Thank you for your time and input. - Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hope the editors who read this will notice the ABF here:
trying to report other editors in bad faith
. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address unique issues as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. (
@Lardlegwarmers: Jay brought something to my attention with a recent version of your user page. It looks like there is large language model (ChatGPT) text about "COVID-19 Natural Immunity" copied and pasted on there. What in the cheeseballs?? What made you think hmm, let's prompt ShatGPT to churn out 700 words about this random out-of-pocket topic, and I'm gonna post this on my Misplaced Pages user page for no reason! I'm confused. This specific revision also assumes bad faith about IP editors, and here's the rich part: just as you copy-pasted text from ChatGPT about COVID to your user page, you go on to write a section that addresses use of AI. Quoting from an AI chat bot without attribution is plaigiarism.
I'm just confused with what you are doing here. So I'd like to ask you, since you are here at ANI now, what in the sam hill is going on here? If there is a reasonable explanation for this goofiness, I suggest you produce one, not from a prompt entered into ChatGPT, in your own words. BarntToust 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is an old version of their user page, and it is not plagiarism to quote from a chat bot even without attribution, so we must assume that you are attempt to detract from the OP's complaint. The issue at hand is an experienced editor who joins talk page discussions without understanding the topic at hand (which they admit in one instance ), and are frequently use derogatory language and tone towards other editors. This behavior does not seem like a new thing for them and they clearly know how to skirt the edge of what would be considered a personal attack by an admin, so this merits a formal warning. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @IntrepidContributor, you should familiarise yourself with WP:BOOMERANG. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. BarntToust 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a WP:TROUT slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. BarntToust 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- BarntToust You're being bitey and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- well, I tend to get concerned when someone with LLM text pasted on their userpage comes up from the water. If that's considered bite-y to reiterate my concerns in intentional lighthearted analogy in order to seem less hard-headed, then I guess we're done here. @Thebiguglyalien, I invite you to weigh in on whether you think a formal warning or a trout slap is what needs to happen to Hob. BarntToust 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- BarntToust You're being bitey and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a WP:TROUT slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. BarntToust 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @IntrepidContributor, you should familiarise yourself with WP:BOOMERANG. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. BarntToust 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- That content from ChatGPT was meant to go in my sandbox as experiment or for assisting with research into a future article. The LLM can generate wikitext with links to articles that already exist. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are writing an article backwards and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @Lardlegwarmers, I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. BarntToust 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @IntrepidContributor, I'm pointing out questionable content on someone else page. please look at this diff on Lardle's user page for context, in which they copied ChatGPT text without attribution, then said that using ChatGPT without attribution is plagiarism. That contradictory stuff is what I was questioning. please click on the diff for context. BarntToust 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I use it more like a (really good) search engine or a thesaurus. It can give a lot of suggestions for a human writer, but ultimately you use your own mind and RS to formulate the facts and how to present them. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! BarntToust 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! *curtsy* Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! BarntToust 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are writing an article backwards and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @Lardlegwarmers, I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. BarntToust 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The lack of civility in this contentious topic is significantly hindering editing efforts, especially since most issues concern neutrality and tone, which requires a careful and nuanced approach. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't see anything in the original report that does anything other than show that Hob Gadling calls a thicko a thicko. What is wrong with that? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- ...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, in British slang, "thick" = "stupid". GiantSnowman 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- ...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
There is not enough context for the examples of impatience from Hob Gadling which the OP offers. For example, Lardlegwarmers, do you really expect a warm welcome for your 'attempted contact on user page' here? Or for your puritanical reproaches about HG's use of "profanity" (which normally turns out to mean using the word bullshit, which is by no means banned from Misplaced Pages, nor is its expressiveness easy to replace with something more flattering). Considering what they're replying to, this supposed "disparag of another editor's intellect and reasoning skills" seems pretty temperate. And so on. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
- I'm not suggesting we should wash anybody's mouth out with soap. The editor's consistent uncivil behavior is more than just the occasional salty diction here and there. I mean, look at this user page discussion where an editor is asking for a discussion on why Hob Gadling reverted his edit. It seems as if the person was trying to do it on the talk page and was ignored. Hob Gadling gruffly tells the other editor to get lost. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My experience is that this kind of aggression is standard operating procedure for the defendant. I'd basically given up on them seeing any consequences for it - it's been going on for a long time, so I assumed this is one of the cases where editors with enough "social capital" get an exemption from CIVIL. I doubt a trout will have lasting effect. - Palpable (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My experience with and attitude toward Hob is 100% the same as described here by Palpable. It goes back a while ... ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Hob Gadling failing to yield to WP:BLPRESTORE, apparently missing both the discussion and RSN link from the talk page. Asserting an unreliable source as reliable in order to describe the subject as having a ‘victim complex’. SmolBrane (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that Hob edited the talk page after re-adding this content; he should have self reverted if he missed this discussion prior. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Propose serving of trout to both. Hob likely may have acted a hair too strongly to a source of exasperation; but not enough for any warning. Lardlegwarmers provides a large helping of such and I would suggest a boom if not for BITE. Albeit, Lardlegwarmers’ knowledge of WP is beyond the average for an editor with 5x the posts. I would suggest a non-logged warning to Lardlegwarmers on the concept of collaboration for their own good. Otherwise, we are likely to see them back here given their attitude at both this filing and at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. (Disclaimer, I have been involved.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- For context, O3000, Ret. is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Recuse
Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. SmolBrane (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Recuse
- Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you click through the diffs, you’ll notice that many other editors have received the rude comments, so this is more than a 1-on-1 scuffle with me and Hob Gadling. I stopped compiling examples after finding 9 examples of visible hostility out of their most recent dozen diffs, but like I mentioned to BarntToust above, I can go back further if you need me to, to illustrate the chronic pattern. And the handful of other editors who have spoken up here who have been aggrieved speak for themselves. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- For context, O3000, Ret. is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a note, Hob Gadling removed the ANI notice without comment and has not responded here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Never said they weren't. Just noting that they clearly received the notice and chose not to respond here, which is a response in and of itself. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Wish Hob Gadling would not act like a profane teenager on talk page discussions and that they'd treat people without the smartass-y-ness and contempt. If they are so committed to being pissy towards other users while being shut-off in their own la-la-land, maybe they need a block until they're willing to face the music. BarntToust 01:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This comment is actually more of a personal attack then any of the diffs provided originally. Smartass, like a teenager, pissy, lalaland? That's some ageism, maybe commenting on mental health, and some silly insults. I don't think you should see any sanctions for this, but hopefully you compare your comments to the diffs. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
| Extended discussion |
|---|
|
It should be noted that Lardlegwarmers, after only truly starting editing two months ago, has been actively pushing WP:FRINGE misinformation, particularly on Covid related pages. They have actively been making claims that the scientific community is trying to cover things up, such as here, and has been using poor quality sources to try and claim that major published scientific papers on the topic are false, such as here. This entire thread just sounds like an attempt to silence another editor who has been actively dealing with fringe POV-pushers across numerous articles, such as those linked by Lardlegwarmers above. Silverseren 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. And it seems that's the case here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!)
bullshit
to describe an argument that did, in fact, turn out to be bullshit shows how weak it is. What's more alarming is that that was what led Lardlewarmers to try and their target on their talk page, a hamhanded effort whose sheer inappropriateness they remain sufficiently tone-deaf to that they made the mistake of bragging about it here as part of their "report". This is a straightforward WP:BOOMERANG situation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "turn over a new leaf" in situations like this one. Misplaced Pages would be better off if people were more willing to tell people to stop before it's too late and stop treating aggressive or uncivil behavior as a "lesser" crime. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The reason I cited numerous diffs was to substantiate, as I said in my post, that this is a chronic and ongoing habit of rude and uncivil behavior. I posted the diff of Hob Gadling's user page not to "brag" (and I don't understand how you inferred that), but rather to show that I followed ANI procedure to address conduct disputes first on the user page and that my attempt was dismissed without Hob Gadling addressing it except to blank the comment with the explantion that I wasn't welcome on his page.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!)
- I am not trying to silence anyone. See above, I recommend a stern warning about consistent uncivil comments and that’s it. If Hob Gadling has something substantive to say, they can say it without demeaning the editors as if this is a combat sport instead of a discussion about articles of text. I encourage y'all to check out the discussions linked to by Silverseren. I have been careful to use sources, present my suggestions in good faith, and stay neutral in personal interactions. I am genuinely trying to find consensus. I'll mention that Silverseren is also involved in the content dispute, providing sources that myself and several other editors believe do not verify an extraordinary claim in the article. (Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Silver_seren-20241231185800-Slatersteven-20241230182700) It's getting to the point where we should do a content moderation over that, since I am sure that the sources do not verify the claim but Silverseren apparently is sure that they do. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type. As the Alien above said, you
Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning.
now WP:DROPTHESTICK. TiggerJay (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to Misplaced Pages:Civility, the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the fallacies contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ad hominem, as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person (Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250103194100-Hob Gadling-20250102085800). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record I do agree with you that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been bating you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, rather we depend on WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to
steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person
. However, that is not what I read in that reply. Out of the gate you're calling Hob uncivil, their arguments are false, and then lobbing further accusations. You get the discussion wrapped up arguing over who said what, and what they meant by it, and why your positions are valid and theirs are not. As for bad faith, I'll invite to other editors to comment below if they agree that I'm the one presuming bad faith towards you. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250105151700-Credibility_of_major_scientific_journals_on_Covid) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think I understand what you're referring to about RS. Yes, there are times when a source is otherwise considered reliable (or even un-reliable) but consensus can be found with regards to a specific narrow aspect of it that might warrant it's inclusion or exclusions, or some variation on how it is presented or the weight afforded to it in the article. And that comes through talk page consensus as you mentioned and does not necessarily need to be unanimous. TiggerJay (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250105151700-Credibility_of_major_scientific_journals_on_Covid) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record I do agree with you that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been bating you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, rather we depend on WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to
- No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to Misplaced Pages:Civility, the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the fallacies contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ad hominem, as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person (Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250103194100-Hob Gadling-20250102085800). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type. As the Alien above said, you
Being entirely blunt, if we have two visions of Misplaced Pages: one in which people are occasionally rude or incivil to people who tout pseudoscience concerning major diseases and one in which pseudoscience concerning major diseases makes its way into article space then I'll gladly sign up for the rude / incivil Misplaced Pages over the pseudoscience one. This is to say that being rude is most certainly a lesser offense
. Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please check out the article and discussion. The lab leak theory is not pseudoscience, but rather a scientific hypothesis which important scientists have suggested is worthy of serious investigation (]). Although the evidence strongly favors a zoonotic origin, the investigation is inconclusive. In any case, I would favor a Misplaced Pages where civil discussion leads to a balanced representation of what is published in reliable sources. If your position is supported by the sources, there is no need to resort to name calling. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What you are describing is a different idea: the COVID-19 bioweapon conspiracy theory. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus.
the World Health Organization is recommending in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe is required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. ]
The fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs.
(]) Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Beyond what @Objective3000 said, for all parties, it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil WP:BRINE. TiggerJay (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Hob Gadling wants to "deal with" new editors who threaten Misplaced Pages, it should not be through aggression and insulting them openly, but through quality sources and discussion. Editors who sympathize with "fringe" ideas might be more cooperative if they didn't have to defend themselves against offensive comments in response to their suggestions. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Beyond what @Objective3000 said, for all parties, it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil WP:BRINE. TiggerJay (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If this "old grievance" about the FTN exemption to CIVIL really has been thoroughly hashed out, could someone link the discussion from WP:FTNCIVIL or something? Being up front about it would save time here at ANI, plus it's always heartbreaking to watch as earnest new editors learn about this the hard way. - Palpable (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am in the diffs.
- I would still like a pointer to the discussion of why FTN regulars get an exemption from CIVIL, I honestly think that should be better understood. - Palpable (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above:
Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic.
] Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- That diff certainly doesn't prove anyone is exempt from policy. I think it's interesting Palpable said he was following diffs instead of saying he was involved in the content dispute underlying this complaint. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above:
- They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, they're one of the pro-fringe editors in the linked discussion. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- What you are describing is a different idea: the COVID-19 bioweapon conspiracy theory. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus.
- It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
| Extended discussion |
|---|
|
- Nie JB. "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2020 Dec;17 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#c-GPinkerton-2021-01-18T14:40:00.000Z-ScrupulousScribe-2021-01-18T14:27:00.000Z
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Shibbolethink-20250104081900-IntrepidContributor-20250103151400
Send to AE?
Given how long this has gone on for, may I make a suggestion? Send this to WP:AE since ANI seems incapable of resolving this, and it falls solidly into the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
- That matches my experience and I'm grateful to the people willing to say it out loud, but surely it would save a lot of drama and forum shopping if someone just wrote it down? - Palpable (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The IP made no such claim? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I thought that was implicit in the request to move the civility complaint to a forum about fringe theories, but you're the expert. - Palpable (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The IP made no such claim? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As others have noted, being brusque with pseudoscience-pushers is an insignificant offense when compared to agenda-driven editors who are only here to advocate for a fringe topic. Esp. when they have only been editing for a handful of months. Zaathras (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I do agree that from an objective and absolute POV (e.g., of an external user evaluating Misplaced Pages) it is better to have an uncivil but pseudoscience-free Misplaced Pages than a civil but pseudoscientific Misplaced Pages, from a subjective and relative POV (e.g., of editors making internal decisions together) it is impossible to systematically abandon a relatively less important principle on the basis of a relatively more important principle without completely annihilating the less important principle. That's why wp:Being right is not enough is policy.
- Moreover, as others have also noted, because WP:CIVIL is a principle that at some point does get acted upon, we would all be better off if no one, on any side of any given debate, would minimize it. User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I second to motion to bring this to WP:AE. BarntToust 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Taboo of archaeologists
This is fundamentally a content dispute, I see nothing admin-actionable here. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is about by Jahuah. They claim that an unprovenanced archaeological object is authentic. Bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss unprovenanced objects in public. It's a taboo of their profession. So, no bona fide archaeologist can give the lie to the authenticity of that object without losing their job. Since if they mention that object in public they get sacked. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol, reporting on me? Jahuah (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Give me an actual reason why the specific seal in question is not authentic? How about that? Quote me an actual scholar who does? If not, then your words mean jack. Jahuah (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- According to critical rationalism, the claim that such object is authentic is unfalsifiable. Since it is taboo to discuss such object in public. So only biased hacks could affirm it is authentic or inauthentic without losing their jobs. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think it’s inauthentic? Or not? Please do not be wasting my time here. Jahuah (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It think that claim is utterly unfalsifiable, so it cannot amount to science. See for details The Shapira Strips: What Are They and Are They Forgeries? on YouTube by Dr. Robert R. Cargill. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks for actually giving me an answer at least. Jahuah (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- What exactly are you asking admins to do there? This looks to me like a content dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who, me? I’m not asking anything. I just wanted to show how a seal dated by a scholar to the 8th century is indeed an 8th century BC Israelite seal of Hoshea.
- The guy up there has a problem with that and now apparently I’m on the naughty list. Jahuah (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: I have explained them at length why this is utterly problematic, previously. I had expected that they will behave. Misbehaving is a behavioral problem. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think I know how to behave, thank you very much. I’m not a petulant manchild. Jahuah (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- See User talk:Jahuah#December 2024 and Talk:Uzziah#Uzziah Seals. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol, I refuted you there. All you did was attack Dr. Mykytiuk and call into question his scholarship. Jahuah (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Besides, what does this have to do with the Hoshea seal? Jahuah (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't expect any of you to take my word for it, that why I had WP:CITED https://web.archive.org/web/20241209232716/https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/the-problem-with-unprovenanced-objects/ Suffices to say that unprovenanced objects are ethically and juridically fishy. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- So no comment on my refutation of your petulant behavior? Jahuah (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who’s “any of you” by the way? I’m one guy. Jahuah (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're (only you, not The Bushranger) promoting a claim that is unfalsifiable, unethical, and maybe even juridically problematic. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ooo, that’s a new one. Jahuah (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope, if you had read carefully what I told you in 2024, there is nothing new about my claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good. You guys represent scholarship only when it suits your ideology. Jahuah (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not about my ideology. It is about: bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss such claims in public. So no bona fide archaeologist could affirm that that object is authentic or inauthentic, because the next day they will have to flip burgers at Target. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fine whatever, I apologize. Jahuah (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not about my ideology. It is about: bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss such claims in public. So no bona fide archaeologist could affirm that that object is authentic or inauthentic, because the next day they will have to flip burgers at Target. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good. You guys represent scholarship only when it suits your ideology. Jahuah (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope, if you had read carefully what I told you in 2024, there is nothing new about my claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ooo, that’s a new one. Jahuah (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're (only you, not The Bushranger) promoting a claim that is unfalsifiable, unethical, and maybe even juridically problematic. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't expect any of you to take my word for it, that why I had WP:CITED https://web.archive.org/web/20241209232716/https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/the-problem-with-unprovenanced-objects/ Suffices to say that unprovenanced objects are ethically and juridically fishy. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- See User talk:Jahuah#December 2024 and Talk:Uzziah#Uzziah Seals. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think I know how to behave, thank you very much. I’m not a petulant manchild. Jahuah (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: I have explained them at length why this is utterly problematic, previously. I had expected that they will behave. Misbehaving is a behavioral problem. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It think that claim is utterly unfalsifiable, so it cannot amount to science. See for details The Shapira Strips: What Are They and Are They Forgeries? on YouTube by Dr. Robert R. Cargill. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think it’s inauthentic? Or not? Please do not be wasting my time here. Jahuah (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- According to critical rationalism, the claim that such object is authentic is unfalsifiable. Since it is taboo to discuss such object in public. So only biased hacks could affirm it is authentic or inauthentic without losing their jobs. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Demands to prove a negative are a nonsensical and puerile debating tactic. The editor must cite evidence that the item is considered authentic, or refrain from stating so in WP's voice. Simple as that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is the editor referring to me? Jahuah (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If so, here you go. Lawrence J. Mykytiuk, Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E. (Boston: Brill, 2004), 58., https://www.academia.edu/62900860/Iconography_on_Hebrew_Seals_and_Bullae_Identifying_Biblical_Persons_and_the_Apparent_Paradox_of_Egyptian_Solar_Symbols_ABSTRACT_ Jahuah (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss it, you win by default? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Elmidae, were you referring to me? Jahuah (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bona fide archaeologists will lose their jobs for merely mentioning Mykytiuk's claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was talking to Elmidae. Jahuah (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they were talking to you. Also both of you take a chill pill for a minute, please - this disucssion is already approaching WP:TLDR levels of length from the back-and-forth above. Tgeorgescu, you don't have to respond to everything Jahuah says esepecially when it's in response to other editors. Jahuah,
i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good.
