| Revision as of 00:02, 13 August 2014 view sourceBegoon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,915 editsm →User Skyhook1 on article Skyhook: ce← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:27, 11 January 2025 view source Black Kite (talk | contribs)Administrators85,253 edits →Review of an article deletion: done | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} | |||
| {{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 = 95f2c40e2e81e8b5dbf1fc65d4152915 | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | ||
| |headerlevel=2 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{stack end}} | |||
| <!-- | <!-- | ||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | |||
| |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive | |||
| == Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from ] == | |||
| |format=%%i | |||
| ], 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) | |||
| |age=36 | |||
| :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) | |||
| |index=no | |||
| ::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. | |||
| |numberstart=826 | |||
| ::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) | |||
| |archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} | |||
| :::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) | |||
| |minarchthreads= 1 | |||
| ::::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 . | |||
| |minkeepthreads= 4 | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| |maxarchsize= 700000 | |||
| :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) | |||
| |key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c | |||
| ::I have been blocked on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} --> | |||
| :::Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. ] ] 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And here's explicit transphobia. It's her '''daughter''', no matter how much you hate the idea of trans children existing. The story you've told is also completely distorted. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I simply don't want this editor targeting me with transphobic stuff here after he target me on pt.wiki (and left it permanently in great part for that reason) and Commons. I am considering taking medication because of these events. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*'''Comment''' I would suggest Darwin review ]. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. ] (]) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:@] I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? ] ] 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::@], the bottom line is that ''you don't get to question that.'' As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is '''not''' the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them ''any'' good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. ] (]) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. ] ] 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::We're here because this "questioning" appears to be bleeding into transphobic harassment. I would support an indef based on edits like this ] (]) 15:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:The story told above is completely distorted to fit the transphobic's narrative. Simon223, if you want to get the full story, read ]' page or read its sources (with the help of a translator if needed). <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. ] (]) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. ] ] 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including ]) - otherwise you will be blocked. ]] 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::Sure, if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. ] ] 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::Just so everyone knows, the facts are being quite distorted here. It wasn't really an imposition — her daughter, did not want to play with "boy toys", even when being forced by her mom. That's why the mom said she plays with "girl toys" and everything else. The references on said articles weren't thoroughly read, apparently by everybody here. | |||
| *:*::::::Adding to this too: DarwIn, in some edits to the article in the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, added "quotes" on the word trans and some other parts of the articly, as if was his duty to judge if the girl is trans or not. Anyways, I think what happened in ptwiki stays there. | |||
| *:*::::::And I want to make clear that I'm only stating the things that happened so everyone knows. I do not support blocking him. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::Four year olds are generally not considered babies. You really need to drop this - and probably to avoid editing in the ] area.] (]) 16:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::I would suggest a '''topic ban''' is imposed. ]] 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::I would '''support''' a topic ban from ]. ] (]) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. ] (]) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::Topic ban from GENSEX and BLP, broadly construed, is fine for me. ]] 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::I do understand this Misplaced Pages rules on BLP. Isn't that not enough for you? ] ] 16:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::::Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. ]] 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::::You seem to have missed the part when I very clearly stated there that I retired myself from that DYN debate. ] ] 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::@] nice try, but I don't edit on that topic, anyway. Let's calm down and enjoy the Christmas season. ] ] 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. ] (]) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. ] ] 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::::You fundementally misunderstand the scope of ] and the concept of topic area as well. ] (]) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::::Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. ] ] 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::::::I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. ] (]) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::::::::it was a collective you. ] ] 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::::::::The collective you did not pursue you here either. Only the OP appears to cross over. ] (]) 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::I noticed this yesterday but intentionally didn't mention it since I felt there had already been enough nonsense. But since DarwIn is still defending their offensive comments below, I'd note that the child was 4 years old in 2019. It's now 2024 and they've evidentally seen a medical professional. If at any time they express a desire for a different gender identity we will of course respect that whatever her mother says; but at this time BLP full supports respecting a 8-9 year old and not treating her as a baby. ] (]) 22:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::None of this is relevant. We follow sources and ]. There is obviously no Misplaced Pages position on when someone is or is not a "baby" and should have their self-identification reproduced in their biography. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :They cannot be trusted. Above they said "I'm retiring myself from this topic" and yet has continued to post. ]] 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've continued to post where? ] ] 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I've already walked away from it yesterday, why you're insisting on that lie? ] ] 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? ]] 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have ], and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -] (]) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. ] ] 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -] (]) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? ] ] 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] This one. -] (]) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@] I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. ] ] 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::@] Easiest way to defuse this is to post a '''bolded''' and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -] (]) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" ] ] 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::That is not an appropriate statement, it has your bias/agenda throughout it. Very concerning. ]] 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Heres the main point I can see RE "Cross-wiki harassment." If DarwIn claims they do not regularly edit this topic space and had not previously participated in DYK discussions how did they come to find themselves there just in time to oppose the contribution of an editor they had extensive negative interactions with on another wiki? ] (]) 16:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:that's old stuff, I already posted a note there retiring from that space yesterday. I'm really puzzled on what all this fuss is about. ] ] 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::This isn't about the transphobia, this is about the harassment (they are seperate by apparently related claims). So how did you find yourself commenting on that DYK? ] (]) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I expressed my disagreement with that note, justifying with my opinion, and there's not even any misgendering issue there, AFAIK. Not sure if expressing that opinion here is forbidden or not, but in any case I've posted a note retiring from it already yesterday, so I've no idea what more do you want. ] ] 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? ] (]) 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::precisely because we are currently in the process of evaluating the notability of that bio and association she created at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, so it's just natural that related issues on other wikis get monitored too, that's part of the process. You don't agree with that evaluation, and that's perfectly OK. To each Misplaced Pages their own stuff 🤷 ] ] 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. ] (]) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::it's the wikipedia articles created yesterday that we are evaluating, not any kind of DYK note. ] ] 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around ] (]) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::@] no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? ] ] 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Because of edits like this . ] (]) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::answering an accusation of being a dictator after flushing away the copyviios she uploaded. What's the problem? ] ] 17:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::No, that diff is the undo. Thats you edit warring apparent harassment onto someone's talk page on another wiki with a kissing face as the edit summary... In that context this does look like cross wiki harassment. Do you have a better explanation? ] (]) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Just answered the troll there with another, as I was on the middle of something else. Yes, I know, not the nicest thing to do, but whatever. And why are we discussing Commons here now, anyway? ] ] 17:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::We're discussing cross wiki harassment, that makes edits on any wiki relevant to the discussion. You appear to have been harassing them on commons and then followed them here to continue the harassment because a temporary block there (which you appear to have had a hand in) prevented them from being active there. You absolutely can not do that. ] (]) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::I ''answered'' a troll, if there was any harassment was from that account towards me, not the opposite. Please don't invert the situation. ] ] 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::Your edits on enwiki had nothing to do with trolling or other behavioral issues from that account, if your edits on enwiki were to address valid concerns informed by your experience on other wikis we would not be having this discussion. It was also you restoring your comment which they removed from their talk page, thats you trolling them and it makes their dictator claim look not like trolling but rather accurate. ] (]) 17:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::I confess I've no idea why we are still having this discussion, as they were just that. But for the 50th time, these interactions have stopped long ago, and for a similar amount of time I've devotedly accepted and committed to all your rules. ] ] 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::In my opinion we're still having this discussion because you are stonewalling, perhaps its a language barrier but you don't come off as trustworthy or engaging in good faith. ] (]) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Honestly, this is an interesting idea but I think this needs to become an Arbitration Committee issue. The community is so heavily divided on this, it’s actually ridiculous. This whole situation just is bonkers. Like why is this at ANI anymore. ] (]) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::By an interesting idea I meant my idea of it becoming an arbitration committee issue is an interesting proposal. ] (]) 00:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I believe it may help too, if Darwin will promise to avoid interacting on main space with Skyshifter. ] (]) 17:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- | |||
| ----------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| As this page concerns INCIDENTS: | |||
| Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header. | |||
| Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| Do not place links in the section headers. | |||
| (Immediately UNDER the header is preferred). | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| Entries may be refactored based on the above. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- --> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{archivetop|I feel we're are approaching the point where this discussion serves no good.There is an RFC on the policy point, no consensus to tar and feather Squeakbox and some of the comments here wholly fail to assume goos faith. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{anchor|User:SqueakBox and BLP policy requiring referencing for contentious material.}} | |||
| {{anchor|User:SqueakBox}} | |||
| Could you take a look at ] edits? This editor insists in having the page ] completely blanked under BLP-complaints. Note the lists is enterely consisting of blue-links, and all the relevant articles unambiguosly refer to the subjects as "pornographic actors". Talk page consensus appears against him, but he seems to ignore it and keeps on edit warring and blanking the page. I invited the editor to nominate the article for deletion and let the community decide, especially as he had previously proposed the article for deletion, but he refuses, he just want the article empty. Also look at his edits history, he has a long history of blanking/boldly removing large chunks of sex-related articles. I suggest reading discussions at ] and ], which are quite enlighting. --] 13:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I am enforcing BLP policy. Not everyone who has an article is a porn star. Therefore having an article on wikipedia (ie a blue link) is not evidence of being a porn star. Therefore when somebody appears on a porn star list and they are living a reliable source is required that this person is in fact a porn star. Otherwise we at wikipedia have no way of guaranteeing that the person in the article is in fact a porn star. If an article is about porn actors who have appeared in mainstream films a ref is also required that they have appeared in mainstream films, possibly the same ref but both pieces of information must be reliably sourced. If you look here ] you can see Andy the Grump supporting my position and reverting a user for the same BLP violation of restoring material that has been identified as BLP non compliant on its removal and that Cavarrone has also been restoring. Enfrocing BLP is not blanking when BLP is cited in the edit summary. Cavarrone has claimed my arguments which has not helped. I have quoted the relevant BLP policies and would indeed urge an admin to look at this case objectively and not assuming that I am the problem. As I have stated elsewhere, I dont want the article empty, I want the page full again but with each living person reliably sourced. I have never proposed the article for deletion though last night Andy did mention that it maybe should be deleted, but this is not an opinion I agree with. I have no interest whatsoever in censoring porn, my interest is ensuring porn lists are BLP compliant and I fail to see how thta is being disruptive. The solution to all this is that we all get on with the hard work of reffing these living people and returning them to this and other articles, there is no substitute for that work when it comes to living people. ♫ ] ] ] 13:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nonsense. "Enfrocing (''sic'') BLP is not blanking when BLP is cited in the edit summary", everyone could check if the page is actually blanked or just "BLP enforced". Blanking a page is a statement of fact, not something you can dialectically "decorate". "Not everyone who has an article is a porn star. Therefore having an article on wikipedia (ie a blue link) is not evidence of being a porn star" is even more nonsensical as long as all the relevant linked articles unambiguosly refer to the subjects as "pornographic actors". And your claim that you " never proposed the article for deletion" is just false: . You blanked the article and simultaneusly prodded with the rationale "empty list". ] 14:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks like Squeekbox is at 5RR and should be given a final warning before blocking. ATG should be cautioned about tag-team edit warring. There is no BLP violation here, and even if there were on a case-by-case basis, then rather than wasting everybody's time getting into a kerfuffle here to enforce prudish mores about adult entertainment they ought to just follow the blue links to make sure each of the articles linked to has a well-sourced and biographically significant statement that the person is in fact a current or former adult entertainment actor. BLP is basically a ], you have a right to do it if you are correct but that doesn't mean you can go around dictating and enforcing your own personal views about Misplaced Pages policy if you are not. I'll refrain from restoring until this is settled here or at BLP/N so that I'm not WP:INVOLVED as a non-admin. - ] (]) 14:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::WP:BLP violations are exempt from 3RR policy. ] (]) 15:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::''If'' they are applied reasonably and properly... --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 22:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The list in question asserted that multiple persons were porn stars. '''None''' of them had a reference for this. That is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy - which states that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be '''removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'''." There really isn't any wiggle room here - blanking the article was the only policy-compliant option. The suggestion that because sources supposedly exist elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, the list should be exempt from policy, simply won't wash. We don't cite Misplaced Pages as a source, and if valid sources exist, they must be cited ''in the list''. It should also be noted that the list had no citations for the claims that these individuals appeared in mainstream films either - and many of the films named were redlinked, making the claim entirely unsourced anywhere. It should also be noted that prior to SqueakBox editing the article in January, the list named numerous individuals with ''no Misplaced Pages article whatsoever'' - a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy under any circumstances. ] (]) 14:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*Actually the list asserted nothing. In reference to ] which states that Notability of Adult industry performers can be established by appearances in Mainstream media, its a collection of mainstream films and television productions that are also listed in the articles for these performers; in other works its the WP version of ]. The assertion that ''any'' of these people is involved with the Adult industry is in the individual articles which were/are clearly linked. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 22:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Seriously. Noone is pretending to "use Misplaced Pages like a source". All the bluelinked items have the sources in their relevant articles proofing the actors are adult actors. It is what our BLP policy prescribes for lists, categories and navigation templates ]. Otherwise, now I need to add an inline source for every actress in ] stating "x is an Italian actress"? Or am I authorized to blank the page "per BLP"? Not to mention that blanking a page is not a "policy-compliant option", it is just silly. ] 15:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Actually the bLP articles not say lists are BLP exempt, it says they are not BLP exempt, ]♫ ] ] ] 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If the blue links weren't being used as a source, then the list had no sources for a contentious assertion, in violation of Misplaced Pages BLP policy. Blanking was obligatory. 15:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I will take that as a no, so it is your interpretation of policy. Others interpret policy differently. - ] (]) 15:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think the forced blanking of the list is counterproductive and borderline POINTY if Squakbox and ATG's actions serve to prevent the very improvement they claim to want. However, they are quite correct that a list like this should be supported by references on the article directly. Regardless of ATG's overzealous interpretation of policy, I would personally support unblanking the list iff you or others undertake to source it. But not before, and with the expectation that they would remove unsourced entries after a reasonable time has passed. ]] 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There does not appear to be a dispute over what Squeakbox did in January, so that is pretty much irrelevant distraction. The obvious solution here is to allow interested editors to go through and source the list (as one has indicated a willingness to do on the talk page), but I suspect that this is impossible to do with Squeakbox edit warring to prevent anything but a blank page. ]] 14:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That allegation is simply false, ], all I want is to see the entries reliably sourced. If you can provide a diff that shows me deleting a single sourced entry on that apge please do so but if you cannot then please do not claim that I am only interested in a blank page. My only interest is in seeing a BLP compliant article. | |||
| :::::There is nothing whatsoever preventing anyone finding references, and adding properly-sourced entries to the list - meanwhile, per WP:BLP policy, the list cannot contain unreferenced entries - this is simply not open to negotiation. ] (]) 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ec}}I think it is an overly strict interpretation of BLP Policy to say that the list is ''required'' to be blanked. If the text of each article does support inclusion in the list, and the articles themselves are properly sourced, I think it would be reasonable to say that inclusion in the list, and the claim that makes, is not contentious. That said, BLP policy strongly favors removal first, and discussion second. Further, the simple way around this is to add citations to the list. We have a lot of lists like this, albeit not involving the porn aspect, where the inclusion criteria is not cited in the list, relying on the article (If we are lucky, many don't have that). ]] 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(after many edit conflicts, addressing ATG): Can you point to any policy provision blue links in a list article requires a reference citation in the linking article? If not, I'm afraid you're advancing an argument to make policy, not enforce it. The argument that appearing in an adult entertainment production is contentious by definition is questionable as well. I don't believe that BLP is supposed to be a scheme to ] the encyclopedia. - ] (]) 14:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have no idea what you are asking - WP:BLP policy says that contentious material on living persons must be referenced - and unreferenced claims that individuals are pornographic actors are clearly contentious. It wasn't referenced. It violated Misplaced Pages policy. End of story. ] (]) 15:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I am asking if you know of a policy statement, or a definitive interpretation of policy, that a blue link in a list article requires a reference citation next to the blue link in order to meet WP:V. If so, it is a BLP issue. If not, then you haven't shown that it is a BLP issue.- ] (]) 15:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::WP:BLP policy says that contentious material must be referenced. A blue link is not a reference under any circumstances. ] (]) 15:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I take that as a no, you are aware of no such policy, only your argument that this follows from policy. Others, and Misplaced Pages practice, disagree. - ] (]) 17:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I was one of the editors that discussed the matter with SqueakBox. After we discussed that ] applies to contentious material, SqueakBox didn't seem to understand what WP:BLP meant by contentious material. As far as I can tell, SqueakBox recognizes that the actors mentioned in that article had been in porn movies. Here's my last message to SqueakBox, which wasn't responded to. --] (]) 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Err, why do you claim I dont understand what contentious means. On what basis? Porn stars and mainstream film stars are both contentious areas. ♫ ] ] ] 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::WP:BLP policy isn't open to negotiation - it clearly and unambiguously states that unsourced contentions material must be '''removed immediately'''. Whether contributors believe it is true or not is entirely irrelevant. ] (]) 15:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's a simple solution for both sides, which is to begin adding some citations, and insist for this specific article that any additions come with a reference citation. However, unless there is a clear policy statement somewhere that a blue link in a list needs to have a citation on both ends of the link, it would be disruptive to carry a novel policy interpretation to edit warring in other articles. That is a policy question that needs to be addressed at BLP/N for a single article, BLP or WP:V if this is a wider issue, not by edit warring. - ] (]) 15:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is the solution I proose too, ]. All that is required is relioable sources for the inclusion of these people and that is the only possible solution without a change in policy.♫ ] ] ] 15:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Policy is already clear and unambiguous - contentious BLP material needs references. There is no policy anywhere that even remotely suggests that a blue link to another Misplaced Pages article counts as a reference. ] (]) 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The issue when it comes to any potential administrative action is that IF the interpretation forwarded by AndyTheGrump is correct, then the removals are exempt from edit warring policy. Now I happen to disagree with that interpretation, but I don't think we can do anything to stop the removal until consensus is reached that the interpretation is not correct. (Obviously if the entries are fully cited in the list and removed anyway, its a different issue) And again, BLP policy favors removal, so we need consensus to overcome that. ]] 15:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Having an article is no evidence that someone is a porn star, Barak Obama has an article! Hence what is required and is easy technically to accomplish is a reliable source for each entry. If we all get on with that it can be done really quickly but debating here wont improve or start to fill up the page at all. This is so for all porn lists and not merely this page. The benchmark is ], fully refd, while ] needs extending to all porn list articles so they can all be made compliant with our BLP policy. Anything else is simply not fair to living porn stars, they are people too♫ ] ] ] 15:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Not to mention we which actors do you think do not belong on the page, and you have only responded quoting BLP policy rather than pointing out specific examples. ] (]) 15:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The point is that a reference is only '''Required''' when the material is contentious. Many of us don't accept that asserting someone is a porn star, where no one argues its factually inaccurate, is inherently contentious. Obviously, a fully referenced list is better, but I don't think its clear that it is strictly required. ]] 15:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If an entirely unreferenced assertion that someone is a pornographic actor isn't contentious, we might as well scrap WP:BLP policy entirely. ] (]) 15:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Agree with ] above. What is supposed to mean "Having an article is no evidence that someone is a porn star, Barak Obama has an article"? The point is that the ] article says that he is the President of the United States, then he is certainly eligible for being listed in the List of Presidents of the United States and in other similar lists. The ] article states he is a pornographic actor, then I don't see what is contentious in listing him as a pornographic actor. If someone is arguing the ] article or another bluelinked article is false or poorly sourced, then he should ask the deletion of THAT article. "Unreferenced assertion that someone is a pornographic actor"? Just click the bluelink. ] 15:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::], nobody has even once removed or proposed the removasl of cited material from this article so please do not bring this up as a red herring. If an editor claims the material is contentious then that means the material has been challenged and needs sourcing to become BLP compliant. Anything else is trying to avoid BLP compliance and that is not open to negotiation except on the BLP policy talk page. Claiming neither porn nor mainstream films are contentious is simply not credible for wikipedia to take as a viewpoint to be sued to avoid BLP compliance. How is a reliable source not required? Nobody claiming this has shown me one policy statement to back up their claim. ♫ ] ] ] 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::well, claiming that it is contentious to note that Traci Lords, for example, is a former porn star is stretching things considerably. But that is neither here nor there. My question is, accepting that this list requires sources, will you act to prevent any interested editors from unblanking the list for the explicit purpose of sourcing it? ]] 15:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*That you have challenged the <s>fact</s>inclusion does not inherently make it contentious, the question is why you challenged it. If it is your position that the people you removed from the list, as a matter of fact, are not porn stars, or that the movies are not in fact mainstream, then yes, they are contentious. But as I understand it, your not disputing the underlying factual basis, but claiming the inclusion is contentious anyway. To provide an example: ] provides inline citations for none of the members of the list, which includes living members. That is fine because no one is contesting the factual basis. If I went and removed the list, or at least the living members of the list, citing BLP policy, but admitted the list is accurate, the inclusion in the list would not all of a sudden become contentious under policy. ]] 15:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Seems like the non-content issue is whether an editor can blank an article by claiming that it violates ], when there are objections and there isn't a consensus for that. --] (]) 15:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The answer to that is yes, see ]. ]] 15:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is a burden for those proposing inclusion of contentious material about living people to establish appropriate sourcing, but if there is a consensus that they have met that burden, or that it is not a BLP issue to begin with, the person trying to blank the article is not entitled to apply ] indefinitely behind a flag of BLP. At some point it becomes disruptive behavior.] (]) 15:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::**Yes, they can, Bob. Our BLP policy does not talk about gaining a consensus or taking note of other users objections and these are not required. If the whole article is a BLP violation policy requires all non BLP compliant material to be deleted immediately and prior to discussion. Yesterday the list was full of people whom editors had decided were porn actors who have appeared in mainstream films. Then editors object that I demand reliable source for all the living people on this list. It could equally in its shape yesterday be considered ] because there has been no evidence provided that a single person on that list is actually a porn actor who has appeared in a mainstream film. It has to be the refs and not solely editors who decide who appears in this list. ♫ ] ] ] 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Except in this case Squeak, its a single handed effort by you aimed specifically at porn related articles. It's not a BLP issue, its tendentious and disruptive editing when you are interfering with the efforts of other editors to work on articles. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 16:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Monty, In that section is "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". I think that is your point? If so, it appears that there was consensus for restoration when it was last removed. --] (]) 15:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't see a sufficient consensus anywhere I have looked. My thought at this point is that they best way forward is to just start an RFC at ] on the main question, and leave it to anyone who wants to to work on references in the meantime. ]] 16:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I presume by your use of the qualifier "sufficient" that you recognize there was a consensus. The section of policy referred only to consensus, "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". There were only two editors there that wanted to remove the list. Four supported keeping it. Also note that we're discussing an established article that over 300 editors have worked on over the years. --] (]) 16:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Recreating list=== | |||
| Guys, I've recreated the list as a single entry with a source. Please help by adding any others that can be sourced, and if not leaving them out and possibly dealing with the linked bio article. Can we agree that this particular article should have sources next to each actor's name (living or not, no need to restrict it to BLP) to establish that they are or were an adult entertainment star? We don't have to agree that BLP requires it, just that we agree to do it here. We do a very similar thing to ensure quality at a very contentious non-BLP article I tend, ]. - ] (]) 16:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * For the record, the most recent and appropriate discussion about lists of names appears to be this ]. No one seems to be questioning that these people are or are not adult industry performers and the first line of every one of their individual articles says as much. The only controversy or contention in play here is that which has been created by SqeakBox IMO. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 16:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Note''' with complete disregard for the ongoing discussions here, Scalhotrod has just restored the WP:BLP-violating material. I ask that he be blocked immediately for provocative behaviour. ] (]) 17:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: '''Look at the edit'''. He/she was ''adding sources'' to the article and temporarily restored it to add more sources. Indeed, I ask that you look at the edit you're reverting before assuming things, the edit added a lot of references to support the material, I thought that was what you wanted? ] (]) 17:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: (ec - addressing ATG) Did you actually look at the edit you're complaining about and edit warring over? The restored list had citations. We can discuss whether IMDB citations are appropriate, but please be more careful. You've also violated 3RR now here on AN/I over the section heading. You need to cool down a bit. - ] (]) 17:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The restored material lacked citations for most of the entries, and there is no way that we can ] - it simply isn't trustworthy enough for this. ] (]) 17:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Can you please promise not to violate 3RR, at least on this discussion page? - ] (]) 17:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Can you please promise not to violate WP:BLP policy? ] (]) 17:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::So, no? Okay, you're only weakening your case by edit warring a section title here. This looks like sheer tendentious in trying to force your opinions on the community, not about policy. And yes, I do abide by BLP policy. Nobody has hinted here that I have not. - ] (]) 17:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::WP:BLP policy is not 'my opinion' - it is policy arrived at by the community, and via input from the WMF. Trying to weasel-word around a clear and explicit requirement for referencing of contentious material by falsely claiming that blue-links are some sort of 'reference' doesn't look like abiding by policy to me. ] (]) 17:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::So I'm violating policy by even pointing out that your argument has no policy justification? That logic is beyond the deep end, we're not even in the swimming pool. Good luck with that :) - ] (]) 17:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :What we are objecting in this discussion, and what colleague SqueakBox seemingly does not want to get it, is the heavy-handed dealing of a one-shot deletion of a long-standing page without any discussion whatsoever. Then his completely taking over the page and now I see also the talk page too, as a one-against-all heavy handed intransigent approach that boils down to I know best and what you say doesn't matter, I will have my way. Sure we always assume good faith of editors, so assume good faith in us objectors to your heavy handed approach if not a one man campaign of "win it all or lose it all". It shouldn't be that way. It is your approach that led colleagues to refer you to this Administrator page, after all attempts of reconciling with other views failed with you and the page remained blank despite it all. The solution was very clear. If SqueakBox could have put '''specific names''' (even if they are 10-15-20 I don't mind) and explained '''the reason he excluded them''', I am all for it. Admittedly the list may have included a few such names. But what is very clear from the list we had before his "one-editor intervention" was this: One: Are their clearly tens of pornographic stars listed there on the list whose pornographic status, fame and credit is beyond any doubt? The resounding answer yes! Absolutely a resounding number of those listed there are porn stars. The list contains tens of such non-contentious porn stars (now deleted without any justfication). TWO: have these clearly established pornographic stars been also in non-pornographic films. The answer is again a resounding yes. An actor is an actor. Porn stars are actors and some very talented. Plus some have obvious charisma and at times a great following for various reasons we like them or approve of them or not. So they were offered roles by mainstream film directors and they did play sometimes very impressive roles in non-pornographic films that matter. This list is about them as actors beyond just being some "piece of meat" on the screen. THREE: Is this list needed. Sure! Absolutely. We should acknowledge in Misplaced Pages that porn starts are not just porn stars but veritable artists. Their non-pornographic roles should be highlighted, I say even encouraged, and not oppressed. This was precisely the raison d'etre of this article and the useful purpose it played. This is what you deleted citing an "umbrella" clause or policy that you used. Clearly there are porn stars beyond a shadow of doubt found on the list and clearly showing in non-pornographic sometimes very mainstream movies as well. These are the people SqueakBox eliminated in one massive non-substantiated edit and then prevented any development of the list for all intents and purposes. He did this by deleting ''en masse'' simply citing a few actors (just a few) where pornographic status was not clear or substantiated. So the full list (with almost 90-95% legit names and entries) disappeared instead of the list being edited, reformed and cleaned up. Again, what you should have done was to pinpoint those specific individuals you were objecting to and take them off the list. What you did was to take a well-formulated policy we have and applying it indiscriminately even on actual porn stars who did appear in non-pornographic roles and whose status was beyond any shred of doubt. And no, we don't actually need references for each and every one of those listed there as you want. No Misplaced Pages lists we have are fully referenced for each line we insert. That's absurd... Applying them for porn stars simply because they are porn stars doesn't make sense. Keep the list with the obvious ones (a huge majority of what the list was) and remove the "contentious list of specific individuals" (very few indeed as far as I can tell), not delete the whole very useful list. This is your task. Make a list of the ones you believe are "contentious". Keep the rest for what is a very useful list ] (]) 20:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::], you cannot accuse me of not discussing this, I have discussed it extensively. On the other hand BLP says offending material must be removed prior to discussion. On the porn actors in mainstream films article it may have been long standing but contained nothing more than the unsourced assertion that various individuals have been porn stars and have appeared in mainstream films. I have explained clearly the reason I have excluded all the names, it is because they are likely living people and their inclusion in the list was not reliably sourced. How much clearer than this can I get. All entries require reliable sources that they were or are porn stars and have appeared in mainstream films, that is 2 pieces of information that need to be reliably sourced for every person. The only reason i removed anyone from the list was the failure tor eliably source those 2 pieces of information, if that meant removing everyone dont blame me. I didnt add these people without reliable sources so I am not to blame for their removal. And you are wrong about no list being BLP complaint, see ]. Claiming that we dont need to reliably source as we have in that article is essentially calling for the breaking up of our BLP policy because people cannot be bothered to reliably source. And this sex actors in mainstream films list was also WP:OR|original research]] as it was editors alone who made the decisions about inclusion without having to justify those decisions with reliable sources to back up their assertions that x,y, and z were porn actors and have appeared in mainstream films as would normally be the case with anything that appears to be original research. The claims that "we know the info is correct" are not the watermark wikipedia demands in ensuring we are a good encyclopedia. ♫ ] ] ] 21:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I have opened an RFC on the policy question at ] if anyone would like to participate there. ]] 17:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As a random example, consider ]. I see no citations that these guys are actually major league baseball players. Should I therefore blank the list? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you think someone would sue for libel if they were included in error? ] (]) 17:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment/Question''' Doesn't policy say the sources don't have to be in the specific article/list but must be on WP? Aren't there sources at the articles for blue linked names that identify the individuals as adult/mainstream film performers? I think when there is contention inline sources are ''preferable'' but my understanding is that they are not mandatory. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to copy the appropriate sources from the linked articles. Just my two pennies. - - ] (]) 19:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes it is pretty widely accepted, and has been for a long time, that lists may have the inclusion criteria sourced either on the list page or in the article the list element refers to. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>20:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :::Accepted in which policy is that, ]? None I have seen. Especially when the list is making claims that the bio articles may or may not support. Saying BLP violations are widely accepted is not exactly true either. If an article says someone is a porn actor performing in mainstream films a reliable source is required in that article or verifiability fails and we do not knowingly allow verifiability to fail with BLP, especially not in contentious areas like porn. Please, ], do quote the policy you mentioned which you alleged allows users to evade BLP and then we can discuss it but "doesnt policy say" isnt that. You need to be certain about your policy assertions coming here not thinking aloud. You are of course right that it is not a hard task to add reliable sources which is why I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. People should just get on and add them instead of arguing as to why porn lists are BLP exempt, which ultimately threatens the BLP protection wikipedia offers to porn workers, that protection is known as verifiability and there are no excuses for ignoring BLP non complaince ever for even one minute. ♫ ] ] ] 23:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Especially when the list is making claims that the bio articles may or may not support.''' That is precisely the point. To be added to "list of Saxophone players" ''either'' ]'s article must support his saxophony, or a cite must be given in the list. Clearly the article is not allowed to contain "contentious unsourced assertions", so by implication neither is the list. The only difference for lists is avoidance of make-work duplication of citations. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>00:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ===Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources=== | |||
| It has just been brought to my attention that Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources explicitly states that lists should be "sourced where they appear", and that they "must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations" - contentious BLP material of course being one of the 'four kinds'. I think that this should clear any lingering doubt as to whether sourcing is required. ] (]) 20:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| OK, so I get that Andy and Squeak are trying to use the standpoint that ''anything'' involving the Adult industry is contentious and/or controversial, but we're not talking about completely unsourced claims. No one seems to be arguing that these performers were in these films or tv shows, nor does anyone seem to be contesting that they are in fact performers in the adult industry. If the list is populated by notable porn actors who have an article, why is there so much discourse over this? | |||
| As for Andy's claim that no one accidentally listed on those other lists wouldn't be offended is pointless. Anyone can be offended about anything, the recent discussions about Civility all over this site easier demonstrate that. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 20:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The claims are completely unsourced in the list that makes the claim - contrary to what the MOS requires. And yes, unsourced claims that people are pornographic actors are self-evidently controversial. As indeed are assertions 'sourced' to sources that don't actually back up the assertion, as I have shown occurred as a result of your recent edit. ] (]) 20:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Self evidently", oh really, that's a new one. On a list titled "List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films", no one has yet to challenge that any of them are not in the industry. Please elaborate... --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 22:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no knowledge of porn stars, Scalhotrod, so I am indeed arguing that all the unsourced people on the list may not be porn stars and I want to verify that they are. That I could not do so with reliable source yesterday is depressing. My knowledge of mainstream films is not much better so a reliable source as to that claim is definitely also a good idea for all living individuals without exception. If you argue that porn work is not contentious it then becomes hard to argue that ANYTHING is contentious outside criminal behaviour, which would fundamentally undermine BLP policy and make wikipedia a more hostile place for all the living people mentioned in the encyclopedia. ♫ ] ] ] 21:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not the only one challenging your belief system Squeak, its just not your day to make this assertion. Not that many, in fact Andy and maybe 1 or 2 others by my count are agreeing with you. Even then their not really saying why. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 22:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::], f you believe you have a consensus to change our BLP policy you should perhaps propose a change there and see how the wider community takes to it. I have been waiting 6 months for this day so today is as good as any day and I feel very satisfied with the progress made so far, I was not expecting it to be easy. But I am at least confident that your consensus of porn article interested editors do not trump our BLP policy as it is currently written. As I am sure you are aware by now nowhere does BLP say that a consensus of editors can choose to ignore BLP and with good reason as this would withdraw the protection that BLP offers to living people mentioned in articles. So go and change the policy then come back and we can talk about what to do on these porn list articles. But until then BLP as it is currently written stands. ♫ ] ] ] 22:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No one is saying that BLP needs to be changed, most disagree with your interpretation and application of it. Luckily its just the porn articles that you are focusing on, so I'm still advocating for a Topic Ban. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 22:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::How exactly do you disagree with my interpretation of BLP? Are you saying claims that someone is or was a porn actor and is now in mainstream films do not need reliably sourcing. How do you interpret BLP to allow you to do that? How you propose to achieve a topic ban for enforcing BLP should be interesting to see and of course I can say now I am not willing to abide by any agreement that allows other editors to ignore BLP standards in porn lists while barring me from enforcing BLP compliance. Youn cannot evade BLP by proposing topic bans on people who annoy you because they wont allow you to add the names of living people unsourced to articles. You should start thinking about the protection wikipedia needs to give to porn workers as real living people and not just thinking about your own, selfish needs as an editor who does not want to be BLP compliant. And you would only propose a topic ban in order to evade BLP compliance in porn articles. Perhaps you are the one who should face the topic ban if you persist in knowingly adding material that you have been told is a BLP violation, ie unsourced material about a living person in an article. ♫ ] ] ] 22:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Your admitted ignorance of this subject disqualifies you from discussing anything to do with the alleged "contentiousness" of listing well-known porn actors as being porn actors. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *MOS is a guideline. This particular item was added in July 2013, in the middle of a discussion about this precise question. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::::::::::], where does BLP require one to be knowledgeable in the field of whatever BLP area one ois looking to see complaince in? It does not require such specialist knowledge and so you are stretching it somewhat claiming I have no right to be editing these articles. My lack of knowledge means I demand BLP from any likely living person mentioned and to require reliable sources in no way requires a knowdedge of porn. I do on the other hand have experience of working with BLP on wikipedia over a number of years which makes me eminently suitable to demand BLP compliance so you wont be able to shut my voice up merely by claiming I am not knowledgeable about porn stars. An your claim that one has to be knowledgeable abpoiut porn to identify the porn industry as contentious re BLP is not aa serious argument. You cannot just exclude other editors for demanding simple BLP compliance though you are not the first who has tried to do so since yesterday. I dont appreciate people claiming my voice should be excluded just for demanding BLP compliance as if editors are more important than the subjects of articles. ♫ ] ] ] 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Where do BLP rules allow you to invent "contentiousness" which is strictly a product of your own ignorance of the subject? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Working in the Entertainment industry is contentious?=== | |||
| I'm quoting from an earlier comment... | |||
| * Porn stars and mainstream film stars are both contentious areas. ] ] ] 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)''] | |||