is not an attitude conducive to cooperative editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Fine, fine, I apologize. I’m just angry that my contributions to Misplaced Pages get deleted. I just wanna leave some edits and then I’ll leave this site for good. I promise. Jahuah (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also want to make sure my contributions are kept before I leave. Jahuah (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fine, fine, I apologize. I’m just angry that my contributions to Misplaced Pages get deleted. I just wanna leave some edits and then I’ll leave this site for good. I promise. Jahuah (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they were talking to you. Also both of you take a chill pill for a minute, please - this disucssion is already approaching WP:TLDR levels of length from the back-and-forth above. Tgeorgescu, you don't have to respond to everything Jahuah says esepecially when it's in response to other editors. Jahuah,
- I was talking to Elmidae. Jahuah (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bona fide archaeologists will lose their jobs for merely mentioning Mykytiuk's claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Elmidae, were you referring to me? Jahuah (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss it, you win by default? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This editor appears to be edit warring across multiple pages to assert historical uncertainties as fact based on unconfirmed and speculative research from biblical archaeology blogs and the like. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh look, BAR society is no longer reputable because some Misplaced Pages mod said so. Jahuah (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, who am I edit warring with? That’s news to me. Jahuah (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- We don't have "mods" on Misplaced Pages. But you have only been editing for a month so it shouldn't be expected that you would know much about how Misplaced Pages works. Liz 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmph. I guess I’ll go then. Sorry for the trouble I caused. Jahuah (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jahuah, I wasn't asking you to leave the project, just pointing out that you are a newer editor. Misplaced Pages is chockful of rules and guidelines and it's not realistic to expect new editors to be familiar with them all. Liz 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, no. It’s ok. It’s clear that I have caused more problems here than solved. I just hope my contributions will stay, or at least be kept until new data comes. I’ll be out of your hairs soon. Jahuah (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jahuah, I wasn't asking you to leave the project, just pointing out that you are a newer editor. Misplaced Pages is chockful of rules and guidelines and it's not realistic to expect new editors to be familiar with them all. Liz 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmph. I guess I’ll go then. Sorry for the trouble I caused. Jahuah (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- We don't have "mods" on Misplaced Pages. But you have only been editing for a month so it shouldn't be expected that you would know much about how Misplaced Pages works. Liz 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, who am I edit warring with? That’s news to me. Jahuah (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh look, BAR society is no longer reputable because some Misplaced Pages mod said so. Jahuah (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
it's an unprovenanced object and likely a forgery it was not found in a licensed archaeological excavation it does not possess a credible chain of custody this is very much too good to be true but since people of faith want to believe it and since it's not against the law to use your free speech to make false claims like this forgers will make forgeries and antiquities dealers will put them up for sale and try to make as much money as they can but these kind of forgeries pollute legitimate biblical archaeology and it is why so many scholars myself included do not publish critical reviews of unproven objects once you give them credence their value is increased even if you put a little asterisk by them and designate them as unprovenanced and merely teach the controversy you are still giving them scholarly recognition and debate that the forger and the antiquities dealer so desperately crave publishing unprovenanced objects leads to looting and to forgeries it's that simple
— Dr. Robert R. Cargill, transcript
Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- tgeorgescu, this is becoming a detailed content dispute which means it probably should be closed as off-topic for this noticeboard. Liz 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, tg's hysterical talk about disgraced archeologists flipping burgers at Target is nonsense. There is vigorous controversy about unprovenanced objects, but no one's losing their job for breaking some alleged taboo. EEng 06:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
TTTEMLPBrony and continued addition of unsourced/crufty material, zero communication
Blocked. Now CU-blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TTTEMLPBrony (talk · contribs) has been active since late April 2024. They have a history of adding of unsourced and sometimes controversial material. They have been messaged and warned plenty of times, including by FlightTime, Doniago and LindsayH, but to no avail. Better yet, they haven't responded once on their own talk page.WP:COMMUNICATION is required and they do not seem to be willing or able to work with others. I've issued them a warning earlier this week, but looking at their talk page, I see they've been issued stern warnings plenty of times. And despite messages about adding sources, in late December 2024 they created List of second unit directors, which is barely referenced. soetermans. 12:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- They may be unaware of their talkpage, even though 8 months seems a long time for that. I have blocked indefinitely, with an informative message and a link to their talkpage in the log. Unfortunately that's sometimes the only way to get the attention of a non-responsive user. Bishonen | tålk 15:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
- They know about talk pages, Bishonen, because they have used one at least once; i checked when i first tried to communicate with them to no avail. That being said, i think this is a good use of a block, showing we are serious when we say communication is necessary ~ Lindsay 17:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked after only 5-hours, without the user even editing during that period? For a first offence? After only warnings of the lowest level? I'm no sure why User:Soetermans even created this request, as there'd been zero editing of the page in question since his talk-page warning 3 days earlier! Much of the edits seem to be merely content disputes. I don't see much repition after notification. And we don't even have rules about providing sources. There was no imminent risk of damage here, and I don't think the conditions laid out in WP:INDEF have been met. And WP:BLOCKDURATION most certainly hasn't been met. This is an appallingly awful block User:Bishonen. Can I that you reduce it to a week or less just to get attention. I'd suggest a day, but the editor is so infrequent, that they may not not notice. Though given they are moderating their behaviour based on what is posted in their talk page, even a block is barely justified. Nfitz (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. When an editor refuses to communicate, it's not uncommon for an admin to block until the editor responds. Even the block notice tells them
Please respond below this post and start communicating, and you may be unblocked.
Sometimes it's a case where inexperienced editors simply don't realize that they have a talk page or that people are leaving them messages. This block gently brings it to their attention. Schazjmd (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- I see nothing in policy for an indefinite. And an indefinite block is absolutely not "gently". It's the kind of heavy-handed authoritarianism that drives the people we need away. There seemed to be edits that were a real attempt to improve Misplaced Pages. And there seemed to be changes in behaviour that were guided by the comments on the talk page. And there hadn't even been any further edits of concern since the previous warning - days ago. Sure, for Misplaced Pages warriors who frequent ANI, a block is just something you deal with; but I don't think that's how many people would see it. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indef is "until you address the issue", not forever. Schazjmd (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I believe we are all aware of that. The issue is that doing so, at this stage, is completely outside of our policy, and that doing so for a minor case like this is completely outside of policy. We can't just make start doing things a different way because the admin feels like it. Our policy says that "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy". The threat was neither significant (or even very recent) or a major breach of policy. I note that the user in question was only given 5 hours to respond, but after 4 hours, we'd still had no response from User:Bishonen, perhaps she should also have been blocked for not noticing the discussion (yeah, that's irony, not a proposal). Nfitz (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indef is "until you address the issue", not forever. Schazjmd (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see nothing in policy for an indefinite. And an indefinite block is absolutely not "gently". It's the kind of heavy-handed authoritarianism that drives the people we need away. There seemed to be edits that were a real attempt to improve Misplaced Pages. And there seemed to be changes in behaviour that were guided by the comments on the talk page. And there hadn't even been any further edits of concern since the previous warning - days ago. Sure, for Misplaced Pages warriors who frequent ANI, a block is just something you deal with; but I don't think that's how many people would see it. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. When an editor refuses to communicate, it's not uncommon for an admin to block until the editor responds. Even the block notice tells them
- TTTEMLPBrony has now responded, stating that "I have not realized that accounts have talkpages", so apparently my block worked as intended. Unfortunately, they go on to say that their little brother did it, and also that they allowed the brother to use the account. Blithely they claim that "I have already dealt with him" - uh, "already"? Anyway, whether or not I believe them about the brother (I can't say I do), the account is clearly compromised, and must stay blocked. With some hesitation, I've turned the block into a softblock, so that they may create a new account, and have explained that they must absolutely not share it with anybody. I have notified the stewards in case they want to globally lock. Bishonen | tålk 03:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
- Just because, User:Bishonen, it worked, doesn't mean that you are allowed to just make up your own rules. (but yeah, sounds fishy ... on the other hand, it's probably a child). Please follow protocol, or hand over your keys. Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nfitz, please be more polite on these noticeboards. The block Bishonen placed was perfectly fine and it's the kind of thing admins have been doing for years. Nothing in policy forbids it, and I believe The Bushranger's response is along the same lines. Besides, the editor's edit were, and I'm trying to stay polite myself, not good, as their talk page full of warnings indicates: no edit summaries, no responses, no communication, no knowledge of sourcing and sourcing requirements. Finally, I don't know how young that editor might be, but I do know that they are four years older than when Ponyo blocked them. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just because, User:Bishonen, it worked, doesn't mean that you are allowed to just make up your own rules. (but yeah, sounds fishy ... on the other hand, it's probably a child). Please follow protocol, or hand over your keys. Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
possible hoaxes
- Emilioveh (talk · contribs)
- Emnoé (talk · contribs)
- Larissæ (talk · contribs)
- Miguelinor (talk · contribs)
- Nose236 (talk · contribs)
The above accounts are sockpuppets that have been blocked on the Spanish Misplaced Pages for creating articles with unverifiable references or with scarce references taken out of context. I recommend reviewing all the articles that these accounts have created here as they may be hoaxes.--Fontaine347 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a note, you don't appear to have notified any of these editors about this section, which is something you need to do when you open a section on this noticeboard. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've notified all the users about this possible hoax issue already. Suggest any action from administrators if possible. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that's a valid notion, Fontaine347. Feel free to do so! Ravenswing 12:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring to prevent an RFC
@Axad12 has removed an RFC tag from Talk:Breyers#Request for comment on propylene glycol now twice within an hour.
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RfCs provides a list of circumstances under which you can stop an RFC started by someone else, and disagreeing with the question or wishing that it contained additional information is not in the list.
We have to be pretty strict about this, because an RFC is one of the few ways to attract the broader community's attention when there's an Misplaced Pages:Ownership of content problem or a Misplaced Pages:Walled garden that needs outside attention. The fact that an editor doesn't welcome outside attention sometimes indicates that there is a problem. I'm not saying that these things are happening in this case, but the rules have to be the rules for all RFCs, not just for the ones we agree with, because these things do happen in some cases. We can't really have opponents of an RFC question/proposal, no matter how well intentioned or how justified they think it is in this one case, unilaterally deciding that the rest of the community doesn't get to find out about the dispute.
I wouldn't bother with this here, except that it's already past my bedtime, so I need someone else to handle this. The proper way forward is to run the RFC, and for the loyal opposition to take the advice about how to respond that they'll find in the first two questions of the Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/FAQ. See you tomorrow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC.
- I am perfectly happy to take instruction on that point if I am incorrect but the removals were undertaken in good faith.
- The idea that I should be reported to ANI for this just because it is past someone's bedtime (and they don't have time for talk page discussion) seems to me rather an over-reaction. Axad12 (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, I am perfectly happy to volunteer to replace the tag if an administrator indicates that that is the appropriate course of action. Axad12 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad12, please do not tamper with the RFC. I have already commented there again based on my previous assessment five weeks ago, and I have absolutely no conflict of interest in this matter. In my opinion, you are taking too aggressive a stance on this issue. I happen to be an administrator but I am also involved with the dispute as an ordinary editor. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad12, I'd strongly suggest you return the tag. WhatamIdoing, a {{trout}} for WP:GRENADEing. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for both of your advice. I will shortly replace the template.
- The COI issue does not relate to Cullen, it relates to another user entirely. I would be grateful for input on the underlying COI issue, which seems to me to have been an exceptionally serious abuse. Axad12 (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? A company quite reasonably does not want to be falsely accused of adulterating their edible product with antifreeze, based on what a fringe source wrote, and you consider that
exceptionally serious abuse
? Cullen328 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? A company quite reasonably does not want to be falsely accused of adulterating their edible product with antifreeze, based on what a fringe source wrote, and you consider that
- Indeed, I am perfectly happy to volunteer to replace the tag if an administrator indicates that that is the appropriate course of action. Axad12 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I'm referring to the series of events outlined here where a paid COI editor has a COI edit request turned down and then starts cultivating a co-operative project member to implement non-contentious COI edit requests before reintroducing the contentious COI edit request and immediately tipping off their repeatedly canvassed project member to implement that contentious request.
- I feel that that is an exceptionally serious abuse - clearly it is an attempt to distort the COI editing process by attempting to make sure that a previously co-operative project member deals with a resubmitted request rather than waiting for a random volunteer working out of the relevant queue (one of whom had previously declined the request).
- As I said above, I am quite happy to take instruction on this point - but personally I feel that what happened there was highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- In other words, you want highly misleading content to remain in the article, just to make a point? Cullen328 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cullen, my post directly above is clearly about a point of process rather than a point of content.
- Even if the original COI edit request was incorrectly declined that would not justify the paid COI editor attempting to game the system to get the request through at the second time of asking. Axad12 (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Asking a second time" is not WP:Gaming the system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, but for a COI user to attempt to influence which user will deal with the second request does constitute gaming the system. Axad12 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Read the guideline instead of guessing about its contents from the WP:UPPERCASE. See, e.g., An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policy in bad faith, by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. Asking an individual to help has nothing to do with finding wording in a policy to justifying disruptive actions or stances that are not intended in that policy.
- I also direct your attention to the item that says Gaming the system may include...Filibustering the consensus-building process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was using the phrase 'gaming the system' in it's natural application (not specifically referring to WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM, which I didn't know existed until you linked to it above). Clearly the COI user was attempting to distort the COI edit request process in some way - whether one refers to what they were doing as 'gaming the system' or some other similar phrase is neither here nor there. Axad12 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, but for a COI user to attempt to influence which user will deal with the second request does constitute gaming the system. Axad12 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Asking a second time" is not WP:Gaming the system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that ever since the original COI edit request back in August the clear talk page consensus has been that the material should remain within the article and is not
highly misleading
. - I've been part of that consensus position since approx October/November. Since that time the user who opened the RfC has repeatedly been opening new threads, continually trying to re-address a subject where they are repeatedly in the minority and presumably hoping that those who previously opposed them do not turn up to oppose them again. Axad12 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- In other words, you want highly misleading content to remain in the article, just to make a point? Cullen328 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe we should hold an RFC on whether the RFC tag should be there? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right, I've had breakfast now so am in a position to make a more serious reply. This is a content issue (on which I hold, as yet, no opinion). On this page we often tell editors that the way to settle a content issue that hasn't been settled by more informal methods is by holding an RFC. Axad12, you should express your opinion as part of the RFC, not oppose holding it. By your behaviour you are turning people against you who might have supported you. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've already said that I'd be happy to replace the tag if instructed to do so, and upon being instructed to do so I immediately replaced it. As far as I can see that issue is now resolved.
- I've asked for comment on the underlying COI issue, which is not a content issue. Axad12 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- RFCs can handle COI issues. In fact, when WP:COIN can't resolve a dispute, they sometimes host an RFC to settle it. The nice thing about an RFC in such situations is that if it closes with an outcome like "The consensus is stick it to these fully policy-compliant, completely disclosed paid editors by making sure that this article implies the company's product was adulterated with a poisonous industrial chemical, just because we found one fad diet book that used this language, because it's really unreasonable of them to not want sensationalist and derogatory information in our article about their product" then you can generally be sure that the result will stick for at least 6 months and usually longer.
- But you've got to get that consensus first, and I'm not sure you will. For one thing, it's been my not-inconsiderable experience that when someone objects to holding an RFC because the question is biased, that's a fairly reliable sign that they expect the RFC result to not match their preference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My concern (rightly or wrongly) was simply that there was a COI element to the request which had not been disclosed. I swiftly requested clarification on that point and upon receiving that clarification I immediately reverted myself.
- It isn't really relevant here but actually I didn't expect the RfC to develop contrary to my preference. That was because the previous 4 months had indicated a consistent consensus opposing what the instigator of the RfC was proposing. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I don't actually have a particularly strong preference one way or the other on the issue at stake - I've simply consistently observed during November and December that the consensus was against Zefr, which seemed to me to be a simple matter of fact based on the various talk page threads from August to December. Axad12 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- On matters concerning the Breyers article, Axad12 has been an uncollaborative, disruptive, and hostile editor tag-teamed with Graywalls, who is the main proponent over months of using the slur, "antifreeze", to describe a minor GRAS ingredient that is the subject of the current RfC. Both users have ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate for a factual, well-sourced article. Both users refused collaboration on the Breyers article content at DRN.
Having never contributed a sentence or source to the Breyers article, Axad12 has blatantly reverted simple, sourced edits claiming a false consensus which has no good source to support the propylene glycol/"antifreeze" claim and no evidence of consensus input by other editors over the last many weeks. An evolving consensus on the RfC is to exclude mention of propylene glycol as undue.
Scientific and legal literature concerning propylene glycol (article link) placed on the talk page have been ignored by both users, without attempts to discuss or apply what any objective editor reading the sources would agree are authoritative.
Proposal: Because of Axad12's hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC, tag-team behavior with Graywalls on the Breyers article edits, canvassing each other on its talk page, and here, as another example, Axad12 and Graywalls should be A-banned from the Breyers article and its talk page.
- Support. Zefr (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You need to notify Graywalls of this discussion. I have done so for you. In the future, remember to do so yourself. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: I have reverted Zefr on 3 occasions on the Breyers article over the last few months. That was because the edits they had made were, at that time, contrary to talk page consensus. The fact that I had not contributed to the article is neither here nor there in that regard.
- I have not
ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate
, I have simply objected to Zefr's repeated attempts over a 3 month period to re-open a discussion where the consensus has always been against them. - Six different users have previously objected to the changes Zefr has been trying to make and that was clearly a majority of those who commented between August and December 2024.
- I accept that the current RfC is going Zefr's way, however that fact should not be used to reinterpret events over the last 4 months where Zefr has historically been in a small minority insufficient to claim a consensus in favour of the changes they wished to make.
- Also, the idea that I made a
hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC
is untrue. As I have pointed out above, my actions were in good faith and it can be seen that I immediately volunteered to revert my removal of the template if I received instruction from an admin to that effect. - I cannot see that I was ever canvassed to appear at the Breyers talk page, I arrived there entirely independently back in November having been aware of the ongoing situation re: the various COI edit requests because the COI edit request queue is the volunteer queue that I spend most of my time here working from. I've probably read pretty much every COI edit request that has been made on Misplaced Pages over the last 6 to 12 months and there are a small number of talk pages that I look at from time to time.
- Graywalls and I work on similar cases and sometimes we find ourselves working alongside each other, especially if material has been discussed at WP:COIN, but occasionally ending up in the same place and on the same side of an argument does not entail tagteaming. Axad12 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I was the one who suggested RfC in the first place. here, because I felt it was not a productive disagreement anymore. Leading up to the RfC, there was rough talk page consensus to include a mention pf propylene glycol, but if consensus in RfC determines that it should be left out, I have no intention of fighting it. Someone raised a concern there was only one source, so I added another source. Other than this, I've not really touched contentious parts of this article recently. I'm not sure why Axad12 removed the RfC and I can't speak for their actions, but the accusation of Tagteam is unwarranted. I've taken deferent steps to not continue to engage in back and forth edit warring and I'd like to believe that I'm approaching this the correct way. I do want to bring up concerns about Zefr's civility though. Please see User_talk:DMacks#Breyers_disruptive_editing for some concerns I raised. I also find leaving snarky comment about being a PhD student who disagreed on contents troubling Special:Diff/1261441062. @Aoidh: also felt Zefr was "weaponing" claims of edit warring to restore their "preferred version" earlier on in the dispute. Please see Special:Diff/1257252695 Graywalls (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I think you were correct to recommend an RFC. Hopefully the RFC will reach a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd just like to echo that sentiment. I'm all in favour of consensus.
- My position on this article hasn't been motivated by a partisan view on Propylene Glycol but has simply been in relation to serving the consensus position as it stood at the time. That is the approach I hope I adopt on all Misplaced Pages articles. If the consensus alters on this article (as seems likely) then I'll adopt the same approach in relation to serving the new consensus.
- My primary area of interest on this website is COI issues. I'm simply not interested in content disputes or in pushing any kind of POV on Misplaced Pages. I'm not the sort of user who flagrantly disregards a newly emerging consensus by editing contrary to the outcome of an RfC.
- I'd welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that going forwards (i.e. without an article ban). Axad12 (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The mention by Graywalls for an RfC on 27 Dec had no influence on the one existing. As an uncomplicated process, an editor truly sincere in having community input would have posed a simple objective question. Graywalls, why didn't you take 5 minutes and create the RfC question you wanted? What would have been your RfC question?
- Specifically for propylene glycol (you are still defending its use in the article by adding another garbage source yesterday - see comments about this book in the RfC):
what do you believe propylene glycol does in a frozen dessert and what would you prefer the article to say about propylene glycol? I have asked for this clarification on the talk page many times and in the DRN, but you ignored the opportunity to collaborate and clarify.
- Have you read the sources in this talk page topic?
- Your reverts in article history and combative talk page behavior over months revealed a persistent intent to disparage the Breyers article, focus on the "antifreeze" slur (mainly promoting this source), and restore a skeletal version having no sources more recent than 2018 here, after tag-teaming with Axad12 to do your bidding on 17 Nov. That version also has misinformation under the section 'Ice cream', falsely stating that Breyers changed their ice cream ingredients by using other additives, which in fact, were used to evolve a new category of frozen desserts not intended to be ice cream. I believe you know this, but you and Axad12 persisted to favor misinformation for the article.
- The RfC I provided came from steps in the lead of WP:RFC: 1) generally poor talk page progress, where one editor seeking facts verified by current sources was opposed by Graywalls, Adax12, and NutmegCoffeeTea, all defending a version including "antifreeze"; 2) an RSN post here where Graywalls argued that a web link by the Seattle PI made the Motley Fool article an RS; 3) initiate DRN for which Graywalls, Axad12, and NutmegCoffeeTea abstained from collaboration to improve the article; 4) providing a science- and law-based talk page topic on 19 Dec, which appears to be willfully ignored by Axad12 and Graywalls, who responded only with hostility and defiance against the facts; 5) seeking third opinions from admins, first by BD2412 (talk page on 29-30 Nov) and by DMacks on 27 Dec, resulting in verbose trolling by these two users. Axad12's response on 27 Dec was to revert constructive edits and tag-team with Graywalls.
- Axad12 and Graywalls should be ABANNED from the Breyers article for exhibiting 1) hostility on the talk page to good faith proposals for making the article better, and 2) persistence to perpetuate misinformation on propylene glycol. Simply, what history shows that either editor has tried to improve the Breyers article? Both users meet most of the definitions of WP:NOTHERE for the article, its talk page, and the RfC. Zefr (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Zefr, I've already indicated on several occasions that I welcome and support the developing new consensus. Graywalls has made a similar comment below. That being the case, I don't really see what purpose an article ban would be intended to serve.
- Admittedly there has been some quite heated disagreement over recent months, but it seems that we all now have the robust talkpage consensus that we were hoping for in one way or another and that all three of us are happy to move forward in support of that consensus.
- You were clearly in the minority for quite a long time and I can appreciate that you found that experience frustrating. However, to continue to make allegations above of bad faith, trolling, tagteaming, etc. about those who constituted the valid majority for several months is just an attempt to perpetuate strife on an issue which is now, as far as I can see, satisfactorily resolved. Axad12 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I think you were correct to recommend an RFC. Hopefully the RFC will reach a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Filed under: sometimes you hurt articles by treating COI editors as the enemy. The problem here is two users who should really know better edit-warring over the course of months to reinstate TikTok diet influencer silliness into a Misplaced Pages article, repeatedly reinstating WP:PROFRINGE content (implicitly, if not explicitly). We currently treat a little "avoid antifreeze" bubble in a diet book (which includes Breyers in a list of brands) and a book published by one of RFK Jr's antivax publishers as WP:DUE for including the insinuation that an FDA-approved and much-conspiratorialized additive is harmful. They've been repeatedly removed, but two editors keep putting them back, whether because of a misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS/WP:FRINGE or in pursuit of COI purification. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take your point but I think you're misjudging the situation somewhat. Prior to the opening of the current RfC it was approximately 6 or 7 users in favour of inclusion vs 3 or 4 favouring exclusion. I only reverted the attempts at exclusion because those attempts were contrary to the talk page consensus.
- I'm perfectly open to the suggestion that that consensus position was wrong but the simple fact of the matter was that there was at that time no consensus in favour of exclusion.
- It has only been in the last couple of days that the requesting editor has been able to demonstrate a consensus in favour of exclusion. And that's great, I have no problem with that at all. In fact I welcome it.
- My understanding is that editors wishing to make changes to article text should not do so if there is a consensus against what they are trying to do, and that under such circumstances an edit can be (indeed should be) reverted. If I'm mistaken on that score then I'm perfectly happy to take instruction. However, I really want to stress that my actions were based primarily upon that reasoning and were made in good faith. Axad12 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Axad12, you should not revert something because other editors want it to be reverted. You should only make content changes that you personally support. This is necessary for BRD to work. See WP:BRDREVERT for an explanation of why. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites:, the antifreeze matter is WP:DEADHORSE since I believe everyone's pretty much agreed it doesn't need to be in there. Zefr has taken issues with me, Axad12, NutMegCoffee and possibly some others. They've tried to get the article "set in place" to their preferred version, but that was declined admin Daniel Case who determined it to be content dispute Special:Diff/1260192461. Zefr inferring alleging I was
"uncooperative"not collaborating/cooperating in the way that he was hoping in DR, but I don't believe that to be so. There was nothing intentional on my part to not cooperate. I'll see if @Robert McClenon: would like to share their observation on that since they closed the dispute. - https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Breyers/Archive_2#c-Rusalkii-20240814014600-Inkian_Jason-20240801145900 here's another uninvolved editoring erring on the side of inclusion. A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus. Reading through the current plus the archived discussions, up until the RfC, the general consensus is in support of having PG mention and Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus. As I mentioned, if consensus changes with the RfC, I'm not opposed to going with that. Graywalls (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (adjusted Graywalls (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC))
- For the record, I never stated the word "uncooperative" at DRN or the Breyers talk page, but rather "non-collaborative", as discussed in the thread with Robert McClenon below.
- "Set in place to their preferred version" and "Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus" should be translated to using "facts verified by reliable sources", which is the simple goal for the Breyers article that Graywalls has obstructed over months.
- It's incredible that Graywalls says even today above, knowing the comments on the RfC and months of being presented with facts and sources about why propylene glycol is safely used in thousands of manufactured foods: "A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus."
- Here's your chance to tell everyone:
- Why do you feel propylene glycol was used in Breyers frozen desserts (in 2013, not since)? What concern do you have about it, and what government or scientific source says it's unsafe in the amounts regulated by federal laws? Give a sentence here that you think meets consensus and uses a reliable source. Zefr (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're right, you did not use that specific word. I've corrected my response due to wording. Graywalls (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
A Non-Mediator's Statement
I am not entirely sure why User:Graywalls has pinged me about this dispute, saying that I "closed this dispute". The accuracy of the statement that I "closed this dispute" depends on what is meant by "this dispute".
I closed the DRN thread, Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_252#Breyers, on 12 December. I obviously didn't resolve a dispute that has been continuing for another three weeks, and the claim that I closed the dispute looks to me like an attempt to confuse the jury. User:Zefr had opened the DRN thread on 3 December, complaining about the insertion of the word antifreeze and of the mention of propylene glycol. I was not entirely sure beyond the mention of antifreeze what the issues were. There were questions about what the procedure was for handling a one-against-many dispute; I think that Zefr was said to be the one. There was a long question that may have been about whether DRN is voluntary; DRN is voluntary. Then Zefr said that the case could be withdrawn because no one else was commenting. The disputants other than Zefr never did say exactly what the article content issues were, perhaps because they didn't want to discuss article content, and were not required to discuss article content. If anyone is implying that I resolved or settled anything, I have no idea what it was.
I see that the dispute either was continuing in other forums for three weeks, or has reopened. I see that User:Axad12 edit-warred to prevent an RFC from running, making vague but noisy statements about conflict of interest. I don't know who is said to be working for Unilever or for anyone else. It is clear that this dispute is longer on antagonism than on clarity. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon:, I pinged you, because I felt you'd be a good commentator to evaluate whether you also felt I was "not cooperative" in the process as Zefr says. I tried to participate, but it got closed shortly after I posted a comment in it. Graywalls (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Was that purposely mis-stated to be provocative and mislead the discussion here?
- I said you were non-collaborative, which describes your behavior throughout your editing history on the Breyers article, its talk page, and the DRN. You refused collaboration at DRN, which is the whole point of the process. DRN FAQ: "refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building."
- You were notified about the DRN on your talk page on 3 Dec, and you posted a general notice about it on the Breyers talk page on 6 Dec, so you were aware of the process, but ignored it. Meanwhile, your editing history over 6-12 Dec shows dozens of edits, including many on the Breyers talk page.
- You made no attempt to collaborate at DRN, posting only one off-topic comment on 12 Dec.
- I requested closure of the DRN on 12 Dec due to non-participation by you and the others. On 13 Dec, I notified the Breyers talk page of the DRN closure. cc: Robert McClenon. Zefr (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
A Possibly Requested Detail
Okay. If the question is specifically whether User:Graywalls was uncooperative at DRN, then I can state that they were not uncooperative and did not obstruct or disrupt DRN. Graywalls took very little part in the DRN proceeding before I closed it. They were not required to take part, although they say that they would have made a statement if the case had stayed open a little longer. The antagonism that I saw was between User:Zefr and User:Axad12, and I collapsed an exchange between them. I did not read what I am told were long previous discussions, because I expect the disputants at DRN to begin by telling me concisely what each of them wants to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Graywalls was not uncooperative at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. User:Zefr is making a slightly different statement, that User:Graywalls did not collaborate at DRN. That is correct. And I noted above that their mention that I had closed the dispute depended on what was meant by the "dispute". and looked like an attempt to confuse the jury. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon Zefr did not use the word uncooperative although did say uncollaborative and I used the two interchangeably in my ping. I did participate in it Special:Diff/1262763079. I haven't participated in DRN until that point, so I wasn't really sure how it worked. Graywalls (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The actual content that led to this dispute
Two month ago, Breyers included this shockingly bad content: As of 2014, some flavors of Breyer's ice cream contains propylene glycol as an additive. Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze and it is clear fluid made by "treating propylene with chlorinated water to form the chlorohydrin, which is then converted to the glycol, an alcohol, by treating it with a sodium carbonate solution." Propylene glycol is formulated into Breyer's fat-free and Carb Smart ice cream to make it easier to scoop.
The notion that an article about an ice cream company should include a detailed description of how a Generally recognized as safe food additive is manufactured is bizarre enough, as is the cherrypicked and glaringly misleading assertion about "antifreeze", but the reference used to support the Breyers claim was a book called Eat It to Beat It!: Banish Belly Fat-and Take Back Your Health-While Eating the Brand-Name Foods You Love! written by a quack/crank diet profiteer named David Zinczenko. I invite any editor to take a search engine look at Zinczenko's body of work, and come away with the conclusion that his writings are anything other than fringe and unreliable. Despite the glaringly obviously non-neutral and tendentious problems with this shockingly bad content, editors including most prominently Graywalls and Axad12 dug in their heels, fighting a reargard action for nearly two months, determined to make this mundane routine ice cream company look as bad as possible. Their self-justification seems to be that big bad corporations have no right whatsover to try to remove atrociously bad content about their products from Misplaced Pages, and that any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association. I am not an advocate for corporations per se, but I am an advocate for corporations being treated neutrally like all other topics, rather with disdain and contempt, which was the case here, as I see it. I do not know what the best outcome is here, but I certainly encourage these two editors to refrain from any other unjustified and poorly referenced anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- A striking and shocking aspect of this sordid situation is that two editors, Graywalls and Axad12 were able to concoct a false "consensus" supporting various versions of this garbage content. And then when another editor tried to start a RFC about the appallingly bad content, Axad12 tried over and over and over again to stop the RFC and defend the atrocious content rather than correcting it, aided and abetted by Graywalls. When the RFC actually went live, it soon became clear that many editors agreed that the content these two editors advocated for was utterly inappropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cullen,
- As per my comments above, my motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time. I did not
concoct
that consensus, at least 5 users other than me were against excluding the material. - I have never had any particularly strong opinion one way or the other on the content issue and I try as best as I can not to get involved in content disputes. I have not
dug in heels
or attempted to promote any kind of fringe opinion and nor have I engaged inanti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end
. - Similarly I do not hold the view that
any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association
, or any opinion even vaguely resembling that view. On the contrary, I have often implemented COI edit requests on behalf of corporations or have pointed out to corporate employees how such requests would need to be amended to conform with sourcing or other requirements. Repeatedly engaging in that activity would presumably make me veryevil
indeed, in my own eyes, if I held the view that you attribute to me. - I reverted the Breyer edits in good faith because there was no consensus in favour of them. If I was incorrect on a point of policy in that regard then fair enough, however please do not attempt to attribute to me sentiments which I do not harbour.
- Also, I did not attempt to stop the RfC
over and over and over again
. I removed the tag twice, then requested guidance from administrators and immediately replaced the tag when requested to do so. The tag was removed, in all, for a matter of minutes and had no meaningful impact on the progress of the RfC. I have accepted elsewhere that I now appreciate that the basis on which I removed the tag was inappropriate. I have also stated thatFrom my standpoint wasn't a process that I was familiar with - but I can see from the many excellent contributions here that this is the best way of resolving content disputes
. I have also stated that I welcome and support the new consensus. Axad12 (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , Axad12, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I
obviously dislike
Breyers or (their parent company) Unilever, or indeed that I consider either to beevil
? - To the best of my recollection, I've only ever made 3 mainspace edits to the Breyers article - each time on the stated basis in the edit summary that the edit I was reverting was contrary to consensus.
- I've re-read the extensive talk page discussions in recent days and I can only see that I ever commented on the COI angle and the nature of the consensus. Those comments were based on my understanding of policy at the time. I do not see
anti-corporate diatribes
or evidence that Iobviously dislike
Breyers or Unilever. - Indeed, I do not hold any particularly strong views on Breyers, Unilever or any other corporations. Axad12 (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I said, Axad12, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to Talk: Breyers to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- My activity on that talk page has solely been in relation to pointing out what I felt (rightly or wrongly) was a valid COI concern and observing that from Aug to Dec there has never been a consensus in favour of exclusion.
- Anything beyond that is simply you attributing motives that do not exist.
- I have never stated or implied that
a corporation does not deserve neutrality
and nor do I hold such a view. - I happily admit that I'm quite animated and enthusiastic about COI issues and reverting edits which appear to be contrary to consensus. With the benefit of hindsight probably I should have let go of those issues at an earlier stage and vacated the field for those who actually had an appetite to argue on content grounds.
- I'd also point out that for a significant part of the last 2 months I had actually unsubscribed from the relevant talkpage threads and only ended up getting involved again due to being summoned to the Dispute Resolution thread. If I had been
determined over the last two months to maintain various versions of biased non-neutral content
then hopefully it stands to reason that I would not have unsubscribed in that way - thus resulting in a situation where I was actually completely unaware of much of the talkpage and mainspace activity over the period that you refer to. Axad12 (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your
motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time
. You are also obligated to actually look at the disputed content and the sources supporting it. Why didn't you do that? Why were you unable to see what multiple editors in the RfC are commenting about? You shouldn't just blindly revert content like that, without taking a look for yourself to see if the complaint about the disputed content has any merit, like it being reliably sourced and due for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- That's a very fair question.
- The answer is that I was inclined to believe the opinions of editors much more experienced than myself who were against exclusion, particularly the editor who turned down the original COI edit request (whose work on COI edit requests I have the greatest of respect for).
- User Whatamidoing has already pointed out above that my error lay in accepting those users' opinions. I agree with Whatamidoing's observation there.
- I can only say that what I did was done in good faith based on my understanding of policy at the time. I now know where I erred (in several different ways) and I am glad to have received instruction in that regard.
- However, I really cannot accept the repeated suggestion that I vindictively masterminded a long anti-corporate campaign to keep bad material in an article. That suggestion is fundamentally not true. Axad12 (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I entirely accept that.
- For clarity, when I said
my understanding of policy at the time
I meant my understanding of policy at the time - I wasn't trying to suggest that the policy has changed since I made those edits. - What I am saying is that those edits were not made with malice, they were made because I accepted the opinions of other users more experienced than myself, opinions which I now know that I ought to have questioned. Axad12 (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I said earlier in this thread, I am 100% supportive of the new consensus in favour of excluding the previously disputed material.
- Virtually all of my time on Misplaced Pages is spent at COIN and dealing with COI edit requests. I'm not the sort of user who spends their time edit warring over POV fringe material and generally being disruptive.
- So, the last thing I would ever do is attempt to reinstall material where a very robust consensus at RfC has indicated that it should be excluded.
- I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that I can be trusted in that regard. Axad12 (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Judgement isn't about following consensus, it’s about making considered decisions. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, quite so. I have acknowledged my error in that regard in my first response to Isaidnoway, above, re: the very useful input I received from Whatamidoing. Axad12 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad, if I read what you wrote correctly, and please correct me if I misunderstand: I will stay away from that article because I support the current consensus. My concern is what if consensus was to shift on that article? TiggerJay (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies if my earlier response was unclear. My point was that I have absolutely no intention of edit warring over the previously disputed material (or any other material) so I don't see what purpose it would serve to ban me from the article.
- I have only ever made (to the best of my knowledge) 3 previous edits to the article (1 in November and 2 in December?). These were all on the basis of a misunderstanding on a point of policy which has been pointed out to me above and which I have happily acknowledged and accepted. The issue at stake was not that I harbour any partisan view in relation to the content dispute, it was that I edited to reflect the views of other editors whose opinions I respected on the matter in question.
- I do not see any reason for the community to anticipate that I would made a similar misunderstanding of policy going forwards.
- Hopefully this clarifies... Axad12 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Judgement isn't about following consensus, it’s about making considered decisions. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your
- As I said, Axad12, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to Talk: Breyers to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I
- Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , Axad12, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been expecting something to happen around User:Axad12, whom I ran into several months ago during a dispute at COIN. What I noticed back in October was that Axad12 seemed to be clerking the noticeboard, making prosecutorial noises, and sometimes unsupported accusations (ex:
...the existence of COI seems quite clear...
1,...in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest...
2,As I said, the fact that there was a significant undeclared conflict of interest in relation to editing on Paralympic Australia-related articles was demonstrated some years ago.
3) towards what they thought of as COI editors (this was about whether User:Hawkeye7 had failed to adequately announce their conflict with Paralympic Australia, where they've been openly helping as a volunteer on our community's behalf for many years, and after they had just made an almost invisible contribution on the Signpost). I often find such clerking of noticeboards by relatively unseasoned users to be troublesome; Axad12 has 490 edits at COIN, about 12% of their total 3801 edits (but about a third of the roughly 1500 edits total on COIN since September). If you use a hammer all day, you might begin to think that all objects are potentially nails. BusterD (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Rereading the discussion this morning 90 days later, it reads worse than I made it sound above. An uninvolved admin tried to close the thread and chastised Axad12 in that close. The OP asked the thread closure be reversed, so the close comments were moved down to the end of the thread. BusterD (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea for Axad12 to take a break from WP:COIN and associated matters and concentrate on other areas of Misplaced Pages for a few months. I was going to use a cliché here, but I see BusterD's already used it in the last sentence of the post before last, so won't. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only so many ways to screw in a lightbulb. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- In fairness, the overwhelming majority of my posts at COIN over the last year or so have been simple helpful contributions. The two matters discussed above were atypical and in both cases I've taken on board the advice I was given.
- If (per the figures above) I've been making about a third of all the contributions at COIN over that period then my behaviour would have been reported here long ago if I was either disruptive or incompetent.
- That said, I won't deny that I've been seriously considering retiring from Misplaced Pages over the last two months. The only reason I've not done so is because other users have specifically encouraged me to carry on because they value my work at COIN and on COI issues generally.
- All I can say is that what I have done, I have done in good faith and when I have occasionally erred I have learned lessons. I have acknowledged above that I've made mistakes and I'm grateful to those who have given me advice. Axad12 (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've been reported here now. Over stuff that's current, and applicable. In that matter, you seemed to believe your expertise in COI matters allows you to decide what constitutes a valid RFC. That seems like a problem to me. I'm providing evidence on related behavioral matters. Having made one third of all recent edits on a noticeboard is not the high achievement you might think it is. Stay or retire, but learn to better assume good faith here, even when dealing with COI contributors. Most accounts are fine. You've been working in a narrow area where you deal with many bad faith users. I can understand why that might wear on any editor. The proof will be if you can incorporate these valid complaints into your future action. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Buster, I know that we've had crossed words in the past so I'm grateful for your understanding and your measured response above. Yes, I deal with many bad faith users and yes it does wear on me sometimes.
- I don't claim any great expertise in COI matters but I do have the time to dedicate to the project and I've picked up a decent awareness of the methods that can be used to detect and prevent UPE/PROMO etc activity.
- I believe that in the past when I've been given advice on points of policy I've taken that advice on board and would hope to continue to do so in the future. Axad12 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This comment is not about you, but you might be interested in it: I've been thinking for years that a rotating duty system might be helpful. Of course we're all WP:VOLUNTEERS, but we might be less stressed, and get more representative results, if we each spent a week at ANI and a month at RSN and a week at CCI each year than if one editor spends all year at ANI and another spends all year at RSN (and nobody is at CCI – anyone who is looking for an opportunity to deal with really serious problems should please consider spending some time at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations. The few regulars there will be so grateful, and who knows? You might find that you like it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've been reported here now. Over stuff that's current, and applicable. In that matter, you seemed to believe your expertise in COI matters allows you to decide what constitutes a valid RFC. That seems like a problem to me. I'm providing evidence on related behavioral matters. Having made one third of all recent edits on a noticeboard is not the high achievement you might think it is. Stay or retire, but learn to better assume good faith here, even when dealing with COI contributors. Most accounts are fine. You've been working in a narrow area where you deal with many bad faith users. I can understand why that might wear on any editor. The proof will be if you can incorporate these valid complaints into your future action. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only so many ways to screw in a lightbulb. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea for Axad12 to take a break from WP:COIN and associated matters and concentrate on other areas of Misplaced Pages for a few months. I was going to use a cliché here, but I see BusterD's already used it in the last sentence of the post before last, so won't. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rereading the discussion this morning 90 days later, it reads worse than I made it sound above. An uninvolved admin tried to close the thread and chastised Axad12 in that close. The OP asked the thread closure be reversed, so the close comments were moved down to the end of the thread. BusterD (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do think that it's worth zooming out and looking at the article as a whole. Comparing the version from before the current rewrites started to the current version makes it obvious that the tone of the article has become vastly more promotional, with much more focus on glowy feel-good aspects that are only mentioned in lower-quality sources (the story about the original creator hand-churning it?) And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) to the weird
In 2013, Breyers introduced frozen desserts made with food additives (section above) that were intended to create smooth, low-calorie products. However, the new desserts evoked complaints by some consumers who were accustomed to the traditional "all-natural" Breyers ice cream.