| Sorry, come again? {{u|SqueakBox|You're}} saying that working in the Entertainment industry is contentious??? How? Why? --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 22:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :YES! I have worked with one well known Hollywood person who was very unhappy about BLP non compliance in his article so I speak from personal experience when I say that the entertainment industry often IS contentious when it comes to BLP. Far more contentious than many other fields of human endeavour and especially when very famous people are concerned. Mocking my BLP concerns is not a good way of making a serious point or proving your rightness. ♫ ] ] ] 22:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, so the personal bias is finally revealed; and you're throwing in anything sex or porn related for good measure? But none of what you just stated is any kind of explanation or justification for your actions on the series of articles that you blanked. By the way, I've worked in the Entertainment industry too and have my own listing on IMDb. I don't know what the problem was/is with the person your worked with, but I suspect that it had more to do with that person not liking how they were represented in the press rather than on Misplaced Pages. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> 23:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::My personal bias here, ], is towards defending the subjects of articles through enforcing BLP and I make no apologies for this bias. When I say I worked with someone fromm Hollywood I mean at wikipedia as SqueakBox not outside wikipedia. The problem had to do with the person having poorly or unsourced information in his biography, not how he appeared in the press itself, so you are wrong in your speculation on that BLP case. ♫ ] ] ] 00:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So you did or did not know some famous Hollywood person, I'm confused by your previous statement. If I do understand it correctly, then you actually have no direct experience working in the Entertainment industry, correct? --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 00:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is an extremely ]. One person complained ''on-site'' that they felt their article does not comply with BLP? How does this justify unprovoked blanking of a list of actors? ]] 03:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes, it's absolutely contentious. How is this even in dispute? The porn industry is marginalized and actors in adult films frequently face unfair and damaging reactions inside and outside the entertainment industry. We can imagine a world where everyone has a sex-positive view about adult films and the actors in them, but ''we don't live in that world''. As such, marking someone as an adult film actor in a list like this without inline sourcing is problematic. ] (]) 15:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::"] starred in '']''." Is this statement contentious? If so, how? ]] 16:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Because it's in a list that (by definition) identifies her as a porn star. It's not the page for ]. So, for instance, if ] is trying to get out of the adult film ghetto, this is a list designed to make sure that we don't forget there was a time where she had sex on camera. I'm not saying the list shouldn't exist (I mean, I think it shouldn't, but that's not really a likely outcome), but membership is certainly contentious. ] (]) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wouldn't an actor worried about their past roles be sort of a ] issue? The purpose of this project is not to facilitate an individual in creating a public image; the purpose is to create an encylopedia based on verifiable information. ]] 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: "''Wouldn't an actor worried about their past roles be sort of a ] issue?''" Only if that actor is editing the page. I'm not sure I understand the comment. I understand the basic concepts, and I understand that Misplaced Pages has lots of pages which contain neutral, verifiable and true information that some people wished weren't on there, because it reflects poorly on a subject. But let's not adorn ] with too much significance for humanity. You say that the purpose of the project is to create an encyclopedia, and I agree! I'm saying is that the claim that someone deserves an entry on this list is by itself contentious and should be supported by some sourcing indicating that it's not just an intersection of iafd and imdb. If not, we're building a directory of entries notable largely because the subject has personal and professional stigma associated with it. It's not unreasonable to ask that we be judicious about sourcing it. ] (]) 17:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] describes any instance where the edit is made with outside goals. So no matter who does it, someone removing an actress from the list because "she doesn't want to be a porn star anymore" is a conflict of interest. I don't really see documenting someone's roles as contentious. Even if it were objectively contentious as described by policy, it would only be so for the initial claim. If I add an actress to the list and cite a statement made in another article and backed by a reliable source, am I making a controversial edit? No. I also don't understand the "where people don't generally get their baps out" part of your statement. This subdiscussion is specifically pornography-related. Generally, you're going to see more than just bare "baps". The issue about IMDb and IAFD is more an issue of reliable sources than it is citing your sources. If there is a problem regarding the sources used, then I have no objection to removing the entry and raising the question "Can we get a reliable source for this?", but if the source ''is'' reliable and is on the subject's page backing the categorization, why is it a problem? ]] 17:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Sorry, that's not a definition of COI I'm familiar with. If someone is editing on behalf of someone or in exchange for payment/recognition/whatever, that's a COI. Otherwise it's not. The "get your baps out" bit was to point out that yes, we're building a reference for all of humanity, but we can certainly weigh the public interest in this sort of list against some purported harm. So we're not talking about soft-pedaling a conviction or scandal due to BLP (which happens sometimes and shouldn't), but building a list that's interesting solely because the two industries are much less porous than, say "dramatic actors in comedic films". My point about reliable sources was this: We have sources for the cast lists of notable films. We also have sources identifying actors as adult film stars. What we should have is a source which connects the two. Those sources do exist, especially for particularly notable AV stars. In response to the below comment, it's ''not'' a separate issue. It's the animating issue of this entire discussion. Without it, we're making a ] of actors based on a classification which is itself plainly contentious. ] (]) 17:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's sort of bolded in the first paragraph of ]: {{xt|When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.}} "I don't want to be a porn star anymore" is an outside interest, ''regardless of who is advancing it'', because it is not within the scope of Misplaced Pages's goals. Whether or not an actor should be included on the list if they meet the criteria is certainly an issue here, but the exact definition we should use for inclusion is a content issue, and we should not be discussing it here. ]] 17:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: {{ec}} That's what the text says, but interpreting it to mean that an editor with a particular editorial viewpoint has a COI is strained and tendentious. There's no reading of COI which supports the view that plain editing, without an outside material interest, is COI editing. Especially because it presumes that one editorial position is somehow magically advancing the aims of wikipedia while another is not. ] (]) 17:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I completely disagree. The spirit of the policy is that to edit productively, you must have the same interests as Misplaced Pages. Editing against these goals would be a COI, because I can't imagine any case where an editor would believe (for example your statement: {{xt|if ] is trying to get out of the adult film ghetto, this is a list designed to make sure that we don't forget there was a time where she had sex on camera.}}) that an actress ''wanting'' to get out of the business and have everyone forget she was ever there is a valid reason to remove her. It's against the mindset of the project, and if I saw an editor doing that, I would immediately raise the question "Who are you to this person?" ]] 17:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{U|Protonk}}, I would completely agree with that if it wasn't for the fact that in this instance every single entry on the list had an entire article describing and proving that these people are in fact in the adult industry. No red links, no text only non-links, just blue links for each person. Inclusion on the list is not contentious, its just data. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 17:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That is your assertion, ], but not one I expect you have even bothered to check yourself. And if you had, so what? You having gone through the list does not make it verifiable for me. And until you come up with reliable sources for every single person on that list I will take your statement as an unproven assertion and not as the fact you want us to take it for. Our verifiability is reliable sources and not editors who claims to be experts in a subject. ♫ ] ] ] 23:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: What determines membership? A notable porn star has a credit on a notable film? Or is the essential element of list membership actually noted by a source? Meaning, is Misplaced Pages the first place to take note of that connection or does a reliable source do so? ] (]) 17:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: That's a separate issue, and it would be more appropriate on the article's talk page. We shouldn't distract ourselves with what to include when we haven't yet established a consensus on whether to include them at all. ]] 17:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If I'm not mistaken, before a person is even placed on the list, they must meet the inclusion criteria to be placed on that list. That's the way it works for all the lists that are on WP, you must meet the inclusion criteria before being placed on a list. So in this instance, it had already been established that these individuals were indeed working in the adult film industry, therefore they met the inclusion criteria and were placed on the list. There is no new revelation being made about the individual, nor is there a controversial statement being made about the individual. They already have an article on WP where it has been established through reliable sourcing that they work in the adult film industry.]] 17:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Ok, let's take a different example. Say we have male actors whose career started in their late teens after appearing in a Bryan Singer film. For each actor, such a fact is verifiable and would be cited and noted in their article. Further, we have the allegations that Singer traded access for sexual favors. That (contentious and potentially damaging WRT BLP as it is) can be cited and supported in Singer's article. We could, under this framework, make ] and justify it by noting that both conditions for membership on the list are present in the linked articles. But we wouldn't, because that would be monstrous. That's a deliberately unfair example and it's probably not something we would maintain even with sourcing, but it's not ''that'' far off. ] (]) 17:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * is an example of the real damage shoddy sourcing in Misplaced Pages porn articles can cause. Let's not pretend this isn't an issue or that porn acting is merely an uncontentious job in the "entertainment industry". Even seemingly uncontentious jobs like (non-porn) modeling can be contentious. found being labeled a model by Misplaced Pages quite controversial. ] <small>(])</small> 18:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your first example, and one thats trounced out regularly, is a case of mistaken identity that ''happens'' to be associated with Misplaced Pages. The actor example is laughable. Back to the subject at hand, no one is disputing (or confusing) the fact that every person on the list is question is in the adult industry; their articles prove that. Inline references were then provided to show that they had been in mainstream productions. Nothing shoddy was even attempted, but how 2 editors choose to respond is ], naive, and ignorant. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 19:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::So if everything is on the up and up, and sources are so readily available, why can't one of those editors arguing in favor of the list take a bit of time away from arguing about it in multiple fourms and slap some references in the list article? ] <small>(])</small> 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The ones who have a problem with the list should assume responsibility for reviewing it - especially as the chief complainant here admits to having no knowledge of the subject. By fixing the list himself, maybe he'll learn something. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::On Misplaced Pages, the onus is on those who wish to include potentially controversial material to insure that it is properly cited. ] <small>(])</small> 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Two problems. First, mass deletion of sourced content is disruptive no matter what the excuse, and the community usually will not stand for it. Second, the information is properly cited. This needless ruckus is over citing methodology, not whether this information is reliable sourced. - ] (]) 19:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::One problem. The content wasn't sourced. A blue link isn't a source. Not ever. ] (]) 19:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You've made this silly argument enough times that everyone has read it by this point. Of course the information is sourced. You just want one of the sources copied from one place to a second place. - ] (]) 20:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What I want is for articles to comply with policy. WP:BLP policy says contentious content on living persons must be sourced. Nothing anywhere in Misplaced Pages asserts that a blue link is a source. The existence of a blue link proves nothing beyond the fact that the subject has an article on Misplaced Pages. Nothing... ] (]) 20:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You are inventing contention where there isn't any. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::It looks like a straw man argument with a dose of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, repeatedly claiming that blue links are held out as sources in order to argue against it, instead of dealing with the reality of the situation, which is that they're proposing copying some of the sources from the articles back to the list. - ~~ | |||
| ::::::::::Wikidemon is exactly right. What Andy and other's are asking is that when a list is created about people (presumably just those in the adult film industry?) that there be a reaffirmation of already sourced content. That's what this discussion is about is whether editor's should be required when compiling a list of people to reaffirm already sourced content. Because when a list is compiled from existing articles on WP that are reliably sourced, they must meet the inclusion criteria to be placed on that list. That's the way it works for all the lists that are on WP, you must meet the inclusion criteria before being placed on a list. So in this instance, it had already been established that these individuals were indeed working in the adult film industry, therefore they met the inclusion criteria and were placed on the list. There is no new revelation being made about the individual, nor is there a controversial statement being made labout the individual. They already have an article on WP where it has been established through reliable sourcing that they work in the adult film industry.]] 20:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Yes. It's certainly important for someone compiling such a list to be sure that the entries belong on the list. Someone had suggested categorization instead of lists. Guess what: Categories don't have citations. You have to go back to the article to ensure that the entry belongs in that category. Just as with a list. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is there any reason why we cannot just copy the sources used in the original articles for use in the list article? This seems like a legalistic or courtroom debate over something easy to fix! ] (]) 04:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It takes many hours of work, and the last editor that attempted this was reverted almost immediately. Twice. ]] 04:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Can you provide a quick diff for one or both of those reverts? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I twice invited ] to check the refs of the bluelinks of the ] entries to verify that that they were indeed porn-stars (bluelinks not as "refs", but as leads to finding them). He stated he was unable to verify that many of them were porn actors (see ]. The underlying articles state that they were and have refs (and some even use (porn star) or similar as a disambiguation-term in their article title). Based on those aspects, we seemingly have tons of ''actual bio articles'' (not just lists thereof) that are BLP problems by making these claims with bogus refs. He twice ignored my suggestion to push for remedying at that level. But I cannot ] of his statement that he could not verify the claims. The first two from the autobiog list that he says he could not verify were easy to verify from the linked refs in their articles. I added them as refs and he did not contest. And he also removed ones that did have substantial refs and discussion of high notability in the genre even within that ] article itself, just not in the list section. He also rejects cites to the autobiographies themselves because "google books is not a sufficient ref according to our reliable sources policy". If a person writes that he/she was a porn star (even in the title of the autobiog) and the publisher's blurb/summary of the book uses similar wording to describe this as a point of fame, isn't that pretty definitive and reliable? | |||
| ::::I don't know much about this genre, and I am not often involved in "contentious" BLP claims (for whatever definition of that term you could envision). Obviously anyone can actually dispute (or even merely claim as disputable) any info, and adding cites to improve verifiability is a worthwhile activity in any place one finds it deficient. But I think this edit pattern is based on taking some intersection of BLP+RS policies to a nonsensical extreme or taking an overly disruptive and inefficient approach to solving what BLP problems that actually do exist. ] (]) 05:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So ], demanding refs for people labelled as porn stars without a relable source on an article that is not even a list just a plain article is taking BLP to a nonsensical extreme? What then would not be taking BLP to a nonsensical extreme involve in your eyes? Never enforcing it. Or just not for porn stars or living being alleged to be porn stars? And you are an admin? OMG! ♫ ] ] ] 23:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :For the sake of consistency, I invite SqueakBox to start blanking ] as many of the contentious allegations that the men listed on the page are in fact politicians are unsourced. While we're at it, I believe ] should also be blanked as there is no sources indicating that the Nobel laureates are indeed female, and that can also be contentious. Some sources on ] do not specifically indicate that the politicians belong to that particular political party; that should also be partially blanked. On a more serious note, I realise that if there is some concern about the actual occupation of some of the individuals on the page and that the occupation is actually ''contentious'', then it may merit removal. However this is simply absurd. I challenge anyone to explain why it is more contentious to be a porn star than to represent a specific political party. —] 10:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::] outlines some of the stigma attached to being a real porn worker, if you can show me a similar article about the stigma of being involved in the nobel area you will have a point, until then though, I wont take what you have to say onboard too much. IMO the hostility some editors here on wikipedia show towards porn workers is very similar to the contemptuous beliefs held in the wider society. ♫ ] ] ] 23:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sure there is stigma in many corners of America and in most but not all places in the English-speaking world (remember, this is not just an American project). There is also stigma about a number of other things that society basically accepts or puts up with such as being a lawyer or politician, being Jewish, gay, or African-American, being disabled or mentally ill, and so on. All of these are ''potentially'' contentious labels and deserve some extra attention whether the claim is made in an article, category, list, lede, anywhere. The concern is that if we declare an entire topic area to be inherently contentious to the point where Misplaced Pages's coverage of that topic area suffers, we're carrying on and contributing to society's shunning. If every last mainstream actor, film, role, etc., gets unreferenced lists but we set a higher bar for porn, we're helping to keep it underground. I do think we need to give some extra thought before calling someone a porn star, not just that we have a good source but that it's actually relevant to their notability. So it's okay in the ] article that she's introduced as an "American socialite, actress and entertainer" even if the actress and entertainer parts are dubious. Many people are called philanthropists, businesspeople, or educators on very flimsy grounds, but that's an accolade. But we would have to think very carefully before saying she's a porn star just because she's been in a porn production. - ] (]) 00:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Seriously? Having political preferences, and expressing them, are within societal norms for everyone in a free society. Having a gender is a given. You gotta source someone working in porn because, unlike having a political party or a gender, saying someone is a porn star is libelous if they are not. Performin sex acts in public, no matter how jaded we have gotten to it, is still not within societal norms. ] (]) 10:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is the same situation, and it is consistent with the arguments raised here. Just imagine wrongly including a pedophile or a serial criminal in a member Nobel Committee list or in the Indian chief ministers list, potentially it is even more contentious. ] 10:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::] aside, I find it odd that so many people are pushing the bizarre fiction that being a porn star is just another random occupation that nobody would ever find controversial and thus couldn't possibly have any BLP implications for real people and their lives off of Misplaced Pages. ] <small>(])</small> 14:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::So is every single instance of every politician (another just as controversial occupation) referenced across this site? If its not, then you're just being anti-porn. Which is OK, but its better if you just admit it rather that argue this stance. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 15:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I love porn. You're being anti-]. ] <small>(])</small> 17:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::OK, that was a bit much, my apologies. I'm just saying that there are other controversial occupations that Editors don't seem to pick on in the same way that porn is. If mainstream actors are on a list, no one demands redundant references that they are actors, same goes for politicians. In my opinion, there is a clear anti-porn (not you) bias on this site. Sheesh, we have a list article ] that has few references. Granted many are dead (or presumed), but no one is scrutinizing that list to the degree that anything porn related is. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 00:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The people with the anti-porn agenda here are those like ] and others who dismiss the BLP protection we at wikipedia offer to porn workers by claiming it is not a contentious profession and want to weaken our coverage of porn at wikipedia by making it not reach encyclopedic standards, ie verifiability throughb reliable sources. I have a strong pro porn workers agenda and hope the day will come when porn workers are not stgmatized and when the porn industry has shed its misogynist, prejudiced world view to create better quality porn. So count me among the pro porn activists here. ♫ ] ] ] 00:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Time for a ruling=== | |||
| Seems like it's time for a ruling by an administrator. --] (]) 16:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :A ruling on what? Admins don't determine content issues, and there certainly doesn't seem to be any consensus here that anyone should be sanctioned regarding behaviour. ] (]) 16:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Andy is right here. The only solution is going to be to source the list. That does not require any ruling by an admin. Nor does the fact that most people involved could have handled themselves and/or communicated better. ]] 16:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The content issues are a distraction from the behavior issues which are in the purview of this page, e.g. alleged disruptive behavior by edit warring against a consensus. It's time for a ruling by an administrator. The content issues can be continued on the article's talk page. --] (]) 21:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <small>*'''Not guilty by reason of insanity''' What are we talking about again? I haven't even read this thread or know who it's about.--v/r - ]] 21:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::], are you asking for those who re-added material that had explicitly been labelled non BLP compliant in the edit summary and on the talk page. Because you, if my memorey serves me, were one of the offenders. As you know BLP says in the opening that ADDING material in this way is a blaockable offence, and indeed from what i can see it is the only blockable offence anyone has committed. BTW I am asking for anyone to be blocked myself! ♫ ] ] ] 00:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *What this unduly overly long thread is really about is , which is blanking article content & then immediately trying to have it deleted, which has been the kind of conduct that has gotten other Misplaced Pages users sanctions against them in the past here at AN/I. This thread is about conduct, ''not'' article content. Article content issues should be (and are being) discussed elsewhere, not here. ] (]) 04:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **This deletionist problem can be solved by abolishing "list articles" altogether and using categories instead, because categories don't require redundant citations. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***That might be the ultimate solution, but has anyone had a chance to go through all of the list articles (or a sample of them, realistically) to see if the problem that we have here is prevalent? I kind of get the impression from the debate that the main issue is with accusing people of being porn stars without citations provided in the line. If that's the case, then list articles aren't the problem -- articles about porn stars are. Unless this issue is central to lists, it might be unfair to have us go through every list article on wikipedia and transmute them into categories. It also would still anger Squeakbox and Andythegrump since categories won't have citations and they might still consider that a ] article. ] (]) 22:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ****The problem is that Squeak didn't bother to look at the articles - he just said, "No redundant citation, so it's fair game to delete." ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *****Maybe so, but that's hardly the fault of list articles, is it? I feel like whatever answer we get from the RFC over at ] won't be that we should go ahead and delete all list articles. ] (]) 02:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ******(ec) ] , the first list that Squeak blanked, initially setting off the parent thread, was restored and direct citations added by a number of editors over the course of several days. AFAIK it was not found not to contain any people who were not porn stars, and sourced as such in the linked articles. If the goal were simply to quality-check the list to make sure there are no mistakes, it could have been done in a fraction of the time. I don't think any of them are "accused" of being porn stars, they are, and it is part of their professional bios. That is all a content policy issue, but the fact that there was no problem here to begin with tends to support the observation that there was no emergency worth troubling so many community members over. - ] (]) | |||
| *******To Alicb: implementing any outcome of the RfC, if there is in fact an outcome, would be a further decision for the community. That will likely end up back here if people go cowboy as enforcers. - ] (]) 02:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Nominated for deletion=== | |||
| See ]. ] (]) 17:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, let's see that. AndyTheGrump is nominating for deletion a list article for lack of references, and at the same time based on a particular interpretation of BLP which is ]. I suggest that you withdraw the nomination until the interpretation of policy is settled, instead of ] by starting debates at venues away from the ones where you've been questioned. ] (]) 17:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about ''actually reading'' my rationale for deletion? I nominated it for deletion not because it is unreferenced, but because there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that the subject matter (a trivial intersection) meets Misplaced Pages notability guidelines. ] (]) 17:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The nomination for deletion was closed by an administrator with the result to '''Keep'''. --] (]) 21:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I have asked the closer to revert, and/or to provide an explanation for this precipitate action. If none is given, I shall raise the matter at ]. Closing an AfD after ''five hours'', when few uninvolved contributors have had a chance to look at the issue seems entirely unjustified to me. ] (]) 22:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: This does need to go to deletion review. There was division on the matter and the nomination was not even open for 24 hours. ] (]) 14:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It was closed because it was a cynical, bad-faith nomination. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Edit warring=== | |||
| We're far from the point IMO where anyone deserves a block or ban based on ''this specific incident'' so far, but to preserve the record for the inevitable next time, I just wanted to consolidate a couple now-stale behavioral issues here. Perhaps a closing administrator can consider warning parties against escalating things. | |||
| * 3RR violation on this page (mentioned above) | |||
| * ] and ] issues, process gaming, edit warring a notice I tried to put on the top of the deletion discussion that it was referring to a blanked page. along with nonsense block threats on my talk page. | |||
| * Next time?? I believe ATG and/or Squeak have threatened that no outcome of the RfC at WP:BLP will deter them from repeatedly blanking lists of names. Let's hope they don't, but just noting that if it does happen, we saw it coming. - ] (]) 22:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you really think that drawing attention to the way you attempted to disrupt an AfD nomination by posting a misleading assertion into the middle of the AfD rationale is going to do your case any good? (note that the 'blanked' page had been unblanked shortly after I removed Wikidemon's original misplaced post. And note how Wikidemon continued to edit-war it back in.) ] (]) 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Huh? The diffs speak for themselves, my friend. Please don't make up nonsense to try to disparage the good faith editors around here. Whatever your cause you're not doing it any service by being rude, aggressive, edit warring, and process gaming. If you can at least try to get along with other editors instead of making the community's Misplaced Pages experience that much more miserable you might find them a little more open to your efforts. No doubt you'll have a venomous comeuppance for that, so I'll just say in advance, se ya later, gater! - ] (]) 22:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yup. The diffs speak for themselves - you dumped your commentary right into the middle of my AfD rationale. As for 'good faith' how about showing some by actually finding proper sources for the ] that you seem to think is of such importance to this encyclopaedia? ] (]) 22:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Untrue that. See ya later, gater! - ] (]) 22:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ec}} Not by you, though. You proceeded to and shortly dereafter ; Wikidemon's notice was attempting that editors arriving to the AfD could have an adequate reading of the article that was being debated, and it was accurate at the time it was placed - and it certainly wasn't "in the middle" of your deletion rationale at any point. ] (]) 22:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'Shortly after'? Two days. And it should be noted that I blanked it because it was being 'referenced' via an unreliable source (IMDb - see ], numerous threads on WP:RSN, etc, etc) that didn't even in some cases state that the persons involved were pornographic actors. ] (]) 22:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, you nominated the article for deletion two days after blanking the content that had been there for about seven years. And, as the point of debate was that the entries had valid references at the linked articles, the fact that IMDB references were placed inline at the list is a red herring. When you blank an article prior to nominating it and keep removing all hints that such content exists, you're breaking a ] and showing very little respect for the editors that come to review the nomination. ] (]) 22:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Working thru this entire thread, I can't help but conclude that SqueakBox has '''way''' too much time on his hands by blanking this article for an incredibly silly reason. And AndyTheGrump violated the policy known as ]. As an Admin, I'm very tempted to sanction one or both of them for wasting everyone's time on this, but I'm going to do the laziest solution: this article is indefinitely protected from further edits until there is a consensus about how to fix it. Now I'll be unavailable for an hour or more, so another Admin is welcome to undo my protection if adults can be found to handle this mess. -- ] (]) 23:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm too old to have too much time on my hands, ], but it is true that I chose a weekend when I had some time as I suspected that doing this would cause a reaction based on the reaction in January when I did a similar thing. Unfortunately I did not have the time in January which is why I withdrew and indeed stopped editing completely for a while. But I would point out that in terms of useful editing tasks these porn article BLP enforcing edits are easily the ones I am most proud of this year because they are the ones which have done most towards protecting the people we write about as well as improving the encyclopedia, and therefore they have been the most useful in terms of use of my time. On the other hand to see the regular stream of editors who would rather go on about their rights as editors (with never a single thought for the living subjects they and we write about) seem to have abundant time on their hands but never enough, in too many cases, to actually add reliable sources or to remove further BLP compliant material, both routine "boring" tasks that are hard work. ♫ ] ] ] 00:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for your candor. If you know in advance that something you are about to do will trigger a major spat among other editors, I think you should seriously consider going through one of the many other channels available to resolve disputed content questions. BLP enforcement and its equally emphatic cousin COPYVIO are no exceptions when there is serious legitimate debate over whether the policy even applies. - ] (]) 00:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :There were some adults that started the process of adding references before the full protection, but I will defer to your judgment on this and hopefully in due time, the adults can get back to editing and improving this article in a collaborative effort.--]] 23:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: In response to a thoughtful request, I've went ahead & unprotected the page. I probably acted too hastily, but anyone reading thru this thread would be puzzled -- if not annoyed -- at the kerfuffle here. Common sense would hold that the articles on these people would be sufficient proof they are porn actors/actresses -- although sourcing their roles in different movies might prove more difficult. (In which cases, the links to the movies should then be removed -- not blanking the whole list in a childish pique!) -- ] (]) 01:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Uninvolved comment; I accept IMDB as an appropriate source for mainstream movie credits (as the ultimate source is the credits in the films themselves, which need not be online). I do not necessarily accept IMDB as an adequate source for working in the adult industry. There are perhaps better sources found in the articles about each actor/actress themselves. --] (] 18:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The greater Misplaced Pages consensus would agree that IMBD is inappropriate for sourcing contentious material about living persons: ] ]. --] (] 18:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Uninvolved comment=== | |||
| The WP:BLP and other policies make it pretty clear that entries in lists should be properly referenced individually when there is any dispute. If, as many claim here, the article's make the claim that an actor/actress worked in pornography, then it should be a simple case of copying the reference from one list to another; creating a new reference regarding their work in the adult industry from IMDB, as I have seen done here, should be unnecessary (and opens the door for circular referencing as IMDB is itself based on user submitted content, which could have come from Misplaced Pages). Using the IMDB for the mainstream works the actor/actress appeared in would not seem contentious to me, as the source is the movie credits in the film itself, which need not be online. Perhaps the adding of sources could be done in draft space. | |||
| As for the claims that this is merely tedious, I don't really find that credible. If this were an automatically generated category list, then the lack of inline sources would make sense; however as it was a manually generated list, the burden should have been filled when individual entries were added. he "tedious" task would in fact be for the uninvolved editor to click each entry in the list to very the claim was sourced. Knowledge of who worked in the adult industry is not necessarily common. It was entirely appropriate that the list be blanked until sources were added by editors willing to do so. --] (] 13:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :To actually verify the claim, would they not still have to click the source? No matter where it is. Simply having a source is not verification. The purported tedium is not much different from the ideal case of everything being cited. ]] 15:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::By your assertion ] they would have to click one link, search through a page and then click another link whereas in my assertion they would only have to click one link. Why create that extra burden for the reader? ♫ ] ] ] 00:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I never said it wasn't additional work, only that it's hardly much more of a burden. Ideally, there would be a mention of occupation in the lead and an easy to find filmography. Not that hard to find. ]] 01:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is somewhat correct, but as I said, I find claims that properly documenting sources is a "tedious" and thus not warranted to be dubious, and really this applies to both documenting and verifying ''(added a slight clarification in to my comments above)''. In articles or lists involving living persons, Misplaced Pages editors must properly document all claimed facts, especially contentious claims. The mere truth of a claim does not exclude its need to be documented; Misplaced Pages can only repeat factual assertions that can be attributed to external reliable sources. This is simply the entry requirement for creating such lists, not a "tedious" technicality. Lacking proper citations, removing the unsourced material by blanking or otherwise is a perfectly acceptable response. --] (] 17:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It would have been much more useful f the time and energy that has been expended on this pedantic discussion had beed used to reference the list in question.] (]) 19:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The list was referenced, reverted, re-reverted, reverted, then referenced again. The issue isn't simply that this list wasn't referenced. There are users arguing ridiculous points and a disagreement on the fundamentals of a policy. It is neither correct nor helpful to tell the users involved in this debate that they could have used their energy to cite this article rather than participate in discussion. ]] 21:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree, I think this is an issue that could be resolved with perhaps a request for comment? It seems elementary to me that, since the original websites for each porn star had citations in order to pass through the WP:BLP and WP:V policies, you could just copy and paste the same references over to the list. For some reason this is not accepted by the editors here, but I am having a hard time parsing why. I think the best bet to resolve this is a request for comment or other dialogue to determine exactly what solution should be. Moving over links seems like the most obvious answer but if that is wrong then that is wrong... ] (]) 23:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::] how does a request for comment help the living subjects we write about? To advise or enforce such a move would certainly involve rewriting our ] policy and to shift the balance of power in favour of editors and away from th living people we write about? Actualy all any editor wants is for reliable sources taken form the bios and added to the list articles, its not that some editors dont want this, its the opposite, its the some editors dont want to be bothered to do this tedious work, as ZFish calls it. You need to understand what is actually going on in order to get your head around it, I am not surprised you cannot get your head around something that actually is not so. ♫ ] ] ] 00:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think that there might have been a misunderstanding here. I am not advocating rewriting ] or violating that policy in any way. I am saying that we should keep the changes that you have made to protect the privacy / sensitivity of living person information who may not be fairly linked to being adult film actors. The RFC is more of a long term approach that I feel would be good so that we can resolve the content dispute in such a way that it is easy to understand. I think we can all agree that there is a dispute here about policy and I feel like an outside impartial approach can help clear things up for everyone involved. I am not disagreeing with you, I am only saying that it would be reasonable as a long-term solution. That does NOT mean that an RFC is the only thing that should be done, only it is something that we should consider to avoid circular arguments in this manner in the future. ] (]) 01:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *There is an ]. ] (]) 04:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::] This isnt the place for a policydispute, that has to be diecided at the BLP talk page which Guy has linked to. IMO the only responsible approach is the one that puts the living subjects we write about as our number 1 priority. I am not opposed to the RFC I just have no intention of letting it slow down the vital work of BLP compliance in porn articles where possible because we cannot lessen our protection either for porn workers or for those we wrongly cliam of being porn workers, if there are any merely because some editors want to use procedure to slow dwn or evade BLP enforcement so they can get to edit how thye like without consideration for the living subjects they are writing about. ♫ ] ] ] 05:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===A correction=== | |||
| The BLO policy treats lists and categories identically (]). The policy allows the sources in the article to justify inclusion in the list. Whether this is sufficient to override the requirement that "stand alone" lists require inline sources, I do not have an opinion. --] (] 02:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That article has been advanced at the RfC, I believe the original complaint to justify the removal of the content was because porn was considered to be a contentious subject matter which would require inline citations per BLP.--]] 03:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There was not the slightest evidence these people ever were porn stars. So what sourc4es allegedly in the articles confirmed this? None that were verifiable? Having an article is not evidence of being a porn star and it is entirely up to the person adding the material to show that said reliable sources exist. The BURDEN is not on the remover to prove that they do not exist but for the adder to prove they do. So unless someone can verify the sources in the article actually exist these lists are not covered by that BLP point. ♫ ] ] ] 16:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the articles linked to in the aforementioned list do not have reliable sources, then I support the deletion or blanking of the articles and removal from the list. That would be a clear policy dictate. As a caution, a source need not be online to be "verifiable". --] (] 19:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::What Squeak is saying just above your comment ("There was not the slightest evidence these people ever were porn stars") is a falsehood. He never looked at the articles, or he couldn't honestly make that claim. ], for example, is indisputably a porn actor. Had Squeak actually looked at that article, it would be abundantly clear from any number of citations. Squeak's behavior here is not in good faith. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Looking over the current state of the list/article, I am '''Satisfied''' that at a minimum, the "click through" criteria has been met for all actors/actress not directly cited in the list. I generally support continuing to add direct inline citations (and am glad to see the references to IMBD for inclusion were removed), but do not believe the entire page warrants blanking at this time. Any lingering entries should be given reasonable time to be made compliant, or voluntarily blanked. (I withhold any comment regarding Squeakbox, as I have not personally investigated). --] (] 19:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Squeekbox continuing=== | |||
| Just a heads up here. {{ping|Squeekbox}} is currently removing blue-linked porn stars from another article, ].. Spot checking the first name removed, there seems to be little doubt and no lack of sourcing that ] is in fact an adult video star. I'm sure others have some opinions so I won't offer mine right now. Thanks, - ] (]) 01:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :And now there are at least 8 in support of this proposal: ''Any entry of a living person in a list that is not referenced with an inline citation may be removed, and under BLP Policy, it may only be restored when properly cited''. That covers a '''lot''' of lists and I would hate to see this indiscriminate blanking carry over elsewhere. I was under the assumption that when a RfC was opened, we waited for a consensus to gel, and that there be a moratorium on blanking until the community weighs in on this whole issue. Are we really going to allow this to continue? Can we at least get an admin involved to address the blanking of articles, as a pre-emptive measure.--]] 01:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes I am removing BLP non compliant material from the article till it becomes reliably sourced as our BLP policy advises and compels us to. On the other hand adding this material is a BLP violtion when the material has been challenged, asmIhave challenged it. There can be no consensus to stop me because editors are not more important than the living people they write about. This article is not even a list so dont start claiming internal links are sufficient, wikiepdia has rejected this from way back. Why would an admin be required to look at straghtforward BLP enforcement in a highly contentious area like porn. Where in our BLP policy does it state that that arequest for comment means the rights of our living subjects can be dismiseed? Why was a new header with my name on it (sic) made without informing me. That is blatantly against ANI procedure or did you just hope I wouldnt get to discuss what you are discussing about me, ]. That is in itself is totally unacceptable. ♫ ] ] ] 01:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hooo Wee! Squeak is going to make it open season on articles (and lists) about Politicians and '''''any''''' other category of living person who any Editor takes issue with and declares it "contentious". --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 02:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Stop inventing, ], I never said anything of the sort. I am just a humble editor enforcing BLP in highly contentious areas like porn when I have the time and energy. I may not know who the US's most famous porn stars are but I am interested in sexual issues and have a track records going back years in editing this delicate area enforcing wikipedia policies. Some editors, such as ], are aware of this history. I also have a long track record of enforcing BLP. I myself was highly sceptical in the early days (before the BLP policy had been written) but was talked around, by one individual especially who was well known on the site a few years back. ♫ ] ] ] 02:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::He did attempt to notify you by using the {{tl|ping}} template, but he misspelled your name, so nothing happened. It was an honest mistake, cut him some slack. ]] 02:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The burden is on him to get it right, if he cant spell dont blame me. This has to be one of the most spurious entries ever. Reporting an editor for simple BLP enforcement. What policy have I broken in removing unsourced contentious material about living people while citing BLP? If this is a policy offence BLP is already broken but it isnt, there's a surprise. And of course the only ways to stop me are to block me indefinitely or of course change BLP policies. ♫ ] ] ] 02:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The burden? Why does it feel like you're simply throwing policy names around? Why can't you just '''] that he made the spelling error as an honest mistake, not as some way to slip under the radar?''' ]] 02:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::(ecXn)Indeed a minor WP:FLOP Violation followed by some ridiculous vituperation that seems pretty typical of the course of this dispute. Squeak is already on this thread and in fact seems to have noticed this subtopic before anyone else. I'm deliberately avoiding comment on the underlying issue; this latest deletion appears relevant to the topic of this overall thread - ] (]) 02:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Claiming this was not a new thread about me is being dishonest and you were clearly hoping to get an admin to block me (though what for?) without me being aware of the discussion. Nor have either of you answered any of my points about why I should not enforce BLP when material about living people in an artice which s NOT a list and is about a highly contentious area is not reliably sourced. What admin intervention is required? ♫ ] ] ] 02:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Ask to you to stop a few days until the relevant RFC is closed is too much? ] 02:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I will not stop protecting the rights of our living suvbjects, absolutely no. I dont think it looks good that you are even asking me to do so a thing. What about the living people in a an article about Japanese adult video? Or dont they count? This is not even a list its a plain article but I wont stop BLP enforcing porn lists either. What I will do is to do as arbcom member Newyorkbrad asked and to prioritize, so I am focussing on articles that are most open to abuse, such as this Japanese adult video article, and focussing less say on porn award winners lists or BLP non compliance in bios, for the moment. I certainly cannot promise any more than to follow Brad's advice, just as I stopped editing for 36 hours after his comment sunday night, to let things cool down. ♫ ] ] ] 03:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The "contentious material" that is referred to by ] is contentious because someone believes it may not be true. There doesn't seem to be any contention about the material being true in the case of the subject actors being in porn films because that assertion is sourced in the individual articles about the actors. If anyone thinks it is not true, then go to any of the individual articles about the actors and remove the statements that say the person is a porn actor. | |||
| ::::::::::SqueakBox wrote, "I will not stop protecting the rights of our living suvbjects, absolutely no." | |||
| :::::::::: --] (]) 06:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Err, ], you talk of cases says SOMEONE believes material may not be true. Well I am that SOMEONE. There is on the other hand no requirement on my part to check the article itself. For instance a porn article may assert X is a porn star and when I check the article it may not mention this but still be fully BLP compliant. So what is your point exactly, Bob? The BLP article does not require users to do what your are suggesting so why mention it ehre at an ANI thread, not a place for general discussion but to discuss things that require admin intervention. ♫ ] ] ] 15:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I won't respond in kind with my own mock outrage for being called "dishonest" here for simply and carefully bringing something up. It is telling about the behavioral issues here, as it tends to shut down meaningful discussion and good faith participation in the content question. - ] (]) 07:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Squeak, we ''are'' requiring that of you, here on ANI, as a behavioral matter that may require administrative attention. You are under an obligation to edit in a civil, collaborative fashion to improve the encyclopedia. You have not been doing so lately on this matter, and that is a problem that is wasting a lot of people's time. To quote a famous film, your methods are unsound. To date I don't see any effort by you to try to work with the community, only digging in your heels and lashing out. - ] (]) 16:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::By the way, a third list blanked] and a hit list - ] (]) 07:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Removing offending material citing BLP is not page blanking, sigh. It is blp enforcement list in favour of living people. And compiling a list ofpowrn articles that may not be BLP compliant is ¿only a hit lsit to someone with contempt for our BLP policy and the protection it offers to our living subjects, people for you, ], and others have shown scant regard so far. ♫ ] ] ] 15:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What makes you think that making stuff up, antagonizing other editors, and disrupting other people's work is actually good for any living people on or off the encyclopedia? I'll go ahead and restore one of the lists that is obviously sourced. Do not resort to edit warring again here. If you have any specific list items that you think are not adequately supported in the articles themselves then feel free to flag that. Otherwise, wait for the RfC to conclude before continuing this campaign. - ] (]) 16:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That lasted all of seven minutes. I won't join Squeak's edit war here, as that would be futile and it would drag me down to that level. Nothing anybody can do or say individually or collectively, and apparently no consensus by the community, can stop Squeak from repeatedly blanking content he doesn't approve of, citing his interpretation of BLP's content and behavioral standards as unimpeachable. I trust it is obvious why this pattern is untenable. - ] (]) 16:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Fifth and sixth porn list blanked=== | |||