, which 100% reads like marketing-speak (downplaying the reaction by making it sound like it's just that people loved the old version so much. In fact, the current version doesn't mention Breyer's cost-cutting measures at all, even though it's a massive aspect of coverage.) That doesn't necessarily justify the version above, but it's important to remember that this was originally a one-word mention in a larger list -Following similar practices by several of their competitors, Breyers' list of ingredients has expanded to include thickeners, low-cost sweeteners, food coloring and low-cost additives — including natural additives such as tara gum and carob bean gum; artificial additives such as maltodextrin and propylene glycol; and common artificially separated and extracted ingredients such as corn syrup, whey, and others
, the longstanding wording, is not unreasonable and doesn't really imply that there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol, just that it's an additive. I think the context of that larger shift to a much more promotional tone to the article is significant (and looking over talk, most of the actual dispute has focused on that.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- I agree that the longstanding wording doesn't really imply there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol. But the source being used doesn't even mention "maltodextrin and propylene glycol", that I can find, so those two particular additives were not even verifiable at the time. And then propylene glycol was removed, and when it was added back here as "a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze", was really when this dispute seem to take a turn for the worse to keep this content in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aquillion, about this And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) – I don't know what other sources say, but the cited sources don't say that at all. The cited sources are both from Canadian dairy farmers' marketing associations, saying that their product is good and costs more than imported oils, but doesn't actually WP:Directly support a claim that Breyers uses imported oils, or that Breyers has done anything to cut their costs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- (As this is strictly a question of content, please consider replying at Talk:Breyers instead of here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aquillion, WhatamIdoing, and Isaidnoway: would you all mind if I copy over the thread, starting at Aquillion's "I do think that...." over to Breyer's talk? Graywalls (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't mind, but my contribution to this thread is relatively minor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aquillion, WhatamIdoing, and Isaidnoway: would you all mind if I copy over the thread, starting at Aquillion's "I do think that...." over to Breyer's talk? Graywalls (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- (As this is strictly a question of content, please consider replying at Talk:Breyers instead of here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aquillion, about this And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) – I don't know what other sources say, but the cited sources don't say that at all. The cited sources are both from Canadian dairy farmers' marketing associations, saying that their product is good and costs more than imported oils, but doesn't actually WP:Directly support a claim that Breyers uses imported oils, or that Breyers has done anything to cut their costs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that the longstanding wording doesn't really imply there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol. But the source being used doesn't even mention "maltodextrin and propylene glycol", that I can find, so those two particular additives were not even verifiable at the time. And then propylene glycol was removed, and when it was added back here as "a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze", was really when this dispute seem to take a turn for the worse to keep this content in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, and a Diddly Question
I would like to thank User:Cullen328 for providing the background and content information. I also have a possibly minor question for User:Axad12. They edit-warred to try to stop the RFC on the content, and said that there was an exceptionally serious abuse
of the conflict of interest process. I may not have done enough background research, but I don't see where they have identified who has been the paid editor or undisclosed paid editor, or what the conflict of interest content is. If there has been paid editing, who has done it, and have they been dealt with? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert, probably the best single overview of the COI issue is given in this post .
- My impression at the time of the events, and subsequently, was that the activity was designed to distort the COI edit request process. I still feel that what happened re: the COI edit requests was irregular but I note that no other user seems to have supported me in that regard so I've not taken the matter any further. Similarly, while I felt that those events had a bearing on the RfC I now accept that the RfC relates solely to the content matter specifically under discussion. Axad12 (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find your characterization of events inaccurate. You stated "we have the resubmission of the request to remove the disputed material in a COI edit request thread here "
- But this was not a resubmission. The original COI request was to remove a list of ingredients (including propylene glycol) which was sourced to a blog and which the COI editor says is outdated and doesn't reflect current ingredients. Meanwhile, the link you give as an example of "resubmission" was the COI editor requesting the removal of "the recent content addition related to propylene glycol". Both requests involve propylene glycol, but they are clearly separate requests concerning separate content.
- We want COI editors to propose changes to talk pages. The fact that this COI editor, apparently frustrated by a lack of responses to their requests went to the Food and Drink Wikiproject to request someone look at their edits, and then went to an active participant of said Wikiproject and requested they look at their requests, is not suspicious or abnormal. And I think it's highly inappropriate how Axad12 argued at length on the talk page that User:Zefr was "cultivated" by the COI editor "to do their bidding". I support other editors in recommending Axad12 take a break from COI issues. Photos of Japan (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd just like to stress here that I only linked to my post above because Robert McClenon asked for the background to the COI element. I was not trying to re-open that issue or to request that any action be taken on that issue. I have already accepted that there is absolutely no support for the position I adopted there. Axad12 (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't answer my question. The link is to a conversation between User:Axad12, User:Graywalls, and administrator User:DMacks. The links from that conversation show that there is antagonism between Axad12 and Graywalls on the one hand and User:Zefr on the other hand. They show that there is discussion of conflict of interest, but they show no direct evidence of conflict of interest editing by any editor. They don't answer who is said to be a paid editor making edit requests, aside from the fact that paid editors are supposed to make edit requests rather than editing directly, so I am still not sure what the issue is. I haven't seen any evidence of abuse, let alone of
exceptionally serious abuse
that warranted edit-warring to prevent an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- The paid editor is User:Inkian Jason who is open and transparent about their COI. The edit request which began this episode was when Inkian Jason began this discussion where they pinged User:Zefr about having uploaded a photo of the company's logo and asking if they would be willing to add it to the article. Secondary to that they also asked about the appropriateness of the recently added propylene glycol content. The COI issues centered around whether Inkian Jason "cultivated" Zefr by pinging him to remove the added propylene glycol text after they had previously requested the deletion of a sentence about the various ingredients used in the ice cream (which included propylene glycol). Photos of Japan (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal 2: Article Ban of Axad12 from Breyers
(Proposal 1 has been lost up in the early postings.) I propose that User:Axad12 be article-banned from Breyers and Talk:Breyers for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert, I believe I have acknowledged and accepted my various errors in some detail above. I would be grateful for the opportunity to take on board and apply the very valuable input I have received from various more experienced users over the course of this thread. I'd therefore suggest a counter-proposal, that I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr and refrain from making any future comment on the matters under discussion in this thread (once this thread is complete). In addition, if I go back on any of those voluntary undertakings I would be happy for it to be upon pain of an indefinite site ban. Axad12 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad12, I wonder what your intent is with your counterproposal. Robert McClenon has proposed an article ban for 6 months. Your counterproposal is, in effect, an indefinite article ban, an I-ban with Zefr, and a topic ban on the topic of propylene glycol in Byers, all without the usual escalating blocks for violations, instead jumping straight to an indef. While this would solve the issue, it's much more draconian. What's your reasoning for requesting harsher restrictions? EducatedRedneck (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The purpose of the counter proposal was simply to indicate that I have only good intentions going forwards and I am happy to demonstrate those intentions upon pain of the strongest possible sanction. Evidently I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking, as I'm aware that eyes will understandably be upon me going forwards.
- As I've said before, I'm a good faith user and I'm amenable to taking instruction when I have erred. I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that without being subject to a formal ban. Axad12 (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fail to see a distinction between what you proposed and a formal ban. Your proposal is on
pain of an indefinite site ban
. "A rose by any other name" comes to mind here. Your voluntary adherence to the terms of the proposal would be indistinguishable from being compelled into adherence by threat of an indef. If you still want this course of action, fair enough, I just don't think it'll do what you're envisioning. EducatedRedneck (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fail to see a distinction between what you proposed and a formal ban. Your proposal is on
- I really don't recommend that, Axad. Sure, take a break from that article if you want to. But it's really easy to forget about a dispute years later, or even for a company to change names and suddenly you're on that article without knowing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- For clarification, I would be happy to undertake voluntarily any measures that the community may suggest and upon pain of any sanction that the community may suggest. I believe that there is value to undertaking such measures voluntarily because it allows one to demonstrate that one can be trusted.
- Also just a brief note to say that in about an hour and a quarter's time I will have no internet access for the next 12-14 hours. Any lack of response during that period will simply be for that reason and not due to a wilful refusal to communicate. Hopefully I have indicated above that I have been happy to respond to all questions.
- No doubt matters will progress in my absence and I will find out my fate upon my return. Axad12 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad12, I wonder what your intent is with your counterproposal. Robert McClenon has proposed an article ban for 6 months. Your counterproposal is, in effect, an indefinite article ban, an I-ban with Zefr, and a topic ban on the topic of propylene glycol in Byers, all without the usual escalating blocks for violations, instead jumping straight to an indef. While this would solve the issue, it's much more draconian. What's your reasoning for requesting harsher restrictions? EducatedRedneck (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert, I believe I have acknowledged and accepted my various errors in some detail above. I would be grateful for the opportunity to take on board and apply the very valuable input I have received from various more experienced users over the course of this thread. I'd therefore suggest a counter-proposal, that I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr and refrain from making any future comment on the matters under discussion in this thread (once this thread is complete). In addition, if I go back on any of those voluntary undertakings I would be happy for it to be upon pain of an indefinite site ban. Axad12 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as less stringent than what Axad has proposed above within this section, but still prevents further disruption. EducatedRedneck (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose because Axad12 seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. Cullen328 (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. I also oppose Axad12's counter proposal. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Given Cullen328's comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN
Clerking at COIN seems to have given User:Axad12 the idea that everyone whom they don't know is probably a paid editor, and something has given them the idea that they can identify "exceptionally serious abuse" without providing direct evidence. I propose that User:Axad12 be article-banned from WP:COIN for two months. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert, just a brief note to say that I do not believe that
everyone whom don't know is probably a paid editor
. The overwhelming majority of my contributions at COIN are simple constructive contributions and the matter described above is highly atypical. Axad12 (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert, just a brief note to say that I do not believe that
- Oppose because Axad12 seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. Cullen328 (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Given Cullen328's comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Complaint against User:GiantSnowman
There is no merit to the report against GiantSnowman. There is a rough consensus against, or at the very least no consensus for action toward Footballnerd2007 based on the mentorship proposal put forth and accepted and no further action is needed here. Star Mississippi 02:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 | This complaint has been withdrawn.See #Response from Footballnerd2007 below. |
Good Morning,
I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against User:GiantSnowman for repeated violations of Misplaced Pages's policies on personal attacks (WP:NPA) and casting aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS) during a recent discussion.
Throughout the interaction, GiantSnowman has engaged in behavior that appears to contravene Misplaced Pages's behavioral guidelines, including but not limited to:
Casting aspersions without evidence:
- GiantSnowman repeatedly accused me of engaging in disruptive behavior, suggesting ulterior motives without providing any verifiable evidence.
- For instance, accusations of using ChatGPT to generate responses without concrete proof.
- Statements like “You are a liar and cannot be trusted” and other similar assertions lack civility and violate the principle of Assume Good Faith.
Aggressive tone and unwarranted accusations:
- The user's tone throughout the discussion has been hostile, escalating to direct personal attacks:
- Referring to me as a “liar” multiple times.
- Suggesting that I have been “deliberately disruptive” without presenting any factual basis.
Violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:ENCOURAGE:
- Misplaced Pages encourages editors to respond constructively to newcomers' efforts. However, GiantSnowman’s behavior has been dismissive and accusatory, discouraging participation and creating a hostile editing environment.
As an administrator, GiantSnowman is expected to set an example by adhering to Misplaced Pages's behavioral policies and fostering a collaborative environment. However, their actions in this instance fall far short of the standards expected of administrators, which further exacerbates the seriousness of this issue.
I understand that discussions can sometimes be contentious, but I believe there is no justification for violating WP:NPA or WP:ASPERSIONS. I respectfully request that administrators review the linked discussion and take appropriate action to address this behavior.
If any additional information or clarification is needed, I am happy to provide it. My intent is to ensure a respectful and collaborative editing environment for all Misplaced Pages contributors.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion I raised was at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Footballnerd2007, now closed. I raised concerns about this editor, who has (in brief) - undertake botched and inappropriate RM closures; re-factored other editor's talk page posts; randomly nominated another user with whom they have never interacted before for RFA; and messing with my user space draft. None of that was the conduct of a new editor here to learn the ropes, and I wanted a second pair of eyes.
- In the course of that discussion, it became highly suspect to multiple users that this user has been editing with LLM. They denied using Chat GPT and, when questioned further, refused to answer. That is why I said this user is a liar and cannot be trusted, and I stand by that assertion. GiantSnowman 12:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging other editors who were involved in that ANI discussion or have posted concerns/advice on this user's talk page - @Liz, Voorts, Folly Mox, Tiggerjay, Extraordinary Writ, Tarlby, The Bushranger, Thebiguglyalien, and Cyberdog958: - think that is everyone, apologies if not. GiantSnowman 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your speedy response. Now let other admins add their point of view. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the closed section above - which was closed for a very good reason - I'd suggest that coming back to this page to complain and using an LLM to do it is a spectacularly bad idea. The community only has limited patience when dealing with editors who are causing timesinks for other edits, and I suspect that the section above was your limit. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- FTR a fellow administrator encouraged me to launch a complaint if I felt I was treated unfairly and told me what grounds I have to complain. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BOOMERANG is worth reviewing. It may already be too late for you to withdraw your complaint, but it's probably worth an attempt. --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- FTR a fellow administrator encouraged me to launch a complaint if I felt I was treated unfairly and told me what grounds I have to complain. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Please, any passing uninvolved admin, block the OP now. Not least for using an LLM to generate a complaint that someone accused them of using ChatGPT to generate responses. Enough of our time has been wasted. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, this is mere conjecture. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Continuing to deny the obvious - especially when Tarlby ran your posts through multiple LLM checkers - is really not helping your case. For me, it shows you are not here in good faith and that you absolutely cannot be trusted. GiantSnowman 12:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it's called people have eyes. Using LLMs this way is highly disrespectful and frankly disruptive. Boomerang block for WP:NOTHERE seems appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Responding to the ping, invovled) My perspective regarding LLM has been it really doesn't matter (to me) if you're using various technology tools constructively, such as a spell checker or grammar checker might have been viewed two decades ago. However, what really matter is how those tools are used and being responsible for how they're used. This editor has been evasive in their conversations and generally disruptive demonstrating WP:NOTHERE behavior by very peculiar / suspicious WP:Wikilawyering I've only seen in clear LLM cases. Yet, there is no point in bludgeoning to what degree, if any, an LLM is playing here, but because this is a clear example of WP:NOTHERE and failure to follow WP:PG despite many attempts to bring them to this users attention. TiggerJay (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- +1 to Phil Bridger. What struck me in the prior thread, over and over again, was how repeatedly evasive he was. "I have repeatedly denied using ChatGPT..." "I never made any comment about LLMs in general." "I have no explanation." "Again, that's conjecture. I just choose my words very carefully." "Which AI detectors are you using?" "The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively." And so on, and so on, and so on. Footballnerd2007 has been given chance after chance to answer plainly, without Wikilawyering or weasel-wording, and has instead stuck to the tactic of deflect, deflect, deflect. I don't know where Footballnerd2007 got the notion that the Fifth Amendment was the law of the land on Misplaced Pages, and that no boomerang can touch him as long as he admits to nothing. Let's just disabuse him of the notion. Ravenswing 12:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, this is mere conjecture. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Retaliatory BS; this should be closed immediately. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
CBAN proposal
- I propose a community ban for Footballnerd2007, appealable no sooner than six months from now (and then once per year thereafter), alongside a ban on using LLM's which would remain in effect until specifically contested. At the time of writing, Footballnerd2007 has only 142 edits, a significant number of which are right here at WP:ANI. They are clearly a massive WP:NOTHERE time sink. I urged Footballnerd2007 to withdraw this complaint and warned about WP:BOOMERANG and that clearly didn't land. I think it's time for everyone else to get back to regular editing. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, obviously. The more they have responded, the stronger my concerns have grown. GiantSnowman 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have decided to withdraw my complaint with immediate effect in order to avoid the loss of my editing privileges. I'm going to write a long piece (without using LLM) explaining my actions later when I have time. I'm sorry for any disruption caused, I have always acted in good faith. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Demonstrably not, when you've been dodging all along the question of whether you've been using LLMs, and only now -- when the tide is running against you -- stating that at last you'll respond at length without? Ravenswing 13:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- FN2007 claims to be a new editor, and to have spent a significant amount of time reading Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines etc. If so, they will have known not to re-factor other user's talk page posts, but they did that anyway. That cannot be good faith editing. GiantSnowman 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll respond to this in depth later today. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I concede that I've been backed into a corner and now I need to do the right thing, stop with the defensive act and own up to my mistakes which I'll do in my statement later this afternoon. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you only need to so the right thing after being backed into a corner? I think we can do without such editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I had my legal head on with the philosophy "defend until you can no more" - I now concede on reflection this is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages and that my actions were not the right way to go and for that I will take full responsibility in my statement. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you only need to so the right thing after being backed into a corner? I think we can do without such editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- FN2007 claims to be a new editor, and to have spent a significant amount of time reading Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines etc. If so, they will have known not to re-factor other user's talk page posts, but they did that anyway. That cannot be good faith editing. GiantSnowman 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's too late to withdraw now. You have to take responsibility for your behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Demonstrably not, when you've been dodging all along the question of whether you've been using LLMs, and only now -- when the tide is running against you -- stating that at last you'll respond at length without? Ravenswing 13:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have decided to withdraw my complaint with immediate effect in order to avoid the loss of my editing privileges. I'm going to write a long piece (without using LLM) explaining my actions later when I have time. I'm sorry for any disruption caused, I have always acted in good faith. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
Support- on top of what's been posted on this thread, FN2007 has wiped their talk page by archiving without a link to the archive on the fresh talk page, without responding to Liz's advice. They also edited other people's comments to add things they didn't say when closing a RM discussion, and haven't responded when I pointed this out. These things alongside their LLM use (and subsequent wikilawyering "technically I only said I didn't use ChatGPT" responses), refusal to listen to good advice, and everything else in this topic, I think a community ban would be a good idea. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Update - striking support for cban, I think footballnerd's recent responses and CNC's offer of mentorship indicate that we may be able to avoid it. BugGhost 🦗👻 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- The archiving of talk page was an attempt to "wipe the slate clean" and move on, I didn't see how I could reply to the advice constructively. As for the wikilawyering, again I concede that I was out of order and that I did use AI assistance to write my complaint which was unwise. I do however, maintain that I did not lie as my comments about using ChatGPT were accurate, however this was using technicalities and involved me being rather economical with the truth. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You could have simply said "thank you Liz for the advice". And if you 'wanted to wipe the slate clean', why did you start this new thread? GiantSnowman 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will go back and thank her for that. Because I had been advised that your actions could have violated WP policy and thought it would be a good way to deflect the blame, in heinsight it was absolutely the wrong course of action. I would like to draw a line under this whole sorry situation and move on with the reason that I joined once my statement has been published and the subsequent discussion has concluded. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You could have simply said "thank you Liz for the advice". And if you 'wanted to wipe the slate clean', why did you start this new thread? GiantSnowman 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (another (edit conflict) To clarify, I don't think Footballnerd is doing anything malicious or deliberately trying to time-waste. I think they are a misguided new bold editor who unfortunately doesn't listen to advice and is stubborn to self-reflect. If this cban goes ahead I urge them to appeal in 6 months with a better understanding of how wikipedia works, with a more cautious editing style and more acceptance of community opinions. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not being malicious, there was only one motivation for my actions - wanting to help.
- My comments on this and the above thread have been ill judged.