| Here. - and then here, the classic blanking a page then PRODding it. I don't know how many of Misplaced Pages's many thousands of people lists Squeak plans to blank, are they going to stop after working their way up the current hit list of 20? Should we just wait for the RfC to end and then roll them all back if there is no consensus that BLP policy requires this? - ] (]) 17:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The only problematic edit is by wikidemon in which he restores material which has been with a link to the BLP policy in the edit summary. BLP does allow editors who make such additions in violation of BLP to be blocked whereas it does not allow this for editors who remove non compliant BLP material about workers in a contentious industry to be blocked for tyhese removals, indeed it requires these removals prior to discussion. ♫ ] ] ] 17:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I rolled back a couple of those lists. {{u|Squeakbox}}, your interpretation of BLP in reference to those lists is ''not'' consensual, so far. When it will be decided that your interpretation is correct, then I'll gladly abide, but so far your arm-twisting is disruptive.--]] 17:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, Cyclopia has also violated BLP . A consensus of editors is unable to override BLP, we dont give any wikipedia editors such power over the living subjects we write about and the burden of proof is on those such as yourself and wikidemon who choose to knowingly ignore BLP. ♫ ] ] ] 17:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Squeak, the issues you are concerned about are in discussion in multiple places. These articles have been in place for years, running and around and blanking them in a day is not solving anything. Let the RFC run its course. I am concerned IP vandals are likely to come in and insert crap amongst the fighting, and then we'll have an identifiable problem. Your behavior is uncivil.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 17:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ecX3 - addressed to Squeak)Please review ] before lobbying to have your perceived opponents blocked, also misrepresenting their edit history. Also, it might be instructive to review ]'s spectacular flame-out before deciding to wage war against a major part of the editing community. His excuse that his edit warring wasn't actually edit warring was COPYVIO, also that he wasn't him but rather his bot that was repeatedly reverting. We all know the issues and arguments here. I reserve the right to revert edits you make based on your faulty interpretation of BLP, but as long as you're edit warring like that it is futile, so you're forcing us to waste a lot of time dealing with you. - ] (]) 17:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ec}}...and now he's blatantly , plus accusing people of BLP violation. SqueakBox, your <u>interpretation</u> of BLP is not consensual. There is no consensus that such lists violate BLP, nowhere so far. ''*sigh*'' I won't revert back, but this is a worrying attitude.--]] 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|SqueakBox}} For what is probably the tenth time: No one is saying we are going to override BLP Policy. There is a good faith question on how to properly interpret the wording. Its not clear how that discussion will be closed, but '''IF''' it determines your interpretation is wrong, it wont be overriding BLP Policy. Your continued insistence to the contrary is unhelpful. ]] 17:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Reading this thread it seems to me that perhaps a temporary topic ban for SqueakBox on such lists is in order. He is being disruptive, no matter what consensus will decide on the issue. Once the discussion is ended on the topic, this can be lifted. --]] 17:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You cannot topic ban because I would not agree to it. You would have to find an admin to permanently block me. And why do you want to topic ban me? So you can ignore our BLP policy in a contentious area like porn? The only peopel deserving of blocks are those who knowingly add BLP non compliant material at the expense of the living people we write about, as BLKP explicitly makes clear. You might though try to the arbcom, Cyclopia. ♫ ] ] ] 17:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{tq|You would have to find an admin to permanently block me.}} - Yup, quite exactly, hopefully. If consensus decides so, of course. You ] that ] is not as consensual as you think, so some action, in my humble opinion, is in order.--]] 18:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :FWIW, I have restored the list at ]. per ] among other editing principles. I do not intend to edit war over this and will not go past 1RR if reverted (though I may complain) but after considering the issue carefully, and in accordance with my position and that of many other editors that the information is duly sourced in each article on the list, I do not believe this presents a legitimate BLP problem. I believe that removing a long list like this degrades our encyclopedic coverage of the notable cultural phenomenon of Japanese pornography, and risks losing a lot of hard work of editors over time. IF the decision is eventually made to require individual sourcing of each name on a list of people, then the Misplaced Pages community can find a way to make that happen. This list has been around for many years and nobody has sued anybody, and nobody from the outside world has complained. There is no deadline to get things right. So let's get things right and not do anything hasty. Let's see what the community wants to do from here. - ] (]) 07:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Squeakbox was absolutely correct in blanking the two lists in question here. It is evident that the editors complaining about his edits have generally not bothered to review the material in question and are, at best, rushing to judgment.''' | |||
| *The ] had five entries and no relevant references. Four of the five performers listed were not, in their individual articles, even categorized in any way as bondage models. (The fifth was, but without any supporting content, sourced or unsourced.) Three of the five articles included no text mentioning "bondage"; the stated fourth stated that the performer had appeared in several videos with S&M/bondage themes without describing her actual roles; and the fifth ]esized the bondage model claim from an interview statement that the performer had been tied up in a film and didn't enjoy it. (If we accept that last inference is valid, the most prominent contemporary bondage model is certainly ], and ] a pioneer in the field.) The RS failure for this wretched little list was utterly complete. | |||
| *The list of "Notable AV idols" embedded in ] failed basic standards, not just for BLP but for RS and for lists generally. It was infested with redlinks, which absolutely do not belong in lists of this type. The list claims to identify particularly notable/significant performers in the genre, but neither the article itself nor, for the most part, the linked articles provide any reliably sources attesting to a listed performer's significance/importance. Just to pull some randomly selected examples (one for each decade}: | |||
| **] (1980s): The claim of particular significance is that she is notorious for a scandal involving a foreign head of state. It is sourced only to these two (NSFW) plainly unreliable sources | |||
| **] (1990s): Described in her article as "one of the most popular AV idols in Japan during the early 1990s", but that claim is supported only by a page from a site advertising her videos (NSFW) | |||
| **] (2000s): Primary claim of significance is her placement in various vendor polls ranging from 28th to 62nd, which hardly demonstrates historical significance | |||
| **] (2010s): Claims of significance appear to be that the subject "is well known for her large breasts" and once reached the top 10 in a vendor popularity poll of no established significance | |||
| *No one has provided any evidence or reasoned analysis that either of these two actions by Squeakbox was inappropriate. The case here amounts to nothing more than judgment by unsupported (and frankly unsupportable) accusation. ] (]) 17:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **And with that you repeated an action for which SqueekBox is under discussion here for. I've gone ahead and restored the list. There are no red links on the list, but I will review the four items you claim here as a content matter to be lacking in sourcing or relevance. Please feel free to bring up your content concerns there. In the meanwhile, please do not try to force any points about lists generally before the RfC has established consensus if any on what the policy actually says on the subject. - ] (]) 23:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Topic ban for User:Squeakbox==== | |||
| From all lists of porn actors or articles including such lists, broadly construed, until a consensus is reached either way on the interpretation of BLP in this respect. | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer.--]] 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Topic-banning someone for something that a significant proportion of those discussing the matter consider to be compliant with policy isn't the way to resolve anything. ] (]) 18:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' except that he should be permitted to add sources to any BLP lists, which is the ''only'' way to truly improve the project. The ban would not be punitive, but to allow us to get something constructive done. Same goes for you, Andy. Squeak is being extremely uncivil, and it is taking every fiber of my being not to go off on a rant like I used to do. No more for me.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 18:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>I would only support a much more limited topic ban. As a counter proposal, I would propose a topic ban on removing blue linked list entries unless Squeakbox has checked the linked article, and found no way to verify the inclusion criteria based on the references at the article. The topic ban to remain in force until either the RFC at ] has closed, or a month has gone by without it being closed. ]] 18:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :*'''Changed to support''' In light of the comment in the section above indicating they wont abide by a topic ban. No point in going out of the way to pass a very narrow topic ban if the editor isn't going to respect it. ]] 18:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Seems a reasonable way to stop the disruptive and ] actions while a decision is made on the merits of the actions. ] (]) 18:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Abstain''' because I'm too close to this situation, as much as I wish I were not. I suggest any ] editor stand back in favor of people who can look at this with fresh eyes and think this through neutrally and as a behavior rather than policy question. - ] (]) 18:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Though I will note I am involved in this debate. I don't support a topic ban on the grounds of his interpretation of ], but rather his disregard for building consensus through discussion. This whole debate has been conflagrant, and his continuing to remove material based on a policy that is currently being discussed is unhelpful and belligerent. ]] 18:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' {{ec}} I'm completely uninvolved in this debate, but I've been following it and SqueakBox's behaviour has been entirely unacceptable. I, like Monty, would've said to do a smaller topic ban, but the editor seems to disregard the concept. Further, I don't think the interpretation of ] is the issue, but rather the way he's gone about it. Continuously removing materal mid-discussion is extremely counterproductive. | |||
| :'''Additional note''': I see that this comment is almost exactly the same as that of The Mol Man, but I'm keeping it here anyway. ] ] 18:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' and support a wider ban from BLP lists in general. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 18:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Squeak's complaints about "ignoring BLP policy" are inaccurate. His statement that he won't abide by any topic ban does not speak well of any good faith we are to assume. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Abstain''' - For the same reasons as Wikidemon. I brought up a Topic Ban initially in Talk page discussions, but wanted sufficient conversation to take place first. Not only has that happened, but someone else has proposed the ban. I do '''support''' a broader ban to include everything under the purview of the Porn Project based on Squeaks comments on his ] and the lengthy blog posted off-Wiki --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 19:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' ban from BLP lists, at least until RFC is closed. It is very important to note he uses to remove not just BLP links, but also links of deceased people and references that justify the inclusion of the links , actions that could justify an even longer topic ban. ] 19:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support indef''' block of user. They have already said they will not abide by the communities decision and that they will wilfully ignore an topic bans. In essence they have stated they continue to be disruptive until blocked. ] (]) 19:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - I happen to agree with this user's position and I think that he means well. I think that, for better or for worse, porn is very controversial in our society (it doesn't take too much digging to find articles about teachers getting fired for posing nude decades ago) and it's important to make sure that calling someone with a porn star has good sourcing. However, I disagree with the general tenor of his conduct at this WP:ANI thread. He comes across as very combative and hostile in such a manner that even someone like me who is trying to support his position ends up feeling attacked by him. I think he might need some distance from porn topics to cool down because this debate has become way more fiery and fractious than it really should be, and part of that unfortunately is because of his approach to making his points. ] (]) 20:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' The community hasn't got time for this user's time wasting. ] (]) 20:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. This would have a chilling effect on BLP enforcement if editors had to worry that they would get topic banned for zealously enforcing a policy that we want editors to zealously enforce. ] <small>(])</small> 20:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::This isn't about zealous enforcement at all. Its about being uncivil and a ''detriment'' to article improvement. He running around with an RFC pending claiming that BLP requires things I've never seen in 5 years of editing, even if some of those ideas could have merit. While he ran around talk pages, a few of us have added 200 sources to one list article already.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 20:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::There has been plenty of incivility to go around during this debate, which hasn't exactly been a shining example of how this community should behave. I have no patience for incivility, but neither do I see a reason to single out a particular editor for it and ignore other, plentiful examples from the same debates. ] <small>(])</small> 21:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Besides Squeak, which other editor on either side of the debate has said he intends to continue deleting stuff no matter what is decided? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' there are a few people here who need to get a grip on reality. It's really easy to let slack lists go and to suggest "well, that list doesn't have any references, so why should any other?", but as Gamaliel suggests, we have a mandate to enforce policies such as BLP. Relying on linked articles etc is nonsense, and topic-banning an editor for trying to improve the situation is patently absurd. I note we have some equally absurd "indef block" calls above. Perhaps some folks here don't even know what they're voting for. ] (]) 20:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There has to be a limit on what is considered adequate enforcing of BLP according to the spirit of the policy, beyond which the edit warring and refusal to collaborate is considered disruptive. Otherwise, I could go to any B-class BLP article and perform a removal (performed on a copy, not the real article) of every single sentence that doesn't have a direct inline reference within it, and keep edit warring any revert in the name of BLP enforcement way past the 3RR and refusing any request to stop or help fixing the removal. Gutting the article to an unreadable mess that, per policy, could only be fixed by inserting a new reference within every sentence in the article. If I start doing that right now to all BLP articles at ], would you say that I was being disruptive and call me to stop, or will you agree that it's improving BLP coverage? ] (]) 06:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Agree with Gamaliel and TRM. --] (]) 20:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' at this point. But to be frank. Squeakbox is well into ] territory. ]] 20:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Emphatically support''' Off & on over the last several months Squeakbox has been obsessively attacking all lists of people involved in the sex industry on the pretense of BLP, as shown by examining his last 500-1000 edits. He has been repeatedly blocked for disruptive edits related to sex topics in the past -- see of appearances here at WP:AN/I -- & in 2007 ] -- only to return & continue this campaign in the most disruptive manner possible. His actions have only made it ''more difficult'' for impartial Wikipedians to take ] concerns seriously. He isn't concerned about inaccurate information, he is concerned that these people are identified as "porn stars" despite the fact their articles detail careers as such. Based on his actions in this thread alone, I would block him indefinitely because of his lengthy history of disruption, but I will not because of this !vote. -- ] (]) 20:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ** '''Further comment''' SqueakBox's claim of upholding BLP here is misleading, & is obvious if you look closely at the original page he indiscriminately blanked. The list on the page included names of people best known for (uh, well) performing in porn movies: Annie Sprinkles, Harry Reems, James Deen, Jenna Jameson, Marilyn Chambers, Ron Jeremy & Traci Lords. No reasonable person would expect a reliable source to affirm these people are pornographic actors any more than they would expect reliable sources to include Charlie Manson & David Berkowitz in a list of mass murders, or a reliable source to include Bernard Madoff in a list of embezzlers. (And being labeled a murderer or embezzler is far more insulting than being called a porn star.) Had SqueakBox simply removed less familiar names from the list on ], one could argue he was acting in good faith to uphold BLP although not acting in the best manner. Instead, he is blanking all content on the pages -- both the self-evident & those arguably in need of a reliable source -- in what appears to be a ] against lists of people working in the sex entertainment business. | |||
| ::* '''Comment''' In reference to the above comments, here is the "original" page that SB challenged; and here is the page after SB first blanked it and tagged it for deletion;, then there was some edit-warring, it survived an AfD and the current version is linked in the comment above. Thanks to everyone who chipped in and helped in the rescue and rehabilitation of this article.]] 07:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::* One thing to note here: after checking, every single name on the list was a legitimate porn star. After hundreds of hours of ridiculous drama, the hypothetical harm to be avoided turns out to be just that, hypothetical. The list, though sourced on the other end of the click instead of the end Squeak demands, turns out to be carefully compiled and sourced, and of no harm to living people. It is pure fantasy that there is some kind of legal or moral emergency on Misplaced Pages that demands this kind of social breaching. Yes, the community got together and spent hundreds of hours answering Squeak's accusation, and perhaps that is an improvement to the list, perhaps not. But it did nothing to advance the cause of BLP as it turns out that there was neither a BLP problem nor a BLP consequence to the list. - ] (]) 08:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' When I see comments announcing that - ''There can be no consensus to stop me...the only way to stop me are to block me...I will not stop...I wont stop BLP enforcing porn lists either'' - it leads me to believe that they won't be stopped from disruptive editing. We really shouldn't be relying on one editor's opinion in interpretating a policy to justify disruptive behavior.]] 21:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unfortunate support''' Squeakbox has been given numerous times and numerous chances by the community regarding this issue, and he has dismissed every single dissenting voice to his specific interpretation of BLP. Blanking lists was bad enough, but that he admits that he will incessantly continue until he is blocked is the very definition of a ] editor. ] (]) 21:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' topic ban based on everything I said . ] 21:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - This kind of disruptive activity ] ] and enough is enough at this late date. Whether or not "Squeak" will abide by this type of ban, which I should state clearly here should apply to both "porn actors" and actresses as well, is irrelevant at this time. is just going to keep going on & on until something is changed in our BLP policy wording, and that discussion is ongoing now at an RfC. ] (]) 23:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Guy, for context, what was the outcome of that earlier event? - ] (]) 00:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I already said over at the BLP RfC, "Squeak" was warned about his actions back then when he was blanking content from articles, mostly related to ] awards, and threatening to blank even more content on various talk pages of those same type of articles. He was clearly told in several different venues (including at BLP/N) that his actions were not valid and yet he returned again recently to continue basically right where he had left off before. There's really nothing new in his recent editing behavior or "style" of collaborating with other editors now. Between back then and now, a significant amount of work has been done (by more than a few editors) to improve the content & sourcing in many adult film award articles. ] (]) 02:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''': if it passes and he refuses to cooperate, a block may well be in order, but I don't think a topic ban is really the right answer. The problem here is ''not'' the removal of inadequately sourced lists. If editors didn't keep trying to put the inadequately sourced items back, this conflagration would have stayed small and contained.—](]) 23:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I'm not involved, though I've worked with SB in the past. It wasn't pleasant, and from the comments above it looks like he hasn't changed much, but unless he moves into being intentionally pesty, and we will all know it when we see it, he shouldn't be stopped from enforcing BLP policy.] (]) 02:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. Bad idea to sanction users who take a hardline stance on BLP matters. We need them to clean up the articles. ] (]) 06:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::No position on wikipedia is immune to sanctions for acting like a horse's ass. As I'm reading the newer comments though, I see some feel he's been this way for many many years, and taking actions harmful to productive BLP work, which is depressing.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 13:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::And if you look closely, this is actually not a BLP dispute, it's a ''manual of style'' dispute. The possible exception to this fact is Squeak, who admittedly knows nothing about the subject and also can't be bothered to check the individual entries for potential BLP violations. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have read it carefully, and contributed to it, as has BB. The discussion at the BLP talk page is quite clearly a discussion about BLP and its application to lists incuding living people. The MOS has been quoted, but the focus of the debate is precisely how BLP should be applied. Saying it is not a BLP dispute is not correct. ] (]) 07:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Saying that it's not a BLP dispute may be a simplificaton; the fact remains that the original dispute is over how to give style and format to the available references, and at no point was there a challenge of the accuracy nor verifiability of the stated facts. ] (]) 08:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::An oversimplification to the point of being incorrect. The discussion at the BLP talk page is about what BLP mandates in terms of requirements for verification by citation of references in various kinds of BLP article, and what actions are required or permissible in the absence of the required level verification. That discussion is not restricted to the case where those assertions are correct and verifiable, nor is it restricted to the case where references are available in some other article. Those possible use cases are part of the discussion but do not form the whole of it. The discussion is about policy, not about the behaviour of one particular editor on one particular article. ] (]) 11:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What BLP mandates for verification, it does so in order to protect the reputation of those persons. That was not at play at the case being considered here, which *is* about the actions of one user which can't be considered to be furthering the goal of BLP policy. ] (]) 13:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Possibly. My point was that the discussion at the BLP talk page is about the requirements of BLP in a broad range of cases: it is not about matters of style or specific cases as has been stated, in my view incorrectly, here. What is under discussion here is the behaviour of one particular user, on which I make no comment. ] (]) 15:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The continual pooh-poohing of the very same BLP issue that exists within categories, with the excuse that the rules don't require it, has convinced me that this is a MOS issue, not a BLP issue. The entire ''megillah'' should be moved to the MOS talk page. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I tend to agree with this much of the comment by BB, that the inability of categories to support ] by citations could well be problematic expecially in the case of BLP, and I certainly don't think I have pooh-poohed it. The fact that categories technically cannot support citations, whereas lists can, means that it makes sense for current policy to require citations in lists. If categorisation leads to a BLP problem, then policy might have to be changed, and if BB would like to propose that, I might well find myself in support. However, there is no point in discussing the matter on the MOS talk page, as the MOS is already clear on the matter. ] (]) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::There's no evidence that there were any BLP issues with the list in question. Squeak is using an alleged MOS rule for the sole purpose of unwarranted deletion, and hence, disruption. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. Even if Squeek is correct (and I don't think he is), he's being disruptive. If an RfC determines that his interpretation of ] is correct, my !vote would shift to 1RR per item per list per year, rather than a topic ban. — ] ] 08:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' per Arthur Rubin. This goes well beyond reasonable upholding of BLP policy into the territory of disruption and belligerence (@]: yes, he '''is''' being intentionally pesty). It was demonstrated that the lists have never failed ], the basic pillar, and it only took two clicks (one to the actor's article and another to a reference there) to verify their status in the adult industry. If that is deemed inadequate in the RfC, then fine, someone should go and properly source it inline, but blanking them in the face of numerous and reasonable opposition and in the midst of discussion is not acceptable. ] (]) 08:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' — SqueakBox is clearly a lightning rod, i.e. "One that attracts and absorbs powerful, typically negative feelings and reactions, thereby diverting interest from other issues". Administrators not taking action in this matter would be condoning and enabling his combative behavior and helping maintain the combative part of the Misplaced Pages editing environment. --] (]) 12:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' topic ban, but favor that administrators keep a close eye on Squeakbox for potential disruption and a fast block if necessary, since this is starting to smack of a personal crusade rather than consensus-based action. ] (]) 14:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' for the duration of the duration of the RFC. Only in the truly exceptional cases (such as certain troublesome users for whom wikipedians have developed reflex triggers for) do we have a single question in so many venues all at the same time. Either SB can contribute to establishing a consensus in now we should handle individuals connected to porn or they can sit on the sidelines (either voluntarily or by force) and not get an opportunity to help. Either way is fine with me as long as the moving battle for this topic stays put at one location and no behind the scenes machinations occur. ] (]) 21:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Pointless Support''' - this is clearly disruptive behavior, and while the user has stated that they would not abide by such a ruling (which is pretty evident in itself), it would be good to attempt to restrain them until a definitive result (or lack of result) is reached. ]'']'' 22:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per AndyTheGrump. --] (]) 06:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <small>Consensus seems to be forming. How long should this stay open before closing? Honest question.--]] 14:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. There is no consensus that Squeakbox's edits were inappropriate. There has been no evidence or analysis presented that the two list blankings that precipitated this rush to judgment were in any way not consistent with applicable policies and guidelines -- indeed, there is a very strong case that they were compelled by BLP and RS requirements (see my comments above). Enforcing even the simplest BLP requirements with regard to articles involving pornography has been unreasonably controversial for a long time, and there is no legitimate reason to impede it further. As someone who has removed hundreds of spurious and fabricated entries from porn-related lists, even such high-profile ones as ], I have previously demonstrated that the scrutiny of such lists for accuracy by the editing community has been wretchedly substandard. Squeakbox's actions may have been imprudent or provocative, but nowhere near as imprudent or damaging as the long-standard tolerance of unsubstantiated, inaccurate, and sometimes fabricated claims in articles on the general subject. ] (]) 17:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::HW, in reference to your edits on "hundreds of spurious and fabricated entries from porn-related lists" is it safe to assume that you're talking about and with edit summaries like "another gross BLP violation" and "gross BLP violation, more porn-related blithering idiocy" (respectively) when all that you did was remove a Wikilink? | |||
| ::::I don't think it's safe to assume that, but for what it's worth, those were two examples of wikilinks to bios from unrelated people who shared the same name. Requiring a citation would actually make this problem worse, not better, because instead of clicking the link to find the sources and seeing it's the wrong person, someone would just click the source and not realize the link is wrong. It would be a stretch to call that a BLPVIO in any event, because in a million years I do not think that would give the person in question any harm or cause of action. But again, unless H.Wolf said that's what he's referring to it's not fair to make that assumption. - ] (]) 05:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::And speaking of lists, since you've edited ] it would seem that you have '''less''' of a contention about ''bondage models'' than you do porn stars since you haven't raised the same reference issues there. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 22:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Re "There has been no evidence or analysis presented that the two list blankings that precipitated this rush to judgment were in any way not consistent with applicable policies and guidelines " — The evidence and analysis was presented on the talk page. You may disagree with it, but it was presented in good faith. At the time of the blankings, there were four editors in favor of restoring the material, while only SqueakBox and another were in favor of deleting. Removing the material wasn't an emergency situation to protect the actors mentioned since this list has been up for years. SqueakBox's actions were needlessly inflammatory. I think it could have been settled without all this disruption. --] (]) 22:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::For sure it is not the job here at AN/I to decide whether the BLP justification for the repeated reversions was correct or not, only to note that there is an ongoing discussion with sincere opinions on both sides. - ] (]) 05:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per the reasonings above. Disruption has to stop - one way or the other. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 22:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''support''' due to his clear intention to continue to disregard the accepted interpretation of policy. ''']''' (]) 00:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' People should not be sanctioned for good-faith BLP actions, even if others think their interpretation of policy is wrong. In BLP cases, ]. There is no requirement to obtain consensus before deleting material where there is known to be disagreement over whether it violates BLP; in contrast, there is a requirement to obtain consensus before restoring. Thus is it not Squeakbox who should be under scrutiny, but those who restored material that Squeakbox had deleted without first starting a discussion and obtaining consensus that the deletion had not been required by BLP. ] (]) 00:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There was a consensus for restoring the ''List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films'' after considering whether it was a BLP violation, a consensus that SqueakBox disregarded and edit warred against. --] (]) 02:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think there was a clear consensus. ] (]) 04:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{xt|You cannot topic ban because I would not agree to it.}} Does not sound like good faith to me. It sounds more like bellicosity. ]] 04:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' From the discussion above, it is clear there is no consensus either for or against a topic ban. I still can't see why those who are so aghast at SB's blanking just restore the information with an inline reference? SB is royal pain in the ass, no doubt, but BLP policy is clearly on "his side". Just copy and paste the links and be done with it.] (]) 02:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whose side the policy has yet to be decided. ] contains over a quarter-million bytes that show blatantly there is no agreement as to whether or not his interpretation was correct. Is his interpretation of BLP correct? That's open for debate on the aforementioned talk page. But it is absolutely false to say whose side the policy is on yet, especially "clearly" so. ]] 04:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::My apologies, I meant to add "IMO" about the policy part. It IS clear however that there is no consensus about a topic ban as someone else suggested above. Further discussion is pointless and unless something changes. Who wants to close the TB proposal?] (]) 04:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::And to drive home the point of why I think this is "clear" is because the manual of style enforces this point. "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Misplaced Pages's content policies, such as ''verifiability'', no original research, neutral point of view, and what Misplaced Pages is not, as well as the notability guidelines." SB is well within his "rights" (whatever rights we have according to the TOS) to insist that claims made are verifiable. There appears to be genuine disagreement if blue links are valid sources. Many blue linked articles have proved to be inadequately sourced for a variety of reasons. BLP requires strong sources for contentious material. Inline sourcing >>> blue links. Now of course this is boiling down to who is going to do the work. The burden is on those wishing to restore the material removed. Period. There are some who indicate they believe SB is thumbing his nose and doing this for the sheer enjoyment of annoying people. I personally would not ague against this theory. I would open up an arbitration request and ask them to decide if blue linked articles are acceptable as sources for BLP contentious material, but I'm not willing to spend the time putting it together. I'd welcome it if someone else would. Selfish of me I suppose, but I'm too ADDHD to tackle this sort of job. Man has to know his limitations.] (]) 05:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == User abusing PROD == | |||
| ] is blatantly abusing the PROD system to get articles he doesn't like deleted without discussion. Thankfully most admins have been sensible enough to reject them. He has tagged over 50 articles so far, some of which are correctly tagged, but others clearly meet none of the criteria for deletion per ]. He has tried to get articles on NFL, MLB, and NHL players, a former Chilean national football team manager, and a member of the Indian parliament deleted. These are ridiculous and disruptive edits. He needs to be stopped, warned, and maybe blocked. I've tried to undo some of his edits, adding references and such, but there's too many. ] (]) 12:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Please note offensive language by this editor on my talk page. And remove of legitimate PROD at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nelson_Acosta&diff=619948981&oldid=619936217 ] (]) 12:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Please note further offensive language at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A124.148.207.219&diff=619950105&oldid=619950053. ] (]) 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Does the word "filth" offend you? I'm terribly sorry, and I cheerfully withdraw it. Less offensive synonyms are available on request. ] (]) 12:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Some of the articles I Prod'd might be incorrect, but I'd suggest the vast majority are Biographies of Living People with no references. That is a legitimate reason to Prod them. If you can find references, feel free to improve the articles with them. ] (]) 12:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Seems legit to me. All the ones I've looked at were BLPs without references. ] ]] 12:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :No that is not a legitimate reason to prod them. "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" (from ]) does not mean any article without a source can be deleted at any one time – this user makes no effort to find sources, just tries to delete article. What worthless contributions – detracting from the total sum of knowledge and giving nothing back. Sources listed under external links are still references. ] (]) 13:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please see ]. ] ]] 13:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::No admin action seems to be required here. My only advice would be for {{U|AlanS}} to use the {{tl|Blpprod}} template instead of {{tl|Prod}} when tagging such articles. --]]<small>]</small> 13:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Any BLP create after March 18, 2010 that does not contain any sources can be tagged with {{tl|blpprod}}. These prod tags cannot be removed unless the one contesting the deletion provides at least one reliable source. (see ]) —''']''' (] | ]) 13:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I disagree with the report, {{U|AlanS}} is doing good job and he don't have to write tags because he can select PROD type from page patrolling tools. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small></span> 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, he absolutely '''does''' need to provide good reasons for a PROD. "select PROD type from page patrolling tools" without a proper investigation and rationale is not acceptable, as explained below by {{U|Calathan}}, with regards to older BLPs, as just one example. I remember your name, {{U|OccultZone |OZ}}, from an earlier discussion about automated tools. Users are entirely, and personally, responsible for the quality of edits they make with such tools in exactly the same way as if they had not used a tool at all. The details page for any reputable tool will tell you exactly that. The tool may '''never''' become a substitute for thought and care. If the edits are in any way below the standard which a manual edit, with thought, would have been, then the tool is being used inappropriately, and such use must be discontinued. I truly shudder to contemplate the number of potential editors we scare off daily by use of these tools as though this was some shoot-em-up video game, where quantity of edits is more important than quality. I'd put that as Misplaced Pages's number one problem, right now. Really. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 16:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'll take the opinion of the only admin to have commented on this thread so far. ] (]) 03:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You are, of course, free to pick and choose whichever advice you wish. However, even a quick glance at ] seems to indicate that there have been multiple occasions on which experienced editors have had concerns about the deletion related edits you have made. Of course, they could all be wrong. As {{U|Calathan}} says below, I'm sure you're acting in good faith, as are those who have expressed some concerns, or advised a little more care. I'd just ask you to consider that. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 04:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's not so much about picking and choosing advice. I always am wary of cherry picking. More so the case of an admin saying that what I am doing seems legit to him. Sorry I'm going to take the words of admin with a bit more weight than I would any one else. You are quite right about others previously expressing concern at my haste in slapping CSDs around. I've tried to take quite a bit more care with them. As far as I'm aware though with prods, it's quite legitimate to place one an article with no references (especially given that anyone can remove it if they disagree). ] (]) 04:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That's great. All any of us can do is try to improve, and hope we get it right. Below this post, 2 other editors disagree that all of your BLP prods were unproblematic, and they give a reasonable explanation of why they think that might be so. Sure, another editor can remove an erroneous PROD, or even one they just disagree with, but really, why should they need to, and why should we run the risk of unnecessarily upsetting editors, or even article subjects, by tagging articles in this way? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 08:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I commented about a similar situation to another user yesterday, and wanted to give a similar comment here. The BLPPROD policy was brought about as the result of a long and contentious discussion, as a compromise where recent BLPs would be deleted just for being unsourced and older BLPs would not be deleted just for being unsourced. For any BLP older than March 18, 2010, it is not a valid reason for deletion to just say the article is unsourced (as again, one of the key parts of the compromise was that older BLPs would not be deleted just because they were unsourced). AlanS, I see that you have tagged some older BLPs with PROD tags with a deletion rationale that only states they are unsourced (e.g. ] and ]). While I think you are acting in good faith, and disagree with most of what 124.148.207.219 said, I do agree that this isn't a valid reason for deletion for those articles. Please just put a little more into the deletion rationale, such as a statement that you did a quick search for sources and didn't find any, or that you think the subject is non-notable (if you think they ''are'' notable, it would obviously be much more helpful to add references rather than tagging them for deletion). ] (]) 20:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :AlanS has ignored what I wrote here, and is continuing to tag older BLPs with prod tags that only say they are unreferenced. I consider that disruptive, as the prod reason isn't a sufficient reason for deletion for those articles. AlanS, remember that the idea is to build an encyclopedia that includes articles on notable subjects and excludes articles on non-notable subjects. Spending less than 5 minutes looking for sources on an article will often allow you to tell whether the subject is notable or not, and is much more helpful than just tagging lots of articles without even looking for sources. If you do even a cursory search for sources and don't find any that look sufficient, then that is a valid reason to PROD an article. I'm not asking you to stop cleaning up those unsourced articles, and indeed cleaning them up is quite helpful. However, please just go about it in the right way, by giving valid reasons for deletion when you tag them and by checking first if any of them are subjects we should have articles on. ] (]) 14:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The two examples given by ] two comments up both have external links in the article - which makes them ineligible for BLPprod even if they had been created post-2010. ] (]) 07:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have removed the BLPprod from the one which had external links that were working and removed the link from the other one that was broken. ] (]) 11:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For the record, AlanS placed PROD on ], an article created in 2003, with the rationale "Article contains no references" while it still had an external link (). ] (]) 13:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Do you enjoy nitpicking? ] (]) 13:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And again, is for an article created in 2009. Clearly there ''is'' a persistent problem here. I suggest the following: | |||
| :::::::What exactly is the problem with that PROD. The Article is completely un-referenced. ] (]) 14:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* Firstly, ] should stop marking articles for deletion while this discussion is taking place. | |||
| ::::::* Secondly, he should use the appropriate template - in other words {{tl|Prod blp}} instead of {{t1|Proposed deletion}} for BLPs without references. | |||
| ::::::* Thirdly and most importantly, he should acknowledge that (to repeat ]'s words verbatim) "For any BLP older than March 18, 2010, it is not a valid reason for deletion to just say the article is unsourced.", check the history of the articles he is marking for deletion before he tags them to see when they were created, and stop tagging articles that don't meet the BLPPROD criteria with immediate effect. | |||
| ::::::* Fourthly, he should endeavour to search for appropriate references where none exist before even considering marking an article for deletion | |||
| ::::::* Finally, failure to abide by the "Thirdly" paragraph going forward should result in a ban on marking articles for deletion for six months. ]] 14:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*{{ping|Number 57}}, I hear what ] is saying. Do other admins agree? ] (]) 14:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: To answer your query above, ], the problem is that the article you prodded was created before March 18, 2010 and therefore does not qualify for BLPPROD. That's been explained so many times in this thread now I'm beginning to think this is a ] situation. ]] 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::To some extent, I am beginning to think there is a problem here. BLP prods for post-2010 articles are reasonable (although if you can see the subject is clearly notable, why not just find a reference yourself - Google is very quick!), but prodding pre-2010 should only be used if the subject is not notable – tagging many articles of subjects that are clearly notable (e.g. sportspeople that have represented their country) for deletion for no other reason than a lack of references is not particularly productive. I think there are also issues with returning to tag now-referenced articles with {{tl|ref improve}} when in some cases one or two references is perfectly adequate (e.g. tagging the two-sentence ] twice, even though it had a reference that covered pretty much everything in the article). ] ]] 16:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'll take what you've said onboard. ] (]) 22:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal to topic ban AlanS from New Page Patrol=== | |||
| * This is far from the first discussion I've had involving AlanS and deletion-related disputes. I think plain talking isn't obviously working, so unfortunately I'm going to throw open a proposal that '''AlanS is topic banned from all NPP activities, broadly construed, for three months'''. The evidence can be found in numerous discussions links off ], particularly the notifications of declined speedies, plus comments such as "" and "Do you enjoy nitpicking?" as seen above are just not helpful when dealing with new editors and articles. He's not the only one to blame in the dispute that kicked this thread off, but with a bit more tact and diplomacy, the thread might not have been created in the first place. Your thoughts, please. ] ] ] 14:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Something in the area of responsiveness to guidance, and willingness to exercise required care needs to change. I agree that there have been some very unhelpul responses, so far, and I share deeply the concern for new articles and editors, as I expressed in the discussion above. I'm reluctant to support a topic ban unless AlanS continues to reject guidance and exercise care, now that it is being put to them more plainly. So, I guess that's a "no, unless no alternative remains by the end of this discussion", at this point. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 14:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Disagree completely given my massive improvement in CSD's. I feel, by and large, I've been using PRODs appropriately. ] (]) 14:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Since your acknowledgement of Waggers' comment above (approximately fifteen minutes ago), you PRODed several pre-2010 articles with the rationale that they had no references. ] (]) 15:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Oof - that doesn't help my reluctance to support the topic ban one bit. That, and the dismissive responses to guidance are starting to make me nervous, I confess. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 15:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*I have to say that on a ]-winning actress appearing in several major films is ... unhelpful. ] ] ] 15:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*...yeah... I think, at the very least, AlanS is going to need to remove his fingers from his ears and acknowledge all the valid concerns. Absent that happening during this discussion, I'll need to support your topic ban, I'm afraid. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 15:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - adding a properly formatted !vote, in case my opinion is not clear, above and below. The ] is, unfortunately, deafening still, 3 days later. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 20:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - AlanS doesn't seem to be conscious or aware of the issues and has made ], and they are ineligible, but it continued in this very thread after AlanS responded to it. I also see basic issues with the Notability tag - which should never have been applied to Anne Brochet in the first place. Combined with the attitude, the user is simply not able to be trusted with New Page Patrol if any new editor (or even an experienced one) has to deal with someone who doesn't understand the basic guidelines themselves. ] (]) 22:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I contest that the majority of the Prods I've applied have been legitimate. Further, if anyone has a look at the page of unreferenced BLPs, they will see that it is pretty much halved in the last 72 hours (for persons with surnames starting with A or B). As per applying a notability tag incorrectly to '''one''' article. My mistake, I'll cop to it and take more care. Further I’ve taken {{user|Number 57}} comments on-board. ] (]) 01:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support and support banning of Prod''' - Recently encountered this editor when he placed a notability tag on the article of ] winning actress ]. Wow. I didn't know this was the tip of the iceberg as indicated here. The mentioned article even stated in the version of this dif that she was an Ceasar Award winning actress who has starred in many films including the iconic '']''. This blatant disregard to ] occurred days after this thread began - It's as if he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules and editors who have a concern of his behavior. --] (]) 02:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's as if you're ignoring ] in saying 'he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules'. ] (]) 03:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The full sentence is "It's as if he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules ''and editors who have a concern of his behavior.''" Trying to AGF but you're not making it easy.--] (]) 22:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose, but..''' - TL;DR: seems hasty, why not try other things first? Long version Mass deletion proposals or any mass invocation of process is a problem if it's not done in an orderly, competent way, and we do have a quality issue here. New page patrol is a partial exception because AFAIK the majority of new pages aren't worthy, and particularly new bios that tend to be unsourced or non-notable. Even that has to be done carefully, politely, helpfully, and with compassion because this is many users' first and only experience trying to edit Misplaced Pages, and we don't want to turn away the occasional good new editor, or alienate the public. So a soft careful touch is useful even when making high-volume templated edits. A topic ban is a rather extreme remedy, not the first thing to try. AlanS seems to be a good faith, sincere editor. Unless I'm getting something wrong there's no incidence of prior trouble, incivility, lack of cooperation. If AlanS will agree to slow down a bit, learn some more, perhaps work with mentorship of a more experienced editor, or just try a little harder, is there any indication that he's not going to do this work just fine? All I see is a 3 day old report where he's trying to be helpful and explain, and not quite hitting the mark. 3 days is too hasty to topic ban someone for 3 months. If there's an immediate present problem, a warning or (very short) block might be more appropriate if it's extreme. Otherwise, just step back and let's get back to normal business here. Disclaimer: I'm not an admin, and I"m here on this page watching other business and abstaining from another topic ban !vote, I just thought I'd be useful by offering my $0.02 on a dispute where I'm completely uninvolved. - ] (]) 03:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: I am always trying to learn. I will admit that I do make mistakes sometimes and I can be hasty on occasion. If it is of any help to others I will make a concerted effort to slow down and by no means do I want to be putting new editors off or alienating the public. I do apologise if it has seemed like I have pushed back a bit. I do find the tone of this discussion has been a bit off putting. In particular the tone of IP editor who started it (please compare their edit history to a conversation that occurred in ] at and tell me there isn't some wikistalking and violations of ] occurring). ] (]) 05:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Sorry, but I don't think your comment doesn't really apply because AlanS was picking BLPs from before the policy change in 2010 and was PRODing them. Not only that, its that quite a few were also ineligible because they had external links. Not only that, the problem continued during this thread. Not only that, AlanS was being rude in response to the legitimate issue be called out. Then, the final straw for me was even after all that - managing to do it all again and slap tags that were ineligible without so much as checking the claims already present in the article. This is also not the first time issues have happened - all those comments apply to ''new'' issues. The "Unless I'm getting something wrong there's no incidence of prior trouble, incivility, lack of cooperation." - shows that this very thread itself hasn't curbed the issue since its beginning and the issues predate it. My core issue is that AlanS doesn't understand the policies well-enough to do New Page Patrol and its a ] issue as well. I'd be open to mentoring however, I just don't want to see this return in a month's time to ANI. ] (]) 05:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the comments. I hear you, but the key word for me in your explanation is "was" — if this is in the past, remedies are to prevent *future* disruption, not to punish or deter. If AlanS is committed to trying, why not give him the chance? He's promising to be more careful here. I haven't noticed the civility problem but if there is one you can ask him to stay civil. Accusations of wikistalking are a tough one, because if they're true they aren't uncivil. If they aren't true, sometimes it's just a question of perspective. If you see someone doing something surprising or wrong it's reasonable to look at their edit history to see where else they may have done it and perhaps take action or piece together the bigger picture. But if you're on the receiving end of that it can seem like someone has it out for you. If it does end up back here in a month, fine. You would have the record of this report, and an actual promise AlanS said he would keep but didn't. Strike two, you know. Regarding the pre-2010 BLPs, that's kind of surprising. I was part of the big free-for-all argument that ended up in that agreement to start the BLP rescue project (mostly arguing, not tagging or defending more than a few BLPs). I thought we had gone through them all. If there's still a pre-2010 BLP that looks like it's missing sources, then either someone made a mistake and passed it over without rescuing it, someone removed an earlier source, or the person doing the PROD is missing something. In theory there should be no virgin source-free pre-2010 BLPs here anymore. And in theory there shouldn't be any new ones either, any post 2010 BLPs should be deleted or sourced as soon as they appear. I do think that a single external link or improperly formatted, or tangential reliable source, isn't really keeping with the letter or spirit of BLP, it's just barely enough to survive BLPPROD. After four years now we ought to be trying to add some real sources to these articles, not the bare minimum. But that's not really an issue for this page. - ] (]) 05:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My accusations are backed up by solid evidence. Please have a look at the two links I have provided and compare the names of the pages the IP has recently edited to his comment on the discussion page of ]. No excuse for me previously being a bit bull headed, but off putting all the same. ] (]) 06:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sorry to be a little lazy but I'll take you at your word without necessarily endorsing or agreeing. I've definitely been wiki-stalked, and also accused of wiki-stalking. I've seen everything here. People throw a lot of mud on AN/I and in any dispute, and no matter how clean you are when you come in, when mud gets thrown everybody gets dirty. You will rarely come out ahead on AN/I by insisting, however sincerely and correctly, that the person who is accusing you of something is completely wrong and made it up. And if you accuse someone of something on AN/I, however sincerely and correctly, you can expect to be accused yourself of the same thing and for some percentage of the participants to believe that you're the instigator and culprit. This is true in real life, by the way. The best solution I think is to rise above that and just do your best job as an editor. So what if you have an IP wiki-stalker, probably one of the named editors around here who is deliberately not signing in? Sure, there are certain admins with tools who could figure that out. Sure, IPs participating in process discussions are very suspicious (though there is sometimes a legit reason). But so what? You've been wiki-stalked. Welcome to the club. Let them stalk your edits. If you make good edits, own up to your mistakes, treat even your detractors with some respect and kindness, you just have observers, not stalkers. Sometimes that means you have to give up on an edit you know is right, or let someone get away with doing something they shouldn't, for a greater goal of having a good Misplaced Pages experience. Hope that helps! - ] (]) 06:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - having a look at the PRODs listed at ], there have been ] (ignoring BLPprods) placed on biographical articles in the month of August. Of these 37 were placed with the rationale "Article has no references", one with "Article does not have any references", 35 with "Article contains no references" and one with no rationale. All of the 74 were created before the 18 March 2010 BLPprod cutoff date. None of the rationales are valid ] making 100% of the PRODs invalid. ] (]) 05:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose NPP ban, support PROD ban''' I think a complete topic ban is unnecessary, but Alans does need to stop prodding articles that don't meet the necessary criteria. His responses above and continued editing suggests he either doesn't get it or doesn't care, so sadly I think some kind of sanction is necessary, and banning him from prodding articles seems appropriate. There's no reason (at present) to stop him adding maintenance tags or taking things to AfD/CSD as appropriate. ]] 11:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' <s>Oppose and counter-proposal</s> - <s>Let's try to channel AlanS' enthusiasm into making him a valuable contributor in NPP '''where we desperately need more reviewers'''. When I started reviewing, I made a lot of mistakes. Fortunately people were very patient with me, and I took their advice and improved. A way forward for AlanS may be some sort of mentoring. If he doesn't demonstrate improvement, or if he ignores advice or continues making the same judgement errors, then a NPP/CSD/PROD ban should be seriously considered.</s>- ]] 14:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Considering the the poor judgement demonstrated by continuing to make questionable deletion nominations during this discussion, the attitude, and the evident lack of competence in this area, I now support a temporary NPP ban to include nominating any page for PROD or XfD.- ]] 11:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::<s>Could be a good idea.</s> Personally, I've been periodically checking this thread, hoping to see a response from Alan to {{U|Hack}}'s comment above, outlining which of those PRODS have been fixed by others, which ones he has dealt with himself, which ones may still be problematic, etc... That would be enthusiasm, and a beginning to the learning process you envisage. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 17:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::When others have named specific pages by name where I have made a mistake I've usually gone back to the page to see if someone one else might of corrected my mistake or to see if the correction still needs to be done. Sorry if I haven't indicated that when people have brought up specific examples. ] (]) 22:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{U|Hack}}'s message is specific. It refers to a longish list, but it's a specific list. Did you have some other way in mind, rather than running through the list, to check for outstanding issues? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 03:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Every article I Prod'd is sitting in my watch list. When they had sources added I removed them from my watch list. There's not much left in my watch list at the moment from those articles that I Prod'd. I'll have a look through the ones that are remaining now. ] (]) 06:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::From what I can see there is only about 10 of them left (could be missing one or two) and they are BLP Prod variety and those articles are still un-referenced. ] (]) 07:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' for now. I think mentoring sounds like a good alternative. If AlanS rejects mentorship and shows no improvement, then we can come back. Sorry to potentially extend this drama, but I'm not completely convinced at this time that the disruption warrants a ban. I strongly advise AlanS to take a mentor; otherwise, it's likely that he will return here shortly. If we're back here in less than a month, I'll accept a ] and change my vote. ] (]) 00:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Who do you propose and what does it involve? ] (]) 03:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Anyone can remove a prod. A prod is nothing more than a suggestion that deletion is uncontroversial, anyone can dispute that and remove it. Having a ] is not the same as consensus for deletion and is open to personal interpretation. I strongly advise {{u|AlanS}} to use specific prod templates for BLP and such and also provide detailed reasons for each and every article he prods.<p>"'''Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline'''" is a valid reason for deletion and thus prod too, even if the article is prior than 2010 or not a blp. The notability policy does not simply require that a person or subject be notable but that this be demonstrated. The burden of meeting this policy is on the person seeking to include it not the person trying to remove it.<p>I find those suggesting that he should fix the articles instead of removing content contrary to policy to be missing that fundamental point.<p>Frankly I think it is time people learn that unreferenced articles are not long for this encyclopedia. It is a simple standard that if met improves our credibility from a joke to a respectable source of information. I would rather be involved with a referenced encyclopedia 500 times larger than the next largest encyclopedia than an unreferenced one 5000 times larger. ] 05:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think I'll just take a break from NPP for a little while. I thought I was actually doing something useful by helping reduce the number of un-referenced BLPs (with surnames starting with A and B) from in excess of a page at to half a page. Others seem to disagree. Fine. I'm sure there are plenty more people who are prepared to go entirely through all un-referenced BLPs. ] (]) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' - I'm responding to AlanS's that ''I can be hasty on occasion. If it is of any help to others I will make a concerted effort to slow down''. Only a few hours ago he resumed edit-warring over his pet article at ] while a BRD-flagged discussion was in place. It's night in Australia and when I paused for sleep, he said (in ), ''Doesn't seem like you're so interested in the discussion part of WP:BRD.'' I think this editor should accept his own advice and slow down. In this global project, not every editor is simultaneously awake, let alone on-line. There's always time for discussion, and very few of our encyclopaedic articles need to be up to the minute. Least of all the sort of articles AlanS is PRODding. --] (]) 20:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::What you trying to game ] to have material that you simply don't like not included in a page has to do with Prod'ing I fail to comprehend. Or is this a case of you having a go just because you can? ] (]) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::No. My comment is aimed at your over-hastiness. If an article is unreferenced, we can just put a "cite required" tag on it and wait a while. It doesn't have to be gone immediately because you don't like it. If a discussion pauses, it might be because real life intrudes. We, as individuals, have opinions and agendas. Getting more eyes and more opinions on a problem is always good, even if it means waiting more than a few minutes for a result. --] (]) 19:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' - On viewing AlanS's recent behaviour, I'm disturbed at the amount of damage he is causing. A lot of the articles he wants removed represent a significant investment in editing effort. Just because one editor has no interest or knowledge of a topic doesn't mean that articles in that area are deletion targets. He bios of ] players, such as ] of the Detroit Tigers, a man with his own Topps card. Geez. --] (]) 20:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Prior to my tagging that article it was un-referenced. Now it referenced. Surprising how that happened don't you think? ] (]) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You didn't just "tag" that article but you prodded it for deletion. ]. As per ]:"''If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page''." If you had no interest in following ] and looking for sources to improve the article, then place a references tag on it. That you fail to understand this basic tenant of our deletion policy, even during your ANI, is very disturbing. --] (]) 19:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The article also had a link to baseball-reference.com, meaning it wasn't unreferenced. ] (]) 00:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Hasn't this discussion gone on for long enough. I see no consensus for anything. ] (]) 13:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I asked for someone to close it here: . Hope that will help. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 16:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' - Comments such as the ones that he made above show that he doesn't understand the concept of deleting articles without discussion. If he can't grasp the easy basics of a BLP PROD, perhaps he should be forced to take a break and take the time given to review the deletion policy. Given the fact that numerous editors here have pointed out issue after issue and he's come back with nothing but spite for them, I don't think that anything other than a ban will stop the disruption. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 21:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support this, and recommend extension to speedy deletion process as well'''. Editor just tagged for ''speedy'' deletion an academic at a major American university. who received a notable award in her field and holds an endowed chair. That's about as bad a call as you can make. and shows a complete lack of ]. ] (]) 22:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Update''' - Despite the ANI and repeated explanation of deletion and PRODding policies, this editor just speedy prodded ] winner and ] Presidential Chair ] with the rationale "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." This is days ''after'' sympathetic comments like those of ] above with the plea that AlanS stop prodding articles that don't meet the deletion criteria. This has become a colossal case of ]. I now agree with the ] in '''banning from speedy deletion process''' --] (]) 00:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support the extended ban''' Every time an article is incorrectly listed for deletion we risk not only losing the article, but the editor. NPP is difficult enough to keep current, without also having to undo the problems of those who do it improperly. We need more good people there, but everyone who won't or can't learn how to do it is doing active harm to the project. The continuing use of the rationale, "but it got fixed" shows that this misunderstanding of basic deletion policy is still present. If the discussions above haven't succeeding in explaining it, nothing will. ''']''' (]) 00:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. As it happens I just warned AlanS about unwarranted CSD nomination--and now that I glance upward I see that that's probably what Hullabaloo was talking about. No, this is not good. ] (]) 03:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' In Alan's defense, PROD wasn't completely wrong. However upon checking the content of the article I found it to be a copyvio, so I removed his PROD and applied CSD#G12 accordingly. PROD also turned out to be a copyvio, so again I removed his PROD tag and applied CSD#G12. PROD (IMO) wasn't completely faulty as apparently he didn't know that the article was really under ]. I propose that AlanS stay away from NPP for at least 3-6 months and thoroughly read and understand ], ], ], ], and '''especially''' ], since a lot of the PRODS that I saw were of soccer players. ] ] </span>) 04:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' 3-month ban per speedy nom of Sandra Graham during this discussion.--] 20:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I was on the fence about this, but seeing that AlanS is continuing to PROD articles, when his controversial PROD activity is being debated is not a sign of acceptance that there is community concern of his actions. '''Support''' extended ban. ] (]) 11:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' any ban on all deletion activities, whether PROD or CSD or AFD. As per Blackmane, it is clear that he isn't learning. I don't recommend a period of time, but rather than he be able to appeal in six months. With a period of time, there is the risk that he could just start up again. He doesn't seem to be trying to learn. ] (]) 22:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] - request for sanctions == | |||
| {{archive top|result=There is clearly no consensus for any sanctions on Ryulong at this time. ] 12:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{u|Ryulong}} has a history of edit warring, with an extensive which has featured eight blocks within the past 12 months. The most recent of these was on 25 July for disruptive editing, and the last block specifically for edit warring was on 18 July 2014, for a period of 48 hours | |||
| Blocks have varied in length between 24 hours and 2 weeks, the longest relating to an edit war with one editor which stretched to 90 reverts across several articles (for which I was the blocking administrator). | |||
| I and several other editors (some administrators) have worked tirelessly to try and persuade Ryulong to stop edit warring, but this doesn't appear to be working. I believe it is now necessary to place Ryulong under a group of editing restrictions, following his most recent edit warring episode, on 4-5 August at ] . | |||
| I propose the following | |||
| * A blanket 1RR restriction - that is, to prevent Ryulong from making more than 1 revert ''per page'' in a 24 hour period - this restriction would apply across all namespaces, with the exception of his own <s>talk page</s> user space (user page, talk page, drafts under his user space etc). | |||
| * An interaction ban between himself and Lucia Black. | |||
| * Article probation - Ryulong may be banned from any page if any individual administrator thinks that he is causing disruption. This restriction would also apply across all namespaces. | |||
| Feedback, comments, requests for supplementary diffs/evidence are welcome, as ever. ] (]) 15:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Looking at the incident in question, I would say the problem was Lucia Black failing to respect BRD. Ryulong was perfectly entitled to revert her changes if they did not have consensus. ] ]] 16:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Without commenting on the respective merits of the proposed sanctions, the "1RR" one should be subject to ], including at least his entire userspace and not just his talk page. It should also clarify whether it is "1 revert per 24 hours per page" or 1 revert across the entire project. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 16:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Please give this careful consideration before acting. Ryulong works in an area of the project that is extensively vandalized. In fact, I believe one of the blocks mentioned by Nick for edit warring was overturned because he was reverting vandalism. He's constantly removing POV, badly sourced or non sourced material, and a lot of just plain silliness. Is he prickly doing it? Yes, but I think that it's only natural given the amount of grief he deals with in keeping the areas he patrols up to wikistandards. If these sanctions are (unwisely) enacted then you had better line up someone to take his place or you will very quickly see degradation in those areas. Here's a counter idea, just simply ask that he tone it down some. ] (]) 16:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* The block you're thinking about was overturned so he could deal with some sockpuppetry issues, but that wasn't why he was blocked. Very little of the trouble Ryulong gets himself into and has been blocked for is related to dealing with removal of POV, bad sources or unsourced material. Today, for example, sees Ryulong edit warring with an established editor over their preferred layout for an article. Do you know how often I and other administrators have told Ryulong to tone it down some ? If there was the faintest chance left I thought that would work, I wouldn't be here, looking for an alternative to blocking Ryulong again and again and again, until it's an indefinite block and everybody is sick to the back teeth of his behaviour. ] (]) 17:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', I'm reluctant to see 'any' colleague of mine have ''restrictions'' placed on themselves, even if it might be in their best interests. AFAIK, Ryulong doesn't vandalize articles & so shouldn't be restricted. ] (]) 17:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support All''' - That block log says it all. He's one of a handful of editors that do great work, but need to stop bothering the community with their inability or unwillingness to get along with others or play nice. ] ] 17:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. How on earth is that content-forking spat still going? I thought it'd been settled 18 months ago. --] <small>]</small> 17:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Wow, I take a long wikibreak and things change. Ryulong was an admin back when I was a new admin and he was a good one. I am very surprised by his block log. Sadly I '''support 1RR'''(with usual exemptions, specifically talk page ones) but '''oppose interaction or topic ban'''. It seems both problems the iban or tban would solve are obviated by 1RR. ] 17:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The last two blocks were both reversed. So, are there ongoing problems? ] (]) 17:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::At least one of those unblocks was no indication that he was not edit warring. There was a ridiculous edit war over a section heading on an article talk page that resulted in Ryulong and another person being blocked. It was an ongoing problem and very recent. The block was 100% correct. The unblocking admin did not discuss the block with the blocking admin and the reasons given for the unblock were confused and dubious at best. ] 18:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any community sanctions on Ryulong. It is true that Ryulong is the subject of too many quarrels that are brought to these boards. That is largely because Ryulong edits in areas where there are too many quarrels about the encyclopedia. It would be deeply unfortunate if the “community” were to sanction Ryulong for involvement in contentious areas of editing, where Ryulong is usually on the side of neutrality, the removal of POV, and the improvement of the encyclopedia, without sanctioning the other editors (some of them vandals and sockpuppets). That would reward editors who are ]. Also, for an editor whose positive and negative history goes back as far as Ryulong’s does, the noticeboards do not fully consider his contributions for better and worse. They will only decide whether the pro-Ryulong entourage or the anti-Ryulong entourage is noisier. Instead, any issues about Ryulong’s long-term editorial behavior deserve a full evidentiary hearing. '''Send to ArbCom'''. ArbCom, with all of its limitations and delays, is a more judicial and judicious forum than these noticeboards, and an inquiry into Ryulong (and his critics) should be judicious. ] (]) 18:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per the reasonings provided by GoodDay and Robert McClenon. ] (] - ]) 18:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' at this time. If there's a complex, long-term problem a RfC/U should be the next step. ANI is really not the place to hash out things this complex. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment to those recommending RFC/U-ArbCom''' - Please make sure you are aware of the ] which led to the ] which led to desysopping. These are quite old and renewed inquiry may be warranted, but I think it is important to keep the existing history in mind. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 19:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **A RfC/U from seven years ago is informative but not dispositive. Same for the ancient ArbCom case. This is a matter so complex and involved that it cannot be dealt with in the summary manner that ANI dispute resolution works. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 19:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I don't see why me trying to say that the status quo of an article where someone else made a bold change and I'm not the only one who disagrees with he change (another editor appeared on the talk page who agrees, I think) means I should be subject to anything. Nick has had it out for me for a while, at least whenever I've gone to IRC requesting some sort of help for something. And I'm not doing another god damn arbitration case. I don't want to sit through months of character assassination, again.—] (]) 22:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : {{u|Ryulong}} - I'm interested to know why you think I've had it in for you for a while ? I wonder if it correlates to your decreasing standards of behaviour and self restraint ? You worked largely trouble free (and certainly block free) for several years, then you got into the biggest edit war I've seen in 9 years, where there were a hundred reverts across several articles, where you and the other editor broke 9RR more than once. It's been downhill every month since, eight blocks since December, with you edit warring across numerous articles, blanket reverting good faith edits because reverting them with a correct edit summary was too much trouble, being disruptive across various articles and talk pages (GITS is a perfect example of this) and generally becoming increasingly hostile and combative. I don't particularly want to request Arbitration, I really want you to revert to how you were last year or the year before, giving little or no cause for concern. If you don't want to do that, I will, as suggested above, file an Arbitration case, but it's nothing like my preferred option. ] (]) 22:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::in the case you're referring to, wasn't the other party ultimately banned for their behavior that I initially was reverting? Or was that someone else? Because I'm fairly certain you're referring to where I was reverting an editor whose name I can't remember right now who was making hundreds of crap "X in fiction" or "fictional Y" articles after being told to stop multiple times and who I had brought to ANI to get a wider view. But I digress. It is true that I've been involved in way too many petty arguments but as noted by Number 57 above, it is almost always a case of people not respecting BRD. I will do my best to work on curbing my behavior further. I just don't want to end up punished, as usual, for trying to respect BRD and coming across others who refuse.—] (]) 23:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh I was confusing the category guy with the person who added all the financial and academic results to the NCAA pages. IIRC, there was a consensus supporting my edits prior to having discovered that mess. But in retrospect it was wrong for me to have gotten so involved.—] (]) 23:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' If anyone has evidence of Ryulong damaging articles or driving away useful editors, please start a new section without all the baggage about the past. Does anyone have a proposal that would help these articles withstand enthusiasts? ] (]) 23:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Johnuniq sums things up perfectly. Ya know I these things make me miss WQA - yes it only occasionally solved anything but there are way too many threads opened here because editors refuse to go the RFC/U route that they should be taking. ]|] 02:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' In this particular circumstance, the BRD isn't the only issue. Ryulong believes he can revert other edits and make edits related to the article after and not question them himself. So there is definitely ] tendencies because even though he uses the claim of "status quo", he wont apply it to himself. In the past, i would abide BRD rule with Ryulong, so long as we had a discussion and attempt to reach consensus. However, Ryulong would not continue the discussion any further as shown ] and ]. So as you can see, Ryulong is quick to dropping discussions, but still wants his "''status quo''" to be kept. | |||
| :In this most recent situation the dispute is formatting, but for the right reasons? It looks like Ryulong is quick to change his decision when it comes to the formatting simply because he wanted to keep one subtle differences (that the original video game spin-off of the manga get its own section). In these rendition: and You can see that Ryulong supported the idea that not all media is relevant and deserve their own section, and he has moved the video games based on ] onto the more relevant section, while keeping the original video game apart. Unknowing that the original video game is just as much a spin-off belong to the manga, as the SAC video game spin-offs to the original SAC media. So now as the discussion is going , Ryulong is now slowly but surely trying to go back to the rendition he originally was against . And this only began because he wanted the original video game have its own section, not because this is the best way to organize the article. Even further points, he was using this situation to prove to merge the manga back . | |||
| :I'm not here to gain consensus (here in the ANI), but i am here to show that there is a more subtler destructive behavior. he is very quick to go back on his original rendition on a whim and his more controversial edits happen in GITS-related article over less-than-impressive reasons and he is not willing to compromise over the more subtle (but significant) changes. And in the past when "BRD" is mentioned, he would often stop discussing. And i'm sure the same occurs elsewhere whether we notice or not. I'm not making a vote, but there is more to this than meets the eye. ] (]) 03:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::My personal opinions on how these handful of articles should be set up has no basis in whether or not I should be under 1RR restrictions.—] (]) 04:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not suggesting that you are, but i definitely disagree you can go scot-free. Afterall, this isn't about opinion, its about how much you're willing to alter the article not to enhance the article, but for personal preference. ] (]) 05:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Oppose, no basis for sanctions. ] (]) 03:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support 1RR'''. The trouble Ryulong has, I think, stems from the fact that he tends to treat reverting as the only tool available to him. Someone socking? Revert. Someone still socking? Revert again. Someone ''still'' socking? Keep reverting, no time for SPI. Vandalism? Revert. More vandalism? Keep reverting. Content dispute? Revert. Discussing content dispute? Keep reverting while discussing. Getting problematic behavior dealt with administratively or via the community either doesn't occur to occur to him, or occurs to him so far down the line that everything's gone to hell in a handbasket before he gets around to it. I've discussed this with him before, and at the time he agreed that he needed to stop clinging to the stick and start reaching out for help when this stuff happened, but I haven't really seen that reflected in his behavior.<p>I'm not interested in "sanctions" on him, ''per se''. Ryulong's heart is in the right place, and as often as not at the bottom of the edit war is something reasonable. But the "when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" use of reversion needs to stop, and I think a 1RR would be a good guidepost there for him, and act as a reminder that when reverting doesn't work, trying something else is a more reasonable route forward. If the sanction doesn't pass, as seems likely looking at this discussion, I would still urge Ryulong to please, please stop treating reversion as your only option. There are community noticeboards aplenty around for you to report things to; you don't have to handle it all singlehandedly with the "undo" button. ] (]) 15:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fluffernutter: Ryulong actually has been calling on admin action and the assistance of other editors in more recent difficult situations.--] (]) 17:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Aren't banned user's sockpuppets reverted on sight and not subject to 3RR anyway? And I constantly go to talk pages, noticeboards, etc. Sockpuppets are incessant. Editors don't honor BRD. No one wants to help me with anything anymore.—] (]) 18:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Not to mention that you are instructed to revert vandalism on sight. {{tq|Vandalism? Revert. More vandalism? Revert more.}} is '''exactly''' what you're supposed to do when you encounter vandalism. Vandalism is one of the ](Reporting to WP:AIV after the 4th edit is advised.) I commend Ryulong for reverting vandalism in that regard. ] (]) 12:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's what I mean when I say "at the bottom of the edit warring is something reasonable". It's possible to do something within policy that is nevertheless a very bad solution; constantly reverting a vandal or sock instead of reporting them and waiting for it to be dealt with is an example of this. If reverting once or twice doesn't help, reverting three, five, or fifty times isn't likely to either, whether policy says you ''can'' or not. ] (]) 14:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::But I always report them. AIV and SPI are always just backlogged. And the only cases where I've been doing this lately is where the socking is obvious and it's a banned user.—] (]) 23:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support 1RR''' for the reasons Fluffernutter set out so succinctly above. I know this is not going to win me any friends. Well, tough luck for me. Pete AU aka --] (]) 12:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment:''' (I’m not here to sit in judgment) Ryulong and I have certainly had our battles, but truth be told, I was kind of looking for a fight. Based on my more recent interactions with him, however, I’ve come to respect his ability to sense when something is wrong and needs to be fixed. This is especially important on BLPs where a little aggressive reverting of poorly sourced insertions is called for. This is not to diminish the anger and frustration other editors have experienced, but there may be more effective ways of addressing it.--] (]) 17:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This would just end up in more blocks for Ryulong when he is attempting to prevent unhelpful edits. He is an adult and should attempt a 1RR himself. ] ] 15:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Facepalm''' Not this {{redacted|shit}} again... What have we learned from the last time, that Ryulong thinks that being right means you can break the rules and stick their digits in the community's eye over and over without penalty. '''Support''' the sanctions as written. If other editors are misbehaving after repeated trips to various consensus locations, then Ryulong can bring and propose sanctions for them, but for now it's time to slap the handcuffs on Ryulong since they can't help themselves. <small>I've proposed extreme measures with respect to Ryulong/{{U|Lucia Black}}/{{U|ChrisGualtieri}} before, so my patience/AGF is completely drained with these editors and their Anime/Manga disruptions.</small> ] (]) 21:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:All this because I'm in a disagreement on one page and restored the original version when there was no consensus to change it? Perhaps you need to restore the good faith you say has run out. Not to mention this talk of an interaction ban with Lucia is entirely unnecessary and unfounded. I don't know anyone thinks one is necessary . I have worked with her on various pages. Just because I don't agree with this one {{redacted|fucking}} article's layout and content does not mean jack {{redacted|shit}}. I start or request discussion in content disputes. I report vandals and sockpuppets. Just because the other party doesn't care and admins and checkusers are too bogged down to block when found does not mean I should be limited from improving this website and keeping it in tip top shape like every other volunteer here.—] (]) 03:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::And that is why you are getting into trouble, because you think protecting Misplaced Pages from incorectness is more important than following the basic BRD. If someone else is violating the BRD rules, bring it to an administrator's attention and wait patiently as there is never ]. Because you can't put down the your favorite omnipurpose tool of revert is exactly why we're here having to discuss this and why consensus is forming up against you. ] (]) 12:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I have followed basic BRD. No one else does. (and ). And there's no consensus here. This has been open for practically a week and it's 50/50. And time and time again I try to get outside input on content disputes but no one wants to touch it because it's all fancruft garbage that no one but myself and the people I get into arguments with give a shit about. Just look at the shit between me and Lucia that spawned this. Arguments over whether or not a video game gets its own section because of continuity issues. And the bullshit over adding a colon to the Power Ranger page titles. Or having that section break header on a comment I made on a talk page. No admin wants to touch this shit. No one wants to have the taint of having assisted me in some way. What the hell am I supposed to do?—] (]) 13:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', for a limited term, possibly 4 months, 6 months, or a year. Note that Ryulong is exhibiting denial at a current Arbcom case, . ] (]) 17:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:That case is being declined (3 accepting, 7 declining) and I am not involved as the nominator says so. I make 1 comment that the nominator thinks is suspect and I'm dragged into that quagmire all over the use of one dirty word.—] (]) 11:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Regretful '''Support''', per fluffernutter. I think that Ryulong is a hard-working editor, and I'm happy to cut a lot of slack to people reverting vandals or socks on controversial topics &c.; but even on much more mundane pages, if somebody disagrees with Ryulong's preferred version, tough luck, because it's easy for Ryulong to hit revert. ] (]) 11:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}} Of course we don't want to prevent reverts of ''obvious'' vandalism, self-reverts, and so on; so I think any sanction should retain the ] - thanks, Salvidrim! ] (]) 11:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Is this seriously going to be dragged out until a consensus is reached? This is ridiculous. There's clearly no consensus here, certainly not for Nick's original proposal that I be subject to 1RR, discretionary bans, and and interaction ban, and it's still split down the middle regarding 1RR. All that I need to do is not revert a second time when it's a content dispute. Fine. I'll do that. But I shouldn't be penalized because people like Lucia Black or Niemti don't respect BRD or some new editor doesn't bother to look at talk pages. Nor should I be penalized if I identify one of the various long-term trolls I come across constantly and have to clean up after them and both AIV and SPI are heavily backlogged as they usually are. I mean it's been half a week and ].—] (]) 11:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Harassment by IP 208.76.111.243 == | |||
| I believe the person using ] is editing just to harass me. As of this moment they have 23 edits: | |||
| *18 on Jimbo Wales user talk page | |||
| *3 on my talk page | |||
| *1 on their own talk page | |||
| *1 at ANI | |||
| All but three are to or about me. I believe whomever is using this account is doing so just to hound and harass me. | |||
| --] (]) 23:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Would you point out what you think is harassing so it's more clear what the behaviors are. I'm not saying that to say you're wrong in fact I don't plan on stating that at any point here even after posting it but if you want to say they are hounding or harassing you, can you show the part you find objectable. For better or worse many wikipedians are talking about you, and your actions trying to raise awareness via twitter will have good and bad results. ] (]) 00:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The comments started out polite enough, I suppose, though it concerned me that an IP was asking me questions. (I've had this happen before, more than once.) But they got snarkier as time went along. The recent "straw man" and "care to try again" response was obviously meant to goad. But mostly, as I said above, out of a total of 23 edits - 20 are for or about me. ] (]) 00:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok thanks for being more clear. ] (]) 00:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for the notification. I will have a statement following this shortly, but I would like to initially point out that at no point prior to her filing this complaint has ] expressed any of these concerns to me or anyone else. ] (]) 01:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Meanwhile, ]. She's not required to file her form in triplicate and get it signed by two admins while standing on one foot, chewing gum, and patting her head. Your response indicates you've been here for a very long time. ] (]) 01:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm afraid you're quite incorrect there Viriditas. I have not been here for a very long time. I have, however, been around computers, networks and online communities for a very very long time. I have a feeling you are overestimating how quickly one can become familiar with this community and its processes. After all it's moderately well documented and the markup, while arcane for this day and age of GUIs, is nothing compared to languages and systems I have mastered in the past. Although I will admit that I'm utterly mystified by what to do in the event of edit conflicts beyond reloading the page and pasting my comments. ] (]) 02:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your contributions from this IP appear only to focus on Lightbreather, not building an encyclopedia. You also seem to be very familiar with how Misplaced Pages works. I think my hypothesis has more merit than yours. ] (]) 02:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Viriditas if I was so familiar with Misplaced Pages then it would stand to reason that I would not be stymied by posting my response due to the edit filter. Even though my response has no language that would be inappropriate in any setting. I'm currently reading up on the false positives and what to do. Thank you for your patience. ] (]) 03:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Seems like a case of ]. ] 02:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Response''' - As I said earlier, prior to this complaint ] has not expressed any of the concerns that she has raised here to me personally. She has engaged me in conversation more than half a dozen times without expressing any concern with me whatsoever. | |||
| Given the above, I'm afraid that the only conclusion that I can come to about this report is that it is retaliatory for me pointing out that she is in violation of her ] by acting on a sanction that has been proposed against someone with whom she has battled frequently. As you can see , Lightbreather should be fully aware that her support vote on AN was a violation given that she had explicitly received an exemption previously as well as the fact that the opening sentence on AN is: ''"Sue Rangell, in her dispute with Lightbreather, has gone back to revising the article on the political scientist Robert Spitzer to make him appear to be a '''gun control''' advocate rather than an academic researcher."'' (emphasis mine). I believe she implicitly acknowledges this and by all appearances seems to be trying to game the system to in her reply to me on AN when I pointed out that she was currently topic banned in the area in which she was voting. | |||
| Finally, I find it very interesting that she's actively sending tweets out to the world with her Misplaced Pages account linked as the user but is labeling commentary on the very project and topic she opines upon as harassment. | |||
| Nonetheless, If she does not want me to interact with her all she need do is ask. I'm a reasonable person and will take this as that request and stop when this is closed. However, I do request that that my concern above is given some administrative attention. ] (]) 04:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :In other words, you're an experienced Wikipedian, familiar with arcane and complex processes like arbcom, using an IP account for the singular purpose of attempting to bait and harass Lightbreather. Got it. Any reason you shouldn't be blocked? ] (]) 05:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If reading Misplaced Pages for years makes me experienced then so be it, but I didn't start editing until I saw the posts about 'civility' (and went back to the history) on Jimmy Wales' page last week or the week before. I began commenting in the discussion because I think that heavy handed enforcement of something as ill-defined as civility could be harmful for this project that has brought me countless hours of fascination. I believe that I've engaged in the conversation politely and I hope that I've made some thoughtful points. I've also read some very thoughtful points from both sides of the aisle. | |||
| ::And again I find this curious in that you are now coaching Lightbreather on her talk page on how to invite more discussion on the topic with inflammatory tweets that link directly back to Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ::Finally, calling arbcom arcane is laughable in that it was on either ] or ] and I've read several cases with interest since then. I also find it curious how aggressive and uncivil you're being towards me and I'll ask you nicely to tone it down please. Thank you. ] (]) 05:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Arbcom is most certainly best described as arcane, and there is nothing laughable about using that term at all -- unless of course you are a regular using a dedicated IP to attack Lightbreather. "New users" don't make edits like . I don't see anything aggressive or uncivil about what I've written here, and I think I've politely informed you that I don't believe your story. Using an IP solely dedicated to baiting and attacking an editor isn't acceptable, and you must stop doing it. If you want to edit the encyclopedia, start an article, or contribute in some way that has nothing to do with Lightbreather, then fine, but I think if you continue talking about Lightbreather and following her around after she has told you to stop, then you should be blocked. In other words, don't talk about Lightbreather from here on out. Got it? ] (]) 05:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think this is inappropriate. An interaction ban is a remedy that merits community scrutiny; you certainly don't get to impose one all by yourself. ] 05:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think it is entirely appropriate, Mr. New Registered Account within the last 24 hours. It's called common sense. ] (]) 06:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::]? I disagree entirely, and I'm troubled at the appearance of presuming to circumvent policy. If your suggestion is so appropriate, it should be easy to build a consensus around it, yah? ] 06:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::THe IP's concerns are legitimate and should be addressed, if they haven't been already. But, yeah, they're obviously not new to Misplaced Pages and in the current climate I'd say it is almost certainly someone who is logged-out rather than someone who has been editing for ages without an account. That said, ] etc? - ] (]) 05:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't see any "legitimate" concerns to address. Lightbreather has asked the IP to leave her alone, and the IP's entire contribution history shows that they are only here to harass her. End of story. ] (]) 05:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The more I go over this IP's contribs, the more I think ] might apply. Specifically: ''Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy.'' Based on the editing history here, I see an IP editing while logged out strictly to harass {{u|Lightbreather}}. 0 edits to article space, all but 3 have been on talk pages or noticeboards directly responding to the petitioning user. Although ] is not a policy, it clearly applies here as others have pointed out. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F6E,-4px -4px 15px #F6E;">]</span> • </small><sub>] ♀ ]</sub> 05:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Viriditas, the alleged topic ban breach? - ] (]) 05:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Glad you mentioned WP:sock, {{u|Solarra}}. I went to ] first because this IP user's writing style reminds me of some other WP editors I've conversed with in the past, but I couldn't put my finger on who exactly, so I chose this board instead. ] (]) 06:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{reply|Sitush}} What the IP is alleging is that is violating Lightbreather's TBAN on Gun Control. I'm still doing my research on whether or not the act of reporting someone in a topic area of a TBAN (in this case gun control) in and of itself violates that TBAN. Early indications are yes but I'm trying to find a definitive policy. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F6E,-4px -4px 15px #F6E;">]</span> • </small><sub>] ♀ ]</sub> 06:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yeah, and that's why it is a legitimate concern. - ] (])&redirect=no 06:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{reply|Solarra}} actually my concern is with Lightbreather's vote at the Administrators noticeboard titled "Request that Sue Rangell be prohibited from editing Spitzer material". I would post a diff but the edit filter is flagging them as ASCII art for some reason. Thank you ] (]) 06:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Rather than a "legitimate concern", it seems like stalking and harassment. Should I expect a reply from the newly registered account or the IP? Please pick one. And at what point will your account be working on the encyclopedia instead of on Lightbreather? ] (]) 06:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <br/> | |||
| {{out}} OK, I've done the research. Lightbreather was originally from Gun Control due to the ] filed at ARBCOM enforcement and an ongoing edit dispute in the ARBCOM sanctioned area involving multiple editors. The edits on the AE request linked above were specifically allowed by the admin applying the TBAN. {{u|Lightbreather}}'s !vote is in ''direct'' violation of her TBAN on Gun Control per ]. I have to recommend that the closing admin here take a close look at the TBAN violation brought up by the IP. | |||
| <br/> | |||
| That being said, my arguments above and the original concerns of Lightbreather are valid, the IP is clearly editing in a manner to harass her and the editing while logged out is highly suspect. {{u|Viriditas}} is absolutely right, the IP is clearly ]. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F6E,-4px -4px 15px #F6E;">]</span> • </small><sub>] ♀ ]</sub> 06:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you Solara, As I said above, now that it's clear that my participation is uncomfortable for Lightbreather I will stop commenting about her, or to her, going forward unless I need to clarify something in this one single area on ANI which appears unlikely. Good night all. ] (]) 06:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| There are legitimate uses for using ips/alternate accounts but avoiding scrutiny is explicitly disallowed. Using an IP to work on getting someone in trouble qualifies. If the single purpose nature of this account continues I will consider your IP to be evasion of scrutiny. Log into the account that you clearly have if you want to vent your opinion on these issues. | |||
| If there is an issue with LB then it can be looked into separately. ] 06:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd like to point out (without commenting on the threads justification or finding) ] can not unilaterally issue restrictions to any editor and IP 206 should feel free to ignore their instructions. IBans are usually decided by community process. ] (]) 13:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::@Hell in a Bucket, that hasn't stopped him in the past so don't expect that to happen in the future. --] (]) 14:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I have blocked this IP per ] which says: '''Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account''', and ] to boot(and ] and ] and ] if more is needed). It is obvious this is an experienced Wikipedian. | |||
| Any admin is welcome to alter or reverse this block. However please read my block summary and my comments on the talk page before considering this. Also please ping me if you are unblocking or considering an unblock request. | |||
| I have used the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" option since this person claims to not have an account. I don't believe it for a second and since blocks are against the person and not the account/ip I felt it appropriate. | |||
| I doubt the individual will seek an unblock request from their account when they encounter the auto-block, they will wait it out to avoid scrutiny. ] 06:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That seems rather problematic. Did the IP in question do something in particular between your 8 August threat ("If the single purpose nature of your account..." and your 9 August block? Did you engage ] to establish whether ] is actually a sock before blocking under ], or is that just your assumption? Not all experienced Misplaced Pages editors have accounts, y'know. ] 11:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Given that the most recent edits from the IP promises to I am willing to reverse this block. | |||
| Experienced editors have a history, if he used another IP in the past then he could show us that history. I don't go to ] for quacking feathered water based animals to check if they are a duck, and checkusers cannot prove someone is not a sock puppet. This person is clearly using an IP to avoid scrutiny, that much is obvious. | |||
| This user is hiding their history. Either they have an account with more edits or they have ip(s) with more edits. Either way we are being denied that history and I have to judge them based on that I see in their current contribution history. Regardless of the harassment and the singular purpose of this IP's edits they have ]. | |||
| :Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway.] ] 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In hindsight I should have blocked on the 8th instead of the warning I gave, but since I have given the warning I will reverse the block and watch this IP closely. ] 18:06, 9 August 2014 (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) | |||
| I have unblocked this IP due to concerns here. We will see what it results in. ] 18:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ;Clarification | |||