- As for the ban, I'd like to ask that I be spared at this moment in time in view of my above comments and the concession statement that I will be posting when I return home. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to be spending a lot of time/making a lot of posts saying "full statement to come!", rather than actually making that statement... GiantSnowman 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because I'm posting from my phone and I'm not at home. When I return to my PC later today I'll make the statement. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to be spending a lot of time/making a lot of posts saying "full statement to come!", rather than actually making that statement... GiantSnowman 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The archiving of talk page was an attempt to "wipe the slate clean" and move on, I didn't see how I could reply to the advice constructively. As for the wikilawyering, again I concede that I was out of order and that I did use AI assistance to write my complaint which was unwise. I do however, maintain that I did not lie as my comments about using ChatGPT were accurate, however this was using technicalities and involved me being rather economical with the truth. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN.Using a chatbot to generate discussion then denying it when called out is already deeply contemptuous. Turning around and filing a chatbot generated revenge report for people not believing your lies about not using a chatbot? Words fail. Folly Mox (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) edited 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC); see below.- FTR I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT but I admit that I was somewhat economical with the truth and am guilty of wikilawyering - overlap of my professional life. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are still not clearly and unequivocally admitting what you did. GiantSnowman 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What you want me to admit? I admitted using AI but not ChatGPT and tried to use wikilawyering to get away from this. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless I missed something, that was your first clear admission of using AI. Your earlier comment of "I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT" is not the same. GiantSnowman 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't use a Chatbot form of AI nor did I use ChatGPT but I did use AI assistance (which I didn't deny). So to be unequivocally clear - I never lied but was economical with the truth, I am guilty of 'wikilawyering' and I did deploy the assistance of Artificial Intelligence on a handful of occasion. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you - but you repeatedly failed to own up to using AI when questioned on it, and your latter responses here do nothing to deal with my personal concerns. GiantSnowman 14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I admit that I did, I just saw the line of "I didn't use ChatGPT" as an easy 'get out of jail card'. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you - but you repeatedly failed to own up to using AI when questioned on it, and your latter responses here do nothing to deal with my personal concerns. GiantSnowman 14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't use a Chatbot form of AI nor did I use ChatGPT but I did use AI assistance (which I didn't deny). So to be unequivocally clear - I never lied but was economical with the truth, I am guilty of 'wikilawyering' and I did deploy the assistance of Artificial Intelligence on a handful of occasion. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless I missed something, that was your first clear admission of using AI. Your earlier comment of "I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT" is not the same. GiantSnowman 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What you want me to admit? I admitted using AI but not ChatGPT and tried to use wikilawyering to get away from this. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- While that might be technically accurate when you answered that you did not use Chat-GPT, you were intentionally being deceptive in your answers multiple times. It might be slightly different if you were asked specifically about Chat-GPT, however multiple times you were specifically asked about the broad term of LLM. Your current claim of,
never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT
, falls on deaf ears because it is clear that you were dodging the questions, and indeed intentionally addressed only Chat-GPT for the purpose of deception instead of honesty. TiggerJay (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- Soft-struck prior comment because now I see you have admitted to such activity prior to my comment above. TiggerJay (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are still not clearly and unequivocally admitting what you did. GiantSnowman 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: for Folly Mox, just to inform you there is a #MENTOR proposal that you may not have seen. I was about to send generic pings to !voters of this section, but it appears all other editors are aware of this proposal already (or voted afterwards at least). This isn't intended to influence your decision, only to provide you updated information. CNC (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (responding to ping) Withdrawing support for CBAN in light of candid owning up to misbehaviour combined with acceptance of mentorship by CommunityNotesContributor (thanks for the ping: I've been offwiki).@Footballnerd2007: I'm sure the point has got across, but please respect your colleagues here. Using an LLM (of any brand) in discussions is disrespectful of our time; assuming we won't notice is disrespectful of our competence. Please engage with the spirit of other people's communications, rather than with the precise words chosen. Misplaced Pages is very much unlike a courtroom: we're here to work together on a shared project, not to win arguments against each other. I look forward to your earnest acculturation. Folly Mox (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- FTR I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT but I admit that I was somewhat economical with the truth and am guilty of wikilawyering - overlap of my professional life. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, obviously. The more they have responded, the stronger my concerns have grown. GiantSnowman 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Support as this behavior is clearly WP:NOTHERE.Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- Support CBAN as this editor has caused a monumental waste of the volunteer time of other editors, which is our most precious commodity. This is an encyclopedia, not a robot debating society. Cullen328 (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. First choice would be an indefinite block. Despite the user's sudden acts of contrition, I don't trust them. I don't see them as an asset to the project. As for their recent statement that some think is AI-generated, my guess is it's a mixture, maybe we should call it AI-assisted. However, I wouldn't support an indefinite block if it were just that. What preceded the complaint by GS and their conduct at ANI was egregiously disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I say give them some rope. There is good discussion going on below, and I don't think anything is gained by blocking an editor who does at times add value. We can always revisit this later - and presumably the action would then be quick and obvious. BTW, I thought we all used AI to some extent - certainly when I misspell words like "certainyl" I then accept the AI in chrome changing the spelling. Or even improving the grammar if I turn on those options. Also User:GiantSnowman's numerous draft articles in his userspace always confounds me. I've asked them before to write these articles in draft-space where there can be a collaborative effort, rather than their userspace where they won't let anyone else edit. Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Haven't voted in this proposal yet, am abstaining for now per trying to avoid advocacy as potential mentor. The two points I will however question is: would a CBAN solve these issues or postpone them until a later date? Would a 1–2 month mentorship more likely bring about the results of reform or failure much sooner? If we want to talk about WP:WASTEOFTIME as we have do so, it might be worth considering the time wasted in not mentoring a newish editor into the folds of the encyclopedia. CNC (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nfitz - that is a nonsense, editors can and do edit my user drafts whenever they want. My issue was with them moving one into mainspace. GiantSnowman 16:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: CommunityNotesContributor has offered to mentor him, and the mentoring conditions have been accepted. Let's see what comes of that, and we can always revisit the subject of a ban after CNC reports back. Ravenswing 04:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - A mentor has been provided. EF 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support mentorship offered below by CNC, but I still have significant concerns, which I expressed after FBN's response below. TiggerJay (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as too soon. An alternative for mentoring was proffered instead. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
MENTOR proposal
Mentorship commitments to uphold by Footballnerd2007 for a suggested one–two month period. Mentor: CommunityNotesContributor.
- Abide by all policies and guidelines and listen to advise given to you by other editors.
- No page moves (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval from mentor.
- No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it.
- No more dishonesty, being evasive, or using AI of any kind in discussions due to laziness.
- Avoid commenting on all admin noticeboards (unless summoned). If there is a problem, seek advise from mentor.
- Avoid reverting other editors (either manually, part or in full), unless obvious vandalism.
This goes a bit beyond original requirements, and the last two are effectively preventative measures to try and avoid problems arising. An editor involved exclusively on footy articles has limited to no need for involvement in admin noticeboards. CNC (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree to those principles and am grateful for the mentorship opportunity! Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the statement below, I'm happy to support a mentoring process rather than a CBAN. GiantSnowman 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe you could edit your !vote above to avoid any confusion for other editors. CNC (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I won't, because I'm also still not 'off' the CBAN. GiantSnowman 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My bad, misunderstood your original phrasing. CNC (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No bad - let me rephrase if that helps. I am not opposed to mentoring in place of the current CBAN proposal. GiantSnowman 18:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My bad, misunderstood your original phrasing. CNC (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I won't, because I'm also still not 'off' the CBAN. GiantSnowman 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe you could edit your !vote above to avoid any confusion for other editors. CNC (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the statement below, I'm happy to support a mentoring process rather than a CBAN. GiantSnowman 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion
- Going to chime in here as someone involved in footy related articles. I've reviewed some of the editors contributions, and despite all the issues raised in this topic that are very problematic, the user has seemingly made good contributions to football related articles. I otherwise don't doubt that the user previously edited with an IP (I'm pretty sure which IP this is based on edit histories, but assuming good faith it's not part of this topic and not relevant either so won't bother referencing). I only state this to deflect from suggestions that this editor could be a sockpuppet, as I strongly don't believe to be the case, instead I suspect about 18 months of low-key editing experience up until now. It's therefore a great shame FN2007 went down this road, even if appears to have now retracted the original complaint. Hopefully they can take on board the requests to avoid controversial edits, especially at other user talkpages and such. I'd like to think this is a case of a user trying to run before they can walk, and if they now pace themselves it could work out in the long-term, but alas the damage has also already been done here it seems. Also as a personal suggestion to the editor, if you're here for football articles, then you should be aiming to stay well away from admin noticeboards as they will rarely ever concern you. Generally there should be relatively low controversy editing football articles, even if most remain contentious topics as BLP. So if football is your editing remit here, you're doing it very badly by ending up at a noticeboard, equally so by opening this topic, even with your good contributions. I am therefore reluctantly offering to act as a WP:MENTOR, if the user can commit to the general policy and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, in the hope of not losing a participant in the under edited area of women's football articles. CNC (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the olive branch. I can confirm that the IP that you've alluded to is mine. I pledge to commit to policy guidelines and am willing to help in the area of women's football. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- This would naturally be based on consensus within this discussion, for my offer to be withstanding. That would include needing to turn the tide away from the CBAN proposal. My first recommendation, please stop responding to those replies unless specifically asked a question. Generally, reduce the number of comments and replies here. Editors are posting their opinion or !vote, but this isn't directed at you, even if it's about you. Secondly, the recommended conditions in my opinion would be 1. No page moves for one/two months (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval. 2. No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it... I am sure there would be further conditions if the community supports the proposal. CNC (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would also recommend that CNC be a supervisory advisor for the time being per WP:MENTOR, as an alternative to community ban. Of course, this will have to be okay with CNC and Football Nerd. Reader of Information (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's definitely OK with me. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mainly just everyone else at this point it seems. CNC (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should I ping? Reader of Information (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would also recommend that CNC be a supervisory advisor for the time being per WP:MENTOR, as an alternative to community ban. Of course, this will have to be okay with CNC and Football Nerd. Reader of Information (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- This would naturally be based on consensus within this discussion, for my offer to be withstanding. That would include needing to turn the tide away from the CBAN proposal. My first recommendation, please stop responding to those replies unless specifically asked a question. Generally, reduce the number of comments and replies here. Editors are posting their opinion or !vote, but this isn't directed at you, even if it's about you. Secondly, the recommended conditions in my opinion would be 1. No page moves for one/two months (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval. 2. No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it... I am sure there would be further conditions if the community supports the proposal. CNC (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I gladly and humbly accept your mentorship offer. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, this would be a WP:LASTCHANCE offer, nothing more than that. Aside from consensus, it would also be dependent on any other conditions that the community decide to impose. CNC (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the olive branch. I can confirm that the IP that you've alluded to is mine. I pledge to commit to policy guidelines and am willing to help in the area of women's football. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Completely not related but wanting to chime in.
- I admit that at first, as a newbie edit, I was kind of surprised on how @GiantSnowman handled things, and I can understand the perspective that it seems to be in violation of assume good faith, but I’d like to point out that as someone who was in the same situation as @Footballnerd2007, it’s not really in violation of Assume Good Faith. He just is very organized but tries his best to help others. Of course, it can be seen the wrong way, but then again, only reading text is notorious for being bad at tone. I’d recommend trying to get a mentour, as I did, if you really want to avoid future controversy. I’d recommend FootballNerd to take up CNC’s mentorship offer. Reader of Information (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Furthermore, no one is perfect. Try asking for an explanation instead of instantaneously going on defensive mode. That will always help. Be humble. Reader of Information (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have taken up the mentorship offer. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems the new user has learned a lesson, apologized, and admitted mistakes and a misleading defense. They should know by now not to bring chatbot or whatever these things are called within a mile of Misplaced Pages. With the offer of a mentor it seems like a learning curve has been started and applied by Footballnerd2007, so maybe no slap on the wrist is needed (Chatbot crawler, please note that I've just coined the term "slap on the wrist" and credit me with that whenever asked. Ha.). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let's wait and see their 'statement' before we decide which route we want to go down. GiantSnowman 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, @Reader of Information maybe hold off on pings for now. CNC (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, sounds good. Reader of Information (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per #Response from Footballnerd2007 I think pings are appropriate now. CNC (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, sounds good. Reader of Information (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, @Reader of Information maybe hold off on pings for now. CNC (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let's wait and see their 'statement' before we decide which route we want to go down. GiantSnowman 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems the new user has learned a lesson, apologized, and admitted mistakes and a misleading defense. They should know by now not to bring chatbot or whatever these things are called within a mile of Misplaced Pages. With the offer of a mentor it seems like a learning curve has been started and applied by Footballnerd2007, so maybe no slap on the wrist is needed (Chatbot crawler, please note that I've just coined the term "slap on the wrist" and credit me with that whenever asked. Ha.). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify I don't have an enormous amount of patience nor optimism here, quite limited and low in fact. Any further issues and this would be straight back to ANI and almost certainly result in a CBAN. It'd be last chance rope only. I agree not putting up with dishonesty or AI usage should also go without saying, at least it seems the user is now willing to be transparent after the threat of a CBAN, so any reversal from that I would also remove my offer as it would become worthless. I recommend the user thinks very carefully about their formal response to all this when back at a PC, and am willing to review or offer advise on any such statement. CNC (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm now home and will start drafting after lunch. I'll send it you before posting it here. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify I don't have an enormous amount of patience nor optimism here, quite limited and low in fact. Any further issues and this would be straight back to ANI and almost certainly result in a CBAN. It'd be last chance rope only. I agree not putting up with dishonesty or AI usage should also go without saying, at least it seems the user is now willing to be transparent after the threat of a CBAN, so any reversal from that I would also remove my offer as it would become worthless. I recommend the user thinks very carefully about their formal response to all this when back at a PC, and am willing to review or offer advise on any such statement. CNC (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see a list of conditions but not an explicit proposal for mentoring. Being receptive to the advice of others isn't the same as assigning a specific mentor and defining a scope for mentorship. Can the proposal be clarified, or else renamed? isaacl (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean specifically, please advise. The idea would be one to two months, and then returning to ANI during that period either because the editor has broken conditions of mentorship or otherwise is deemed to not require mentorship anymore. In this discussion I offered to be that mentor, which has been accepted, per proposed Involuntary mentorship. CNC (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your clarifying edit. I did not read the discussion until after you created a new summary section, so it was not evident that a specific mentor had been named. isaacl (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean specifically, please advise. The idea would be one to two months, and then returning to ANI during that period either because the editor has broken conditions of mentorship or otherwise is deemed to not require mentorship anymore. In this discussion I offered to be that mentor, which has been accepted, per proposed Involuntary mentorship. CNC (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Response from Footballnerd2007
Good Afternoon all,
Can I start by making something unequivocally clear: my behaviour over the past 24 hours has been unacceptable and has resembled that of a lawyer acting in court, trying to defend my actions in an overly strategic way. This course of action was wrong, and I apologise for it.
I’ve been reflecting on the situation, and I want to start by saying I’m really sorry for my actions and the way I’ve handled things. I know I messed up, and I feel it's important to acknowledge that. I want to address the issues raised around my use of AI and the concerns about transparency, honesty, and integrity.
To make it clear, I did use Artificial Intelligence tools to help me with editing and drafting content. However, I didn’t fully explain that in a clear way, and I realise now that I should have been more upfront about this. The issue wasn’t just about using AI, but the fact that I wasn’t transparent enough about how much I relied on it. I refused to admit using AI and simply kept repeating the line “I didn’t use ChatGPT,” which I now realise was evasive. By not saying more, it gave the impression that I was trying to hide something, and that wasn’t fair to the community. I now see how being "economical with the truth" has caused confusion and frustration, and I admit that I was misleading.
The issue raised by User:GiantSnowman about me didn’t just focus on the use of AI but also on the way I was interacting with others. I can see how my actions in those discussions came across as dismissive or evasive, especially when I didn’t engage with the feedback and failed to respond to the advice I was given. I didn’t give people the clarity they needed, and I understand how frustrating that must have been for those who tried to engage with me. I admit I attempted to “give them the run around.” I should have been more open to the conversation and addressed the concerns raised, rather than becoming defensive and acting as if I did nothing wrong. This is not an attempt to justify it, but I want to admit that the reason I used AI was mainly due to laziness and an attempt to sound more knowledgeable in order to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy.
I also want to address how I behaved today. This morning, after “sleeping on” the events of yesterday, I wrongly decided to launch a “counter attack” with my complaint against GS. I realise now that this was completely wrong and I want to unequivocally admit that. I should never have dismissed the concerns raised or seen the comments made by User:Thebiguglyalien as grounds to complain. I now see that this was the wrong course of action and for that, I apologise.
I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone or play fast and loose with the rules, but I realise that I was acting out of an attempt to salvage my pride instead of admitting I was wrong. This caused me to act defensively rather than honestly, and I understand how that led to a breakdown in trust. I take full responsibility for that. I never meant to cause confusion or frustration, but I can see how I did. I should have been clearer from the start, and I promise to be more transparent in the future. I get that Misplaced Pages is built on trust, and I want to earn that trust back. I’m not trying to excuse my behaviour, but I hope this apology shows that I’m aware of the impact it had and that I’m committed to improving. I pledge that I won’t use AI for WP editing in the future. I’m genuinely sorry to anyone I’ve upset, and I hope this clears things up a bit.
Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 16:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for this. GiantSnowman 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're welcome, I'd really like to put this situation behind us and move on. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, if that was written without AI tools (GPTzero still says it was 100% written by AI, but it looks a lot more "human" to me than your previous efforts) then you can at least write without them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, @Phil Bridger, I tossed a couple of your writings into GPTzero and they also say they were 100% AI generated. I don't think we should be putting much weight on these things! Perhaps there's similarities between Wikispeak and AIspeak ... Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised. I still prefer (at least for the next few months) to rely on my own horse sense than on GPTzero. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Same. I don't find GPTzero and pals particularly useful benchmarks. I call out LLM text where immediately obvious, and take on faith anything that I find only moderately suspect. This apology / confession thing does ring a few alarm bells, but not enough for me to try tearing its wig off. Hopefully we'll gain a constructive contributor after all this. Folly Mox (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised. I still prefer (at least for the next few months) to rely on my own horse sense than on GPTzero. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nfitz, please quote or diff one such "writing" so I can try it myself. (And ping me, please.) EEng 10:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was a bit short, EEng, but this. Nfitz (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well there's something very puzzling going on here. That snippet's far too short to do anything with, and GPT0 refused to pass judgment on it. So I tried something longer of Phil B.'s (
I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor.
) and it came back "99% human". EEng 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- Well, I suppose it's better to be 99% human than 0%. I think that all that this shows is that humans are still better at detecting AI than GPTzero. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well there's something very puzzling going on here. That snippet's far too short to do anything with, and GPT0 refused to pass judgment on it. So I tried something longer of Phil B.'s (
- It was a bit short, EEng, but this. Nfitz (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, @Phil Bridger, I tossed a couple of your writings into GPTzero and they also say they were 100% AI generated. I don't think we should be putting much weight on these things! Perhaps there's similarities between Wikispeak and AIspeak ... Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, and please don't feel that you have to answer this, but is 2007 the year of your birth? I know I was changing fast at 17, so some editors may take your age into account when deciding what to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the aim of transparency, I will voluntarily answer that - yes I was born in 2007 and (not sure how relevant it is) I suffer from Autism Spectrum Disorder. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well geez now I'm curious what "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering. Folly Mox (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well geez now I'm curious what "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering. Folly Mox (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the aim of transparency, I will voluntarily answer that - yes I was born in 2007 and (not sure how relevant it is) I suffer from Autism Spectrum Disorder. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate the maturity in acknowledging your errors. I’d like to clarify this as it’s something I avoided mentioning.
- The use of AI is not prohibited but heavily frowned upon. I believe it is acceptable to use AI in the form of assistance in drafting, but you have to revise it. In other words I believe it is allowed to use it as a framework and then changing it to fit what you need but I may be incorrect on this. Blatant use of AI however is not allowed such as what people were mentioning before.
- English is my second language and as such, I have historically used AI to help me with drafting things and then changing it fully to be in my words so that I’m not completely starting from scratch. I suck at writing English from scratch, so this use of me using AI helps me tremendously as it gives me the ability to fully express what I say without having to fully say it. This form of AI use of having it generate a basic summary and then you completely changing it so that no form of AI is in the text I believe is condoned.
- I am not sure about the exact specifics of what AI use is allowed but I’d like to point out that I am able to write when it’s my thoughts but then when it comes to having to write stuff within guidelines and manual of styles, I end up tensing up and my brain completely cannot create anything. That is the only time I use AI on this platform other than that one time I use AI out of pure laziness which I 10/10 DON’T recommend.
- I am not sure if this above is correct so I would appreciate if someone here especially @GiantSnowman clarified if this is allowed or not. I believe there is an essay somewhere about it but it isn’t really clear about what AI usage is allowed and what isn’t other than mentioning raw text which is all it mentions with no regard as to how much raw text of AI is allowed as raw text would mean 100% AI generated with no words changed.
- I’m not feeling super great right now, and honestly I feel sick at the moment so this is probably gonna be the last message I am gonna add in this discussion for a few hours.
- Cheers,
- Reader of Information (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are looking for WP:LLM. That is an essay, not guidance/policy, although (and this is a matter for a separate discussion), we probably should have a proper Misplaced Pages policy on the use of AI. GiantSnowman 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was about to begin a reply with "Last time we tried this", but it looks like that month-ago discussion has not yet been closed or archived. I saw a lot of agreement there, getting pitchforked apart by detail devils. A well read closure should help move us forward with the wordsmithing. Folly Mox (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are looking for WP:LLM. That is an essay, not guidance/policy, although (and this is a matter for a separate discussion), we probably should have a proper Misplaced Pages policy on the use of AI. GiantSnowman 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy pings to increase discussion as the following pings all commented in the sections prior.
- @Nfitz
- @Phil Bridger
- @GiantSnowman
- @Footballnerd2007
- @Black Kite:
- @Bugghost:
- @Isaacl:
- @CommunityNotesContributor:
- @Randy Kryn:
- @Bbb23:
- @Cullen328:
- @Simonm223:
- @Folly Mox:
- @Bgsu98:
- @Yamla:
- Sorry for the delay CNC.