| Oh, also welcome to Misplaced Pages {{u|Betafive}}. I see you just joined up on ]. I see you are improving the encyclopedia, thank you. Not sure how you found your way here after 2 days but thanks for your opinion. ] 18:18, 9 August 2014 (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=== | |||
| :Hiya! I've actually been around for almost a decade now, editing as whatever dynamic IP address my ISPs have chosen to assign me, although not so much in the last few months-- IPs are treated pretty poorly around here, and it's been getting worse as time goes on. I actually preferred editing as an IP once upon a time, but the incessant demands I produce a detailed list of previous IP addresses I've been assigned, along with a fairly pervasive attitude that IPs need not be afforded the assumption of good faith, got to be too much. While I do understand your desire to see the IPs edit history, his/her failure to have provided you with such a list not necessarily evasive: personally, I avoided keeping track, and regardless, I'm not aware of any policy saying that IP users who appear to be experienced need to provide a detailed edit history on-demand. Anyway, I'm glad you reversed that block, and thanks for the welcome! ] 19:10, 9 August 2014 (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. | |||
| :You've been editing for a decade as an IP and only now decided to register an account? Please forgive me if I don't believe you. I've been reading your contributions and you have as much knowledge about Misplaced Pages as an admin. I think it is much more likely that this is your alternative account or you are evading a block or a ban on another account. ] (]) 00:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Proposed''' DarwIn is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to ] broadly construed and is subject to a one way IBan with user Skyshifter, also broadly construed. -] (]) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Ya, there is a lot of that going around right now. Seems to be way more experienced brand new accounts and IPs joining heated discussion than there was two weeks ago. I will assume good faith as long as it is reasonable to do so. I am not demanding an edit history, I am judging the user based on the edit history they have chosen to show us. ] 19:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::New Commentor: May I point out I do not believe Viridtas comments were civil and I do not believe you are assuming good faith and quite frankly appear paranoid. You are rude to IP's and question their intentions. I have edited since 2005 myself and my IP changes from time to time. And may I point out I will never join this "community" as a registered editor because of such snarky commentary. I stay out of disfunctional groups. If editors had to show their real identity instead of hiding behind some imaginary wiki persona I may consider joining. No need to join an Alice in Wonderland imaginary group. There are many of us independent thinkers out there who see no need to join despite much coercion to do so. ] (]) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' -] (]) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == User VictoriaGrayson and others on page Dorje Shugden Controversy == | |||
| *: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) | |||
| There has been consistent attacking and intransigent editing going on on the page ] and other related pages (] ] ] ], but primarily on the first two. It has been done by a variety of users, particularly {{yo|Heicth}} (who had a username TiredofShugden previously and has done nothing but edit this page for months) {{yo|Kt66}} (Who is a documented fanatic regarding this issue..I can give evidence regarding him via email if needed, as it reveals personal details about their involvement. Things are on the talk page of the past though https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy/Archive_2) {{yo|VictoriaGrayson}}, and to a lesser extent {{yo|CFynn}} (who has been involved in this debate publicly online and spent hundreds of hours engaging in this for over 20 years.. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/$20Chris$20Fynn ). Just to focus on VictoriaGrayson here, he or she constantly deletes and removes reasonable editions in an attempt to make the article NPOV. They have been already reported by user {{yo|John_Carter}} about a month ago. In https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dougweller/Archive_33#When_to_pull_the_trigger with a very reasonable explanation. | |||
| :::That's actually a fair point. -] (]) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent ] impulse. ] (]) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] You have been misjudging me - It was , actually, if it's worth anything. ] ] 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the ] area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. ] (]) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] OK, I didn't knew the child used those pronouns when she was 4 years old, I commit to use them here if I would ever talk about that issue again (which I definitely will not, anyway). ] ] 20:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If they weren't before they are now... ] (]) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, to be clear, I '''oppose''' a one-way IB. I do not find this argument convincing. ] (]) 19:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' this seems like a reasonable set of restrictions, I hope they can stick to it ] (]) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] I never edited in that topic here, as far as I can remember, not is it a primary interest I have, so it certainly will not be difficult to hold, even if it comes out to me as incredibly unbased and unfair. ] ] 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Your edits to DYK were within that topic area. ] (]) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] And those were the only ones, and I immediately after being reverted. How does that configure the kind of systematic behaviour that would justify a topic ban? I really apologize, but in this moment the way I see this is a kind of Salem witch hunt, with people accusing me of all kind of slurs and abominations, even when they are in directly opposition to . You seem to be punishing me for my opinions and the way I (supposedly) think about a very particular issue (if 4 years old have self determination or not), which comes out to me as really unfair and unworthy of a project like this. ] ] 20:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::How is that in direct opposition to your stance there? Your edit summary says "forgot that English has the neutral pronoun, which is useful in these cases. fixed." which suggests that it is in line with that stance ] (]) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] I'm sorry, I seem to have missed your point. What is wrong with correcting the gender to a neutral pronoun in such a situation? ] ] 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::This edit might help you get the point. At this point your conduct on this page is becoming a serious behavioral issue... you can't lie, sealion, obfuscate, and misdirect endlessly without consequences. ] (]) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::@] I can fix those too as I did yesterday, if you think it's important 🤷🏽♂️ ] ] 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::You are not supposed to edit comments after they have been responded to in that way. But by fix do you mean change to "she" or do you mean change to "they"? ] (]) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::@] Change to "she", following this wikipedia rules, certainly. So if I can't fix them, what do you propose instead to mend it? ] ] 20:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Given the sheer quantity of lies and obfuscations from you (the truth is apparently a last resort) the only fix I can see is a formal one, a topic ban and an interaction ban. Up above you so easily went from "I never edited in the topic area" to "those were the only ones" that I don't even think you understand that you were caught in a blatant lie. ] (]) 20:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::@] There was not any "lie", please stop ]. I thought you were referring to the main space only, which I believe is a fairly assumption to do, if the used word is "editing". ] ] 20:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::At best you're saying that you lack the competence on enwiki to adhere to any voluntary restrictions. This will be my last comment unless pinged by an editor other than you, my apologies that this has been an unpleasant process for you. ] (]) 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Darwin has a long history of editing in ] albeit generally less controversially. . ] (]) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::@] That's documented with the sources and all, and the proposition there was that the tupinambá was gay, not a woman. It's not even gender related. So you desperatly want something to justify a TB, bring it on. I'm fed up with what seems to be a circular and nonsense discussion on this board, where whatever I say is a lie and with bad intentions. I don't even edit here in the gender topic, but if it makes you happy, bring it on. ] ] 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::DarwIn ] covers gender ''and'' sexuality. You have been saying you aren't interested in the topic area. It appears to be one of your main areas of interest on en.wiki. ] (]) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::@] Thanks for clarifying that. Fact is that I don't edit much here. I've occasionally added or fixed some LGBT related stuff in the past when it crossed my main interest, History, but it certainly is not a primary interest, despite being LGBT myself. ] ] 20:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Bushranger. ] ] 20:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. As GoodDay noted, the problem appears to already be addressed. If the problem persists then go for a sanction. Look we let people argue their point here and it does seem like most of the support is because editors feel Darwin isn't contrite enough, not that they expect the issue to continue. Note that I'm not weighing in on any interaction bans. ] (]) 20:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' per Springee. This entire issue could have been dropped days ago when DarwIn acknowledged he would walk away, and instead seems to have been needlessly escalated again and again and again. ] ] 20:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Ping|Pppery}} days ago? I think you might have misread the time stamps. ] (]) 00:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' the TBAN; personally I'd have indeffed several outdents sooner, but here we are. No opinion on the IBAN. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Given what's happened, I think an enforceable topic ban is better than Darwin stepping away. IMO the BLP issues is far more concerning than gensex one so I'd support a BLP topic ban as well, but it seems likely a gensex one would be enough to stop Darwin feeling the continued need to express their opinions on a living person. Since Darwin is going to step away anyway and barely edits en, it should be a moot point and if it's not that's why it's enforceable. As for the iban, while I don't think Skyshifter should have described Darwin in that way when opening this thread, I think we can accept it as a one time mistake under the stress of apparently being followed and given questionable way Darwin ended up in a dispute here with someone they'd had problems with elsewhere I think a one-way iban is justified. ] (]) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? ] ] 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{replyto|DarwIn}} Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times ], ], ], ], ], ]. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. ] (]) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like ]. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here.] ] 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. ] (]) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. ] ] 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::], I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> | |||
| *:::::::{{Ping|Liz}} Thank you for the wise advice, I'll be doing that.] ] 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{reply|DarwIn}} you can think whatever you like about living persons. I have a lot of views on living persons which I would never, ever express on wiki for various reasons including BLP. Also you defence is bullshit. No one ever asked you to make accusations around living persons to defend your actions. And yes it is fairly normal that editors may be sanctioned if they feel they need to do such things about living persons on ANI as part of some silly argument or defence. I recall an editor who was temporarily blocked after they felt the need to say two very very famous extremely public figure living persons (and some non living) were sex predators to prove some point at ANI. And I'm fairly sure a lot of people have said and feel those people are sex predators including some Wikipedians I'd even probably agree in at least one case, they just understand it's not something they should be expressing here. ] (]) 23:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::For clarity, what I mean by my last sentence is that I'm sure quite a few people would agree with the statements. I'm sure such statements have been made elsewhere probably even in opinions printed in reliable sources (I think the editor did link to some such opinions). I'm sure even quite a few Wikipedians would agree that one or more of these people are sex predators, I think I'd even agree with it in at least one case. However most of us understand that our personal views of living persons, especially highly negatives views are generally not something to be expressed on wiki except when for some reason it's important enough to the discussion that it's reasonable to say it. When you keep saying something and in the same paragraph acknowledge the English wikipedia doesn't consider your opinion relevant, then it's clear there was no reason for you to say it. You're still free to believe it just as I'm still free to believe all those things about living persons that I would never express on wiki. ] (]) 06:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Support''' - Darwin's replies and conduct here indicates that he simply doesn't get it. | |||
| :]] 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Oppose''' - Per GoodDay and Springee. ] (]) 05:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' TBAN per Bushranger. Darwin has already agreed to the 1-way IBAN — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ])</small></span> 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Given the history at pt.wiki, I think this is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. There should be no interaction between the parties, which Darwin has agreed to.] (]) 14:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The agreed-upon IBAN takes care of the ongoing issue. While the edits related to the child were problematic, this doesn't appear to be case of significantly wider problems in this topic area, and the full scope of ] may very well be surprising to editors who don't do much in that area. I don't think there's been near enough here to no longer ]. ] (]) 15:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * <s>'''Support''' TBAN/IBAN</s> '''Weak support TBAN/Strong support IBAN''' - ] suggests that queerphobia is inherently disruptive. calling a queer activist a "troglodyte", the previous history of abuse on pt.wikipedia, and the current responses from Darwin indicate ] behavior. ] (]) 16:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In addition there are constant accusations of not using RS or deleting RS, without any substantial discussion or evidence. Lately, on July 27, 28th and a little bit 29th ( https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dorje_Shugden_controversy&offset=&limit=250&action=history ), There were around 150 edits made on the Dorje Shugden Controversy page. Particularly, the article was entirely deleted and changed into a version that VictoriaGrayson favors/created, with only negative aspects of the controversy, leaving out any positive angle or relevant points of view, and including inflammatory accusations, like people's opinion that practitioners of Dorje Shugden are members of a cult and so on. I have managed to bring back some of the deleted material, but its very challenging from the force of these different editors. Then, when there is attempt to change some of this, there are additional accusations of misconduct and reversion. | |||
| ::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. | |||
| At first, I thought the article was improved, but it seems a clear example of POV pushing, which has been consistently going on for 5 months now on this page. There are two pages of archived material since February alone. Any help please? ] (]) 10:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :PS: The editor was mocking this discussion in the Telegram group while I was writing this. ] (]) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo|Prasangika37}}I did recently make a number of edits to the ] article - but if you check I think you will find these were to improve references and citations, not to substantially change anything that was in the body of the article. After notification I did merge some small related articles that lacked notability by themselves into the ] article and also made a few changes to the ] article - but I see no complaints about those edits in comments on the talk pages of those articles. I'm not sure what relevance things I posted on Usenet 20 years ago has to Misplaced Pages, but as I recall most of the discussion there at that time was reasonably polite and civilised. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso himself responded to some of my questions there at that time. I do think the Dorje Shugden / Dorje Shugden controversy articles can be improved by fairly summarising the views of various Shugden worshipers - but I think this can be done using solid third party sources without much need of quoting primary sources. ] (]) 12:36, 8 August 2014 (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) | |||
| Prasangika37, a ] follower, has a problem with every reliable source out there. I am not aware of a single reliable source that he ''does'' agree with, except a self-published book by his own teacher called "Heart Jewel" and an interview of his teacher published in a magazine. A completely neutral top editor, ], has been editing the page recently thus angering Prasangika37. Its interesting that Prasangika37 fails to mention Joshua Jonathan, yet mentions editors who haven't edited in months. CFynn's of the 2 Dorje Shugden pages seems to have further angered Prasangika37. Lastly, there are a couple of IP's from the UK, home of the NKT, which are pushing Prasangika37's edits. ] (]) 16:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::And yes, by "quite strange" I am talking about maybe ]. Nobody comes after a month without edits (that was preeceded by some other months before some 5-ish edits), to make an "accusation" based on unfounded arguments, especially after being blocked precisely for beefing and attacking other members of the community in his homewiki. Such a hypocrisy, a user banned for beefing accusating another user of attacks and using the word "transphobia" so vaguely. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I expected, the group participants started making accusations against me (that's why Eduardo G. appeared in this discussion) and wanted to insinuate that Skyshifter is writing this text, perhaps wanting to provoke some kind of retaliation later. First, I appreciate the compliments on my writing, which was 100% done by Google Translate; I think Google's engineering is to be congratulated. Second, I'm only here on this page because I noticed the links to this discussion in the Telegram group itself and decided to contribute with what I've been reading for a long time with great disgust. I didn't need to bring much, Darwin himself made a point of making abject comments in this discussion, but if you want, I can bring some screenshots of what they were talking about in the group. Third, I did go 1 month without editing here because my focus is not on en.wiki but on pt.wiki, where I make regular edits. I find it strange that you entered this discussion without refuting any of the arguments above, thinking that bringing up my tarnished "reputation" changes everything that was written by me or in the group. I believe it must be embarrassing to participate in a group where they are celebrating the sanctions that Skyshifter will suffer (thinking that place is a "private club") while at the same time you from the "public side" to the same editor, simulating virtue. In any case, my goal here is only to reinforce that there is indeed materiality in what Skyshifter said with more evidence and once again I recommend that the discussion be evaluated by the Wikimedia team knowing that attitudes that demonstrate prejudice against minorities go against the project's investments in equity, diversity and equality. ] (]) 03:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I will not pursue any retaliation. I'm just stating what I know of this case, and I even supported Sky when the edits were being made. People are celebrating because all of this discussion was brought to even another wiki by her. But I understand you might've written this text, and will not take the subject further. If anybody needs anything, please read the message below. Cheers. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So, I don't disagree with your argument about the sanctions she's passing on the other project, unfortunately. As for "not pursue any retaliation", I don't think that's what you mean by the phrase "4 successful DBs in a row is not for everyone." directed at me. ] (]) 04:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] You're wrong, twice. First, it wasn't me saying that. It was NCC-1701, and my user in TG is Edu. And at no point did I agree with NCC's messages. And secondly, the "four DBs in a row" wasn't in anyway directed at you. It was directed to Bageense, who opened 4 block discussions in the last 2 or 3 days and all of them were successfull. You are distorting the messages to condone your erroneous narrative. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 04:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well, if I am "distorting messages" to "tolerate" my narrative, anyone who wants to evaluate can join the group and read the messages posted there or see the pt.wiki discussion against the Projeto Mais Teoria da História na Wiki and talk to its ] to see what their opinion is on the matter. I may not be a perfect person, but what I see with great displeasure (coming from those who are "in charge of the gears") is not positive for the project. ] (]) 04:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Joining the group the community would then have no doubts about your intents and distortion of facts. You didn't deny the two things I said above — you know I'm right, you can't bend the facts this much. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 04:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''As a ptwiki user''' that know what's happening but talked to both sides of the discussion throughout it: This whole discussion started as a beef between Skyshifter and DarwIn. Skyshifter didn't accept some changes DarwIn made to an article "of her" (quotes because articles doesn't have owners. I respect her pronouns), and when discussing with DarwIn, called the whole Portuguese Misplaced Pages project a sewage ()/], thus being banned and the ban being endorsed on the ] <small>(in portuguese)</small>. The discussion was based on the references for the article, was solved in the ptwiki with an outburst from Sky, and that was it. | |||
| *'''Comment''': I've lurked about this article for quite some time and must note that the organization is a cult, yet the lead does not state this, probably due to the POV-pushing issues that VictoriaGrayson and CFynn are attempting to address. I have no comment as to Prasangika37's motives, but it is clear to me that the other two editors are trying to adhere to NPOV and not whitewash this organization. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This whole problem was brought here for a single reason only: Beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. A single change or a single opinion on a DYK shouldn't be reason for a TB or IBAN anywhere in the world, especially considering that it was a difference interpreting the references. I know that my statement won't change anything, as there is an apparent "consensus" on TBanning and IBANning him, though I wanted to make things clear for everyone. | |||
| '''Comment by JJ:''' I think you should provide diffs to make clear what your problems witht he changes are. The 150 edits were mine; I've already explained to you that these were mainly a re-ordering of the article. Kelsang Gyatso's opinions should be included too, for which the interview can also be used, to my opinion, but Kay is also a good source. ] -] 06:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no issue with JoshuaJonathan, as he or she seems to be a pretty neutral editor, hence why I did not mention them. What I do have an issue with is completely deleting the old article and replacing it with a new article, all the while deleting any favorable views of Dorje Shugden and exclusively including only negative points of view. All doing this along with a flurry of other edits in a seemingly coordinated manner is an object of concern, no? If I deleted the whole article and replaced it with my own version, what would you say? Surely there would be calls for investigation into my behavior. ] (]) 18:39, 10 August 2014 (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) | |||
| == Vinod Gupta School of Management etc. == | |||
| 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--> | |||
| {{Userlinks|DebnathSourav}} is the latest username who, immediately after creation, a chunk of advertising on ]. This chunk was almost a complete copyvio per . This is the third time (after {{Userlinks|Madhavparashar}} 9 days ago and {{Userlinks|Meethv}} 2 months before that) in recent history that a new account has been created and immediately tried to add promotional material to the article. I initially reported to AIV because it seemed obvious to me, but ] it should be brought here.<P>All three accounts should be blocked as ]/]s. As far as the target page, other users seem to think it should remain as a stub because the school may actually be notable. <font color="red">—[</font>](])<font color="red">]—</font> 21:22, 8 August 2014 (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) | |||
| *For the record, I stubbed this blatantly promotional article a while back and I have reverted several attempts to add promotional material. It was, and remains, completely unsourced. Only the idiotic blank check notability enjoyed by High Schools and colleges stops me from sending it to AfD. -] (]) 21:49, 8 August 2014 (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) | |||
| :* Actually, it doesn't appear to be an independent school or college, merely a faculty of ]. On that basis you could simply redirect it there. ] 21:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| :::{{Ping|Black Kite}} Is there a reason not to block these three users? <font color="red">—[</font>](])<font color="red">]—</font> 22:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :] - this is your second edit ever, and your account was just created today - how did you get to this ANI post? ] ] 05:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I saw a discussion in the group and created the account to not appear as an IP. ] (]) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] The objective of the channel is to be a more relaxed place. And it's not official, . Angry moment? Are you sorry? After your block, you attacked editors on a social network, as attested by a CheckUser: . And there are no prejudiced comments. That's a lie. Where are the links? And how much time have you devoted to the project when all you do is attack others? Enough of this nonsense. I ask that an administrator evaluate the conduct of this account. ] (]) 05:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't realize the discussion was closed. Sorry. ] (]) 05:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Supporting both IBAN and TBAN'''. Someone who actively believes in misgendering should not be allowed into this area when they have already demonstrably made another editor uncomfortable. The snarky reply to GiantSnowman does not convince me they would respond well if another editor brought up a similar concern in the future.--] ] 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Can't we give this child and her mother some privacy? What is it about gender issues, as opposed to other medical or developmental issues, that seems to give everyone a right to comment? Let's just report what reliable sources say and leave it at that. ] (]) 18:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.] (]) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. ] (]) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.] (]) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::talkpages def are covered by BLP as per the policy page.and the policy gives wide latitude about what the subject may have redacted if they object to info, even if they had previously or somehow otherwise placed that info in public domain. | |||
| :::::concerns about privacy have to weigh against dueness but arguing the book gives dueness to try to be internet sleuths and discover and identify a child is probs not gonna pass the smell test.] (]) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Misplaced Pages, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.] (]) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. ] (]) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Children cannot consent, their parents can. ] ]<sup>]</sup> 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I would totally agree, but that is irrelevant here, nothing Darwin did was related to revealing the child's identity. He criticised the mother in strong terms on talkpages and this is what the BLP argument comes down to.--] (]) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? ] (]) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--] (]) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Ask yourself whether Misplaced Pages would even entertain this discourse if the identity was anything other than a trans one. The answer is a flat no. Darwin's interpretation of the mother's interpretation of her daughter's identity is inappropriate for the project, is disruptive and is openly antagonistic toward trans editors. I think nothing more can be gained from endlessly debating whether we should pretend there is a carve-out to BLP requirements for children within oppressed minorities. ] (]) 17:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''', no comment on IBAN. . ] ]<sup>]</sup> 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Editors in this topic area can and often do disagree on the underlying issues, which often helpfully ensures that all such material on Misplaced Pages follows our policies and guidelines. However, the responses to Ad Orientem's request and various replies above shows that the proposed remedies would be appropriate given the BLP issues in play here.-- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose any sanctions''' I’m sorry if I’m interfering in something I’m not involved with, but I’ve been watching this discussion and I think it’s needlessly toxic. What I’m seeing is a misunderstanding of some inappropriate ] on a hot-button issue sparking a dispute that turned into “DarwIn is a transphobic bully” which I don’t think is true. I think the two main parties should simply avoid each other voluntarily and the situation will quickly de-escalate. ] (]) 05:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''', indifferent to IBAN. Having followed this topic for a few days, it's convinced me that a topic ban for both GENSEX and BLP is entirely appropriate in this instance. My initial scepticism passed after reading responses from the editor and realising that the understanding of BLP policy appears to be even more incomplete than I originally thought. The deceleration from the editor to avoid such topics voluntarily is irrelevant, as combined with the lack of understanding over the concept of broadly construed, commitments have already been made and broken within this discussion alone. So respectfully, I believe this ] type editing, whether it is attempting to ] or simply ] discussions, is nonetheless disruptive and uncivil at times. ] (]) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Dronebogus. I'd say "we're better than this" if I believed it. ] (]) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' ''Skyshifter'', if anything, is harassing Darwin in this instance. Darwin has agreed to an IBAN, never mind that he's expressed desires to descelate what has become the longest thread on AN or ANI as of writing. ''']]''' 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' This is a pretty explicit case of POV harassment. Their replies to the topic likewise do not give me faith they will adhere to a self imposed limitation. Darwin claimed to have agreed to step away before the ANI was created, but the edit history shows that Darwin continued editing the page up until an hour before Skyshifter created the ANI. Thus, there should be an actionable sanction. I fail to understand how it is Skyshifter doing the harassment at all as Cubby suggests. Darwin even called skyshifter a troglydite () to boot. ] (]) 15:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh my fucking god. This whole thread is nuts. I wish I could pardon my french but this is CRAZY. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Never in a million years would’ve I expected myself to be responding to a thread like this but I mean here I am. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Although Skywing’s concerns of harassment are valid especially if he’s being tracked across Misplaced Pages’s website, as far as I know, there are no guidelines that state someone can be punished for actions on another Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :'''I support''' the notion of Darwin being topic banned from gender related articles (especially trans ones), for the simple fact that his conflict of interest with transphobia has clearly caused a disruption to the Misplaced Pages community. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :'''I oppose''' with the IP-ban because if anything this '''SHOULD’VE''' ended a week ago when Darwin voluntarily said he would not edit those pages as well as avoid any interaction with Skywing. | |||
| :<br> ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. ] (]) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I understand, I meant that. Apologies. I misunderstood what it stood for. I would prefer if the IBAN was two way instead of one-way. Seems hardly fair in my honest opinion when both I suppose are equally responsible and to share the blame. This is a messy situation so putting the blame on one when both are equally responsible seems hardly fair. But that's my two cents. | |||
| :::NOTE: I don't condone homophobia or queerphobia or whatever the term is (I'm not really informed enough in this situation to know what Misplaced Pages calls it so I'm adding both just in case) so please don't take it as me defending either side as that is NOT my intent. | |||
| :::Cheers, <br> ] (]) 01:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This reply reminded me of the essay ]. ] (]) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Lol. It is accurate. That literally is what it is I suppose lol. ] (]) 01:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any sanctions against Darwin per Dronebogus. I wish we were better than this, but like TBUA, I don't actually believe that we are. ] (]) 20:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both TBAN and IBAN. Their behaviour at DYK might have been mitigated if they had taken responsibility here instead of doubling down. A TBAN and IBAN will reduce disruption. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at ] accusing me of coming to their talk page to "{{tq|further troll me with this nonsense warning}}". '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both. I'm baffled that some people above are saying "well, they agreed to stop voluntarily" - did they not read the massive post Darwin made above? It amounts to an extended "I'm sorry that you were offended." Trusting that someone will avoid the same mistakes in the future on their own requires that they understand and admit to those mistakes, which is obviously not the case here; how can we trust that an editor will abide by a self-imposed restriction when they won't even meaningfully acknowledge the errors that made that restriction necessary? Therefore, sanctions are necessary. --] (]) 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both. To make sure I haven't lost my goddamn mind, I read this discussion '''''twice'''''. I personally believe Darwin is in the wrong here. His behavior on enwiki violates both GENSEX and BLP sanctions (), and he doubled down when he had the chance to defend himself (] and comments above). Even if we play devil's advocate and assume Darwin's claims about Sky being a troll/vandal and sockmaster (which is a heavy accusation to make) on ptwiki are true, her work on enwiki has shown that she's changed for the better. This is coming from a person who has interacted with Sky a couple of times (], ], ]); she is an amazing editor on here. For the sake of everyone involved and to avoid another mess like this, the sanctions above should be enforced. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 08:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - the doubling (and tripling) down that this user engaged in above has convinced me that Misplaced Pages would be better off if {{they|DarwIn}} did not engage in the relevant topic areas. ] <small>(he/him · ] · ])</small> 17:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both IBAN and TBAN. With all due respect to Dronebogus, there is no way this can be chalked up as just an OR misunderstanding when Darwin has gone out of his way to repeately misgender the individual in question while throwing personal attacks at Sky. Regardless of any issue at another wiki, the behavior ''here'' is unacceptable per our rules and guidelines. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support TBAN and IBAN''': Really blatant transphobia. In case it gets lost in the weeds, Darwin's original comment sparking this whole thing was not just blatantly offensive but full of bullshit: {{tq|'''According to the sources in the article''', after forcing the child she and her husband wanted to have as a boy to "behave like a boy" for 4 years, forcing him to play with cars, football and Marvel heros and even listen to heavy metal at 2-3 years old, and chasticizing him for liking "girl stuff" and throwing away all his "girl like" toys, until the poor child was proposing to die and reborn as a girl so he could play with that stuff, this openly conservative women finally gave up imposing such "boy stuff" on him and at 4 years old decided he was a girl instead, thrusting that identity on the child since then and eventually forming that NGO to "spread the word". I don't know this section very well, so maybe such troglodyte and incredibly prejudiced display of behaviour is something so bizarre it would be worth to have here, but I have to disagree.}} | |||
| ** 1) {{tq|the poor child was proposing to die and reborn as a girl so could play with that stuff}} - no source ever said this kid said that "so she could play with that stuff". The sources just say she persistently wished she'd been born a girl and said as much repeatedly. Darwin's offensive speculation as to why is not supported by any sources. Here's a quote from her mother about this nonsense: {{tq|A boy who likes to play doll is not a trans girl. But a boy who besides liking to play doll, has desire to be the doll, be a girl, dress and have the look of the doll, then we are talking about a child who may have a gender issue.}} | |||
| ** No source in the article says her mom "decided was a girl, thrusting that identity on the child since then" - On her 4th birthday, she told her {{tq|My love, from today you wear whatever clothes you want, play with whatever you want and can '''be whoever you want'''}} - the mom said she'd stop pressuring her daughter to be a boy and that she could be who she wanted, and her daughter decided. | |||
| ** She is now 9 years old, almost 10, and happily trans. So, this is not even a case of insisting a 4-yr old can't tell they're trans, it's insisting that, after 5 years of being happily herself, it must have been forced on her. | |||
| : The only {{tq|troglodyte and incredibly prejudiced display of behaviour}} is expending this much energy attacking a fucking 9 year old and claiming her mother made her trans. I'm ashamed that PT wikipedia allowed him to do this there, and sanctioned Skyshifter for calling him on such blatant transphobia. We should have no tolerance for this bullshit whatsoever. ] (]) 22:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given that this involves cross-wiki behaviour, does anyone know if this is something which is actionable in the universal code of conduct? '']''<sup>]</sup> 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' formal TBAN, indifferent to IBAN ] (]) 21:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both TBAN and IBAN. ]. ] (]) 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I see no evidence that any sanctions are necessary to stop disruption; indeed to the extent DarwIn was disruptive (and I am not convinced they were the problematic party), they have stopped, out of what appears to me to be a genuine understanding of how to avoid the locus of disruption. --] (]) 23:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I read through this entire epic saga and left with the impression that they didn't really seem to get that the BLP and MOS issues aren't something they can just shrug their shoulders at. --] (]) 12:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === ] taking matters from another Misplaced Pages to seek revenge. === | |||
| == CensoredScribe is back == | |||
| {{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. | |||
| This time as {{user|Allen7054}}. I filed a ] three days ago, but there hasn't been any action on it. In fact, ] seems to be severely backlogged. —''']''' (] | ]) 04:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| But all of this happened only, and just because of her banishment for the portuguese wiki. She is the cross-wiki harrasser in this situation, as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log. | |||
| :I also filed a ban proposal at AN ]. ] (] - ]) 04:41, 9 August 2014 (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. | |||
| :: I reverted the most recent edits. Unsurprisingly, he was adding categories inappropriately. I'm not sure why, but he added dozens of video games to ] when they were already in the appropriate subcategory. Maybe he wanted to create a master list of all dystopian fiction? ] (]) 05:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::CensoredScribe's MO was making new categories and adding them to pages where they were not even proper identifications of the subject because it was just like one instance in 500 episodes or issues that the category item came up, though. Are you sure it's him?—] (]) 18:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: He also added many existing categories inappropriately to fictional character articles. See the SPI case for details. CS would add a wildly inappropriate category, then use the edit summary to support his original research when he got reverted. This account does the same exact thing. They both edit the same general articles: Superman, Batman, and assorted DC superheroes. This one shows more of an obsession with video games, but it's still not outside of CS's MO. There is {{diff|Fallout: New Vegas|prev|600376984|precedent}}. ] (]) 20:38, 9 August 2014 (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. | |||
| :::: The pattern is the exact same. Mass additions of fiction categories to multiple articles with little to no bases on reliable sources and edit warring on multiple articles to keep his/her category changes in place. (]) (]) (]) —''']''' (] | ]) 04:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Allen7054 is still continuing to edit war on the above articles. When will there be a block issued? Also, ] has appeared making the same edits. —''']''' (] | ]) 03:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|Eduardo_Gottert}} You need to provide evidence when opening an ANI thread, not on request. ] (]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Extreme personal attack == | |||
| ::'@] The evidences are above. I said if you need any '''further''' evidence, you may ask. All of the necessary evidence are on the request. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Where's the evidence? What we know is that DarwIn came here despite little involvement and made a highly offensive statement that can reasonably be characterised as transphobic. While I don't feel Sky Shifter should have described it so, better to let others decide, it was entirely reasonable for Sky Shifter to call for action against DarwIn for it. What is your evidence that they did it for revenge instead of for the fact that after a disagreement with DarwIn in a different wiki, DarwIn suddenly appeared in this wiki, one they themselves agree they barely edit, to make a highly offensive statement that Sky Shifter reasonably felt was transphobic. After doing so, they then appeared on ANI to make similar highly offensive statements were they made offensive accusations against living based on their own opinion. ] (]) 06:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Honestly, the argument is pretty clear above. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you agree you're wrong then please withdraw this ANI. ] (]) 06:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I did not agree in any place that I am wrong. I just stated that the evidence is pretty clear above, with all the block discussions and diffs needed for understanding the problem. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Your statement was very unclear. You said "the argument" which I interpreted to mean my argument. If you're still claiming your argument is clear, then please explain how it can be when part of your argument is it was unfair for Sky Shifter to go around saying "transphobia" when many of us agree that even if it was unnecessary, it was not unsupported given the comments DarwIn was making do seem to be transphobic. ] (]) 06:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::As we were talking about my evidence, I think saying "the argument" clearly refer to me. And as to the reason for the opening of this ANI, it's because the revenge seeking of Skyshifter. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I wouldn't say it doesn't considering as I said, one of the reasons your argument was flawed, but you didn't address that in any way. Nothing you've said above or since has explained why you're claiming Sky Shifter using the word "transphobic" is evidence for "revenge" when it's a reasonable characterisation of what DarwIn said. ] (]) 06:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{ec}} I would add it's very unclear what you thinking you're adding that wasn't already considered above. In the above thread a 1 way iban on DarwIn seems to be getting serious consideration. A two way iban seems to have been rejected based on the assessment that whatever the wrongs with Sky Shifter's approach, it wasn't serious enough to warrant an iban. The fact that Sky Shifter was in a dispute with DarwIn on other wikis, and DarwIn was involved in their blocked is likewise not a secret, part of it was stated by Sky Shifter when opening the thread and the rest was stated by DarwIn. The sock allegation likewise. So what do you think you're adding to the discussion that wasn't already considered and seemingly rejected by the community above? ] (]) 06:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It is time for a ]. You already said all of that above. You seem to have been canvassed here from a discussion outside of this wiki. Go back there and let them know cross wiki harassment will get you blocked here. ] (]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I added more evidence and context. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You simply cast aspersions as part of a cross wiki harassment campaign against someone over transgender related issues. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 06:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your statement doesn't even make sense. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We can add ] to the reasons you are blocked then. ] (]) 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Am I? And where am I in violation of ]? <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I used plain English and you said you couldn't comprehend it. ] (]) 06:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I thought it was pretty well determined in that prior ANI thread that DarwIn's edits and statements absolutely were transphobic and bigoted. ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I can't see that there's any justification for . Perhaps a block is in order for this editor. ] (]) 13:18, 9 August 2014 (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) | |||
| : :/ Sooner or later, some admin is going to have to take one of these c-word droppers and make an example of them, i.e. in the 1-2 week block range. This is getting out of hand. ] (]) 13:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::She opened an NI, ptwiki equivalent of AN/I against DarwIn with crazy arguments. You can see it ]. It was prompty closed, and she was very well aware of the consequences she would face, and of the opening of the block discussion, and clearly opened the AN/I because of that reason. The block discussion started at 1130 UTC, and the AN/I was posted at 1300, at a time that Skyshifter had already taken notice of the discussion, as you can see . <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 07:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *This is ''very blatantly'' a tit-for-tat. As mentioned above there is the distinct smell of fishiness about it, and {{tqq|as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log}} - yes, the editor who has ''three FAs'' on en.wiki "came to this project" to do this. Suggest this be promptly closed as I hear a ] inbound. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::More vicious attacks in a tirade left on my talk page: . ] (]) 13:28, 9 August 2014 (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}} | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ==Incivility and ABF in contentious topics== | |||
| FWIW see the OP's record at ] ]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:31, 9 August 2014 (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: | |||
| : While I'm not going to attempt to justify that edit summary, if you're the same person as then you are hardly in a position to criticize. See the IPs listed at ] for plenty of other examples. —] (]) 13:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills. | |||
| ::Hmm, so if you think I might be someone who you don't like, it's ok to call me a cunt? ] (]) 13:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883 | |||
| ::::If you would ''create an account'' & stick with it, tensions might drop. ] (]) 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So it's ok to call someone a cunt if they don't have an account? ] (]) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They're picking on me, I'm only a little IP. Give that whiny record a rest. Listen if you don't wish to be referred to as a dopey fucking cunt, treat people with respect and it'll be reciprocated. Otherwise if you behave like a dopey fucking cunt don't be upset if I call you one. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 13:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| WP:NPA | |||
| ::::::It depends on the behaviour of the IP or any other editor. PS: Beware of the ] -- ] (]) 14:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324 | |||
| :] The edit summary was quite deliberate on my part, apparently its OK for the IP editor above to repeatedly refer to anyone who has an issue with him in the same manner , , , , , , , , , , | |||
| :Variously, he'll claim: | |||
| :* its OK because people revert him solely because he is an IP - which he knows is a lie in my case | |||
| :* its OK because his edits are superior to everyone else and everyone else is a dopey cunt who can't write an encyclopedia | |||
| :And as he seems to take delight in targeting articles I've edited I am fucking fed up with it. As far as I can see the guy is simply trolling and opening this ANI thread was just trolling. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Profanity | |||
| OP is now on 5RR after warning at ]. I'd go to ], but no point in informing admins in more places than necessary. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966 | |||
| ::The IP geolocates to Australia, which is not within the scope of the LTA filing (Chile, Brazil). Are you alleging that the LTA person/persons are branching out? ] (]) 13:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Its the same guy, he's regularly travelling. If you look at all the IP, you'll find the UK and Canada in there. Check ] and it'll confirm his mobile nature - this is why he keeps avoiding long term scrutiny. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 13:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor | |||
| :::The LTA notes that the IP has used geolocations in a variety of locations in the past, including the UK and Canada. Australia would not be unusual and the behavioural evidence is compelling. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877 | |||
| :::Including the bad language. was the first time somebody called somebody else a c*** on the relevant page. It's also the first of the OP's five reverts today (the last of which came after a warning). '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Unicivil | |||
| ::::OP is now blocked for 3RR. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah, I blocked the IP after it reverted a 4th time after being properly warned. That doesn't mean the complaint of the IP editor is invalid, though I'm not going to offer an opinion on the substance of it. ]] 13:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} In response to Monty, I don't believe there is a justification for my edit summary at all. I'm not even going to claim it was justifiable as he did it first () as that is rather childish. But this has been going on for 5 years and I've had enough of it. Why do we even have a ] policy at all - its never enforced? If a named account behaved like this IP editor, he'd have been banned long ago, as he hops IP he gets away with it. Why should editors be expected to simply put up with long term abuse? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 14:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :In my opinion, the best solution is to just not give such editors any ammunition to further disrupt process. I know they can get under your skin, but just continuing to deal with them through normal process, and without any overt displays of emotion is the only effective strategy. A decent number of serially disruptive editors feed off the emotions and go out of their way to bait you. Your comment was out of line, but personally, I'm not interested in doing anything about it because the IP editor came here with clearly ]. ]] 14:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027 | |||
| :If it is the same person, then yea, let's call it a wash as they have clearly inflamed the situation over the years. ] (]) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441 | |||
| ::If it got dealt with during the normal process, do you imagine I would have responded as I did? | |||
| ::No, I basically get told I have to put up with it, I've even had a snarky comment about being the "civility police". This is just a "content dispute" that I should talk out on the article talk page with an editor who responds as above. And too often they've been given fig leafs to hide behind. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 16:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I sympathize, as I've had somewhat the same problem, a recurring troll who first turned up around 2009 and pops up periodically for the sole purpose as harassment - and since he's likewise able to hop across various IP's around the world, I'm told to ignore it. Your case is rather worse, what with the woman-hating obscenities your IP friend is throwing around. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They're obscenities; "woman hating"--not so much. They sure dislike WCM though, and the feeling is very mutual. I can't fault WCM for their outburst, but this should have gone differently, as anyone can see who looks at the article's history. Bugs, this is not a troll. GoodDay, some people don't wish to get accounts, and nothing can make them get one: saying that they continue as an IP editor to avoid scrutiny is pure bad-faith hypothesis.<p>So let me just note that all this starts with but good-faith and to-the-point edit summary, followed by because, well, it's this IP editor: I can see no other reason, and all WCM has to add on the talk page is "it is actually well known"--apparently this was enough for {{U|Kahastok}} to revert, with the net effect of producing a tag team effort that leads to {{U|Favonian}}'s block. So what's next, after all this? {{U|Srich32977}} comes in and does what a decent editor should do: check it out, and ("rm editorializing"). Thank you Srich. In other words, the IP was right after all, despite a long time ago (unexplained, by an IP--and no one batted an eye). So it goes. ] (]) 01:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Obscenities, obviously. And woman-hating in the same way that "fag" is considered to be gay-hating. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's no more "woman hating" than calling someone a prick or a dick is "man hating". Such bollocks. ] (]) 13:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As has been discussed elsewhere, that particular word carries shades of meaning in North America that it does not carry in other parts of the English-speaking world, such as "woman-hating". It is, regardless, offensive and clearly best avoided. | |||
| Contact on user page attempted | |||
| ::::::As to Drmies' point about what happened, I disagree with her in policy terms. The source - a ] made by ] and ] - was taken offline at some stage. The BBC does not put programmes online permanently, so this is not surprising. That, taken alone, does not mean that verification was failed or that the source is no longer reliable as seems to be implied. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 08:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795 | |||
| :::::If I may clarify, ''most'' IPs are beneficial to the project. They're the gnome's gnome & I value them highly. However they're a tiny few who aren't helpful, such as the IP jumper-in-question. ] (]) 14:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Does this argument need to spill over into every incident involving personal attacks? It does not matter if it is "woman hating" or not, it was obviously offensive and unacceptable. | |||
| Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent | |||
| This is a simple case, it was a clear cut and very offensive personal attack. I have given the user who made the attack an only warning about personal attacks. If it keeps up we block. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557] (]) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This is biting the newbies in the worst way and it was in a content dispute. That sort of nastiness has a chilling effect and drives off new users and hurts our ability to find neutrality by driving off all but the thickest of skinned. | |||
| :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) | |||
| We don't even talk that way to trolls, banned users and spammers. ] 03:19, 10 August 2014 (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) | |||
| *Chillum, the IP is not a newbie: details and links to an LTA file are above. What is more troubling than any incivility (from both sides) is what gave rise to it. I have given an account above, which editors and admins are free to disregard it at their own peril, since that's what usually happens. ] (]) 03:41, 10 August 2014 (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. | |||
| ::*Chillum, I don't bite newbies and the accusation is almost as obnoxious as the sanctimonious warning you chose to leave on my talk page. It had already been dealt with, I'd calmed down, apologised and asked for the offensive edit summaries to be redacted and then you steam in half-cocked issuing warnings and laying false accusations of newbie biting. The situation had calmed down as far as I was concerned and to be honest you just brought it back to the boil as far as I'm concerned. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::* Drmies can attest that as far as this IP editor is concerned the charge that I only revert because they're an IP is false and despite the abuse I did explain my reasoning for reverting their contribution. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 10:10, 10 August 2014 (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. | |||
| :::* And to add, did you read the above, as that particular IP editor has been calling me a dopey fucking cunt for years, where is your concern, warnings or blocks been for the past 5 years??? Where has been your concern for the chilling effect on my editing? Eh, tell me that mate. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 10:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::] (]) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Yes, Wee Curry Monster, I read the whole damn thing. I've read just about every fucking word you wasted on this the past couple of years. It's really boring. Clearly you did ''not'' read all that I've had to say on the matter, since I have blocked this IP at least once. My concern is for the project. In this particular case, and '''anyone can see this in the article history''', one of the IPs edits is reverted for improper reasons at all. First by another IP, then by you, with a cryptic edit summary: "comment is cited and the political motives are well known - wikipedia neutrally points out the facts that edit was censorship". (No, it wasn't "censorship": extraordinary claims require good, published evidence.) So the IP editor is "censoring"? Their next revert has a decent summary: "what nonsense. political motivation is as clearly expressed now as before. what is removed is the implication that they were somehow being crafty devils and cunningly "knew" something that the British had inexplicably overlooked". And your revert? The same old song: "rv as usual our foul mouthed IP editor from Chile thinks only his edit is allowed". Well, you're right about one thing: "rv as usual", since that's what you seem to do, regardless of the merit of the edit. If I got reverted as often as this person is, I'd get pissed too.<p>For the onlookers, WCM pointed at ] or its talk page for another example of the IP's bad behavior. That article is another where they got into it, and where, the way I look at it, the IP presented (valid) arguments, while the anti-vandal patrol just keeps rooooooling them back. So, you may ask, how did we solve this, since solve it we did? The normal way: with an RfC. The IP did not get their way in the RfC, but the matter was addressed with arguments. And all is calm now in that article.<p>I'm not making ''apologies'' for the IPs foul language, nor am I condemning WCM for his. It's not the point, nor is WCM's apology (they didn't apologize to the IP, I think). Their charge, that "I've done nothing", that's boloney. I've been trying to mediate and to help--but what WCM and his friends want is simply blocks and protection, and what I want is that IP editors' edits are judged on their content. That's all. ] (]) 15:21, 10 August 2014 (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) | |||
| :*I hadn't thought about commenting on this, but this kind of admin action is exactly part of the reason why much of this is allowed to continue. A number of admins don't bother to read the story behind a situation prior to making decisions (such as placing warnings or blocks). Rarely is any situation at AN/I simple, and it would be best to keep that mentality at other noticeboards (''e.g.'', the 3RR noticeboard, although even then matters also require good analysis) rather than here. WCM had also clearly apologized for the outburst, which is significant since few editors ever do.--] ] 13:49, 10 August 2014 (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) | |||
| ::*As far as I can see there were no admin actions. What admin action are you talking about?<p>The warning was to prevent future incidences, not to punish the earlier incidence. Any user can make a warning and it is not an administrative act. If this is the end of it then fine, but if this type of behavior continues then the warning had been seen. ] 15:51, 10 August 2014 (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) | |||
| ::::Well, I did block the IP editor who was complaining about WCM, but that doesn't seem to be what MarshalN20 is upset about. AFAIK, that was the only admin action here. ]] 15:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. ] (]) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm not upset, but I am displeased at what I continuously see going on in Misplaced Pages (meaning that this is not to comment on Chillum as an admin, mainly because I haven't interacted with him at all, but rather on admins in general). I consider this ultimatum placed in WCM's talk page (see ), as an unwarranted admin action. Now you may reply to this with a "warnings are not admin tools," but I have learned that warnings placed by admins are always given greater weight than warnings placed by other users. In fact, there are cases when a user's page (usually IP users) is filled with warnings, but admins only take action after seeing another one of them had previously placed a warning. Hence my statement above. Regards.--] ] 16:21, 10 August 2014 (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) | |||
| {{u|Wee Curry Monster}}, I want to tell you a story. When I was in grade 3 the other kids would make faces at me until I shouted at them, then I would get sent to a little room to get in trouble for shouting. The other kids got caught making faces sometimes and they got in trouble too but that did not get me out of trouble for shouting. I was told that whatever the other kids did that it was I who was responsible for my behavior. | |||
| :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) | |||
| By grade 4 I had learned not to let other provoke me into getting myself into trouble. | |||
| :My experience is that this kind of aggression is standard operating procedure for the defendant. I'd basically given up on them seeing any consequences for it - it's been going on for a long time, so I assumed this is one of the cases where editors with enough "social capital" get an exemption from CIVIL. I doubt a trout will have lasting effect. - ] (]) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::My experience with and attitude toward Hob is 100% the same as described here by Palpable. It goes back a while ... <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hob Gadling failing to yield to ], apparently missing both the discussion and RSN link from the talk page. Asserting an unreliable source as reliable in order to describe the subject as having a ‘victim complex’. ] (]) 23:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I think this long term disruptive editor has less to lose from a personal attack block than you do. I think you are being baited into shouting insults and that you are making his day by responding in kind. I also think my teachers were right that ultimately it is you who decide how to act to provocation and you who bear the responsibility. | |||
| :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) | |||
| You are being trolled, and you are feeding that troll. Don't let this person provoke you, it is what they want. ] 16:01, 10 August 2014 (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) | |||
| *I disagree with that last part. I think the IP isn't really enjoying having their edits reverted constantly. ] (]) 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:For context, ] is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. ] (]) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. ] (]) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Recuse{{smiley}} Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. ] (]) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. ] (]) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:If you click through the diffs, you’ll notice that many other editors have received the rude comments, so this is more than a 1-on-1 scuffle with me and Hob Gadling. I stopped compiling examples after finding 9 examples of visible hostility out of their most recent dozen diffs, but like I mentioned to ] above, I can go back further if you need me to, to illustrate the chronic pattern. And the handful of other editors who have spoken up here who have been aggrieved speak for themselves. ] (]) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *As a note, Hob Gadling without comment and has not responded here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Trolls like being reverted, they like being yelled at and insulted, the '''LOVE''' it when someone else gets in trouble for reacting to them. They want attention and reaction and they want to stir up shit. It is what trolls do. | |||
| *:Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. ] (]) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Never said they weren't. Just noting that they clearly received the notice and chose not to respond here, which is a response in and of itself. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|Extended discussion}} | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Wish Hob Gadling would not act like a profane teenager on talk page discussions and that they'd treat people without the smartass-y-ness and contempt. If they are so committed to being pissy towards other users while being shut-off in their own la-la-land, maybe they need a block until they're willing to face the music. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This comment is actually more of a personal attack then any of the diffs provided originally. Smartass, like a teenager, pissy, lalaland? That's some ageism, maybe commenting on mental health, and some silly insults. I don't think you should see any sanctions for this, but hopefully you compare your comments to the diffs. ] (]) 22:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Now it could be this is not a dedicated troll, but rather someone who is using trolling to get their point of view out there. In which case they would be annoyed are reversion but happy when they bait the person reverting them into doing something they should not. | |||
| ::IP, how'd you get here? A person who calls things {{tq|bullshit}} and generally isn't in a good mood around others, being condescending: saying that they are pissy and being a smartass is ]. Teenagers are known for angst and pissy-ness and for having lip. Not insinuating they are a teenager, just that their behavior resembles that of. As you will recall, someone, somewhere in this derailed, miles-long trainwreck of an ANI report-turned morality seminar-turned COVID-19 ] + ] debate, said that there is no policy against profanity. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::If I tell User:ExampleA that they did an "amazing fuckin' job!" with a ], that is different than calling User:ExampleB a "{{!tq|fuckin' wanker}}" because they botched a ]. Context is everything, and I get how we are all connecting through the two-dimensional medium of simple text and thus misunderstandings tend to occur, but tones like these aren't that hard to discern. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When ] shouts "fucking A!" after a job well done, that is not the same when he tells ] that he is a "fucking psycho murderer". <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Right, and there are no egregious uncivil diffs either. So, how is Hob acting like a pissy teenager, but you aren't? Catch my drift? This is a nothing burger report, and the reporter should get a boomerang. ] (]) 00:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hob's profanity is not amiable. It sours the collaboration with other editors. most importantly, it is undue. Mine is not undue, and is a statement of truth. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Provide a diff of something you believe is sanctionable. Your pile of personal attacks is making it unclear what you are trying to say. It's ok when you cuss, but it's bad if someone else does it? What? ] (]) 01:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Profanity has nothing to do with it. The attitude is the thing that's wrong. The word "shit" can be said in many different ways. Some good, some bad. Have you even looked through these diffs of Hob's comments that have popped up through this ANI report? I also invite you to create an account. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So, to recap, ]: It's not ''what'' it is said that causes problems, it's '''''how''''' it is said that matters, and in what context. I call a pissy editor pissy because it's great to ]. I can use profanity to describe someone's behaviour, and if I weigh words, I can even use it when addressing someone's contributions; i.e. "This is a really fuckin' well done article, User:Example". Hob calling someone's opinions {{tq|bullshit}} is not the right thing to do. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think you may refer to this as calling a spade a spade. When someone says we should ignore science because it has a COI with Covid-19, their opinion is bullshit. This is what you are defending. ] (]) 03:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Eh, you can say "That's ] and ] and does not constitute ] as the subject is discussed in ]". Calling a spade a spade is easy, while addressing content and user contributions in dispute should require more, IDK, poise. I can say "fucking awesome work!" to an editor about their ] and no harm can be meant by that in any feasible situation, but when addressing questionable content, it should be done with nuance, eh? You can call someone's work shit whose work ''isn't'' shit, but you pretty much can't call someone's work "fucking amazing" whose work isn't amazing, as calling work "fucking amazing" provides pretty much no point of contention, unless you were just bullshitting them for no reason or trying to be nice about a novice's contributions that in terms of quality, reflect their inexperience. | |||
| :::::::::This entire ANI report has derailed into pretty much every unrelated topic save debate over what ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 03:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm not worried about contexts when "strong language" is ok, and you can stop giving needless examples. I don't believe anything that violates our guidelines on civility took place at all in the diffs originally provided. Hob was reasonable in tone, and sometimes people are exasperated by nonsense. Being annoyed but mostly polite isn't actually against the rules. You will need better diffs to change my mind. ] (]) 06:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The COI pertains only to a few authors in particular with a personal stake in the outcome of the investigation. For example, the article uses several sources co-authored by Dr. Zhengliang Shi who {{tq|herself and the WIV itself have an obvious conflict of interest}}<ref> Nie JB. "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2020 Dec;17 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/</ref> This is a secondary peer-reviewed article, and several editors who call LL fringe stated it is RS.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#c-GPinkerton-2021-01-18T14:40:00.000Z-ScrupulousScribe-2021-01-18T14:27:00.000Z</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Shibbolethink-20250104081900-IntrepidContributor-20250103151400</ref> ] (]) 08:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| It should be noted that Lardlegwarmers, after only truly starting editing two months ago, has been actively pushing ] misinformation, particularly on Covid related pages. They have actively been making claims that the scientific community is trying to cover things up, such as ], and has been using poor quality sources to try and claim that major published scientific papers on the topic are false, such as ]. This entire thread just sounds like an attempt to silence another editor who has been actively dealing with fringe POV-pushers across numerous articles, such as those linked by Lardlegwarmers above. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Trolls hate it when you ignore them. Block, revert, ignore. This is why I don't even template the talk page of a returning troll as they collect block noticed like trophies. ] 17:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :"Block-revert-ignore" sounds good, but it leaves out an important fact: The difficulty of convincing an admin to block an obvious troll, and the extra attention the troll gets as a result of an admin slapping the reporting user in the face. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. And it seems that's the case here. ] (]) 02:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!) {{tq|bullshit}} to describe an argument that did, in fact, turn out to be bullshit shows how weak it is. What's more alarming is that ''that'' was what led Lardlewarmers to try and , a hamhanded effort whose sheer inappropriateness they remain sufficiently tone-deaf to that they made the mistake of bragging about it here as part of their "report". This is a straightforward ] situation. --] (]) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*:There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "]" in situations like this one. Misplaced Pages would be better off if people were more willing to ] and stop treating ]. ] (]) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*:The reason I cited numerous diffs was to substantiate, as I said in my post, that this is a ''chronic'' and ''ongoing'' habit of rude and uncivil behavior. I posted the diff of Hob Gadling's user page not to "brag" (and I don't understand how you inferred that), but rather to show that I followed ANI procedure to address conduct disputes first on the user page and that my attempt was dismissed without Hob Gadling addressing it except to blank the comment with the explantion that I wasn't welcome on his page.] (]) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not trying to silence anyone. See above, I recommend a stern warning about consistent uncivil comments and that’s it. If Hob Gadling has something substantive to say, they can say it without demeaning the editors as if this is a combat sport instead of a discussion about articles of text. I encourage y'all to check out the discussions linked to by Silverseren. I have been careful to use sources, present my suggestions in good faith, and stay neutral in personal interactions. I am genuinely trying to find consensus. I'll mention that Silverseren is also involved in the content dispute, providing sources that myself and several other editors believe do not verify an extraordinary claim in the article. (]) It's getting to the point where we should do a content moderation over that, since I am sure that the sources do not verify the claim but Silverseren apparently is sure that they do. ] (]) 03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed ''I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type''. As the Alien above said, you '''{{tq|Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning.}}''' now ]. ] ] 18:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to ], the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the ] contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ], as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the ''content'', not attacking the person (]). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.] (]) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For the record I do ''agree with you'' that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been ] you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing ] or ], rather we depend on ] and ] to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to {{tq|steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person}}. However, that is not what I read in that . Out of the gate you're calling Hob uncivil, their arguments are false, and then lobbing further accusations. You get the discussion wrapped up arguing over who said what, and what they meant by it, and why your positions are valid and theirs are not. As for bad faith, I'll invite to other editors to comment below if they agree that I'm the one presuming bad faith towards you. Cheers! ] ] 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (]) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.] (]) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think I understand what you're referring to about RS. Yes, there are times when a source is otherwise considered reliable (or even un-reliable) but consensus can be found with regards to a specific narrow aspect of it that might warrant it's inclusion or exclusions, or some variation on how it is presented or the weight afforded to it in the article. And that comes through talk page consensus as you mentioned and does not necessarily need to be unanimous. ] ] 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Being entirely blunt, if we have two visions of Misplaced Pages: one in which people are occasionally rude or incivil to people who tout pseudoscience concerning major diseases and one in which pseudoscience concerning major diseases makes its way into article space then I'll gladly sign up for the rude / incivil Misplaced Pages over the pseudoscience one. This is to say that being rude is most certainly a {{tq|lesser offense}}. ] (]) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would like to offer a public apology to {{U|Chillum}} for earlier remarks both here and on his talk page. I have already offered a private apology on his talk page but as I also commented here and others have sprung to my defence I felt it important to do so here as well. I thank those who have expressed their concern about the warning but ask you not to challenge Chillum about this any more. Upon reflection, I think he did the right thing and I was out of order. I was annoyed and responded in anger and in a manner that violated the code of conduct I signed up to when I became a wikipedia editor. It would be hypocritical of me to complain about such behaviour in others and not apologise when I behave inappropriately myself. I extend that apology to the IP editor for my remarks. Finally, I would like to thank Chillum for their kindness in responding to me in a calm manner that brought me to my senses. | |||
| ::I am extremely disappointed that {{U|Drmies}} misinterpreted my remarks as being directed at them. They were not, there were intended for Chillum and I acknowledge that as I made them in anger perhaps this was not clear and I didn't express myself as well as I could. However, to respond to his subsequent comments I would also note my disappointment in the claim that I'm reverting solely because it was that IP editor. What he describes as a ''"somewhat explicit but good-faith and to-the-point edit summary"'' was one which started by referring to another editor as "some cunt", which is why the edit summary was removed. The edit summary was way out line and my response, which is still there, was to point out it was cited and well-known. The suggestion I reverted solely because of who did it, is an allegation I reject. | |||
| ::I am further troubled by the way he characterises the situation at ]. The original edit was a minor edit, where the IP editor removed the make of car claiming it was irrelevant. A number of editors disagreed and suggested it was a relevant detail. In the normal course of events, a discussion would have settled the matter on the talk page. That the normal course of events didn't happen was because this IP editor, simply revert warred multiple editors and contributed a load of foul mouth expletives in talk. They were reverted because they refused to engage in talk not because they were an IP editor. The RFC Drmies imposed was a waste of the communities time, it was simply something that needed a discussion in talk to sort out. | |||
| ::Fundamentally Drmies, you are giving the IP editor a fig leaf to hide behind. You're basically saying its OK for them to respond as they do, when they're reverted if their edit improves the article as you understand why it may make them upset. No one likes to see their edits reverted but a load of good edits does not build up credit to be a total ] if someone disagrees with them. That they get reverted repeatedly is often down to the way they act. | |||
| ::{{U|Baseball Bugs}} makes a good point above, the guy is trolling and I bet he is having a great laugh everytime you Drmies wade in to defend them. | |||
| ::Furthermore, Drmies claim that all I want is blocks and protection is utter nonsense. What I want is to be able to edit articles without minor disagreements escalating into foul mouthed expletives if someone disagrees with me about an edit. And I want to be able to discuss edits in talk in a reasonable manner, without one editor revert warring multiple editors to impose their will. That is after all how its supposed to work. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 17:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::WCM, "fig leaf"? Bullshit. (And I have no idea what you mean with comments not aimed at me.) Troll? No. Chillum, you need to look much more carefully. The talk page for Ian Gow is a clear indicator that, if the IP is not just reverted but is allowed to participate in community discussion, there is no problem. To call an RfC over an important matter (where I and others, not just the IP, disagreed with WCM) a "waste of time" is indicative of the attitude here. "Waste of time"? You know collaborative editing ''requires'' discussion, right? And that RfC is an accepted and encouraged way or reaching content decisions, right? Those blind reverts you and a bunch of others throw out, those are a waste of time. They're insulting, and they invite the behavior that is here mischaracterized as trolling. Bugs, you should know better: you've been accused of trolling often enough. WCM, "discuss edits in a reasonable manner"? Well, do it then. On ] you opened with "I have reverted the IP edits because they removed relevant information from the article, not because they were done by an IP editor", and then you went on to ''completely fail to address the content question''. I see that in 2011 you already had this snarky tone toward uninvolved editors who tried to help, {{U|Born2cycle}}.<p>Fig leaf, my ass. Please look, all you impartial observers, at ] (and the RfC I started), which is the first attempt to actually solve the situation--and guess what, the situation was solved with an RfC. And you, WCM, got your car make in the article (yes, the dispute was that silly), and the IP ''never'' came back to change it again. Instead of a "thank you Drmies" I get to hear "it was a waste of time"--a waste of ''my'' time, yeah. "Defend the IP"--I'll defend ''any'' editor who is treated like this one has by a variety of editors, not just you. I won't defend their language or their edit warring, but hey, you've been quite the edit warrior yourself here. Note also that you're the one throwing the c-word around and you didn't get blocked, so maybe you should be grateful. And I wonder: who's following whose edits around? But don't answer that: this thread is already long enough. ] (]) 18:31, 10 August 2014 (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) | |||
| ::::@{{U|Drmies}} I said it was a waste of the communities time to force an RFC over a trivial edit that could be resolved by reasonable editors in talk. To further make it plain, I meant precisely by a community discussion in talk. It was not a dispute of a level that warranted an RFC, just one foul mouthed stubborn editor who insisted it had to be done their way. If you're upset that I characterise your RFC as a waste of time, then I'm sorry about that but fear of offending you shouldn't stop me from speaking plainly. I nevertheless don't appreciate you inferring motives or emotions in my comments that aren't there. | |||
| ::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're being disingenuous to claim that the IP editor would have engaged in talk if given the opportunity, they wouldn't and they didn't. Thanks for paging {{U|Born2cycle}} because he can confirm they didn't engage in talk. Their participation in the RFC at ] was less than optimal such as their repeat of your allegation of anti-IP bigotry. You seem to forget in your rant above that you acknowledged I had been more than reasonable with the guy . | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::As regards your innuendo that I'm following the guy, I very much feel the need to respond to such a blatantly bad faith accusation. Firstly I invite you to explain how I could do so, given the IP is constantly changing. Secondly, I draw your attention to my first edit to the article on 3 March 2011 . <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 19:32, 10 August 2014 (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) | |||
| :::::Yeah, yeah. My "rant" was possibly prompted by the rather dumb suggestion that an RfC which settled a dispute was a waste of time. I'm not hurt or upset by it--I just think that it's a stupid statement to make, and I think it's worth pointing that out. As for my "innuendo" and the bad-faith accusation and whatever: I merely inquired how you run into this guy so often. Chicken or egg? It's a valid question. If that question upsets you, well, I'm sorry, but if you take the prerogative of speaking plainly, then so will I. Now, let me offer you one more suggestion: please stop pinging me here. This thread is going nowhere--the IP got blocked, and you didn't, so move on. Thank you. ] (]) 03:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Beyond what @] said, ''for all parties'', it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil ]. ] ] 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I often look at threads where I have participated, and sometimes I notice that although I have made hugely important contributions, in fact I am usually the most important person in the room, everyone is rude to me (maybe they are emotional about something) and it's very difficult to make progress on anything. If things seem to be basically under control otherwise, and I seem to be descending into another argument rather than removing arguments, then the strategy I often adopt in such circumstances is to... walk away. | |||
| ::::::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}} | |||
| ::::::Don't argue about who has pinged who or who is responsible for speaking plainly first, et cetera. Just, walk away. Sell the last word to a strange guy by the side of the road. Why worry? --] (]) 20:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Pinging {{U|Drmies}} I asked you a direct question, I invited you to explain how I could follow an IP editor whose IP is constantly changing. A question you rather blatantly avoided, to repeat the same innuendo. The answer is that it is in fact virtually impossibly for me to do so and yet you repeat the same innuendo with a further insinuation with reference to the frequency which the IP crops up on my radar. Chicken or egg? Join the dots. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 21:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Send to AE?=== | |||
| Um, this seems to be a fairly long thread and I was thinking about letting people work it out, but there's something I don't see addressed here, and it doesn't look like anybody's mentioned it. Wee Curry Monster had his topic ban on Falkland Islands topics lifted after he agreed to a 1RR condition. Has anyone taken a look to see if that's been honoured in all this mess? Wee Curry Monster is supposed to be extra careful on these pages. Multiple reverts and incivility on a Falklands war related page is part of a pattern of behaviour beyond this incident or the other user involved.] 23:52, 11 August 2014 (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) | |||
| :Paging {{U|Nick-D}} my mentor. It is completely untrue to claim I was blocked for incivility; pointedly it was noted that I had remained civil despite being provoked by a number of editors. The actual reason for the topic ban if you boil it down was to vociferously defend myself in talk pages and its one of this wikipedia situations where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Now this isn't the first time that Elaqueate has chosen to fling this at me, I'm getting rather tired of having to defend myself against these false accusations. The 1RR restriction is a voluntary thing on my part and I have stuck to it with one this one exception, when I got fed up with this. I have done exactly I said I would focusing on my editing and just helped take ] to FA status. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 06:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was a voluntary condition you undertook as part of lifting a topic ban. I don't think that's the same thing as saying it's voluntary as to whether you bother with it after you commit to it. Is it only a condition when you're not fed up, and non-binding when you are fed up? If you're here saying that you were topic-banned due to the behaviour of others, then I think you are back-tracking on what you said at your topic ban lifting. You are not "damned if you don't" if you don't vociferously respond in talk pages. That's what you were topic banned for six months for, and if you're still characterizing it as needful somehow, there's a problem.<p>As far as bringing it up here, this is an ANI incident where you "got fed up" and reverted multiple times on a Falkland Islands page. Why shouldn't there be passing notice of your topic ban condition for exactly that? Why wasn't there notice of your topic ban condition? A directly relevant editing restriction seems like the kind of thing you should have passed on to ] when you thought they didn't have the full background story.<p>Since you say incivility had no part in your topic bans, I should take a look over those discussions. Maybe you point out to me where you were cleared of any incivility in your topic ban. I see many accusations of behavior that would be classified as uncivil and I can't see what you're referring to. Even in the discussion regarding the lifting of your topic ban, people who supported you still mention that you got into an uncivil dustups contrary to what you state in your request. I'm fine with looking further into it.] 09:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::WCM; I concur that the topic ban was not imposed for incivility per-se, though the issues which led to it did include impolite treatment of other editors. I have to agree that you violated the 1RR arrangement here though: the IP's behaviour wasn't helpful, and I note that they appear to have a seriously problematic history, but their edits weren't vandalism and you should have asked an admin to intervene or waited for other editors to respond. Dropping the C word also wasn't a good idea at all and I'd urge you to not do it again on Misplaced Pages, but isn't directly relevant to the terms of your topic ban being lifted (I don't claim to be an angel when it comes to not swearing on Misplaced Pages, but the C word is pretty much guaranteed to cause offence to a range of editors, regardless of circumstances). ] (]) 10:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@{{U|Nick-D}} Nick, I agree with everything you said. That is why I apologised, undertook not to repeat it (and if I do I expect {{U|Chillum}} to carry out his undertaking to block me if I renege on that promise) and I think you'll agree it was uncharacteristic. If I'm mistaken please correct me, the 1RR restriction wasn't a condition of the removal of the topic ban it was something I undertook to do voluntarily to keep out of trouble and I've stuck to it with this one exception. I have also made an effort to be more culturally sensitive ie not reply in Glaswegian to delicate flowers. | |||
| ::::You suggested I should have gone to an admin and part of the problem is I did. Please note the date of this diff and I've been having the same thing from this editor ever since. I've now had the admin I asked for help accusing me of A) only wanting blocks and bans and now B) of somehow stalking an IP hopping editor looking for trouble. Please can someone explain how I'm supposed to do that? If I'm apparently running into the same IP hoppping editor repeatedly but given only one of us can knows how to find the other it doesn't take a genius to figure out who is stalking who. Why is such a ludicrous allegation allowed to be levelled and not challenged? I don't want anyone blocked or banned, I've never asked for either only for the opportunity to discuss my edits in a reasonable manner. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 15:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories". | |||
| == POINT-ful IP at Hacker News == | |||
| :That matches my experience and I'm grateful to the people willing to say it out loud, but surely it would save a lot of drama and forum shopping if someone just wrote it down? - ] (]) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The IP made no such claim? - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I thought that was implicit in the request to move the civility complaint to a forum about fringe theories, but you're the expert. - ] (]) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::FYI ] is arbitration enforcement, not the Fringe Theories noticeboard. ] (]) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's what I had thought, but the not logged in guy seems to be saying that a civility complaint should be moved to AE because it's a better venue for "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories". | |||
| :::::It's really striking to me that the main argument here is not over whether Hob is civil, it's whether he should have to be. - ] (]) 20:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :As others have noted, being brusque with pseudoscience-pushers is an insignificant offense when compared to agenda-driven editors who are only here to advocate for a fringe topic. Esp. when they have only been editing for a handful of months. ] (]) 23:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Could an admin please review the most recent contributions from ] (]) at ] and the accompanying talk-page discussion? The editor in question has been slow-speed warring a one-sided controversy section into the article, removing POV and verifiability issue templates from that section, threatening an overt edit-war (), and, most recently, asserting that he/she would abuse open proxies if blocked for said behavior (). I'm suggesting the article be semi-protected, although I defer to the judgement of those with cooler tempers than I. Thanks! ] 21:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::While I do agree that from an objective and absolute POV (e.g., of an external user evaluating Misplaced Pages) it is better to have an uncivil but pseudoscience-free Misplaced Pages than a civil but pseudoscientific Misplaced Pages, from a subjective and relative POV (e.g., of editors making internal decisions together) it is impossible to systematically abandon a relatively less important principle on the basis of a relatively more important principle without completely annihilating the less important principle. That's why ] is policy. | |||
| ::Moreover, as others have also noted, because WP:CIVIL is a principle that at some point does get acted upon, we would all be better off if no one, on any side of any given debate, would minimize it. ]. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Too much presumption of intent here with regard to 'pseudoscience-pushers'. It is easy for us to diminish our opponents in this way. Civility and NPOV are equal pillars. ] (]) 15:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ===Topic ban for Lardlegwarmers=== | |||
| I am the editor in question and I advise admin staff to review the talk page to see the context of the talk. A number of editors have attempted to highlight the valid and oft-discussed moderation policy at Hacker News however two accounts continually revert any edits and remove any citations without giving a valid reason. | |||
| {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}} | |||
| Upon questioning their motives they stonewall answers and continue to revert the changes. I am not the first editor to raise the moderation piece, I am one of a series but Vladimir and BetaFive are intent on applying their draconian interpretation of the rules without justifying any reasoning and denying primary sources including published letters and communications from parties affected. | |||
| A cursory look through this account's contributions has me convinced that they ought not to be contributing to COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory pages, widely construed. More generally, it seems they are using Misplaced Pages as a ] to promote a lot of what I would deem "anti-establishment" claims which necessarily run right up against the ] remit of our encyclopedia. In fact, they are close to being a ] in this regard. Topic ban from American Politics might help reorient their problematic proclivities. | |||
| It was under the context of continual reversions that I told BetaFive that if he refused to engage in dialogue then obviously an edit war would continue (of which he is 50% responsible). When he said I would be blocked I highlighted I could resort to a proxy so blocking would be pointless in this regard. I fail to see how he can accuse one half of a reversion disagreement with being unreasonable when he will not cease reverting edits himself or engage in any dialogue whatsoever. | |||
| ] (]) 21: |
] (]) 21:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == Edit warring to prevent an RFC == | |||
| :This is a content matter, but I've gutted about half of the article, including the entire criticism / controversy section, as not being reliably sourced. You can't reasonably have an article about an online forum that sources criticism of the forum entirely to people's on-forum complaints, and then personal blog posts where they complain about how they were treated on the forum. That would be original research in any context, but it is especially unreliable on a discussion forum — it would be like sourcing Misplaced Pages's article to this page. I've removed the POV tag because after removing the unreliably sourced information there is no POV left. - ] (]) 02:18, 10 August 2014 (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. | |||
| I'd like to add something which might be relevant to this ANI section. The user has stated or alluded that his position is supported by multiple editors: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * (higher in this disccussion) | |||
| I've looked into the page's history, and noticed that all edits which attempt to (re)introduce the moderation controversy into the article come from IP addresses: | |||
| * by {{IP|24.5.218.203}} | |||
| * by {{IP|90.205.226.114}} | |||
| * by {{IP|176.249.50.22}} | |||
| * by {{IP|157.203.242.36}} | |||
| *, , by {{IP|2.219.55.12}} | |||
| We have to be pretty strict about this, because an RFC is one of the few ways to attract the broader community's attention when there's an ] problem or a ] that needs outside attention. The fact that an editor doesn't welcome outside attention sometimes indicates that there is a problem. I'm ''not'' saying that these things are happening in this case, but the rules have to be the rules for all RFCs, not just for the ones we agree with, because these things do happen in ''some'' cases. We can't really have opponents of an RFC question/proposal, no matter how well intentioned or how justified they think it is in this one case, unilaterally deciding that the rest of the community doesn't get to find out about the dispute. | |||
| I thought it was worth bringing up considering the user's threats to abuse open proxies. --] (]) 10:50, 10 August 2014 (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) | |||
| :That is an outright lie and selective reading of the edits. Are you denying that Wingman and others have not sourced and added to the moderation controversy paragraph? Is that what you are stating? I expect your answer full rounded out with all of the edits and not *just* the selective anonymous edits you have chosen. --] (]) 15:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC. | |||
| :: are non-content, formatting only. I cannot provide evidence for the absence of something. If I am wrong, provide counter-examples. --] (]) 16:01, 10 August 2014 (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. | |||
| :One more: . Editor that "the editing will continue". --] (]) 12:17, 10 August 2014 (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. | |||
| ::Insinuating that because I am currently editing from an IP and I did so in July that all the edits are from the same person. You should have the moral fortitude to just come out and say it. If I am indeed the mystery editor for all changes well gosh...haven't I just bided my time nicely between edits; almost 5 years! I care about this issue but not enough to spread out a nefarious plot over 36 months or more. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::In addition, you *still* refuse to answer questions on why a primary source is not valid. In actual fact, you are refusing to answer any of my questions on the talk page. So yes, for everyone to see, I am stating right now that if editors contending my edits refuse to engage in dialogue then I see no reason why their edits should be respected. | |||
| '''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. | |||
| ::Engage in dialogue, reach a consensus or the edits continue. I do not see that as unreasonable; your insistence on publishing links to wikipedia rules with absolutely no context is more disruptive. | |||
| *<s>'''Support'''</s>. ] (]) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Strike as withdrawn for Axad12 ABAN to concur with {{u|Cullen328}} and the ''oppose'' decisions below. | |||
| ::{{u|Graywalls}} is a separate case remaining undecided here. Over the 2024 article and talk page history at Breyers, this user was the main purveyor of disinformation, and has not acknowledged his talk page hostility and errors of judgment, despite abundant presentation of facts, sources, explanations, and challenges for information below. Graywalls should commit to abstain from editing the Breyers article for a given period, as Axad has done. ] (]) 00:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Zefr}}, your domineering and territoriality to that article is a big part of escalation and if anyone, it should be you who should refrain from it. Blatantly disregarding consensus and going so far as saying {{tq|Statements of facts supported by reliable sources do not need talk page consensus.|tq}} as done in which goes to show you feel you're above consensus. You weren't persuaded until you were corrected by two administrors {{u|Aoidh}} and {{u|Philknight}} on the matter on the belief you're entitled to insert certain things against consensus. You also were blocked for the fifth time for edit warring in that article, with previous ones being at different articles with dispute with other editors, which shows your lack of respect for community decision making. ] (]) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, your concept of what was a false consensus has been dismissed by the RfC result, so you should move on from this bitterness and distortion of truth. In reply to Aoidh and Philknight at the Breyers talk page, I stated in my next comment, ''"Yes, a key word <u>unintentionally omitted</u> in my response concerning statements and sources was "verifiable".'' As there are few watchers/editors of the Breyers article (62 as of today, probably many from Unilever who do not edit), I provided statements of facts verified by reliable sources, whereas this simple practice appears to not be in your editing toolkit. | |||
| :::The obligation remaining with you in this discussion is to respond to below in the section, '''The actual content that led to this dispute.''' Let's have your response to that, and your pledge to abstain from editing the Breyers article - you did say on the talk page on 29 Nov that you would "delegate the actual editing to someone else." I think your defiance to respond to challenges in this discussion section affirms my recommendation that you are ABANNED from the Breyers article and IBANNED from attacking me because you are unable to face the facts. ] (]) 18:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It was a suggestion that someone, meaning neither YOU or I. Not that Zefr continue editing and not I. Your controlling, ] approach was a significant portion of the problem. Additionally, you proposed administrative sanctions against me, but did not tell me about it as required. I only figured out after someone told me about it on my talk page. Why did you do that? ] (]) 19:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You had already been notified of the problem you caused at the Breyers article Now, you are engaged in to avoid answering the Cullen328 paragraphs and the several requests for you to explain and own up to your disruptive behavior and non-collaboration. Regarding OWN, there are few editors at Breyers. I countered your attempts to slander the article with the "antifreeze" term and bogus diet book references by applying verifiable facts and sources. | |||
| :::::OWN:''"Being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership, provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or amend others' edits. This too does not equal ownership, provided it does not marginalise the valid opinions of others and is adequately justified."'' If you had offered valid content and sources, I would have collaborated. | |||
| :::::I'm sure editors have seen enough of your personal grievances expressed here. Please stop. I'm not returning unless an exception occurs. ] (]) 20:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *You need to notify Graywalls of this discussion. I have done so for you. In the future, remember to do so yourself. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Oppose''': I have reverted Zefr on 3 occasions on the Breyers article over the last few months. That was because the edits they had made were, at that time, contrary to talk page consensus. The fact that I had not contributed to the article is neither here nor there in that regard. | |||
| *:I have not {{tq|ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate}}, I have simply objected to Zefr's repeated attempts over a 3 month period to re-open a discussion where the consensus has always been against them. | |||
| *:Six different users have previously objected to the changes Zefr has been trying to make and that was clearly a majority of those who commented between August and December 2024. | |||
| *:I accept that the current RfC is going Zefr's way, however that fact should not be used to reinterpret events over the last 4 months where Zefr has historically been in a small minority insufficient to claim a consensus in favour of the changes they wished to make. | |||
| *:Also, the idea that I made a {{tq|hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC}} is untrue. As I have pointed out above, my actions were in good faith and it can be seen that I immediately volunteered to revert my removal of the template if I received instruction from an admin to that effect. | |||
| *:I cannot see that I was ever canvassed to appear at the Breyers talk page, I arrived there entirely independently back in November having been aware of the ongoing situation re: the various COI edit requests because the COI edit request queue is the volunteer queue that I spend most of my time here working from. I've probably read pretty much every COI edit request that has been made on Misplaced Pages over the last 6 to 12 months and there are a small number of talk pages that I look at from time to time. | |||
| *:Graywalls and I work on similar cases and sometimes we find ourselves working alongside each other, especially if material has been discussed at ], but occasionally ending up in the same place and on the same side of an argument does not entail tagteaming. ] (]) 22:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I was the one who suggested RfC in the first place. , because I felt it was not a productive disagreement anymore. Leading up to the RfC, there was rough talk page consensus to include a mention pf propylene glycol, but if consensus in RfC determines that it should be left out, I have no intention of fighting it. Someone raised a concern there was only one source, so I added another source. Other than this, I've not really touched contentious parts of this article recently. I'm not sure why Axad12 removed the RfC and I can't speak for their actions, but the accusation of Tagteam is unwarranted. I've taken deferent steps to not continue to engage in back and forth edit warring and I'd like to believe that I'm approaching this the correct way. I do want to bring up concerns about Zefr's civility though. Please see ] for some concerns I raised. I also find leaving snarky comment about being a PhD student who disagreed on contents troubling ]. {{re|Aoidh}} also felt Zefr was "weaponing" claims of edit warring to restore their "preferred version" earlier on in the dispute. Please see ] ] (]) 02:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: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=== | |||