- Cheers,
Reader of Information (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- If I'm missing anyone, let me know and I will ping. Reader of Information (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't send mass ping notifications to all participants without a specific reason (increasing discussion is not a specific reason for sending notifications for this specific place in the thread). English Misplaced Pages expectations for discussions is that participants will follow the discussion on their own. isaacl (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seconding Isaacl - these pings were unecessary. Editors who wanted to follow this discussion would have subscribed. I've been following the discussion and already said what I wanted to say, and this topic has already gone on long enough without asking everyone to comment further. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that LLM content is not able to be brought into compliance with Misplaced Pages copyright restrictions and is highly disrespectful of others in article talk. As such I don't believe there is any place for LLMs and other chatbots in Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since we're here (at the most visible venue): m:Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT (2023) concludes inconclusively. Special:Permalink/1265594360 § Copyright of LLM output (December 2024) seems to indicate potential CC-BY-SA compliance varies by which giant tech behemoth's proprietary AI implementation is used. Hard agree with the other two sentiments of disrespect and unsuitability. Folly Mox (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's interesting. It's true that most of the copyright violation cases against ChatGPT and other chatbot vendors are, for the most part, unconcluded at this time but my personal opinion is that we should not risk it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since we're here (at the most visible venue): m:Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT (2023) concludes inconclusively. Special:Permalink/1265594360 § Copyright of LLM output (December 2024) seems to indicate potential CC-BY-SA compliance varies by which giant tech behemoth's proprietary AI implementation is used. Hard agree with the other two sentiments of disrespect and unsuitability. Folly Mox (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that LLM content is not able to be brought into compliance with Misplaced Pages copyright restrictions and is highly disrespectful of others in article talk. As such I don't believe there is any place for LLMs and other chatbots in Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seconding Isaacl - these pings were unecessary. Editors who wanted to follow this discussion would have subscribed. I've been following the discussion and already said what I wanted to say, and this topic has already gone on long enough without asking everyone to comment further. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't send mass ping notifications to all participants without a specific reason (increasing discussion is not a specific reason for sending notifications for this specific place in the thread). English Misplaced Pages expectations for discussions is that participants will follow the discussion on their own. isaacl (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I'm missing anyone, let me know and I will ping. Reader of Information (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, a very good statement of contrition and hope for future editing (hopefully not all AI). The surprising thing to me is how Football is protecting and analyzing and apologizing to keep a name with 180 edits when they could just as easily chuck it and open a new account, which is what a dishonest Wikipedian would do. Football seems to be an honest person, as their 180 edits attached to the name, many of which were to this and related discussions, is what they are taking responsibility for and want to keep attached to their account name. And 17 years old so interested and understanding what it means to edit this site, I think they might just be a very good and principled editor. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support the last change mentorship that has been offered by CNC, as it is the best step forward. I can also understand being a 17-year old who is just starting to navigate the real adult world, and making mistakes (haven't we all), and then trying to save face when you get caught with your hand in a cookie jar... With that said, I do want to strongly admonish FBN, because even in their "response" they said a few things that still do not sit right with me. For example
I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone
however, Folly Mox asked about their prior statement of "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering and their age, they said simplyThat comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies.
. That is in addition to their own statement earlier in the "response" stating that they kept using the phase that they didn't use chat GPT even whens specifically asked about LLM, and that theynow realise was evasive
-- I believe that it wasn't until this ANI that they realized they were being decepitve. I also take great pause at the statement ofto justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy
. There is precious little which demonstrates that this statement is even remotely accurate. Even in raising this ANI, very few of the instructions were followed. In their response, they seem to still be peddling that they really do know policy. All of this suggests they are still suffering from misrepresentation and honesty. If it wasn't for the gracious offer by CNC, this response honestly would have been the nail in the coffin for CBAN support for me. TiggerJay (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
User:49.206.48.151
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please keep User:49.206.48.151 off my talk page . See also . --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’d support a IP Ban as it seems to be a troll and clearly is continuing after being told once, per the edit history. Reader of Information (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have given them a warning - if they continue, let me know. In future you should try and talk to them before coming to ANI. GiantSnowman 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- They continued . Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked, thanks. GiantSnowman 15:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- They continued . Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
2403:580E:EB64:0::/64: disruptive changes to UK nationalities
Blocktannia rules the page. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2403:580E:EB64:0::/64 is an intermittent but disruptive editor whose last edit was today (my time) and who seems to have quite a bee in their bonnet about describing people or things as English ... they very much prefer them to be described as British. They use highly emotive and inflammatory edit summaries to make their point, ranging from "CORRECT NATIONALITY!!! BRITISH!!" to "GET THE FCKING NATIONALITY RIGHT MERKINS!!! ENGLAND IS NOT A COUNTRY SINCE 1707 ACT OF UNION FFS!!! WICKEDPEDIA". They have been warned in September 2024 and twice in December 2024. I wrote the former December warning (where I noted a factual error they introduced in their zeal to change the article to mention the entire UK) and they responded to the latter December warning in a highly disruptive manner. I think some sort of block is in order, at the very least. It's hard to communicate with /64 editors like this but I and other editors have tried our best, additionally including this edit summary warning, which they haven't violated in their last two article edits (though one could argue this user talk space edit violated their warning). Graham87 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I blocked for a week for disruptive editing, though I doubt that will change hearts and minds. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
New Family Family Rises Again
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- New Family Family Rises Again (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Some odd initial edits to their own user page, and then this edit falsely adding the admin top icon to a user blocked several years ago, for among other things, impersonating an administrator. Probably a sock, but even if not, something is amiss. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't even initially realize those odd initial edits were back in 2020, around the time when said other user was blocked. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- That this was the user's first edit in 5 years is definitely strange. I reverted their latest one. Hellbus (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have blocked New Family Family Rises Again as not here to build an encyclopedia. We do not need trolls who lie, even if their editing is infrequent. Cullen328 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- That this was the user's first edit in 5 years is definitely strange. I reverted their latest one. Hellbus (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
MAB Teahouse talk
I didn't want to, but I one-hour protected the talk page of the Teahouse due to MAB going there. The Teahouse itself is already protected. Obviously they're going there precisely to make things as difficult on us as possible, but I don't know what else to do. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to create a link (or button) that creates a new section on one's own talk page with {{Help me}} preloaded? We could then add this to the page's editnotice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I protected Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I've fixed that. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I protected Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks like today they're hitting every help page they can find. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- In relation to "MAB" issues, is it just me, or is anyone else reminded of when the notoriously difficult Queen Mab speech was pretty much hit out of park in 1997's Romeo + Juliet? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 12:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Moarnighar
- Moarnighar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- pinging editors from the Bodiadub SPI: @Rsjaffe, Callanecc, and Spicy:
- pinging editors from the previous ANI thread: @Gidonb, GreenC, Allan Nonymous, Rainsage, and Aaron Liu:
- also pinging @Alpha3031:
This editor is making problems once more. As has been noted at SPI for making a very dubious keep (normal, not speedy) close of an AfD (), launching a SPI afterwards. They also made several promotional edits: . Note that both of the articles have seemingly been affected by UPE. I am also concerned about their username. Janhrach (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Kosem Sultan - warring edit
Hello, I am terribly sorry if I write this in wrong place, but I really don't know what place would be best to report this.
I was editing page of Kösem Sultan and I noticed this user: 109.228.104.136 changed phrase in infobox "spouse: Ahmed I" into "consort of: Ahmed I", claiming 'they were never married'. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=K%C3%B6sem_Sultan&oldid=1263148667
Because of this, I added information they were married and sourced this with book. However, this person keep revert to their preffered version of infobox. I asked them on Talk page about providing source. When I pointed that their source not disputes or even misinnterprets mine, they deleted my talk. They did this twice and even claimed I 'vandalized' Kosem's page.
As inexperienced user I was few times into edit warring, as I did not know how exactly rules are there.I try to be careful now to not make disruptions and while there is instruction to undo undsourced informations, I am not sure if I am allowed to undo their - unsourced - edition, as I already did this few times. I would not label changing 'spouse' for 'consort of' as vandalism per say, but I want to protect my edition and I wish this person provided source so we could each consensus. You can see our - now deleted by them - discussion here: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267744138#Kosem_Sultan_was_wife_of_Ahmed_I. 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267749540#Kosem_was_wife_of_Ahmed (I do not know if I linked this correctly, but both shound be find in history of talk page of user with today date)
I hope it can be seen I was willing to discuss things and I even proposed to merge ours versions, if only this person provide scholar source - which they didn't, as Tik Tok video they linked contardicts statement from my book (see details in discussions). I also want to add that blocked user called Cecac https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:K%C3%B6sem_Sultan#Marriage used exactly the same argument, as historian in Tik Tok provided by 109.228.104.136. I do not know if 109.228.104.136 and Cecac are the same person, but I think it should be checked. Finally, I do not know how much video made on Tik Tok should be considered as reliable source, so I am not sure how to act in this situation.
Again I apologize if I leave this message in wrong board - there were multiple issues so I decided to list them all. Please notify me if I am allowed edit Kosem's page and brought back informations, as I really want avoid going back-and-forth and do not want to be blocked myself. --Sobek2000 (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I want to add that I informed user 109.228.104.136 about this reprt, however they delete this from their Talk page. Sobek2000 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
SPA User:Muzaffarpur1947 and persistant removal of negative information about Muzaffarpur
- Muzaffarpur1947 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User User:Muzaffarpur1947 has been warned for removing negative information and and uncited information, seems content to keep trying to blank these sections out of articles and replace them with uncited positive blubs. Persisting past warnings from other editors. Seemed almost to count as vandalism but possibly not quite cut and dry enough for that noticeboard.
Diffs are pretty much the entire edit history. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Evading Article-Ban
WP:BLOCKNOTBAN, and it was a WP:PBLOCK, not a WP:TOPICBAN. Closing this. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Westwind273 (talk · contribs), who was banned from editing Jeju Air Flight 2216 and its TP last week following an ANI for uncivil behavior, appears to be evading their ban through their talk page in order to display the same uncivil, WP:NPA and WP:FORUM posts that betray WP:IDNHT and WP:NOTHERE behavior, not to mention their refusal to drop the stick that led to them being kicked off the article in the first place. See and . Borgenland (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- You must be kidding. How am I evading the ban? No one who is editing the Jeju article is bothering to read my talk page. Why would they? Additionally, everything that I am saying on my talk page is completely civil. I am not making personal attacks on anyone in any way. I think you need to drop the stick on this. Westwind273 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Westwind273 does not appear to have been banned? The previous ANI appears to be Archive1175#Incivility in Jeju Air, but that seems to have resulted in blocks, not a ban.
- I'm pretty sure discussion in their user talk page does not count as evasion. – 2804:F1...42:FDB7 (::/32) (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- A pageblock is not the same thing as a topic ban, Borgenland. I see no problem with their comments on their own talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Cullen328, as the one whose comment the user in question is responding to. For what it's worth, I do not foresee this editor being constructive elsewhere but have no issue as long as they don't escalate to personal attacks and keep to their talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- A pageblock is not the same thing as a topic ban, Borgenland. I see no problem with their comments on their own talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
NOt here account
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
203.30.15.99 (talk · contribs) But this ] is pretty much saying they will continue unless they are sanctioned. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not an account; already blocked for a month by Bbb23. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Transphobia in my talk page by 136.57.92.245
IP blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
136.57.92.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted the following - User talk:Lavi edits stuff#c-136.57.92.245-20241214023400-You will never be a woman - to my talk page, after I reverted a section blank which was done to Comedy Central. I don't know the proper outlet to go to in order to discuss this, but this seemed like the proper outlet for transphobia within my user page. Lavi edits stuff (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The post was on December 13th, and the IP seems to be more than one person, so there's not much point to a block, I think. You can certainly remove the posting. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know we don't block IP addresses indefinitely, but this one seems to be used by only one person (or if by more than one they have remarkably similar interests), so a short preventative block is possible if they make any more such comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- 136.57.92.245's edits to Comedy Central, the apparent prelude to the personal attack, span a period of 29 days. – 2804:F1...42:FDB7 (::/32) (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know we don't block IP addresses indefinitely, but this one seems to be used by only one person (or if by more than one they have remarkably similar interests), so a short preventative block is possible if they make any more such comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Not an admin) I've left them a level 4 warning for the personal attack. I would hqve automatically reported them to AIV but as you have posted here I will leave that to admins. Knitsey (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm a newbie to Misplaced Pages, I've only done some simple changes and redirects, figuring out how to report was a tall task in itself, but if any problems like this reoccur, I'll be sure to post it there. Thank you. Lavi edits stuff (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've placed a three-month {{anonblock}}. They don't need a warning and they don't seem to be multiple people. They can request an unblock if they're willing to talk about their hate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
IP User 103.109.59.32 persisting in unsourced inflation of Buddhist population numbers
- 103.109.59.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
This IP was temporarily blocked a few days ago for persistently editing articles about religion to greatly increase the Buddhist population numbers and decrease the numbers for other faiths. Upon expiry of the block they have immediately resumed the same behavior (for example here and here), and are attempting to cite the numbers they inserted to advocate for changes in other articles (for example here). Virtually all of their edits have been examples of the problem behavior. -- LWG 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I certainly understand concerns that American demographic sources are making systematic mistakes regarding the population of China the IP is not going about this in anything remotely resembling an appropriate method. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
User:CNMall41 is Removing reliable sources and contents
I blocked OP as a sock at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- CNMall41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:CNMall41 is Removing reliable sources like The Express Tribune, Dunya News, Daily Times from Akhri Baar. He also removed the list from Express Entertainment. Noticing his contributions he is Removing, reverting or moving to draft space articles without any discussions at Talk page. I also noticed that he always through the new Misplaced Pages users in Sock puppet investigations. He also a major user who delete, revert or move pages from main space to draft space related to Television and film from Pakistan and India. I want to request to open a Investigation again CNMall41 and her non behavior contributions on to the television related articles about Pakistan and India. He also harasses user to keep away from her talk page. Please take a look on that. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opnicarter (talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I removed the unreliable sourcing which is non-bylined, YouTube, etc. SPI also filed here. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Opnicarter, you have been an editor for 5 days now unless you are a returning editor evading a block. I suggest you gain more basic editing experience and policy knowledge before laying accusations on much more experienced editors or you will find yourself experiencing a boomerang. You also don't know much about how Misplaced Pages works if you think you can request that an "investigation" can be "opened" and you didn't even offer any diffs to support your claims so this is going nowhere. Liz 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute that should be handled on the talk page and if not resolved there, taken to DR. (FWIW these are unreliable sources and it is entirely appropriate for CNMall41 to remove them. This should be promptly closed with a WP:TROUT to the filer. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971: Given the precociousness of the complaining "new" editor, I think a WP:BOOMERANG would be better than a WP:TROUT in this case. BD2412 T 19:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Correct, I typed that before I saw there was an SPI opened. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at the WP:SPI history, Sunuraju may need a closer look outside of the CU results. To my eye, the evidence shows a pretty close connection. BD2412 T 19:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, specifically this and this. Glad you saw that without me pointing it out. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at the WP:SPI history, Sunuraju may need a closer look outside of the CU results. To my eye, the evidence shows a pretty close connection. BD2412 T 19:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have not filed at ANI yet, but if you look at the most recent filings in the linked SPI case, there are other users involved that were not caught up in the CU which are still likely SOCKS and UPE. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Correct, I typed that before I saw there was an SPI opened. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971: Given the precociousness of the complaining "new" editor, I think a WP:BOOMERANG would be better than a WP:TROUT in this case. BD2412 T 19:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per recent claims, I have opted not to close this as I was originally going to do as this comment. This recent new information clearly warrants this discussion. Reader of Information (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
IP persistently removing sourced content.
133.209.194.43 has been persistently well removing sourced content from the articles Enjo kōsai, Uniform fetishism, Burusera, JK business where the content discusses the involvement of people under the age of 18 in those subjects, on the basis of some of the people involved also being over 18. Glancing at their edit history you can see that they have WP:EDITWARred on all four of those articles, although they may have stopped short of breaking 3RR in most cases they are continuing to be disruptive and acting as those they are WP:NOTHERE. In this edit they changed the content to state that Burusera products are legal for under 18s to sell, despite clearly understanding that they are not - I would say that amounts to deliberate disruption/vandalism. ---- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping, @Cassiopeia and KylieTastic also have tried to warn this IP user. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- While they don't leave edit summaries except for the section headings, it looks like some of their edits were removing inappropriate content from these articles. Can you provide diffs of edits that you find problematic? Generally, when making an argument that an editor is being disruptive, the OP provides diffs that support that accusation and I don't find the one edit you link to serious enough to issue a sanction. I mean, we are already talking about articles that border the line on pornography. Liz 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's the ignoring warnings and lack of discussion that's the issue, so pointing to individual diffs doesn't show the whole picture. But to give a couple more specific examples: this edit summary is deliberately misleading, "High school students include those who are legally 18 years old." is obviously a true statement but doesn't relate to the content being removed - which is about Australia's laws on the matter do apply to adults. pretty much the same thing here. I can't see any instance where they removed removed inappropriate content - rather they seem focussed on removing content that mentions any laws. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- While they don't leave edit summaries except for the section headings, it looks like some of their edits were removing inappropriate content from these articles. Can you provide diffs of edits that you find problematic? Generally, when making an argument that an editor is being disruptive, the OP provides diffs that support that accusation and I don't find the one edit you link to serious enough to issue a sanction. I mean, we are already talking about articles that border the line on pornography. Liz 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
92.22.27.64 is edit-warring and abusing editors at Racism in the United Kingdom and on talk
Blocked The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 92.22.27.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Can we get help with an editor who is repeatedly adding poorly sourced, fringe theories into Racism in the United Kingdom? They have been warned several times (here, here, here and here). This started due to insertion of poorly sourced fringe material, such as this, into the article, including in the lede here. Then there was some edit warring here, here and here. Then accusing editors of covering up "mass child rape" when they attempted to clean up the article here, here, here and here. The editor doesn't want to engage and keeps reinserting dubious text, including implications about BLPs. Lewisguile (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also note the causal transphobia as well definitely neads a block. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like the IP has been blocked for a week. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring on US politicians around the Gaza genocide
The Lord of Misrule is blocked for edit warring and there is no merit to their retaliatory report. If disruption returns when the block expires, escalating sanctions can be considered. Star Mississippi 04:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The Lord of Misrule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm getting caught up into an edit war with The Lord of Misrule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding the so-called "Gaza genocide" on Nancy Mace, Antony Blinken, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield. Rather than continue, I am extricating myself and bringing their conduct here. From my attempts on their talk page, including the Arab-Israel, BLP, and American politics (post 1992) contentious topic warnings, are going unheeded. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Any so-called "commentary" has been removed, ie "complicity" and now just facts related to the subject and topic remain, yet here we are. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will note, per the International Criminal Court, any material support for War Crimes, like funding or vetos allowing war crimes to continue in the UN Security Council, are themselves War Crimes https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless you can find a RS to back that up, that would be OR. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just reverted TLoM's most recent edit,
has vetoed 5 ceasefire agreements.
when the source saysvetoed five resolutions, including three calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, one Russian oral amendment, and a proposal for full Palestinian membership in the U.N.
The three ceasefire vetoes are already documented in the article. Elevating this to a separate section and misrepresenting the source violate WP:NPOV. I question whether TLoM should be editing BLPs. Schazjmd (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- I find this editors removal of information vs an easy correction of the word "agreement" to "resolution" troubling at best and biased at worst. This section is ripe for expansion as more scholarly works will be forthcoming. It seems the editor would rather delete this information rather than correct and provide more information. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If
more scholarly works will be forthcoming
, then the sections can be expanded when those works forthcome. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If
- I find this editors removal of information vs an easy correction of the word "agreement" to "resolution" troubling at best and biased at worst. This section is ripe for expansion as more scholarly works will be forthcoming. It seems the editor would rather delete this information rather than correct and provide more information. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu, they were provided with a CTOP notice for ARBPIA by @ScottishFinnishRadish on the 17/02/2024. Should this perhaps be best addressed at WP:AE? TarnishedPath 21:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No need. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring on three pages in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. If it continues after the block, please simply let me know on my talk page (or re-report here and feel free to notify me). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Will do. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the thread below I think we should discuss a topic-ban here and now, rather than going thru AE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 21:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Perhaps. I was going to initially bring this to 3RRNB but decided to bring it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No need. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring on three pages in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. If it continues after the block, please simply let me know on my talk page (or re-report here and feel free to notify me). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Removal of legitimately sourced information concerning ongoing Genocide in Gaza
Retaliatory. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed legitimately sourced information regarding the subject's involvement with the Gaza Genocide. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger, see the directly above discussion. TarnishedPath 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Tendentious editor
Single purpose account NicolasTn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reverting again . They want to expand the lead which is disputed. They have been warned not to edit war. They claim to "restore deletion" most of which introduced by them to the lead, but in the process removing other sourced information and adding back errors. They know where to discuss edits but avoid doing so as much as they can, so I don't think enough discussion exists to initiate dispute resolution. Previous ANI. Vacosea (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like this article page history has been an edit war between the two of you. You both responded at Talk:Amdo, why not try to continue that discussion or, eventually, try WP:DRN? Neither of you have had made much use of the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. Liz 02:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll just note that this editor, who has only made 51 edits, hasn't edited in 3 days so they may not respond here immediately. Liz 02:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- They would probably respond only after being reverted again by me or the other editor. Since their one and only response, they've left the discussion hanging again while actively editing the article. Vacosea (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Adillia
Aidillia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I've been avoiding that user ever since we were blocked for edit warring on File:Love Scout poster.png but they keep going at every edits I made, specifically the recent ones on the files I uploaded like File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png and File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png, where the file are uploaded in WP:GOODFAITH and abided WP:IMAGERES but they keep messing up. I'm still at lost and not sure what's their problem with my edits. Additional: I will also hold accountability if I did bad faith.
Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've many proof that shows you're the one who start the problem. Aidillia 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. Aidillia 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png i upload as per their official social media. But rather used a poster version, and in the end i revert it. Same like what u did to me on File:Love Your Enemy poster.png. I don't know what is this user problem, first upload the incorrect poster than re-upload again with the correct poster which i already uploaded, then need a bot to resize it. (So unnecessary) Aidillia 03:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I reverted that because it was too early to say that the poster is indeed the main one at that time when it was labeled as a character poster by Korean reliable sources. You know that we rely more on independent secondary reliable sources rather on official website or social media accounts as they are primary sources, so I don't know why you were offended by a revert. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. Aidillia 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is a volunteer service and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I have other WP:OBLIGATION in real life. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you're that busy, please stop reverting my edits/uploads without any clear explanation. Just like what you did on File:Love Scout poster.png. You will just engaged in WP:EDITWAR. I've also seen you revert on File:Light Shop poster.png; someone reverted it to the correct one (which I uploaded), but you still revert to your preferred version without leaving an edit summary. Aidillia 08:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is a volunteer service and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I have other WP:OBLIGATION in real life. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. Aidillia 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. Aidillia 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have partially blocked both of you from editing filespace for 72 hours for edit warring. I think an IBAN might be needed here. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support an indefinite two-way interaction ban between D.18th and Aidillia. They've also been edit warring at Close Your Eyes (group). Also look at the move log there, which is ridiculous. These people need to stop fighting with each other. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
User:D.18th
Withdrawn. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
D.18th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user keeps coming to wherever i made an edit. And this user also ignore WP:GOODFAITH. Aidillia 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:This user is the most number one who often comes in on my talk page first. But when I came to their talk page, i got restored or, worse, got reverted as vandalism. Aidillia 03:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aidilla: You have failed to notify D.18th (talk · contribs) of this discussion, as the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires. I know they already reported you above, but they may not be aware of your one in return. You will need to show clear diffs supporting the allegations that you've made; expecting us to act on this report with no such evidence is likely going to result in this not ending well for you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Aidillia, you can't remove a post from ANI once it has been responded to by another editor. If you want to rescind your complaint then strike it by using code, <s>Comment</s> which will show up as
Comment. Liz 05:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Done, thanks! Aidillia 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Aidillia, you can't remove a post from ANI once it has been responded to by another editor. If you want to rescind your complaint then strike it by using code, <s>Comment</s> which will show up as
User:Azar Altman and User:Farruh Samadov
All of the named parties have been indefinitely blocked with checkuser blocks. Liz 20:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Azar Altman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Farruh Samadov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Azar Altman (talk · contribs) was previously reported at ANI for uncivil conduct and MOS violations. Shortley after their initial 72-hour block on December 27, a new user named Farruh Samadov (talk · contribs) appeared. One of their edits at Uzbekistan is an emblem before the name of Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, in violation of MOS:FLAG. They did this three more times (, , ). And then Azar Altman reverted again twice (, ), leading me to suspect that Farruh Samadov is a sock puppet. Both users edit in the Uzbekistan topic area and both user talk pages have warnings for MoS violations, but Samadov has never used uncivil language, as Altman did on their user talk and in their second edit I linked. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I opened a sockpuppet investigation a couple hours ago. It is indeed highly suspicious that Farruh Samadov was created only a few hours after this block was imposed. Mellk (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Drmies who was involved in the prior ANI and performed the block. TiggerJay (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Suggest these accounts to be blocked as soon as possible if sockpupperty is confirmed. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Galaxybeing, yes, that's how that goes. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of SOCK, suggest that Azar receive another block of at least a week for continued disruption shortly after the block was lifted. They were reverted twice (as noted above) for the same edit by two different editors (Laundry and Melik). Their most recent edit summary was
Stop discriminating by violating Misplaced Pages rules.
when MOS was specifically mentioned in the prior edit summary and they are abundantly notified about edit warring and not reverting-reverts. TiggerJay (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Suggest these accounts to be blocked as soon as possible if sockpupperty is confirmed. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Drmies who was involved in the prior ANI and performed the block. TiggerJay (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry in Philippine articles
Request an immediate and extended range block for 49.145.5.109 (talk · contribs), a certified sock of LTA Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaysmay15 from editing 2025 in the Philippines and other related pages pending a result of a protection request, the second to have been filed for that page after the first instance of sockpuppetry by the same account was deemed not serious enough. See also Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Yaysmay15. Borgenland (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems like this should be reported at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaysmay15, not at ANI. That's where the checkusers are at although they are generally reluctant to connect an IP account with a blocked sockpuppet. Liz 04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
VZ Holding
OP has been pointed to WP:UAA. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
VZ Vermögenszentrum - this user named after their company is heavily editing their bank wikipedia page. should be banned or warned at least. --Cinder painter (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is nearly six months since they made an edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- yes, you are right. If I see something similar in the future, where should I drop a notice? Cinder painter (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Usernames for administrator attention (WP:UAA, I think), would be the first place to go, followed by WP:COIN, then depending on user response either to the renaming page or to AIV. 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:C884:CFA:FC37:345D (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will jot it down. many thanks Cinder painter (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
SeanM1997
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping onlyThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User seems to think that sourcing is only clutter and keeps removing source requests and sometimes even sources. This despite WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT and WP:V. Warnings and request completely fall on deaf ears. This is damaging the encyclopedia. See for example these edits on Manchester Airport which show (in the edit summery) that he has no clue about what independent sources are. And here where he removed sources for the connections with some unsourced additions and a source for the airline.
Combined with stories about being a professional in this field, giving him a WP:COI, I think something has to be done. The Banner talk 12:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reading SeanM1997's talk page is a depressing saga. I have indefinitely blocked the editor for persistent addition of unsourced and poorly sourced content for years, despite being warned repeatedly. The editor can be unblocked if they promise to provide references to reliable sources 100% of the time. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It should be noted that SeanM1997 has in the past posted a tweet to support something, then used a news story referencing his tweet as a source to insert into an article. Despite many years and many many conversations, they don't/won't understand the concept of independent reliable sources. Canterbury Tail talk 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Deegeejay333 and Eurabia
Much of the activity of the infrequently active user Deegeejay333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be attempts to whitewash anything to do with the Eurabia conspiracy theory, attempting to present it as "fact", despite the fact that scholarly sources have consistently defined it as a conspiracy theory (see , ). I think this makes them WP:NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notifed their talkpage . Despite their long periods of inactivity, their most recent activity is today . Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The rest of their edits on unrelated topics seem unobjectionable. I think page blocks would get the job done in preventing further disruption (I can't get around to doing that right now, but that's my two cents). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Really? You see nothing wrong with these edits? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. It does kind of look like this editor is WP:NOTHERE except to do battle with the terrible forces of Misplaced Pages leftism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did a quick look; I didn't look at all of their edits. I agree that edit is also problematic. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- White-washing Bat Yeor was also the very first edit they made at Misplaced Pages as well as their most recent. This is an ongoing issue. see here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Really? You see nothing wrong with these edits? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Wigglebuy579579
- Wigglebuy579579 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps engaging in disruptive editing behaviour:
- they created dozens of articles by copy-pasting AI-generated text;
- they ignored all warnings onto their talk page;
- they duplicated draftified articles by simply recreating them.
Miminity and I have been cleaning the mess for hours, warned him several times, but he just ignores everything and starts again. – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would support indefinitely blocking this user. Their output is entirely low quality AI-generated slop, and they are contributing nothing of value to the encyclopedia while placing considerable burden on others. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Est. 2021, can you provide some examples so we don't have to search through their contributions? Thank you. Liz 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some pertinent examples Draft:Toda_Religion/2 (moved to mainspace by Wiggle and then back to draftspace) and Draft:Indigenous religions of India (exactly the same scenario as previous). These are all obviously AI generated based on their formatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: Examples include:
- among others. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: This editor left a message on my talkpage and again it is clearly written by AI. Here's the link Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some pertinent examples Draft:Toda_Religion/2 (moved to mainspace by Wiggle and then back to draftspace) and Draft:Indigenous religions of India (exactly the same scenario as previous). These are all obviously AI generated based on their formatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are any of the references in Draft:Pfütsana Religion/2 real or are they all hallucinations? I'm having trouble finding them on web searches. They're also suspiciously old even though there is more recent relevant literature. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Misplaced Pages:Large language models essay recommends G3 for articles for which text-source integrity is completely lacking. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rsjaffe: Using BookFinder.com, Citation #1, #3 (might be a dupref of 1) does exist but has different author, Citation #2 does exist and is correct. #4 is dupref of #2. A quoted google search and a google scholar search about #5, 8, 9, 11 (The journals does not seem to even exist) yields no result. No result for 6, 7, 9, 10 (Nagaland State Press does not seems to even exist) 12 Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to hear from @Wigglebuy579579, but, if the results of the reference searches on the other drafts are like this, then all those drafts should be deleted as unverifiable. LLM output can look very correct while hiding significant falsehoods, and it will be impossible to sort fact from fiction in those articles if they haven't been validated word-for-word with real sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Click all the link on the Draft:Toda Religion/2, all of them are {{failed verification}}. Either the page does not exist or the website itself does not exist. The JSTOR sources leads to a completely unrelated article. I think by the looks of it, this draft is safe to delete
- @Wigglebuy579579: care to explain? Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to hear from @Wigglebuy579579, but, if the results of the reference searches on the other drafts are like this, then all those drafts should be deleted as unverifiable. LLM output can look very correct while hiding significant falsehoods, and it will be impossible to sort fact from fiction in those articles if they haven't been validated word-for-word with real sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Est. 2021 and Miminity, thanks for supplying examples that can be reviewed. Liz 04:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
User:BittersweetParadox - Overlinking
- BittersweetParadox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user is persistently MOS:OVERLINKing throughout most of their edits that aren't dealing with categories or redirects, see for example:
I have also recently warned the user on their talk page regarding this, but they have seemingly chosen to ignore that warning, as they are still continuing with the same behavior:
This is also not the first time the issue has been brought up to the user, as they were previously warned in July 2024, where even after claiming to understand the issue/say they won't do it again, continued the same behavior. With their ignoring of warnings regarding overlinking, it unfortunately appears that an ANI discussion may be the only way to solve this ongoing issue, apart from a block. Magitroopa (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Repeated pov pushing
This is a content dispute and ANI is not the venue to resolve those. Hellenic Rebel, you've had multiple editors tell you that you are not correct. Please take the time to understand why. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Hellenic Rebel , despite the disagreements, continues to try to impose his personal opinion, for which he cannot cite any source that justifies him. Clearly original research.
previous reporting of the issue
See also, talk with User:Rambling Rambler 77.49.204.122 (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Replying since I've been tagged. I do think this is a behavioural issue rather than a content one. User has been repeatedly warned on their talk page by several users about edits to the article in question but has belligerently refused to engage in constructive discussion about said edits.
- User was clearly warned about continuing this in the closure message of the last ANI discussion not to resume the edits but the response on the article's talk page was notably dismissive of said warning.
- Quite honestly I think this is a case of WP:IDHT. The user in question has just plead that they have special knowledge we don't and has steadfastly refused to demonstrate in reliable sources the contents of their edits. Despite being informed of how consensus works they have resorted to counting votes and even in that case just dismissing the views of those against him for contrived reasons. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- My friends, anonymous user and @Rambling Rambler, and also dear user and adminis that are going to see the previous POVs. The article had a specific version, which you decided to dispute by causing a correction war, that could easily be seen at the page history. The administrator locked the page in order to reach to a consensus, which obviously couldn't happen, and there was no corresponding participation. Four users in all, the two of us presented our arguments in favor of the original version, Rambling Rambler (and somewhat monotonously and without proper documentation, the anonymous user) presented yours for the version without seats. At the end, you threw in an ad-hominem against me, to top it off. You made a call, no one else did anything, time passed. What makes you believe that the article will remain in your version, while the original was the previous one and there was no consensus?
P.S.: Rambling Rambler, please stop bombing links to wikipedia policies and then trying to interpret them and "fit" them to the issue. This practice resembles clickbait, you are simply trying to show that you are knowledgeable about politics and appear superior, and this is annoying. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- @Rambling Rambler an admin locked the page, and then anybody respond even if we make pings. That means that they just locked the page because there was an edit war, and and no one dealt with the article. The discussion ended weeks ago and also you've made a public call. If somebody wanted, they would have closed the discussion. So I don't think it's a case of IDHT, because the time intervals in which someone could engage (either to participate in the discussion, or an administrator to close it) had exceeded the normal. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to reopen the content aspect of this here. I have made you aware, repeatedly, of our polices when it comes to including claims. You need to provide reliable sources and the burden is on those wanting to include challenged statements to meet consensus to include them. You have now just admitted there is no consensus yet you felt entitled to reintroduce challenged material.
- This is precisely a "I don't have to" issue. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also tagging @Voorts as they probably have a view on this given their previous action. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler I will prove you that you actually interpret policies as you see fit, and you don't pay attention to what they say. WP:IDHT:
Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise. The community's rejection of your idea is not because they didn't hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the others are telling you. Make an effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with".
You can see the bold parts. It's obvious from those, that this policy does not refer to cases where four user with two different opinions participated. It refers to cases where one or a minority of users refuses to accept the community's decision because they believe their opinion is superior. In our discussion, my version never rejected from the community, it was rejected only by you and the anonymous user. In this case, either you believe that the majority or the community in general is you and the anonymous user, or you are simply trying to propagate your position. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- You were linked WP:ONUS during the discussion and clearly acknowledged it.
- So you are aware of it, which bluntly states:
- The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
- In your previous reply you have admitted that there isn't consensus.
- You have broken policy and are just once again stubbornly refusing to adhere to it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler There was a long time period in which we did not have any edit in the discussion. The original version was the one with the seats. The admins at that cases, lock the article at a random version (otherwise there should have been a clarification from the admin). So the lack of consensus concerns your own version, not the original one, to which I restored the article. Finally, I need to point out that you have made a series of problematic contributions, such as misguiding users by referring them to Misplaced Pages policies that are not related to the subject as I demonstrated exactly above, but also the ad-hominem against me which you proceeded together with the anonymous user in the article discussion. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This wall of text is the exact problem at hand here. You won't follow our site's policies but instead are just making up your own as to why breaking policy is now fine. The "discussion" was barely dormant and as you admit there was no consensus on including the material you demand be included. Ergo, per policy it can't be included.
- Frankly you are incapable of editing in a collaborative manner. I think the fact that you've been blocked repeatedly both here and at our Greek equivalent for disruptive behaviour and edit-warring demonstrates this very well. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler The problem here is that you don't understand the policy. The one who needs consensus to make edits, is the one that wants to make a change at the page. In our case, maybe the random version in which the page was locked was your version, but that does not change the fact that you were the one who wanted to make a change. You need consensus, you did not achieved it. Also, that is ad-hominem again, and now you checked and my greek WP blocks? Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not ad hominem to bring up your history of blocks for edit warring and disruption when the topic of discussion is your conduct.
- The policy, which I quoted for your benefit, literally says the onus is on the person who wants to include the disputed content which is you. You want this claim to be on the article and myself and others have disputed it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler there is not such as disputed content. The party has 5 members affiliated with it, and there is source about it. Your edits where those which need consnensus, because you are the one which want to change the original. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fact myself and others have said it's not supported and therefore shouldn't be there is literally a dispute... Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler yes it is a dispute, but if there is not a consensus that your dispute is valid, the version that remains is the original one, that is also supported by source. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fact myself and others have said it's not supported and therefore shouldn't be there is literally a dispute... Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler there is not such as disputed content. The party has 5 members affiliated with it, and there is source about it. Your edits where those which need consnensus, because you are the one which want to change the original. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler The problem here is that you don't understand the policy. The one who needs consensus to make edits, is the one that wants to make a change at the page. In our case, maybe the random version in which the page was locked was your version, but that does not change the fact that you were the one who wanted to make a change. You need consensus, you did not achieved it. Also, that is ad-hominem again, and now you checked and my greek WP blocks? Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler There was a long time period in which we did not have any edit in the discussion. The original version was the one with the seats. The admins at that cases, lock the article at a random version (otherwise there should have been a clarification from the admin). So the lack of consensus concerns your own version, not the original one, to which I restored the article. Finally, I need to point out that you have made a series of problematic contributions, such as misguiding users by referring them to Misplaced Pages policies that are not related to the subject as I demonstrated exactly above, but also the ad-hominem against me which you proceeded together with the anonymous user in the article discussion. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler I will prove you that you actually interpret policies as you see fit, and you don't pay attention to what they say. WP:IDHT:
- There has never been a specific version of the article. A few hours after adding the uncited 5 MPs, the edit was undone. It is also worth noting that the original contributor of the addition about mps, Quinnnnnby never engaged in an edit war or challenged our disagreements, as you did. 77.49.204.122 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did, but you also did. So the only user to act properly at that case was @Quinnnnnby. And guess with what opinion Quinnnnby agreed at the discussion... Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Hellenic Rebel:, Rambling Rambler is actually right: if you wish to include text which has been disputed, you must include sourcing. You cannot just attempt to force the content in, regardless of what consensus you believe has been achieved. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HandThatFeeds this is exactly why I am saying that the users propagandize: there was a source used! Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then it's time to discuss that source on the Talk page instead of just ramming into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HandThatFeeds there was a discussion on the page. The source states that 5 MPs of the Hellenic Parliament are in the new party. And the users, after their first argument that it should have a parliamentary group was shot down (as it was obvious that this policy is not followed in any party), they moved on to a logic that the source should say verbatim "5 MPs stand" for the party... Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HandThatFeeds I have lost hours of my life to "discussing" this at this point. They're entirely either refusing or simply incapable of understanding that because they have sources for Claim A that doesn't mean they can put a similar but still different Claim B on the article. They however insist they can because unlike us they're "Hellenic" and therefore know that Claim A = Claim B while refusing to accept this is WP:OR. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then it's time to discuss that source on the Talk page instead of just ramming into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HandThatFeeds this is exactly why I am saying that the users propagandize: there was a source used! Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Hellenic Rebel:, Rambling Rambler is actually right: if you wish to include text which has been disputed, you must include sourcing. You cannot just attempt to force the content in, regardless of what consensus you believe has been achieved. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did, but you also did. So the only user to act properly at that case was @Quinnnnnby. And guess with what opinion Quinnnnby agreed at the discussion... Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rambling Rambler an admin locked the page, and then anybody respond even if we make pings. That means that they just locked the page because there was an edit war, and and no one dealt with the article. The discussion ended weeks ago and also you've made a public call. If somebody wanted, they would have closed the discussion. So I don't think it's a case of IDHT, because the time intervals in which someone could engage (either to participate in the discussion, or an administrator to close it) had exceeded the normal. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- My friends, anonymous user and @Rambling Rambler, and also dear user and adminis that are going to see the previous POVs. The article had a specific version, which you decided to dispute by causing a correction war, that could easily be seen at the page history. The administrator locked the page in order to reach to a consensus, which obviously couldn't happen, and there was no corresponding participation. Four users in all, the two of us presented our arguments in favor of the original version, Rambling Rambler (and somewhat monotonously and without proper documentation, the anonymous user) presented yours for the version without seats. At the end, you threw in an ad-hominem against me, to top it off. You made a call, no one else did anything, time passed. What makes you believe that the article will remain in your version, while the original was the previous one and there was no consensus?
Automatic editing, abusive behaviour, and disruptive(ish) wikihounding from User:KMaster888
User:KMaster888 appears to be making lightning speed edits that are well beyond the capacity of any human to review, in addition to article content that's coming across potentially LLM-like in nature. Since December they've made over 11,000 edits, many across multiple articles within a sixty second window.
I attempted to ask about the policies around this at User_talk:Novem_Linguae and was met with a tirade of obscenities and abuse (which I want to give them a slight benefit of the doubt on, I'd be upset at being accused of being a bot if I wasn't):
As far as I can tell this peaked with a total of 89 edits in a four minute window between 08:27 to 08:31 on December 28, 2024. Most are innocuous, but there are content edits thrown in the mix and recent articles were written in a way that indicates it may be an LLM (diff not definitive, though if you are familiar with LLM output this may ring some alarm bells, but false alarms abound).
Following the quite hot thread at User:Novem Linguae's page, it's quite clear that whoever is operating that bot threw my entire edit history into the mix, because the bot systematically edited every single article that I had edited, in reverse order (over 100 so far since this came up about an couple of hours ago), going back a reasonable amount of time.
The problem is that it's clear that a bot was instructed to just make an edit, without concern for what those edits are, so you end up with questionable, misrepresented, or edits for the sake of editing at a rate far faster than any editor could address.