| * It seems to me like this is a case where semi-protection would be warranted until people calm down. Disclaimer: I don't post to HN so I have no idea how deserved (or undeserved) criticism thereof is. What I do know is that for example ] has received plenty of criticism for how it does some things (some of which appears in highly upvoted threads on its own meta site, e.g. ) but it can be difficult to find non-self-published sources to even mention the issues. Some info remains ghetto, for better or worse, even in a supposedly highly connected interweb. ] (]) 14:37, 10 August 2014 (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". | |||
| ::Yes, but the point of Misplaced Pages is ] to discuss all "issues" with all popular web sites. I'd also note that some might find your use of the word "ghetto" inappropriate (smh.) I do agree that semiportection is called for, though. ] 15:04, 10 August 2014 (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. | |||
| ::That is exactly the case JMP. The editors are denying any source which is reflecting negatively on Hacker News whilst accepting all positive sources originating from Hacker News and Paul Graham himself. The equivalent would be accepting the financial statements of a corporation as gospel and refusing to accept whistleblowing by employees. ] (]) 15:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I see that the dispute either was continuing in other forums for three weeks, or has reopened. I see that ] edit-warred to prevent an RFC from running, making vague but noisy statements about ]. I don't know who is said to be working for Unilever or for anyone else. It is clear that this dispute is longer on antagonism than on clarity. ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * The editor is now edit warring to blank nearly all of the article claiming that if primary sources cannot be used as ] to demonstrate a moderation controversy they can't be used to source things like the name of the founder. It's somewhere between ] and vandalism at this point. The article ought to be semi-protected at this point, restored to a version without any vandalism, and if anyone can get a fix on the IP, probably a range block. - ] (]) 16:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ** Agree with semi-protection, but I think IP range blocks are uncalled for at this point. The editor is interested in only one article, semi-protection should solve the vandalism/] edits, and still allow him/her to continue the discussion on the talk page. --] (]) 16:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Robert McClenon}}, I pinged you, because I felt you'd be a good commentator to evaluate whether you also felt I was "not cooperative" in the process as Zefr says. I tried to participate, but it got closed shortly after I posted a comment in it. ] (]) 22:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Why should the article be locked without the moderation controversy wikidemon? The moderation controversy paragraph was established before either you or I arrived at the article to edit so please explain why *your* version should be protected? You have yet to explain Paul Graham is a legitimate primary source but anyone criticizing Mr Graham is to be discounted as a primary source. Let's lock the article *with* the moderation controversy. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::{{re|Zefr}}, As been said to you by others, participation is not mandatory. Other editors are not required to and you shouldn't reasonably expect them to prioritize their real life schedule or their Misplaced Pages time on dispute that you runs on your own schedule to your DRN you started around your own schedule on your own terms. I have initially waited to give others time to comment as their time allows. I'm also not particularly fond of your berating, incivil, bad faith assuming comments directed at myself, as well as a few other editors and it's exhausting discussing with you, so I'm not feeling particularly compelled to give your matters priority in my Misplaced Pages time. ] (]) 06:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====A Possibly Requested Detail==== | |||
| Okay. If the question is specifically whether ] was uncooperative at ], then I can state that they were not uncooperative and did not obstruct or disrupt DRN. Graywalls took very little part in the DRN proceeding before I closed it. They were not required to take part, although they say that they would have made a statement if the case had stayed open a little longer. The antagonism that I saw was between ] and ], and I collapsed an exchange between them. I did not read what I am told were long previous discussions, because I expect the disputants at DRN to begin by telling me concisely what each of them wants to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Graywalls was not uncooperative at DRN. | |||
| ] (]) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay. ] is making a slightly different statement, that ] did not ] at DRN. That is correct. And I noted above that their mention that I had closed the dispute depended on what was meant by the "dispute". and looked like an attempt to confuse the jury. ] (]) 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Zefr did not use the word uncooperative although did say uncollaborative and I used the two interchangeably in my ping. I did participate in it ]. I haven't participated in DRN until that point, so I wasn't really sure how it worked. ] (]) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===The actual content that led to this dispute=== | |||
| Two month ago, ] included this shockingly bad content: {{tpq|As of 2014, some flavors of Breyer's ice cream contains propylene glycol as an additive. Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze and it is clear fluid made by "treating propylene with chlorinated water to form the chlorohydrin, which is then converted to the glycol, an alcohol, by treating it with a sodium carbonate solution." Propylene glycol is formulated into Breyer's fat-free and Carb Smart ice cream to make it easier to scoop.}} The notion that an article about an ice cream company should include a detailed description of how a ] food additive is manufactured is bizarre enough, as is the cherrypicked and glaringly misleading assertion about "antifreeze", but the reference used to support the Breyers claim was a book called ''Eat It to Beat It!: Banish Belly Fat-and Take Back Your Health-While Eating the Brand-Name Foods You Love!'' written by a quack/crank diet profiteer named David Zinczenko. I invite any editor to take a search engine look at Zinczenko's body of work, and come away with the conclusion that his writings are anything other than fringe and unreliable. Despite the glaringly obviously non-neutral and tendentious problems with this shockingly bad content, editors including most prominently {{u|Graywalls}} and {{u|Axad12}} dug in their heels, fighting a reargard action for nearly two months, determined to make this mundane routine ice cream company look as bad as possible. Their self-justification seems to be that big bad corporations have ''no right whatsover'' to try to remove atrociously bad content about their products from Misplaced Pages, and that any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association. I am not an advocate for corporations ''per se'', but I am an advocate for corporations being treated ] like all other topics, rather with disdain and contempt, which was the case here, as I see it. I do not know what the best outcome is here, but I certainly encourage these two editors to refrain from any other unjustified and poorly referenced anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end. ] (]) 07:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :A striking and shocking aspect of this sordid situation is that two editors, {{u|Graywalls}} and {{u|Axad12}} were able to concoct a false "consensus" supporting various versions of this garbage content. And then when another editor tried to start a RFC about the appallingly bad content, {{u|Axad12}} tried over and over and over again to stop the RFC and defend the atrocious content rather than correcting it, aided and abetted by {{u|Graywalls}}. When the RFC actually went live, it soon became clear that many editors agreed that the content these two editors advocated for was utterly inappropriate. ] (]) 08:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Cullen, | |||
| :As per my comments above, my motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time. I did not {{tq|concoct}} that consensus, at least 5 users other than me were against excluding the material. | |||
| :I have never had any particularly strong opinion one way or the other on the content issue and I try as best as I can not to get involved in content disputes. I have not {{tq|dug in heels}} or attempted to promote any kind of fringe opinion and nor have I engaged in {{tq|anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end}}. | |||
| :Similarly I do not hold the view that {{tq|any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association}}, or any opinion even vaguely resembling that view. On the contrary, I have often implemented COI edit requests on behalf of corporations or have pointed out to corporate employees how such requests would need to be amended to conform with sourcing or other requirements. Repeatedly engaging in that activity would presumably make me very {{tq|evil}} indeed, in my own eyes, if I held the view that you attribute to me. | |||
| :I reverted the Breyer edits in good faith because there was no consensus in favour of them. If I was incorrect on a point of policy in that regard then fair enough, however please do not attempt to attribute to me sentiments which I do not harbour. | |||
| :Also, I did not attempt to stop the RfC {{tq|over and over and over again}}. I removed the tag twice, then requested guidance from administrators and immediately replaced the tag when requested to do so. The tag was removed, in all, for a matter of minutes and had no meaningful impact on the progress of the RfC. I have accepted elsewhere that I now appreciate that the basis on which I removed the tag was inappropriate. I have also stated that {{tq|From my standpoint wasn't a process that I was familiar with - but I can see from the many excellent contributions here that this is the best way of resolving content disputes}}. I have also stated that I welcome and support the new consensus. ] (]) 08:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , {{u|Axad12}}, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. ] (]) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I {{tq|obviously dislike}} Breyers or (their parent company) Unilever, or indeed that I consider either to be {{tq|evil}}? | |||
| :::To the best of my recollection, I've only ever made 3 mainspace edits to the Breyers article - each time on the stated basis in the edit summary that the edit I was reverting was contrary to consensus. | |||
| :::I've re-read the extensive talk page discussions in recent days and I can only see that I ever commented on the COI angle and the nature of the consensus. Those comments were based on my understanding of policy at the time. I do not see {{tq|anti-corporate diatribes}} or evidence that I {{tq|obviously dislike}} Breyers or Unilever. | |||
| :::Indeed, I do not hold any particularly strong views on Breyers, Unilever or any other corporations. ] (]) 09:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I said, {{u|Axad12}}, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to ] to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. ] (]) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My activity on that talk page has solely been in relation to pointing out what I felt (rightly or wrongly) was a valid COI concern and observing that from Aug to Dec there has never been a consensus in favour of exclusion. | |||
| :::::Anything beyond that is simply you attributing motives that do not exist. | |||
| :::::I have never stated or implied that {{tq|a corporation does not deserve neutrality}} and nor do I hold such a view. | |||
| :::::I happily admit that I'm quite animated and enthusiastic about COI issues and reverting edits which appear to be contrary to consensus. With the benefit of hindsight probably I should have let go of those issues at an earlier stage and vacated the field for those who actually had an appetite to argue on content grounds. | |||
| :::::I'd also point out that for a significant part of the last 2 months I had actually unsubscribed from the relevant talkpage threads and only ended up getting involved again due to being summoned to the Dispute Resolution thread. If I had been {{tq|determined over the last two months to maintain various versions of biased non-neutral content}} then hopefully it stands to reason that I would not have unsubscribed in that way - thus resulting in a situation where I was actually completely unaware of much of the talkpage and mainspace activity over the period that you refer to. ] (]) 10:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your {{tq|motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time}}. You are also obligated to ''actually'' look at the disputed content and the sources supporting it. Why didn't you do that? Why were you unable to see what multiple editors in the RfC are commenting about? You shouldn't just blindly revert content like that, without taking a look for yourself to see if the complaint about the disputed content has any merit, like it being reliably sourced and due for inclusion.]] 10:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That's a very fair question. | |||
| :::::::The answer is that I was inclined to believe the opinions of editors much more experienced than myself who were against exclusion, particularly the editor who turned down the original COI edit request (whose work on COI edit requests I have the greatest of respect for). | |||
| :::::::User Whatamidoing has already pointed out above that my error lay in accepting those users' opinions. I agree with Whatamidoing's observation there. | |||
| :::::::I can only say that what I did was done in good faith based on my understanding of policy at the time. I now know where I erred (in several different ways) and I am glad to have received instruction in that regard. | |||
| :::::::However, I really cannot accept the repeated suggestion that I vindictively masterminded a long anti-corporate campaign to keep bad material in an article. That suggestion is fundamentally not true. ] (]) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been.]] 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yes, I entirely accept that. | |||
| :::::::::For clarity, when I said {{tq|my understanding of policy at the time}} I meant ''my understanding of policy'' at the time - I wasn't trying to suggest that the policy has changed since I made those edits. | |||
| :::::::::What I am saying is that those edits were not made with malice, they were made because I accepted the opinions of other users more experienced than myself, opinions which I now know that I ought to have questioned. ] (]) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — ] (]) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::As I said earlier in this thread, I am 100% supportive of the new consensus in favour of excluding the previously disputed material. | |||
| :::::::::::Virtually all of my time on Misplaced Pages is spent at COIN and dealing with COI edit requests. I'm not the sort of user who spends their time edit warring over POV fringe material and generally being disruptive. | |||
| :::::::::::So, the last thing I would ever do is attempt to reinstall material where a very robust consensus at RfC has indicated that it should be excluded. | |||
| :::::::::::I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that I can be trusted in that regard. ] (]) 12:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Judgement isn't about following consensus, it’s about making considered decisions. — ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Yes, quite so. I have acknowledged my error in that regard in my first response to Isaidnoway, above, re: the very useful input I received from Whatamidoing. ] (]) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Axad, if I read what you wrote correctly, and please correct me if I misunderstand: ''I will stay away from that article because I support the current consensus''. My concern is what if consensus was to shift on that article? ] ] 17:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Apologies if my earlier response was unclear. My point was that I have absolutely no intention of edit warring over the previously disputed material (or any other material) so I don't see what purpose it would serve to ban me from the article. | |||
| :::::::::::::I have only ever made (to the best of my knowledge) 3 previous edits to the article (1 in November and 2 in December?). These were all on the basis of a misunderstanding on a point of policy which has been pointed out to me above and which I have happily acknowledged and accepted. The issue at stake was not that I harbour any partisan view in relation to the content dispute, it was that I edited to reflect the views of other editors whose opinions I respected on the matter in question. | |||
| :::::::::::::I do not see any reason for the community to anticipate that I would made a similar misunderstanding of policy going forwards. | |||
| :::::::::::::Hopefully this clarifies... ] (]) 17:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been expecting something to happen around ], whom I ran into several months ago during a ]. What I noticed back in October was that Axad12 seemed to be ''clerking the noticeboard'', making prosecutorial noises, and sometimes unsupported accusations (ex: {{tq|...the existence of COI seems quite clear...}} , {{tq|...in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest...}} , {{tq|As I said, the fact that there was a significant undeclared conflict of interest in relation to editing on Paralympic Australia-related articles was demonstrated some years ago.}} ) towards what they thought of as COI editors (this was about whether ] had failed to adequately announce their conflict with Paralympic Australia, where they've been openly helping as a volunteer on our community's behalf for many years, and after they had just made an ]). I often find such clerking of noticeboards by relatively unseasoned users to be troublesome; Axad12 has 490 edits at COIN, about 12% of their total 3801 edits (but about a third of the roughly 1500 edits total on COIN since September). If you use a hammer all day, you might begin to think that all objects are potentially nails. ] (]) 12:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Rereading the discussion this morning 90 days later, it reads worse than I made it sound above. An uninvolved admin and chastised Axad12 in that close. The OP asked the thread closure be reversed, so the close comments were moved down to the end of the thread. ] (]) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think it would be a good idea for {{u|Axad12}} to take a break from ] and associated matters and concentrate on other areas of Misplaced Pages for a few months. I was going to use a cliché here, but I see BusterD's already used it in the last sentence of the post before last, so won't. ] (]) 14:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Only so many ways to screw in a lightbulb. ] (]) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In fairness, the overwhelming majority of my posts at COIN over the last year or so have been simple helpful contributions. The two matters discussed above were atypical and in both cases I've taken on board the advice I was given. | |||
| :::::If (per the figures above) I've been making about a third of all the contributions at COIN over that period then my behaviour would have been reported here long ago if I was either disruptive or incompetent. | |||
| :::::That said, I won't deny that I've been seriously considering retiring from Misplaced Pages over the last two months. The only reason I've not done so is because other users have specifically encouraged me to carry on because they value my work at COIN and on COI issues generally. | |||
| :::::All I can say is that what I have done, I have done in good faith and when I have occasionally erred I have learned lessons. I have acknowledged above that I've made mistakes and I'm grateful to those who have given me advice. ] (]) 15:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You've been reported here now. Over stuff that's current, and applicable. In that matter, you seemed to believe your expertise in COI matters allows you to decide what constitutes a valid RFC. That seems like a problem to me. I'm providing evidence on related behavioral matters. Having made one third of all recent edits on a noticeboard ''is not the high achievement you might think it is''. Stay or retire, but learn to better assume good faith here, even when dealing with COI contributors. Most accounts are fine. You've been working in a narrow area where you deal with many bad faith users. I can understand why that might wear on any editor. The proof will be if you can incorporate these valid complaints into your future action. ] (]) 16:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Buster, I know that we've had crossed words in the past so I'm grateful for your understanding and your measured response above. Yes, I deal with many bad faith users and yes it does wear on me sometimes. | |||
| :::::::I don't claim any great expertise in COI matters but I do have the time to dedicate to the project and I've picked up a decent awareness of the methods that can be used to detect and prevent UPE/PROMO etc activity. | |||
| :::::::I believe that in the past when I've been given advice on points of policy I've taken that advice on board and would hope to continue to do so in the future. ] (]) 17:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This comment is not about you, but you might be interested in it: I've been thinking for years that a rotating duty system might be helpful. Of course we're all ], but we might be less stressed, and get more representative results, if we each spent a week at ANI and a month at RSN and a week at CCI each year than if one editor spends all year at ANI and another spends all year at RSN (and nobody is at CCI – anyone who is looking for an opportunity to deal with really serious problems should please consider spending some time at ]. The few regulars there will be so grateful, and who knows? You might find that you like it). ] (]) 18:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::]? ] (]) 20:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I do think that it's worth zooming out and looking at the article as a whole. Comparing the version from to the makes it obvious that the tone of the article has become vastly more promotional, with much more focus on glowy feel-good aspects that are only mentioned in lower-quality sources (the story about the original creator hand-churning it?) And the ''context'' of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) to the weird {{tq|In 2013, Breyers introduced frozen desserts made with food additives (section above) that were intended to create smooth, low-calorie products. However, the new desserts evoked complaints by some consumers who were accustomed to the traditional "all-natural" Breyers ice cream.}}, which 100% reads like marketing-speak (downplaying the reaction by making it sound like it's just that people loved the old version ''so much''. In fact, the current version doesn't mention Breyer's cost-cutting measures at all, even though it's a massive aspect of coverage.) That doesn't necessarily justify the version above, but it's important to remember that this was originally a one-word mention in a larger list - {{tq|Following similar practices by several of their competitors, Breyers' list of ingredients has expanded to include thickeners, low-cost sweeteners, food coloring and low-cost additives — including natural additives such as tara gum and carob bean gum; artificial additives such as maltodextrin and propylene glycol; and common artificially separated and extracted ingredients such as corn syrup, whey, and others}}, the longstanding wording, is not unreasonable and doesn't really imply that there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol, just that it's an additive. I think the context of that larger shift to a much more promotional tone to the article is significant (and looking over talk, most of the actual dispute has focused on that.) --] (]) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree that the longstanding wording doesn't really imply there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol. But the doesn't even mention "maltodextrin and propylene glycol", that I can find, so those two particular additives were not even verifiable at the time. And then propylene glycol was removed, and when it was as "a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze", was really when this dispute seem to take a turn for the worse to keep this content in the article.]] 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@], about this {{xt|And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources)}} – I don't know what other sources say, but the ''cited'' sources don't say that at all. The cited sources are both from Canadian dairy farmers' marketing associations, saying that their product is good and costs more than imported oils, but doesn't actually ] a claim that Breyers uses imported oils, or that Breyers has done anything to cut their costs. ] (]) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::(As this is strictly a question of content, please consider replying at ] instead of here.) ] (]) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{re|Aquillion|WhatamIdoing|Isaidnoway}} would you all mind if I copy over the thread, starting at Aquillion's "I do think that...." over to Breyer's talk? ] (]) 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I don't mind, but my contribution to this thread is relatively minor. ] (]) 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Thanks, and a Diddly Question==== | |||
| I would like to thank ] for providing the background and content information. I also have a possibly minor question for ]. They edit-warred to try to stop the RFC on the content, and said that there was an {{tq|exceptionally serious abuse}} of the ] process. I may not have done enough background research, but I don't see where they have identified who has been the paid editor or undisclosed paid editor, or what the ] content is. If there has been paid editing, who has done it, and have they been dealt with? ] (]) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Robert, probably the best single overview of the COI issue is given in this post . | |||
| :::I've listed this article at ], asking for temporary semi-protection. Tbh, I don't care ] is protected; we can hash out the content with {{tl|edit semi-protected}} requests on the talk page if it comes to that. ] 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :My impression at the time of the events, and subsequently, was that the activity was designed to distort the COI edit request process. I still feel that what happened re: the COI edit requests was irregular but I note that no other user seems to have supported me in that regard so I've not taken the matter any further. Similarly, while I felt that those events had a bearing on the RfC I now accept that the RfC relates solely to the content matter specifically under discussion. ] (]) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: If an admin is watching this, could we please just do it? The issue is pretty black and white, and vandalizing an article to prove a point is clear. - ] (]) 17:23, 10 August 2014 (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=== | |||
| :::: It is only black and white to you because you think you are right. Further evidence of your dismissive attitude and lack of willingness to engage in dialogue. Listen to yourself, your attitude is not reflective of the principles of wikipedia. Find another article to peddle your superiority complex. ] (]) 08:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|status=Not Implemented|1=Axax12 has voluntarily agreed to avoid editing ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| (Proposal 1 has been lost up in the early postings.) I propose that ] be ] from ] and ] for six months. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Robert, I believe I have acknowledged and accepted my various errors in some detail above. I would be grateful for the opportunity to take on board and apply the very valuable input I have received from various more experienced users over the course of this thread. I'd therefore suggest a counter-proposal, that I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr and refrain from making any future comment on the matters under discussion in this thread (once this thread is complete). In addition, if I go back on any of those voluntary undertakings I would be happy for it to be upon pain of an indefinite site ban. ] (]) 04:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Axad12, I wonder what your intent is with your counterproposal. Robert McClenon has proposed an article ban for 6 months. Your counterproposal is, in effect, an indefinite ], an ] with Zefr, and a ] on the topic of propylene glycol in Byers, all without the usual escalating blocks for violations, instead jumping straight to an indef. While this would solve the issue, it's much more draconian. What's your reasoning for requesting harsher restrictions? ] (]) 04:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The purpose of the counter proposal was simply to indicate that I have only good intentions going forwards and I am happy to demonstrate those intentions upon pain of the strongest possible sanction. Evidently I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking, as I'm aware that eyes will understandably be upon me going forwards. | |||
| *:::As I've said before, I'm a good faith user and I'm amenable to taking instruction when I have erred. I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that without being subject to a formal ban. ] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I fail to see a distinction between what you proposed and a formal ban. Your proposal is on {{tq|q=y|pain of an indefinite site ban}}. "A rose by any other name" comes to mind here. Your voluntary adherence to the terms of the proposal would be indistinguishable from being compelled into adherence by threat of an indef. If you still want this course of action, fair enough, I just don't think it'll do what you're envisioning. ] (]) 05:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I really don't recommend that, Axad. Sure, take a break from that article if you want to. But it's really easy to forget about a dispute years later, or even for a company to change names and suddenly you're on that article without knowing it. ] (]) 04:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::For clarification, I would be happy to undertake voluntarily any measures that the community may suggest and upon pain of any sanction that the community may suggest. I believe that there is value to undertaking such measures voluntarily because it allows one to demonstrate that one can be trusted. | |||
| *:::Also just a brief note to say that in about an hour and a quarter's time I will have no internet access for the next 12-14 hours. Any lack of response during that period will simply be for that reason and not due to a wilful refusal to communicate. Hopefully I have indicated above that I have been happy to respond to all questions. | |||
| *:::No doubt matters will progress in my absence and I will find out my fate upon my return. ] (]) 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' as less stringent than what Axad has proposed above within this section, but still prevents further disruption. ] (]) 06:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| FYI, I have also brought this editor's behavior to ]. ] 17:37, 10 August 2014 (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) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per above. I just don't see a need for such strict measures. ] (]) 16:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' the formal sanction, but I do support Axad12s voluntary sanction = {{tq|I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr ... I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking}}.]] 22:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ===Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN=== | |||
| * '''Update'''. I've done some quick editing on the article (in which I wasn't involved before) using a (not self-published) secondary source. It seems that both sides in above dispute have seen my edits as a reasonable compromise. So more drastic admin measures can probably be postponed until/unless there's another flare up; crossing fingers that won't happen... but then this is the internet. ] (]) 18:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|status=Not Implemented|1=Axad12 seems to have agreed to step back from COIN, and there isn't consensus for this. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| **The IP editor is currently engaged in an incredibly stupid revert war on the article talk page. 5RR at this point I believe. - ] (]) 17:18, 11 August 2014 (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) | |||
| ** Well WikiDemon, the user is now reverting your own edits as well. 18:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| * |
*'''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) | |||
| ****As ] pointed out on one of those user's IP talk page (), editing another user's comments after warnings not to do so is vandalism, the reversion of which is exempt from 3RR. ] 18:23, 11 August 2014 (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) | |||
| ****I simply want the Editor BetaFive to stop listing his conclusion as *the* conclusion for the page. Yet he refuses to edit the Summary so I am editing it for him. WikiDemon, pack up your bias and get lost. Any reasonable editor can see that BetaFive does NOT reserve the right to summarise his own arguments as the consensus of everyone on the talk page. ] (]) 18:12, 11 August 2014 (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) | |||
| *****(ec) 6RR now. Yes, it's pretty obvious what the IP's beef is, they want vindication of their content position so they're edit warring their opinion into BetaFive's attempt to summarize the discussion, and BetaFive either doesn't notice or doesn't care that the newbie objects to the "conclusion" template's making BetaFive's summary look official. None of that matters too much, we shouldn't waste our time coddling a clueless newbie who repeatedly gets into angry edit war mode, they've got to get with the program or take a little break. - ] (]) 18:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Given Cullen328's comment. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ****** Partially correct. I am not edit warring. I asked Betafive to write an impartial summary or simply remove his arguments from the summary. It presents a false picture to newer editors coming in. He refused. It is that simple. I don't need coddled, what I need is cliquey people to stop acting like little schoolgirls and grouping together. Now, Betafive has shown his true colours by also reverting the edits by Wikidemon so is he now vandalising? No, prob not. It must be OK for two friends to edit each others comments. Just not for the new guy to demand some impartiality from two morons who cannot see that a Conclusion should list all of the input into the Conclusion not just the parts that agree with WikiDemon and BetaFive. It was clearly an attempt to list themselves as the victors. Transparent and childish. ] (]) 18:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I would prefer it if Axad12's voluntary commitment was to stay away from ] rather than the company article in particular. It is very unhealthy, both for Misplaced Pages and for the particular user, for anything like a third of the edits on any noticeboard to be from any one user. ] (]) 15:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I've closed the discussion thread. In all frankness, I don't care whether the IP has a point or not with the conclusion. The issue at hand is dealt with, and nothing further is going to come out of that discussion. Personally, I'd suggest anybody wanting to figure out the points of the discussion to read the discussion rather than a refactored synopsis...and after having read to draw your own conclusion, there's nothing further to see, please move along. —''']''' (]) 18:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' this is a good idea, and not vindictive. It will do Axad12 some good to get away from the COIN for awhile, and get out there and roam around Misplaced Pages and see where else they can contribute constructively.]] 16:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've fixed the broken format created by all the edit warring. The content point is simple, an inexperienced editor wants to add some content without having a solid grounding on our sourcing and other standards. The reason it came here instead of staying on the talk page is that instead of trying to read and understand the rules or listen to other editors they threw a fit and started edit warring, insulting people, feeling victimized, etc. A common enough problem. If they stay here, and don't learn from this, it's going to recur. A quick block or page semi-protection at the beginning would have saved a lot of trouble, that's why 3RR is supposed to be a bright-line rule. - ] (]) 19:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think a formal ban is unnecessary. Axad has done a remarkably good job of articulating a positive response to this incident, and it's to his credit that he has reacted so constructively under such pressure. | |||
| *:I also think it's good for everyone to try something different on occasion. I think it's easier to walk away for a bit if you're sure that others will step up to fill your place. So with such proposals (not just this one), I'd love to see people saying not only that they support giving someone a break, but also that they'll try to step up to help out in that page/process/noticeboard for the length of a ban. It could be as little as checking in once a week or answering the easy questions. Who is willing to actually be supportive in practice? ] (]) 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::People will fill the space. WP:COIN managed before Axad12 showed up, and will manage if they stop editing there. Nobody is indispensible. ] (]) 20:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::It's only for two months, it's a good thing to get away and get a breath of fresh air, and yes, his response has been positive, but even he admits in the Breyer debacle, he was relying on other editor's opinions in evaluating the disputed content, so getting away from the COIN desk for a couple of months, and getting some experience in other areas of the encyclopedia will be beneficial, if and when, he returns to COIN.]] 22:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I don’t want to derail the voting process here, but a couple of points in relation to COIN… | |||
| *:::(Apologies for the length of this post but I feel the contents are relevant.) | |||
| *:::1) It has been observed elsewhere that “COIN has no teeth” (forgive me for the absence of a diff but I think it's a commonly acknowledged idea). I've discussed that issue at some length with ] and they've acknowledged that there is (in their opinion) insufficient admin oversight at COIN and that too many threads have historically gone unresolved without action being taken against promo-only accounts (etc). | |||
| *:::Star Mississippi has encouraged me to refer such cases to admins directly to ask them to intervene. I’ve been doing so over recent months and this has significantly improved positive resolutions on COIN threads. | |||
| *:::If I’m not active at COIN then that won’t be happening and very little action will be being taken against the promo only accounts reported there. Thus, while I acknowledge Whatamidoing’s earlier point about cross-training etc, and the points made by other users, there is an underlying unresolved issue re: admin oversight at COIN, which might also be resolved via some kind of rota or by a greater number of admins looking in from time to time. | |||
| *:::I’ve not consciously been clerking, and I certainly don’t aspire to be “the co-ordinator of COIN”, but there is something of a vacuum there. Consequently I’ve often posted along the lines of “Maybe refer this to RPPI?”, “Is there a notability issue here?”, etc. etc. in response to threads that have been opened. | |||
| *:::I absolutely accept 100% that, in terms of experience, I’m probably not the best person to be doing that – but I have the time to do it and I have the inclination, and in the absence of anybody else serving that role I’ve been happy to do it. But, as I say, really this is an underlying unresolved issue of others ''not'' having the time or inclination rather than an issue of me going out of my way to dominate. What I'd really like is if there were others sharing that task. | |||
| *:::2) Also I'm not really sure that the extent to which I perform that sort of role has any real link to me making assumptions about whether COI users have good or bad faith motivations. On the latter distinction I think it's fair to say that I'm usually (but admittedly not always) correct. There have also been occasions when others have been asking for action to be taken and I've been the voice who said "no, I think this is a good faith user who just needs some guidance on policy". I hope that I'm normally speaking fair in that regard. | |||
| *:::Most of the accounts who are taken to COIN are recent accounts who wrongly believe that Misplaced Pages is an extension of their social media. Most accounts who fall into that category are advised along those lines and they comply with policy or, sometimes, they just go away. Then there are the repeat customers who are often clearly operating in bad faith and where firmer action needs to be taken. I'm conscious of that distinction, which seems to me to be the single most important point when dealing with COIN cases. I've not been adopting some kind of hardline one-size-fits-all approach or characterising all COI activity as bad per se. However, more admin oversight at COIN would certainly be appreciated, if only so that there were a wider range of voices. | |||
| *:::Thus, in an ideal world I think I would continue to be allowed to operate at COIN, but as one of several regular contributors. | |||
| *:::Apologies for the length of this post but hopefully this is a useful and relevant contribution. Please feel free to hat this post if it is considered wildly off-topic. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::This comment just reinforces my support position that a two-month break is a good idea.]] 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::], all I can say is that if Misplaced Pages is looking for people with the time and motivation to dedicate to the project, and who are amenable to taking instruction, then here I am. | |||
| *:::::If I’ve been felt to be overly keen to contribute in a particular area then fair enough. I’m just not sure that a formal ban is the way to go about resolving that. ] (]) 05:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Good grief, it's only two months, not a lifetime, I've taken breaks form the project longer than that, and guess what, the place didn't fall apart, and neither will COIN if you take a small break, formally or voluntarily. You claim - {{tq|If I’m not active at COIN then that won’t be happening and very little action will be being taken against the promo only accounts reported there.}} I just don't believe that to be true, because as Phil Bridger points out - ''WP:COIN managed before Axad12 showed up, and will manage if they stop editing there. Nobody is indispensable''.]] 06:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::I really don't wish to argue, you've expressed your view and that's fine. However, the point of my long post above wasn't that "I am critical to COIN". The post was simply intended to highlight the fact that there are very few regular contributors at COIN and to express a hope that a wider range of contributors might get involved (following on from earlier related comments by Whatamidoing). That would be healthy all round, regardless of my situation. | |||
| *:::::::Also, when I've seen similar situations arise in the past, good faith (but over-active) users seem to usually be given the opportunity to voluntarily take steps to allay any community concerns, rather than being handed a formal ban. I'd just be grateful for a similar opportunity. ] (]) 06:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Apologies for the delay. I cannot provide a diff either as I can't recall where we had the conversation but acknowledging that what @] attributed to me is correct. There are simple blocks that are sometimes needed, but there aren't as many eyes on COIN to action them. I believe I've found merit to any Axad reported directly to me and if there were any I didn't take action, it was due to bandwidth as my on wiki time has been somewhat limited over the last six months. As for the merit of this report, I am not able to read through it to assess the issue so it would not be fair of me to weigh in on any element thereof. ] ] 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I have read through this long, entire discussion. I'd just like to point out to Axad12 that, to me, it's kind of like you are saying what you think we want to hear so it's hard to know how reflective this incident has caused you to be. I think it would be a mistake for you to think you only made mistakes regarding this one article and instead reconsider your approach to the entire COI area. Sometimes "the consensus" is not correct and can violate higher principles like NPOV and V. | |||
| :I'll just mention that the COI area has caused us to lose some invaluable editors, just superb and masterful editors who were on their way to becoming administrators. They devoted incredible amounts of time to this project. But their interest in rooting out COI and pursuing UPE caused them to completely lose perspective and think that they were a one-man/woman army and they took irresponsible shortcuts that led them to either leave the project voluntarily or be indefinitely blocked. It's like they fell down a rabbit hole where they began to think that the rules didn't apply to them because they had a "higher calling" of getting rid of COI. This lack of perspective caused us to lose some amazing editors, unfortunately, but ultimately they were damaging the project. | |||
| :You seem like an enthusiastic editor and I'd rather not see the same thing happen to you so I recommend you cut back on your time "clerking" COIN and just make this task one of a variety of areas you edit in instead of your primary activity. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Liz, thank you for your comments. I welcome your perspective and I'm not unaware of the dangers that you highlight. | |||
| ::I think this is now day 5 of what has been a rather gruelling examination where I’ve co-operated to the very best of my ability. Most of the material under discussion has related to a series of regrettable misunderstandings where I’ve openly acknowledged my errors and would now like to move on. | |||
| ::Therefore I’d be grateful if, following a period of reflection, I be given the latitude to continue my activities as I think best, taking on board ''all'' the very helpful advice that I’ve received from multiple users. At this moment in time I'm not sure exactly what that will look like going forwards, but it will involve a very significant (perhaps complete) reduction in my concentration on COI issues and much more time spent on improving articles in non-COI areas where I've previously contributed productively (e.g. detailed articles on specific chess openings). | |||
| ::If I subsequently fall short of community expectations then by all means bring me back here with a view to imposing extreme sanctions. I do not think that that will end up being necessary. | |||
| ::I have only the best of intentions but I must admit that I'm finding this prolonged process psychologically wearing. I therefore wondered if we might bring matters to a swift conclusion. | |||
| ::I am genuinely very grateful for the thoughts of all who have contributed above. | |||
| ::Kind regards, ] (]) 08:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hey, all: This thread's over 100 comments now. Can we please stop now? ] (]) 08:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seconding. Axad seems to have agreed to step back from COI-related editing for a while, all discussions are trending strongly towards no formal sanctions - could this be closed? ] (]) 06:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose'''. Sanctions are intended to be preventive, not punitive. At times Axad12 can get too aggressive, and removing the RfC template was one of that. Other issues were also raised but unless these issues continues, formal sanctions are unlikely necessary. ] (]) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' I haven't gone through the entire saga on the Breyers page, but for a while I was active in COI edit requests at the same time Axad12 was, and noticed their conistently very combatitive/aggressive approach towards any editor with a declared or suspected COI. I mentioned this to them and they said they had already stepped back from answering COI edit requests because of this, which I though at the time (and still do) showed a genuinely impressive amount of self-awareness. I rather burned out on the edit requests and came back a few months later to see the queue vastly decreased thanks in part ot Axad12's efforts, but also what seemed to me like very little improvement, if any, to the way they approach COI editors. I would regret to see Axad12 banned from this topic area, but I would like to see them approach it with somewhat more kindness. I would (regretfully) support sanctions if this kind of behaviour continued, but there's no need to jump to that now. ] (]) 03:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just a note to acknowledge the essential truth of ]'s description above of my activities. There have, however, also been examples where I've shown considerable kindness and patience to COI editors and assisted them in re-formulating requests in a way that conforms with the relevant policies. | |||
| ::I've always seen activities at ] and activities dealing with COI edit requests as two rather different things (with the former involving primarily undeclared COI, and the latter involving declared COI). With the benefit of hindsight I accept that my exposure to the former probably coloured my approach to the latter in an unhelpful way and that being heavily active in both spheres simultaneously was not a good idea. | |||
| ::I would happily undertake never to deal with a COI edit request ever again and I have no particular desire to continue my activities at COIN either. The extent to which it was unhealthy to be operating in both areas is thus now effectively a moot point but I acknowledge that it was a factor in the matters under discussion here. ] (]) 05:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == MAB Teahouse talk == | |||
| ::It's not really that simple though is it. The information was cited and eventually it took other editors to finally find the citations that you were happy with *despite* wikipedia stating that primary sources are valid in non-contentious issues. I am fairly sure we can trust over 20 individual blog posts from different tech leaders all discussing Hellbanning. Well, we can except you can't. What actually happened is an inexperienced editor utterly tore your logic to pieces and you didn't like it because you feel some ownership over editing at wikipedia. You refused to engage in any dialogue or display even a shred of credibility regarding your thinking. All in all, every time you were challenged you threw up wikipedia "rules" which neither supported your logic or made any sense. I admit I might have reverted too many times, but it does not vindicate your behaviour. Now how about you shut up talking about me, you are not even close to the intellectual level required to debate critically. I agree that these problems will recur, but it is *because* of editors like you not in spite of you. ] (]) 19:11, 11 August 2014 (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) | |||
| :::My honourable colleague would do well to avoid personal attacks against the character and intellect of his fellow editors. Such comments do not promote harmonious editing and are grounds for ]. —''']''' (]) 19:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Would it be possible to create a link (or button) that creates a new section on one's own talk page with {{tl|Help me}} preloaded? We could then add this to the page's editnotice. ] (]) 09:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nor do they bode well for this editor's becoming a useful contributor. Their fixation over moderation complaints, rules, and other editors here and on Hacker News suggests they're a serial social breacher; the fixation on maturity and boasts about superior intellectual abilities tells me they're young, and their spelling says UK. So what do we have? Too much time wasted already. Misplaced Pages could use some stronger moderation, perhaps even a forum for bringing disruptive behavior to the attention of administrators for a quick resolution. - ] (]) 19:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I protected ] for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. — ] (]) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, I've fixed that. — ] (]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Looks like today they're hitting every help page they can find. ] (]) 09:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<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> | |||
| ::::::<small>I think it's just you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Kosem Sultan - warring edit == | |||
| ::::Spelling says UK? Nice little national slander you have dropped in there. If it is too much time wasted already then get lost. No one has asked you personally to be here so stop complaining at the amount of time you have spent here. If anyone is displaying a fixatedness it yourself. You are fixated on talking about me over and over. I took a look at your talk page and your edit discussions. You have the social skills of an autistic parrot. Time to find a new hobby because Misplaced Pages is clearly not your strong point. ] (]) 10:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, I am terribly sorry if I write this in wrong place, but I really don't know what place would be best to report this. | |||
| I was editing page of ] and I noticed this user: 109.228.104.136 changed phrase in infobox "spouse: Ahmed I" into "consort of: Ahmed I", claiming 'they were never married'. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=K%C3%B6sem_Sultan&oldid=1263148667 | |||
| :::::We '''have''' that forum: it's ]. I brought the user's behavior there after six reverts or something. Almost a dozen more reverts later, he/she/it ''still'' hasn't had editing privileges revoked. The issue isn't that the processes aren't there, it's that they're only selectively enforced. I'm #smh so hard at this kerfuffle it may fall off. ] 20:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Because of this, I added information they were married and sourced this with book. However, this person keep revert to their preffered version of infobox. I asked them on Talk page about providing source. When I pointed that their source not disputes or even misinnterprets mine, they deleted my talk. They did this twice and even claimed I 'vandalized' Kosem's page. | |||
| ::::::A dozen reverts, of which half a dozen can be attributed to you. I love the selective interpretation you have. "We both made edits but *his* are wrong and only he should be banned". It is laughable. The issue is not selectively enforced, it is just not as clear cut as you are making out because you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that you made a mistake. I think you and Wikidemon have some growing up to do if you want to be effective social editors. Misplaced Pages editing is not something I aspire to but if I did I would certainly be more logical than both of you. ] (]) 10:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As inexperienced user I was few times into edit warring, as I did not know how exactly rules are there.I try to be careful now to not make disruptions and while there is instruction to undo undsourced informations, I am not sure if I am allowed to undo their - unsourced - edition, as I already did this few times. I would not label changing 'spouse' for 'consort of' as vandalism per say, but I want to protect my edition and I wish this person provided source so we could each consensus. You can see our - now deleted by them - discussion here: | |||
| == User Skyhook1 on article Skyhook == | |||
| 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). | |||
| User {{u|Skyhook1}} (IP ), a '''single-purpose account''', has been displaying a hostile "ownership" attitude for several months and faking positive reviews on the ] article. The administrator {{u|Huntster}} kindly helped me a lot to contain this user, until I got burned by the futility of trying to explain Verifiability and O.R. to Skyhook1. Whenever an editor adds a label, any label, including cleanup, citation needed, etc, he reverts it. There have been too many acid interactions to list them all. In addition: | |||
| 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) | |||
| *On March 7, 2014 he had a fit and performed 84 "undo" operations. | |||
| *On 22 April 2014 he was blocked for 24 h. | |||
| *On 22 June 2014 the article was semi-protected . That is when he seems to have started using Skyhook1 account regularly. | |||
| :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) | |||
| Over the months, I have spent a lot of time checking and fixing his text against the references, as the article fails verification. He rejects all changes and feedback. What is most troubling is that he is faking the conclusion of a report by ''Boeing'' that reviews 6 different space tether systems: Skyhook, Rotovator, CardioRotovator, CASTether/LIFTether, Tillotson Two-Tier Tether, and HARGSTOL/HASTOL. The Boeing study notes that: "Unless a major breakthrough occurs in high strength tether materials, such as the commercial development of carbon nanotube fibers, it does not seem possible to push the non-rotating tether HyperSkyhook concept down to speeds of 3100 m/s (Mach 10)." And concludes: '''"In general, the non-spinning tether HyperSkyhook concept does not look competitive with the spinning tether concepts."''' However he quotes the positive aspects of the HARGSTOL/HASTOL systems and uses them as if they were written for the Skyhook. | |||
| ::I will point out that consort is generally considered synonymous with the word spouse. Elizabeth I's mother, for example was officially the "queen consort" of the united kingdom. ] (]) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, indeed, but in this person's inention was to make Kosem be perceived as not wife, but concubine. While I do agree that all wife of monarch is also his consort, this person meant 'concubine' and I was afraid they gonna delete also other parts, when I was reffering to Kosem as sultan's wife, hence I inetrvened. English for some reason reffer to all sulatns partners as 'consorts' regardless if they are married or not, that's why it's important to highlight when consort was actually wife, like in Kosem's case. ] (]) 15:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Sockpuppetry in Philippine articles == | |||
| Of secondary but still high importance, he has introduced an inordinate amount of his Original Research and Synthesis on the qualities, peer acceptance and uses of the Skyhook tether. Aside from its promoter, no reference claims it can be built with existing materials, and when challenged, he asks you to do mathematical calculations, instead of citing a usable reference. | |||
| {{atop|1=Page protected. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Request an immediate and extended range block for {{User|49.145.5.109}}, a certified sock of LTA ] from editing ] and other related pages pending a result of a protection request, the second to have been filed for that page after the first instance of sockpuppetry by the same account was deemed not serious enough. See also ]. ] (]) 07:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::This is already confirmed in the SPI. However, as it is an IP account that can't be indeffed, I'd had to check my calendar too often to see when their existing block expires. 15:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 15:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Given that ] has been protected for the rest of the year, this probably isn't necessary. Also, worth noting that as p-blocks are limited to ten pages, we'd need to remove one from the block to add the 2025 page. ] (] | ]) 00:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:Wigglebuy579579 == | |||
| He claims he is a NASA engineer involved in the Skyhook project so he knows better than anybody else. No corrections needed. Not even the SPAM/advert style. ("I am an aeronautical engineer, a rocket scientist, a former test pilot, and probably the largest single contributor to former President Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration". I have 4 degrees.") | |||
| *{{Userlinks|Wigglebuy579579}} keeps engaging in disruptive editing behaviour: | |||
| # they created dozens of articles by copy-pasting AI-generated text; | |||
| The final drop was today; he is blaming me of posting porn links into the Skyhook article under a sock puppet account.. I have concluded that this is no ordinary edit war, but there is an larger issue of ] and ownership. | |||
| # they ignored all warnings onto their talk{{nbs}}page; | |||
| # they duplicated draftified articles by simply recreating them. | |||
| {{U|Miminity}} and I have been cleaning the mess for hours, warned him several times, but he just ignores everything and starts again.<span id="Est._2021:1736271756958:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt">{{snd}}] (] <b>·</b> ]) 17:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| : I would support indefinitely blocking this user. Their output is entirely low quality AI-generated slop, and they are contributing nothing of value to the encyclopedia while placing considerable burden on others. ] (]) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :], can you provide some examples so we don't have to search through their contributions? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Some pertinent examples ] (moved to mainspace by Wiggle and then back to draftspace) and ] (exactly the same scenario as previous). These are all obviously AI generated based on their formatting. ] (]) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Liz}} Examples include: | |||
| :::#], ] and ]; | |||
| :::#] and ]; | |||
| :::#] and ]; | |||
| :::#]; | |||
| :::among others. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Ping|Liz}} This editor left a message on my talkpage and again it is clearly written by AI. ] '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 00:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Are any of the references in ] real or are they all hallucinations? I'm having trouble finding them on web searches. They're also suspiciously old even though there is more recent relevant literature. — ] ] 01:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The ] essay recommends G3 for articles for which text-source integrity is completely lacking. — ] ] 01:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|rsjaffe}} Using BookFinder.com, Citation #1, #3 (might be a dupref of 1) does exist but has different author, Citation #2 does exist and is correct. #4 is dupref of #2. A quoted google search and a google scholar search about #5, 8, 9, 11 (The journals does not seem to even exist) yields no result. No result for 6, 7, 9, 10 (Nagaland State Press does not seems to even exist) 12 '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 02:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would like to hear from @], but, if the results of the reference searches on the other drafts are like this, then all those drafts should be deleted as unverifiable. LLM output can look very correct while hiding significant falsehoods, and it will be impossible to sort fact from fiction in those articles if they haven't been validated word-for-word with real sources. — ] ] 03:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Click all the link on the ], all of them are {{tl|failed verification}}. Either the page does not exist or the website itself does not exist. The JSTOR sources leads to a completely unrelated article. I think by the looks of it, this draft is safe to delete | |||
| ::::{{ping|Wigglebuy579579}} care to explain? '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 03:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{yo|rsjaffe}} more ref-checking at ]: as ] observes, ''The Angami Nagas: With Some Notes on Neighbouring Tribes'' exists (although with the BrE spelling of the title) and I accessed it at archive.org. It does not mention ''pfütsana'' anywhere in its 570 pages. The closest we get is ''pfuchatsuma'', which is a clan mentioned in a list of sub-clans of the Anagmi. The draft says {{tq|The term Pfütsana is derived from the Angami language, where "Pfü" translates to "life" or "spirit,"}} which is contrary to what ''The Angami Nagas'' says – ''pfü'' is a suffix functioning sort of similarly to a pronoun (and I think I know how the LLM hallucinated the meaning "spirit" but this is getting too long already). I looked at a couple of the sources for ] as well, and I haven't been able to find a single instance where the source verifies the claims in the draft. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for checking. Those are now deleted. — ] ] 16:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*] and ], thanks for supplying examples that can be reviewed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*:I have deleted ] and ] as they have falsified references. Checking the others would be appreciated. Also, editor has been warned on their page about inserting unsubstantiated demographic data in articles. ]. I think we’re running out of ] here. — ] ] 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*::{{yo|rsjaffe}} ]: J.H. Hutton's ''The Angami Nagas'' (1921) doesn't mention any such festival, but talks about a ''sekrengi'' ritual which includes the "purification" elements described in the draft. But that's as close as it gets. The rest of the ritual described in the draft is '''very''' different from the festival described in the book (let's just say that it is not something that would attract tourists like the draft claims), and the etymology is sheer nonsense. So again I believe it is an LLM that, like the proverbial blind chicken, has found a seed and then, like the same chicken but without a head, is running in confused circles around it. | |||
| :*::It also amuses me a bit that a book from 1922 is used to support a statement about how the festival is a popular symbol of the culture today. (FTR, publications from the era of the British Raj should never be used to support claims about ethnic/tribal/caste related topics, though that is a bit tangential to the issue here.) --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 18:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a pity that the editor has not engaged with this discussion. The areas they're editing in could use more work, and I get the impression that they are here to improve the encyclopedia. However, the ''way'' in which they're going about it needs reform, and if they don't explicitly commit to reform, I am inclined to block this editor for the overreliance on LLMs and the careless inclusion of incorrect and false references. What do others think? — ] ] 22:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suggest a ] on creating article as the editor seems to have okay-ish mainspace edits. '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I came across their several days ago, when a link they provided (with an archive link) didn't exist, even when I substituted ".in" for the correct website domain of ".com", so I've got no idea where they got those links from in the first place? | |||
| ::They've responded to my talk page warning, but after going back to edit the exact same article they haven't fixed/reinstated the source so I'm now a little concerned that it came from AI & the user didn't find it themselves. They've done a ''lot'' of work on this article so I'm hoping it's just a one-off, but thought I'd best mention it. | |||
| ::Their had the summary "Fixed errors" and removed almost a dozen sources/links. ] (]) 02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is very concerning. And the user is still editing and not responding to this discussion. Blocked from article space and draft space and reinvited to come here to discuss. — ] ] 05:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:BittersweetParadox - Overlinking == | |||
| Your assistance is needed and appreciated. Cheers, ] (]) 03:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|Not a problem; request rejected}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|BittersweetParadox}} | |||
| :The content dispute between BI and myself has been going on for quite awhile. You can review the current history in items 20, 21, and 22 on the Skyhook (structure) Talk page. Item 22, which was a request for WP:30, resulted in BI and friends ceasing their non-stop vandalism. That was on 22 June. From 22 June until 9 August I was able to work on the article (including input from other editors) without their inputs. You can view that version of the article on the Skyhook (structure)/view history page, the version dated 00:01, 10 August 2014. BI and friends version of the article is the one currently showing (17:56, 10 August 2014). If you will read both versions you will get a very clear view of the dispute. My positions is that BI's version is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and the state-of-the art regarding skyhooks, all of which can be confirmed by reading the references that are in the 00:01, 10 August 2014 version of the article (most of which have been deleted from her version). There was also the beginnings of a discussion on this dispute on User talk: Unician, item 36, Re: Skyhook (structure) that you might find of value. | |||
| This user is persistently ]ing throughout most of their edits that aren't dealing with categories or redirects, see for example: | |||
| :What I would like to see happen is for BI and friends to cease their vandalism, their wholesale deletion of sections of the article that show the incorrectness of their position, their misrepresentation of the facts, their sock puppet changes, their tag team behavior, and their linking of porn sites to the references. ( I first noticed the porn site links on 17:33, 3 July 2014. They were added on 02:38, 3 July by 79.67.245.33. 79.67.245.33 is one of the URLs for BI when she forgets to sign in. The porn site links are now gone. How they were put in and how they were removed I don't know. As to the sock puppets they are pretty easy to find if you are interested - check their contribution pages. ) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * (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: | |||
| :In closing I would like to state my goals for the Skyhook (structure) article. They are simple. I am attempting to create an article on skyhooks, both rotating and non-rotating, that is informative, technically correct, up to date, fun to read, written so non-technical people can understand it and still be an information resource for technical people who are interested in this topic. When people ask questions, make comments, etc., I attempt to address those issues by adding more information to the article. The additions that were made to the article as a result of edits made by 92.32.80.56 and McSly are two examples of this. | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| 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) | |||
| :Thank you for your time. ] (]) 19:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Overlinking still continuing on despite this ANI (), and even with an administrator , continues on with their edits/ignoring this ANI. The user is not appearing to want to ] whatsoever, and some of their communication over issues in the past does not bode well as well (). | |||
| :: ] does not seem to contain any proof whatsoever that it's ]. The discussion of porn links also appears to be upside-down, because the edits by the former anonymous user (not introducing it). | |||
| :They are adding many uses of , despite the usage instructions saying that the template should '''''not''''' be used in prose text. I really am not sure what more there is to do here, as any attempts at communicating with the user does virtually nothing. ] (]) 20:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|BittersweetParadox}} It's rather insulting to state you'll comment here and then continue to overlink . Please stop editing like this until you can address the above concerns. Rgrds. --] (]) 07:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Liz}} Apologies for the ping, but could there please be some assistance here?... As BX stated above, despite their only communication thus far since this ANI (being a simple, "ok"), they have still continued overlinking- now overlinking '''''even more''''' since BX's comment above: . I'm really not sure what more there is that can be done here apart from a block, as it appears this is just going to continue on, no matter what anyone says here or on their talk page. ] (]) 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Several of the diffs you give are positive changes, and your inappropriate reverts have caused articles to be underlinked. Leave BittersweetParadox alone. If you insist that he be sanctioned for the negative edits, you'll get some as well. ] (]) 03:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Automatic editing, abusive behaviour, and disruptive(ish) wikihounding from ] == | |||
| :::Not sure how you came to that conclusion. The porn site links were first added by 79.67.245.33 on 02:38, 3 July. Yes it does appear that they removed them from the history but only after I had removed them from the article on 01:54, 4 July. ] (]) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result={{nac}} While {{u|KMaster888}}'s editing history (the original discussion) wasn't inherently bad in itself, their conduct after being questioned about it was bad, violating ], ], ], and ] See , , , , , , , , , and their comments on this thread. Indeffed by {{u|Cullen328}}, and TPA revoked after , another personal attack. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:18, 9 January 2025 (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. | |||
| 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): | |||
| :::: . You're reading abusive intent from a run-off-the-mill edit - this is standard procedure when formatting references with {{cs1}} templates. Besides, it's not this anonymous user who caused the original website to be overtaken by an unrelated organization, that problem had already existed, which was likely the reason why those inline external links went to the Wayback Machine. --] (]) 22:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you for the response. I considered that possibility at the time but the specific references that had the porn site link attached also indicated BI. While that is not proof, in my mind it is a preponderance of indicators. One last thought on this subject; why did she feel the need to make these changes without signing in if she was fixing a problem that someone else had make? The fact that these are the only contributions by this user would appear to indicate the lack of signing in was intentional. ] (]) 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: In general the issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that the latest round of huge reverts started when an anonymous editor mass-reverted ]'s edits without a clear edit summary, which was ostensibly tendentious and it started an edit war where parties didn't provide new, clear explanations of why they were adding or removing 38k of text (an edit summary rarely suffices in such a case). | |||
| 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). | |||
| :::::Another question for you. This anonymous editor who did the mass-revert and started this latest round - why am I the one who you would censure when I was only undoing what I thought was vandalism? Also, if this truly was an anonymous edit, why has everyone else been so quick to undo months worth of work and change the article back to what it was many months ago? Why not just revert it to the pre-vandalism version? As I have been told so many times, everything on wikipedia is supposed to be by consensus and should be discussed on the Talk page. Don't you think that such massive changes as these should have been discussed? | |||
| 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. | |||
| :::::Here is another thought for you. This anonymous editor of the mass revert was redone by BI under her own name after I had reverted it. Is it possible that this anonymous editor was BI or a friend of BI's doing her bidding? And if not, why did BI reinstate an apparent case of vandalism and why has everyone else been so quick to support this massive revert? Again, where is the discussion and who is acting like they own the article? ] (]) 07:34, 11 August 2014 (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. | |||
| I've had a brief look at the latest bit of discussion at ] and the referenced HASTOL source, and it appears that BatteryIncluded is correct - our article about "skyhook" was using that term in a way that makes it unverifiable from the said HASTOL source - that source applies the term to "HyperSkyhook", but not to "HARGSTOL". The inference that both are skyhooks needs to be directly referenced from a source that actually says so, otherwise it's we have a trivial ] violation. The cover term used by the HASTOL source is "]", which is a separate Misplaced Pages article. | |||
| This one is easily one of the strangest situations I've ever encountered on Misplaced Pages. ] 20:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please review items 20, 21, and 22 on the Skyhook (structure) Talk page for more information regarding the content dispute on the HASTOL report. You are incorrect in your conclusion. ] (]) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (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. ] (]) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Overall, I see no reason not to censure Skyhook1 for numerous policy violations (], ], ], ]). I suppose it's not impossible that someone interjects here by presenting unambiguous supporting materials for their claims, which would explain some of their behavior - but that still wouldn't mean much because these ] issues are a problem in and of itself. --] (]) 20:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::1) That doesn't explain how consistently abusive you have been | |||
| ::2) While I'm aware that an overwhelming percentage of the errors you're editing out are ones that can simply be addressed by regex, I'm very clearly raising the content edits as opposed to formatting ones. ] 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :How about we take this off of ANI, of all places? ] (]) 21:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, this feels quite appropriate considering your abusiveness and that your retaliation involved damaging some articles. I said there I was asking a policy question and was happy to let it go, you've edited over 100 articles from my edit history in direct sequence in response to that question, which is just strange behaviour for an editor. ] 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Obviously, if there's someone who's making bad decisions on Misplaced Pages (You), I want to check if he has messed up articles. Please tell me what articles you think I have damaged. ] (]) 21:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, I'd appreciate if you would stop casting aspersions about me being an LLM. ] (]) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I said then, and as I'll say again: If there's not an LLM involved in this situation, then I'm sincerely sorry. It was a combination of clearly assisted editing and the verbiage used that looked concerning. ] 21:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There was no assisted editing. Stop spreading that blatant falsehood. This is why I say to take this off of ANI. It is stuff that is made up in your head that has no basis in reality. ] (]) 21:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<s>Unless you're doing regex with your eyes, clearly you're using assistance. And the fact you're (still!) doing something that fixes the same type of typo almost as fast as I can click "Random Article" indicates you're doing more than just regex. You're finding these articles somehow.</s> <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 22:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I am doing an "insource" search using regex. ] (]) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I learned about insource searches recently and was able to find spam by the boatload immediately. It is a great tool. ] (]) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Ah . I wasn't aware one could do that. I retract. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 22:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And, I would appreciate if you would stop calling my edits strange and odd. ] (]) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You had over 100 edits in a row directily in chronological sequence, from newest to oldest, of my exact edit history excluding wikiprojects and talk pages. I'm allowed to find that a little strange. ] 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why shouldn't someone call strange and odd edits strange and odd? ] (]) 21:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I suggest you stop with the personal attacks before you get blocked. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe I'm a little less forgiving than Tarlby, so I would suggest that {{u|KMaster888}} should be blocked/banned already. Knowing how to write regular expressions doesn't give anyone the right to ignore policy about such issues as civility and hounding. ] (]) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have not ignored policy on either civility or hounding. The fact is, there are no automation tools that I have used, and this has been constructed as a theory entirely as a falsehood. It is annoying that one Misplaced Pages user constantly spouts falsehoods about me. ] (]) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll just ask you straight up.{{pb}}Do you feel any remorse for this statement? {{tq|remove asshole}} {{pb}}Could you explain why you felt it was best to choose those two words when blanking your talk page? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And again: {{tq|@The Corvette ZR1 @Tarlby stop clogging up ANI with your comments.}} ]<sup>]</sup> 22:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::, , , , , ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And this: and this: ] (]) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That was because Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. I would say the same to you as I said to the other editor: get off my back. ] (]) 21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You have to abide by the rules like the rest of us. And cool it with the hostile edit summaries. ]] 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are clearly ]. Attacking other editors instead of backing off, inappropriate edit summaries, what next? ]<sup>]</sup> 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There ought to be a gossip noticeboard that doesn't clog up ANI. ] (]) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I will dispute what you said. I AM HERE to build an encyclopedia. Why do you think I would have given 10,000 edits worth of my time if I didn't care? ] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I would say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, ] and ] tell me the contrary. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Regardless of their editing or otherwise, KMaster888's comments in edit summaries ''and here'' indicate they're ] in a way that indicates an inability to participate in a collaborative encyclopedia. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The product of Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which is a body of written and visual work. It is first and foremost about the product, not the community. In this sense, it is indeed a collaborative encyclopedia, but it should not be considered an encyclopedic collaboation. ] (]) 23:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: ] over what "collaboration" is doesn't help when you're in blatant violation of ] of the ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'm not Wikilawyering. I would also encourage you to come to a discussion on my talk page over small potatoes instead of at ANI. ] (]) 23:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: is wikilawyering. And this is at ANI, so the discussion is taking place at ANI. Answering the concerns about your conduct that were raised here on here is how you resolve the issue, not "don't talk about it on ANI", as the latter gives the impression of trying to sweep them under the rug - especially since your edit summaries MrOllie linked above make it clear this is very much not "small potatoes". - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's some more diffs of KMaster888 being uncivil. From my user talk page. . I think these are forgivable if in isolation since KMaster888 may be frustrated by false accusations of being a bot, but if it's a pattern, it may need addressing. | |||
| :The ] and ] of my user talk page and of this ANI is also a behavioral problem that, if a pattern, may also need addressing. It is disrespectful to interlocutor's time and brainpower to dominate discussions by replying to everything. –] <small>(])</small> 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unless there are specific discussion rules, I should not be penalized for responding to comments that involve me. ] (]) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The problem isn't you responding to those comments. It's about HOW you responded to those comments. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are, in fact, {{tqq|specific discussion rules}} - ] and ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Propose indefinite block=== | |||
| This is a mess, and it's where we fall down. {{U|BatteryIncluded}} has done their best against this onslaught of POV garbage for a long time, with occasional support from good users. I think that has been a lonely job, and I thank them for doing it. If I knew how to go over there and help personally, I would, but I don't. We need to deal with this type of long term tendentious editing better. I don't know how, exactly, but supporting {{U|BatteryIncluded}} with whatever this board has at its disposal would be a start. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 20:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked and TPA revoked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|KMaster888}} | |||
| They demonstrate a severe inability to interact in the collegiate manner this project requires. The edit summaries are not merely uncivil, but dismissive: ignoring colleagues is worse than just being rude to them. Their behaviour on Novem Linguae's talk pretty much sums it up.{{pb}}Whether they are actually a bot or running a scruipt doesn't really matter: WP:BOTLIKE is pretty cl;ear trhat "it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance". So 10,000 edits or not, the edits smack of being bot/script-generated, and may also be WP:STALKING.{{PB}}I also don't set any store by the excuse for "wiping ass with comments", "improve asinine comment" and "remove asshole" being that {{blue|Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly.}} WMF servers going down (or not) do not cause aggressive edit summaries, and we are not fools. The fact that the same attitude pervades through this discussion—"everyone, get off my back"—suggests that this is default behaviour rather than a one off. ]'']''] 23:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You're saying "they" like it's more than one person. I am one editor. ] (]) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not in that sense. We use they/them pronouns as to not assume an editor's gender. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above reasoning. ]] 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Looks like {{noping|Cullen328}} beat us to that indef. ]] 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per ] behavior. Their blank talkpage, on which they encourage discussion, has a nonexistent archive. ]] 23:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:That is not true. The archive page is at the subpage of the talk page, /archive. ] (]) 23:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support -''' While I wouldn’t have had the same suspicions about their editing as Warren, their extremely uncivil reactions to it and further questions here, along with the further attention they’ve drawn on to prior recent behaviour has effectively demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in meaningful interaction with any other editor who disagrees with them. ] (]) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::So you give no credence to the comments by Stfg in item 22 of the Skyhook (structure) Talk page? ] (]) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:Maybe revoke TPA too? This is beyond the pale. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::Wow… ] ] 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}I have indefinitely blocked KMaster888 for personal attacks and harassment, and disruptive behavior. ] (]) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :After their latest personal attack, I have revoked their talk page access. ] (]) 23:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. is beyond the pale. This is clearly a person that lets rage get the best of them, and is not responsive to feedback. Not sure if we should close this, or let it play out and turn into a CBAN. –] <small>(])</small> 00:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Good block''' and I'd have done same if you hadn't been here first. Regardless of whether the edits were improvements, no one has the right to treat other editors as KM888 did. ] ] 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Good block''' It'd take a hand-written miracle from God for them to change their ways anytime soon. | |||
| :::::And what about this one? "@BatteryIncluded:, @Huntster: I'm quite surprised to see two such experienced editors, and one of you an admin, arguing by edit summary, where you tell the IP to come to the talk page, and when he comes to the talk page, you ignore him here. I don't know and don't care about the technical details, but this is good faith editing, not vandalism, and I think you are both being unfair to do that. You also appear indistinguishable from a tag team.--Stfg (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)" | |||
| :] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 03:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ===Investigating the hounding claim=== | |||
| :::::BEgoon I did not come to wikipedia to pick fights but to write an article on skyhooks. From my perspective the fight was started by BI and friends. But I am also not inclined to backdown from a fight that someone else starts with me. Does that mean I put myself above everyone else? No, it just means that I push back when pushed. That might be inconvenient for you but you are here by choice too. You accuse me of POV; yet you have also made it clear that you have a POV and BI has made it clear that she has a POV, and all the other editors who have helped revert the skyhook article back to what it was months ago also have a POV. Isn't part of your job here to investigate the dispute and find out what the truth is in all of those POVs? Or is that a mistaken assumption on my part? | |||
| 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. | |||
| :::::Here is a question for you about determining the truth. BI is fond of quoting the HASTOL report. Specifically, "Unless a major breakthrough occurs in high strength tether materials, such as the commercial development of carbon nanotube fibers, it does not seem possible to push the non-rotating tether HyperSkyhook concept down to speeds of 3100 m/s (Mach 10)." She uses that as justification for her position that skyhooks can not be built. I have attempted to answer that many times as follows: "I have no disagreement with this statement. None of the skyhook studies referenced in the article are for skyhooks with a lower endpoint velocity this slow. None of them, rotating or non-rotating, come anywhere close to that slow of a lower endpoint velocity. The positive reviews for skyhooks in the HASTOL study that are included in this article are all for skyhooks with faster lower endpoint velocities." The positive review for the HASTOL study that I am referring to is this "The fundamental conclusion of the Phase I HASTOL study effort is that the concept is technically feasible. We have evaluated a number of alternate system configurations that will allow hypersonic air-breathing vehicle technologies to be combined with orbiting, spinning space tether technologies to provide a method of moving payloads from the surface of the Earth into Earth orbit. For more than one HASTOL architecture concept, we have developed a design solution using existing, or near-term technologies. We expect that a number of the other HASTOL architecture concepts will prove similarly technically feasible when subjected to detailed design studies. The systems are completely reusable and have the potential of drastically reducing the cost of Earth-to-orbit space access." BI is also fond of quoting the HASTOL study statement "In general, the non-spinning tether HyperSkyhook concept does not look competitive with the spinning tether concepts." If someone wrote that in a wikipedia article you would call it POV and delete it and you would be correct, it is POV. But it does not say that the non-spinning tether for the length they investigated could not be built. I have also told BI about all the other references that prove that skyhooks can be built but BI never responds to those comments other than to delete the references. So if you really are attempting to be fair, honest, and impartial in this investigation, how about you investigate these issues yourself by reading the references? ] (]) 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Skyhook1: If you are holding one position, and "all of the other editors who have helped revert" are holding another position, you need to stop, take a deep breath, and ask yourself if just maybe you, and not them, are the one in the wrong. If "all of the other editors" are holding a position opposite yours, you need to stop trying to push "]" and accept that ] is against you. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 09:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::POV aside, many of user Skyhook1 entries are simply misleading fantasy, I once deleted an entry stating some kind of partnership between Skyhook and SpaceX. Please note user Skyhook1 states above that all the systems reviewed by Boeing are "Skyhooks" (false, they are orbiting ]s), so he claims that all the listed positive qualities of HASTOL applies to the Skyhook. But when the report concludes '''BY NAME''' that the Skyhook system is NOT competitive with the other 5 models, he changes the tune and wants us to believe that it does not actually apply to the Skyhook. It is very clear this single-purpose user has a bias, a possible conflict of interest, and introduces a massive amount of OR, POV and Synthesis generously sprinkled with ]. I hope that with your help this issue will come to a permanent solution soon. Thanks, ] (]) 16:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{ping|BatteryIncluded}} Unless you're proposing formal sanctions on Skyhook1, the solution has already been implemented: the article has been pared back by other editors including myself to what is adequately sourced. Content can be added if it has proper references as I indicated on the talk page. All we need (right now) is for editors to keep an eye on the article. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Thank you. ] (]) 17:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Indeed, I agree - the article as it stands is fine, and I thanked NeilN on the talkpage for the good work. Sanctions are preventative, so unless Skyhook1 were to continue adding poorly sourced OR material against consensus, or editing tendentiously in other ways, there'd be no need for that. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 17:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|10}} | |||
| I'm a recent observer to the Skyhook editing conflict. I have no interest in explaining or excusing some of the oddities in this article's edit history, but at least a bit of it may be due to a misunderstanding which I'm surprised hasn't been noticed until recently. | |||
| As noted above (by {{u|Begoon}}? attribution is unclear), and as explained in more detail in my recent comments on the ], there is a crucial disconnect in terminology. | |||
| This article is about a very new real-world concept which not long ago was strictly science fiction. No real-world examples have yet been built, and the real-world terminology is still fluid. Different authors (including both Misplaced Pages editors and the writers of our references) don't always give the same concepts the same labels. One example: The Misplaced Pages article and the 2000 Boeing HASTOL report mean different things when they use the term “skyhook”. Our Misplaced Pages article uses it as a generic term, as evidenced by our distinction of spinning vs. non-spinning skyhooks. The Boeing study uses “skyhook” to mean a specific subset of designs, all manifestly non-spinning. This leads us to editor conflict and errors in content when one editor says that Boeing finds the (generic) “skyhook” concept feasible, while another editor says that Boeing finds the (specific) “skyhook” concept unworkable. ''Both are true.'' | |||
| There are many additional references beyond the Boeing report. As a newcomer to this issue, I can't say which meaning of the term is more common, or if there is any consensus at all among reliable sources. Might anyone have a bit of wisdom on that to contribute? It might be that our first step towards resolution would be to explicitly state the consensus definition of “skyhook” at the start of the article, if such exists, or to simply establish one as the terminology of the article if our sources disagree, so that we're all speaking the same language. | |||
| <span style="border: solid 2px black; border-radius: 6px; box-shadow: gray 3px 3px 3px;"> ] ] </span> 21:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :If it were the case that "terminology" issues were causing confusion, the article talk page would be the place to iron that out, as you say. Then, when consensus is achieved there, the article can be updated. Tendentious editing of the article, inserting content which is against demonstrated consensus, and implications that "all other editors" are part of some sort of gang conspiring to prevent ] from being told is the disruption here - and that is the issue for this noticeboard, and the behaviour which must not be allowed to continue. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 23:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry for the drama, by the way. ] 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Andrew Hendo == | |||
| ::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) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating ] == | |||
| *{{userlinks|Andrew Hendo}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Bgsu98}} | |||
| Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.<br /> | |||
| The user is repeatedly attempting to change the date of a replaceable fair use tag on one of his uploads to 2015 and left me a vandalism warning after I reverted him . The user's talk page suggests this user has a history of disruption. <font color="navy">]</font> <small>(<font color="navy">]</font>)</small> 13:10, 10 August 2014 (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 have reverted to the original date of the tag and full-protected the image, and left a personal note on the user's talk page. -- ] (]) 16:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Odd IP edits at ] and related pages == | |||
| P.S. More information is here: ]. What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of ]. It seems that no one acted on this change until {{u|Bgsu98}} came. | |||
| I don't really recall why, but a few days ago I looked at {{la|Taipei}} and saw that its dablink was full of references to Beijing, someone had decided to define Taiwan as a "democratic industrialized island country" in the lede, and that every instance of "Republic of China" on the page was appended with "(Taiwan)" amongst other changes that can be seen in . I also saw that this individual, operating on {{IP|75.182.34.113}}, {{IP|70.197.75.235}}, and {{IP|64.134.235.133}} has been disruptively editing other articles on Chinese topics, making sure to add , (note all the "People's Republic of China (PRC)" and "Republic of China (Taiwan)" stuff), and . ] ] and his problematic edits. I attempted to address these issues with him directly on his most recently used IP, but I fear he will not be too open to discussion. Something fishy is definitely going on.—] (]) 13:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :IP hopper committing nationalistic vandalism: can't we simply ]? confirms that he won't chat, so I don't see anything that can be done beyond RBI. ] (]) 14:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| P.P.S. As I stated on the WikiProject Figure Skating talk page I linked above, I think it was very unfair to change the rules. Especially since web sources tend to die out after some time. | |||
| == STiki == | |||
| {{archive top|Reported to dev, now getting looked into. --]]<small>]</small> 05:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| Am unsure where to report this (if not here) but it appears that an ip editor is either using ] to resolve vandalism edits or is proporting to be doing so in their edit summaries. My understanding was taht someone required a WP account to run this so an Ip editor would be unable to. Advice/assistance would be appreciated in dealing/pointing in right direction. I have looked on the ] page but couldnt see a relevent place to post this there. ] (])(]) 17:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : It would be best to report it to ] as the developer often responds to issues there promptly. ] (]) 19:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Done. ] (])(]) 20:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: As developer of ], I have looked into this case. It looks pretty innocent to me, but could indicate software issues (and I can't determine whether they are in STiki or Mediawiki itself). {{redacted}}. | |||
| ::: Sometime during the STiki session the edits on Misplaced Pages stopped being associated to the username, and instead to the IP address {{redacted}} but it certainly looks benign from a behavioral perspective. Will monitor further. Thanks, ] (]) 23:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Also, echo me here or ping me on my talk page/] if more is needed; I am not a follower. ] (]) 23:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera == | |||
| :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) | |||
| We were having discussion on ] when ] gave me legal threat on my talk page when I the User, the was personal attack (''"you are '''arguing blindly'''"'') & further legal threat (''"you are ready for blocking and court cases?"'') and then further threats (''"are you ready for blocking?"'' & ''"we will legally solve in court! are you ready?''"). The user has done personal attacks on me while having discussion with other user on their talk pages too e.g. (''"arguing blindly"'') The user is also engaged in ] and trying to form block against me which is clear from the posts made by user , and . I'm feeling shocked & depressed by such vieled personal attacks and legal threats, after so much effort this is what i'm getting from fellow editors.--<b><span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:green">]</span></b><i><sup>]</sup><small>]</small><sub>]</sub></i> 19:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with Star Mississippi. But just to give some scope, this cleaning house, mostly of ice skating junior champions, is not recent, it's been going on for at least 6-9 months now, it was originally done through the use of PROD'd articles. But while there have been some objections raised over the past year, Bgsu98's efforts have mostly received support from editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Over the past two weeks, through the use of AFD, we have seen dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of annual national skating championship articles either deleted or redirected. But I just want to note that these AFDs wouldn't have closed as "Delete all" or "Redirect all" without the support of other AFD participants. Very few editors are arguing to Keep them all. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::"''However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules.''"<br />— They don't meet ], but most (if not all) are famous people and should meet ]. Therefore, caution should be exercised when deleting. I don't think a national silver medalist can be unknown, it is just that reliable sources are hard or even impossible to find now. It appears that some years ago the rules didn't require ], so skater articles were created with simply "He advanced to the free skate at the 2010 World Championships" or "He is a national senior silver medalist", which was enough for an article to not be "picked at". The editors who created skater articles back then probably didn't want to do more than a bare minimum and didn't care to add reliable sources beyond the ISU website profile. One who decides to delete a skater article must keep in mind that reliable sources probably existed at the time the article was created. Cause, as I've said, these skaters arn't unknown. They represented their countries at the highest possible level of competition.<br />(I've recently noticed that Google News don't go as far back as before. Some web sites deleted their older content. Some have even completely disappeared. Like, I mostly edit music articles, and I've noticed that if didn't create some articles 10 years ago, I wouldn't be able to create them now.) --] (]) 17:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Even if being a junior national medallist was enough in and of itself, ] has always been a thing. You can't just state some fact that would meet a specific notability guideline like ] without providing verification of the claim without the possibility that the article will be nominated at AFD or redirected. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Star Mississippi|Liz}} A ], a deletion review? Is it maybe possible to undelete "]" (])? Cause I was searching for sources for ] and found something like a short biography of hers, two paragraphs long.<br />Here: .<br />And again, it was {{u|Bgsu98}} who nominated the article back in May. And he was told, I'm quoting ]: "''There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale''." --] (]) 23:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::After looking at ], I think no one will say that I was incorrect about how people vote at AfD. There's even a comment like this: "WP:NSKATE lists some very clear criteria for inclusion, which this article does not meet." And then a more experienced user noted that you should actually search for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG, but no one actually searched and the article was deleted. --] (]) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: I have also found an interview with ]: . Yes, it is an interview, but there an editorial paragraph about her (an introductiion). There also a short paragraph here → . Not much, but considering she competed almost 20 years ago... --] (]) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes @] you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @] provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. ] ] 14:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes @] you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @] provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. ] ] 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay. --] (]) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. ] ] 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't think this is a content dispute. I think the user violates ], otherwise it would be impossible to create tons of nominations. And please look at the AfD page, all his nominations simply say: "Non-notable figure skater", "Non-notable figure skater, PROD removed", "Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements" or "Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals". It is obvious that there's no ] research and as little consideration as "humanly possible".<br />Okay, since Bgsu98 pinged someone in his support, I'll ping {{u|BeanieFan11}} and {{u|Doczilla}}. (Sorry for disturbing you, BeanieFan11 and Doczilla.) --] (]) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::When closing one AfD, I made some observations about that day's many AfDs and noted in that one close regarding Bgsu98: "The nominator's burst of dozens of nominations within half an hour failed to stimulate any discussion about many of them." In my meager opinion, the massive number of rapid deletion nominations rather strongly might suggest, at the very least, a lack of due diligence regarding each and a likely violation of WP:BEFORE. ] <sub>]</sub> 07:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] claims to be polite, yet wrote : ''"random people at AfD don't care about actually checking the notability and just vote "delete per nom"''. Pinging ] who also found that comment objectionable. I have made an effort to thank editors who have participated in my AFD's, regardless of whether they have always agreed with my findings, because AFD's that end in "no consensus" do nothing but waste everyone's time. | |||
| :He has been adversarial and confrontational in every communication to me. From ]: ''"By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD... Like, you nomitated ] 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale... Are you planning to nominate it 100 times?"'' | |||
| :I always appreciate constructive feedback when it's delivered in a courteous and professional manner. ] seems incapable of courtesy or professionalism. ] ] 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*C'mon, ], civility goes both ways. We can discuss the value of these articles and the AFD process without attacking each other. Flinging mud doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*:I apologize, ]; I am just at my wit's end with this editor. ] ] 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Here's my take, ]. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:As I have been pinged on this discussion I thought I would 1 confirm I did find @] to be somewhat rude and condescending in their repeated assertions that those who vote on these skating AFDs do not do any research and are basically sheep just voting delete and 2 most of these nominated bios are a few sentences or just a table of stats copy and pasted so @] I doubt anyone spent hours putting them together. Finally I feel @] is now looking to use any procedure they can to try and besmirch @] and derail their valid efforts to remove some of the seemingly thousands of sports bios that do not meet current Misplaced Pages guidelines and are of interest to few, if any, general reader. If anyone is in need of reprimand or sanction over this matter (which has been blown out of all proportion), it is @] ] (]) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*::Why should I be "reprimanded"? My comments about "people at AfD' were non-specific, while {{u|Bgsu98}} directly accused me of lying. (In the Russian Misplaced Pages, he would be blocked for this "automatically".)<br />Also, a note to admins: Can it be that {{u|Bgsu98}} finds fun in annoying other editors? I can't really explain the content of his user page differently. Yes, surely, different people can have different motivation for editing Misplaced Pages, but I don't think it is a "normal situation" when you look at someone's user page and see how the person likes to be "evil".<br />And, btw, please note that Bgsu98 summoned Shrug02 here for the purpose of supporting him. I haven't summoned anybody. (Maybe some people would notice, but Bgsu98 deleted my ANI notice from his talk page immediately.) --] (]) 15:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:::@] I am going to be generous and presume English is not your first language so your choice of wording might be a little off. However, I was not "summoned" or asked to support anyone. @] pinged me and I gave my view. I did not say you SHOULD be reprimanded, I said IF anyone was to be sanctioned over this matter then it would be you. My reasoning for this is your attacking @], making broad