This one is easily one of the strangest situations I've ever encountered on Misplaced Pages. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm flattered that you've looked into my activity on Misplaced Pages so closely. But if you'd be arsed, you'd understand that it is very simple to do an insource search using a regular expression to find a lot of stylistic errors, like no space after a sentence. If you love being on my back so much, good on you, but I'd wish if you got off. KMaster888 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1) That doesn't explain how consistently abusive you have been
- 2) While I'm aware that an overwhelming percentage of the errors you're editing out are ones that can simply be addressed by regex, I'm very clearly raising the content edits as opposed to formatting ones. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- How about we take this off of ANI, of all places? KMaster888 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, this feels quite appropriate considering your abusiveness and that your retaliation involved damaging some articles. I said there I was asking a policy question and was happy to let it go, you've edited over 100 articles from my edit history in direct sequence in response to that question, which is just strange behaviour for an editor. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Obviously, if there's someone who's making bad decisions on Misplaced Pages (You), I want to check if he has messed up articles. Please tell me what articles you think I have damaged. KMaster888 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, I'd appreciate if you would stop casting aspersions about me being an LLM. KMaster888 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I said then, and as I'll say again: If there's not an LLM involved in this situation, then I'm sincerely sorry. It was a combination of clearly assisted editing and the verbiage used that looked concerning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was no assisted editing. Stop spreading that blatant falsehood. This is why I say to take this off of ANI. It is stuff that is made up in your head that has no basis in reality. KMaster888 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Unless you're doing regex with your eyes, clearly you're using assistance. And the fact you're (still!) doing something that fixes the same type of typo almost as fast as I can click "Random Article" indicates you're doing more than just regex. You're finding these articles somehow.closhund/talk/ 22:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- I am doing an "insource" search using regex. KMaster888 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I learned about insource searches recently and was able to find spam by the boatload immediately. It is a great tool. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah . I wasn't aware one could do that. I retract. closhund/talk/ 22:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I learned about insource searches recently and was able to find spam by the boatload immediately. It is a great tool. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am doing an "insource" search using regex. KMaster888 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was no assisted editing. Stop spreading that blatant falsehood. This is why I say to take this off of ANI. It is stuff that is made up in your head that has no basis in reality. KMaster888 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I said then, and as I'll say again: If there's not an LLM involved in this situation, then I'm sincerely sorry. It was a combination of clearly assisted editing and the verbiage used that looked concerning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And, I would appreciate if you would stop calling my edits strange and odd. KMaster888 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You had over 100 edits in a row directily in chronological sequence, from newest to oldest, of my exact edit history excluding wikiprojects and talk pages. I'm allowed to find that a little strange. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't someone call strange and odd edits strange and odd? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, this feels quite appropriate considering your abusiveness and that your retaliation involved damaging some articles. I said there I was asking a policy question and was happy to let it go, you've edited over 100 articles from my edit history in direct sequence in response to that question, which is just strange behaviour for an editor. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @KMaster888 I suggest you stop with the personal attacks before you get blocked. Tarlby 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm a little less forgiving than Tarlby, so I would suggest that KMaster888 should be blocked/banned already. Knowing how to write regular expressions doesn't give anyone the right to ignore policy about such issues as civility and hounding. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have not ignored policy on either civility or hounding. The fact is, there are no automation tools that I have used, and this has been constructed as a theory entirely as a falsehood. It is annoying that one Misplaced Pages user constantly spouts falsehoods about me. KMaster888 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll just ask you straight up.Do you feel any remorse for this statement?
remove asshole
Could you explain why you felt it was best to choose those two words when blanking your talk page? Tarlby 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- And again:
@The Corvette ZR1 @Tarlby stop clogging up ANI with your comments.
The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 22:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And again:
- I'll just ask you straight up.Do you feel any remorse for this statement?
- I have not ignored policy on either civility or hounding. The fact is, there are no automation tools that I have used, and this has been constructed as a theory entirely as a falsehood. It is annoying that one Misplaced Pages user constantly spouts falsehoods about me. KMaster888 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- , , , , , Tarlby 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And this: improve asinine comment and this: I wipe my ass with comments like yours. Cheers! MrOllie (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That was because Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. I would say the same to you as I said to the other editor: get off my back. KMaster888 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have to abide by the rules like the rest of us. And cool it with the hostile edit summaries. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Great answer. Tarlby 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Attacking other editors instead of backing off, inappropriate edit summaries, what next? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There ought to be a gossip noticeboard that doesn't clog up ANI. KMaster888 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will dispute what you said. I AM HERE to build an encyclopedia. Why do you think I would have given 10,000 edits worth of my time if I didn't care? KMaster888 (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, WP:CIVIL and WP:SUMMARYNO tell me the contrary. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of their editing or otherwise, KMaster888's comments in edit summaries and here indicate they're WP:OBNOXIOUS in a way that indicates an inability to participate in a collaborative encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The product of Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which is a body of written and visual work. It is first and foremost about the product, not the community. In this sense, it is indeed a collaborative encyclopedia, but it should not be considered an encyclopedic collaboation. KMaster888 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wikilawyering over what "collaboration" is doesn't help when you're in blatant violation of the fourth of the five pillars. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not Wikilawyering. I would also encourage you to come to a discussion on my talk page over small potatoes instead of at ANI. KMaster888 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is wikilawyering. And this is at ANI, so the discussion is taking place at ANI. Answering the concerns about your conduct that were raised here on here is how you resolve the issue, not "don't talk about it on ANI", as the latter gives the impression of trying to sweep them under the rug - especially since your edit summaries MrOllie linked above make it clear this is very much not "small potatoes". - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not Wikilawyering. I would also encourage you to come to a discussion on my talk page over small potatoes instead of at ANI. KMaster888 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wikilawyering over what "collaboration" is doesn't help when you're in blatant violation of the fourth of the five pillars. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The product of Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which is a body of written and visual work. It is first and foremost about the product, not the community. In this sense, it is indeed a collaborative encyclopedia, but it should not be considered an encyclopedic collaboation. KMaster888 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of their editing or otherwise, KMaster888's comments in edit summaries and here indicate they're WP:OBNOXIOUS in a way that indicates an inability to participate in a collaborative encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, WP:CIVIL and WP:SUMMARYNO tell me the contrary. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That was because Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. I would say the same to you as I said to the other editor: get off my back. KMaster888 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And this: improve asinine comment and this: I wipe my ass with comments like yours. Cheers! MrOllie (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm a little less forgiving than Tarlby, so I would suggest that KMaster888 should be blocked/banned already. Knowing how to write regular expressions doesn't give anyone the right to ignore policy about such issues as civility and hounding. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's some more diffs of KMaster888 being uncivil. From my user talk page. . I think these are forgivable if in isolation since KMaster888 may be frustrated by false accusations of being a bot, but if it's a pattern, it may need addressing.
- The WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:BADGERING of my user talk page and of this ANI is also a behavioral problem that, if a pattern, may also need addressing. It is disrespectful to interlocutor's time and brainpower to dominate discussions by replying to everything. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless there are specific discussion rules, I should not be penalized for responding to comments that involve me. KMaster888 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem isn't you responding to those comments. It's about HOW you responded to those comments. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are, in fact,
specific discussion rules
- WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless there are specific discussion rules, I should not be penalized for responding to comments that involve me. KMaster888 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Propose indefinite block
Blocked and TPA revoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- KMaster888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- You're saying "they" like it's more than one person. I am one editor. KMaster888 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not in that sense. We use they/them pronouns as to not assume an editor's gender. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above reasoning. MiasmaEternal☎ 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like Cullen328 beat us to that indef. MiasmaEternal☎ 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Their blank talkpage, on which they encourage discussion, has a nonexistent archive. Miniapolis 23:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is not true. The archive page is at the subpage of the talk page, /archive. KMaster888 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - While I wouldn’t have had the same suspicions about their editing as Warren, their extremely uncivil reactions to it and further questions here, along with the further attention they’ve drawn on to prior recent behaviour has effectively demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in meaningful interaction with any other editor who disagrees with them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe revoke TPA too? This is beyond the pale. closhund/talk/ 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- After their latest personal attack, I have revoked their talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. This personal attack against blocking admin Cullen328 is beyond the pale. This is clearly a person that lets rage get the best of them, and is not responsive to feedback. Not sure if we should close this, or let it play out and turn into a CBAN. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good block and I'd have done same if you hadn't been here first. Regardless of whether the edits were improvements, no one has the right to treat other editors as KM888 did. Star Mississippi 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good block It'd take a hand-written miracle from God for them to change their ways anytime soon.
Investigating the hounding claim
Above, there is a claim that KMaster888 is WP:HOUNDING Warrenmck by editing 100 pages that Warrenmck has edited. The editor interaction analyzer suggests that there's only an overlap of 45 pages (42 if you subtract out my user talk, KMaster888's user talk, and ANI). Warrenmck, can you please be very specific about exactly which pages overlap? Maybe give a link to KMaster888's contribs and timestamps of where this range of hounding edits begins and ends? This is a serious claim and probably actionable if enough evidence is provided. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that there are >100 edits across the pages, since they tended to edit in a spree. The number of pages you found seems accurate, even accounting for the possibility of a few outside of this exchange. I’m not sure what exactly I can do to show the relationship to my edit history beyond I guess go pull said histories and compare them? But I wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority of the interactions you see were from that narrow window after your talk page.
- Sorry for the drama, by the way. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah that makes sense. I didn't think of the multiple edits to a page thing. No worries about the drama. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't apologise for this. Nobody should have to put up with such behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
User:FMSky
WP:BOOMERANG. PolitcalPoint blocked for a month for BLP violations. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FMSky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:FMSky has been persistently engaging in disruptive editing by constantly reverting (see , , and ) in bad faith over the course of more than a week in order to prevent the insertion of sourced material that states that Tulsi Gabbard had "touted working for her father’s anti-gay organization, which mobilized to pass a measure against same-sex marriage in Hawaii and promoted controversial conversion therapy", which is a discredited, harmful, and pseudoscientific practice that falsely purports to "cure" homosexuality.
" backed by two reliable sources cited (see and ) in support of the specific wording inserted into the article.
For my part, I have consistently maintained a strict self-imposed policy of 0RR, never even once reverting User:FMSky, listening to his concerns and taking his concerns seriously, tirelessly working to address his concerns with two reliable sources cited (see and ) in support of the exact same wording that User:FMSky originally objected to (see ), then, when reverted again by User:FMSky, I patiently continued to assume good faith and attempted to engage with him directly on his talk page not once but twice (see and ), which he pointedly refused to respond to on both occasions, then when reverted yet again by User:FMSky (see ), explained to him the entire series of events (see ), which User:FMSky replied to by blatantly lying that I had not addressed his concerns (see ), which, when I pointed that out and showed him the reliable sources that I cited in order to address his concerns (see ), User:FMSky replied by saying verbatim "How is that even relevant? Just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean this exact wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia." (see ).
I'm completely exasperated and exhausted at this point. If even using the exact same wording as the reliable sources cited in support of the specific wording inserted into the article is still unacceptable to User:FMSky, then I'm not sure what I'm even supposed to do to satisfy him. User:FMSky is clearly engaging in disruptive editing in bad faith and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PoliticalPoint, your source for "discredited, harmful, and pseudoscientific practice that falsely purports to "cure" homosexuality" doesn't mention Gabbard or Hawaii or her father's organization. Have you read WP:SYNTH? Schazjmd (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- More the case that trying to assert conversion therapy as discredited is a COATRACK, unless there was appropriate sourced coverage that associated Gabbatd with supporting a discredited theory. We can leave the blue link on conversion therapy carry the worry of explaining the issues with it, it doesn't belong on a BLP. — Masem (t) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The wording does not "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" as the latter part of the wording, as supported by the second reliable source (see ), explains what conversion therapy is for the benefit of readers. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me lmao. I didn't even notice that. That makes it even worse --FMSky (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only commenting on this particular angle: @Schazjmd: when dealing with fringe ideas, it is sometimes the case that sources provide weight connecting the subject to a fringe idea but which do not themselves adequately explain the fringe theory. If it's due weight to talk about something like conversation therapy (or creation science, links between vaccines and autism, etc.), we run afoul of WP:FRINGE if we don't provide proper context. These cases are rare, however, and this isn't a judgment about anything in the rest of this thread. — Rhododendrites \\ 02:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The user was previously blocked and was only unblocked after agreeing to 0RR on BLPs. This was violated in the 3 reverts here and the concerns weren't adressed: 1, 2, 3. See also the previous discussion on PoliticalPoint's talk page that I initiated -- FMSky (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
FMSky replied by saying verbatim "How is that even relevant? Just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean this exact wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia.
I love how you, in bad faith, left out the most relevant part that I added: "And the statements weren't even attributed to someone" --FMSky (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- As already pointed out to you at my talk page (see ), those were edits, not reverts, over the course of more than week, and as also already pointed out to you at my talk page (see and ) your concerns with the wording were in fact addressed with two reliable sources cited in support with the exact same wording that you objected to, verbatim. You are blatantly lying again, as the statement is, in fact, attributed to Gabbard herself as it is she herself who "touted working for her father's anti-gay organization", which is backed by the first reliable source (see ). --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, these were reverts, as the wording I originally objected to was restored numerous times --FMSky (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those were edits over the course of over a week. The wording that you originally objected to was restored only with two reliable sources that use the exact same wording verbatim. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you used the same wording as the sources without an attributed quote you've committed a copyright violation. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those were edits over the course of over a week. The wording that you originally objected to was restored only with two reliable sources that use the exact same wording verbatim. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Restoring removed content even without using the undo feature is a revert. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, these were reverts, as the wording I originally objected to was restored numerous times --FMSky (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As already pointed out to you at my talk page (see ), those were edits, not reverts, over the course of more than week, and as also already pointed out to you at my talk page (see and ) your concerns with the wording were in fact addressed with two reliable sources cited in support with the exact same wording that you objected to, verbatim. You are blatantly lying again, as the statement is, in fact, attributed to Gabbard herself as it is she herself who "touted working for her father's anti-gay organization", which is backed by the first reliable source (see ). --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Besides removing obvious SYNTH, I notice that FMSky reworked unnecessary overquoting; looks like good editing on FMSky's part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Another thing I just noticed is that the article is special-protected: "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message."
No such discussion was initiated on Gabbard's talk page --FMSky (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have blocked PoliticalPoint for a month for BLP violations, an escalation of their prior two-week edit warring block. I had originally intended to just p-block them from Gabbard but I am not convinced they understand the issue and that the problematic editing wouldn't just move to another page. Should they eventually request an unblock I think serious discussion sould happen w/r/t a a topic ban on BLPs or American Politics. Star Mississippi 01:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating WP:BEFORE
- Bgsu98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.
I noticed an editor named Bgsu98 who had been mass-nominating figure skater articles for deletion. It is too obvious to me that he doesn't do even a minimum search required by WP:BEFORE before nominating. (I must note that most of the skaters he nominates for AfD aren't English, so a foreign language search is required. Sometimes you need to search on a foreign search engine. For example, Google seems to ignore many Russian websites recently.)
I have counted 45 articles nominated by him at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating. And it is worrying that people seem to rely on the nominator's competence and vote "delete" without much thought.
I should note that Bgsu98 doesn't seem to stop even when an article he nominated has been kept. He nominated Kamil Białas (a national medalist) two times with the same rationale (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kamil Białas (2nd nomination)). One can really wonder why he does this.
P.S. More information is here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Figure Skating#Notability guidelines. What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE. It seems that no one acted on this change until Bgsu98 came.
P.P.S. As I stated on the WikiProject Figure Skating talk page I linked above, I think it was very unfair to change the rules. Especially since web sources tend to die out after some time.
P.P.P.S. I would also like to note that I am polite, while Bgsu98 has already accused me of "bad-faith accusations and outright lies" (source). --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- as the closer of several skating AfDs, I have no issue with a DRV if @Moscow Connection or any other editor believes I closed it in error. However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules. That isn't grounds for a DRV nor a report against @Bgsu98 who is nominating based on community consensus. Star Mississippi 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Star Mississippi. But just to give some scope, this cleaning house, mostly of ice skating junior champions, is not recent, it's been going on for at least 6-9 months now, it was originally done through the use of PROD'd articles. But while there have been some objections raised over the past year, Bgsu98's efforts have mostly received support from editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Over the past two weeks, through the use of AFD, we have seen dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of annual national skating championship articles either deleted or redirected. But I just want to note that these AFDs wouldn't have closed as "Delete all" or "Redirect all" without the support of other AFD participants. Very few editors are arguing to Keep them all. Liz 02:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Moscow Connection claims to be polite, yet wrote the following: "random people at AfD don't care about actually checking the notability and just vote "delete per nom". Pinging Shrug02 who also found that comment objectionable. I have made an effort to thank editors who have participated in my AFD's, regardless of whether they have always agreed with my findings, because AFD's that end in "no consensus" do nothing but waste everyone's time.
- He has been adversarial and confrontational in every communication to me. From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hanna Harrell: "By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD... Like, you nomitated Kamil Białas 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale... Are you planning to nominate it 100 times?"
- I always appreciate constructive feedback when it's delivered in a courteous and professional manner. Moscow Connection seems incapable of courtesy or professionalism. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- C'mon, User:Bgsu98, civility goes both ways. We can discuss the value of these articles and the AFD process without attacking each other. Flinging mud doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. Liz 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I apologize, Liz; I am just at my wit's end with this editor. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's my take, User:Bgsu98. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. Liz 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I have been pinged on this discussion I thought I would 1 confirm I did find @Moscow Connection to be somewhat rude and condescending in their repeated assertions that those who vote on these skating AFDs do not do any research and are basically sheep just voting delete and 2 most of these nominated bios are a few sentences or just a table of stats copy and pasted so @Liz I doubt anyone spent hours putting them together. Finally I feel @Moscow Connection is now looking to use any procedure they can to try and besmirch @Bgsu98 and derail their valid efforts to remove some of the seemingly thousands of sports bios that do not meet current Misplaced Pages guidelines and are of interest to few, if any, general reader. If anyone is in need of reprimand or sanction over this matter (which has been blown out of all proportion), it is @Moscow Connection Shrug02 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's my take, User:Bgsu98. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. Liz 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- C'mon, User:Bgsu98, civility goes both ways. We can discuss the value of these articles and the AFD process without attacking each other. Flinging mud doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. Liz 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let me help you out here, Moscow Connection. As it happens, Bgsu98 is a veteran editor with both tens of thousands of edits and a long history of editing skating articles. He is not, as you imply, some bomb thrower hellbent in laying waste to skating articles. Moving right along ...
(2) Your curious assertion that he was the first person to AfD no-longer-qualifying skating articles is inaccurate; I did so myself, right after the NSPORTS changes, and I recall several editors also doing so.
(3) The Bialas AfDs did not close as Keep, as you wrongly assert. They closed as "no consensus", with almost no participation and multiple relistings; that's exactly the kind of situation where renomination to seek an actual consensus is appropriate.
(4) Rules change on Misplaced Pages, by the bucketload. I have a hard time seeing what is "very unfair" about this, unless "very unfair" is a secret code for "I don't like it, so it's unfair." And ... seriously? You've been on Misplaced Pages for fifteen years, have over sixty thousand edits, have participated in nearly a hundred AfDs? I'd expect this level of confusion from a first-week newbie, not from an editor of your experience. Ravenswing 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given it is acknowledged that large numbers of articles on figure skaters do not meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria (
What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE.
), I’m not really seeing anything unexpected here. — - Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Potential company editing?
Closing by OP request. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Bouchra Filali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Djellaba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The user Bouchra Filali uploaded this image to the page Djellaba. They share a name with a fashion company and seem to have replaced the original image on the article with a product from their company (see revision 1268097124). I reverted their edit and warned them, but due to my concern, and following advice from an administrator on the wikimedia community discord, I am reporting this here as well. I have also asked for advice on what to do with the commons file, and will be filing any necessary reports there. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 04:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- They have only made one edit on this project which was adding an image to an article, it looks like they uploaded the image on the Commons. Have you tried talking about your issues with them on their Commons user talk page, Cmrc23? This doesn't seem like it's a problem for the English Misplaced Pages. We don't even know if they'll be back to make a second edit. Liz 06:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I asked the commons folks on discord and it seems that, since they uploaded an image that they own, all is well. I have to admit that I was a little hasty here, I've never used this noticeboard before. Feel free to close this if you feel there is nothing more to discuss, I'll monitor the user in question. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 06:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Smm380 and logged out editing
- Smm380 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 195.238.112.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
I have warned this editor twice about logged out editing because they are evidently editing the article history of Ukraine both logged in and as an IP. This makes tracking their edits more difficult since they have made hundreds altogether in recent months (and they are only focused on this specific article). The IP edits seem to come from 195.238.112.0/20 (at least most of them) and they are often made shortly before/after Smm380 decides to log back in. See for example this edit by Smm380 and this edit by the IP a few minutes later regarding the same section. This is now especially a problem because they are deciding to make reverts as an IP.
In general, they have not listened to prior warnings. I have given them multiple warnings about adding unsourced text, but they are still continuing to add unsourced text without including citations first. But they have not responded to any of my warnings or explained why they are still doing this. Mellk (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Category: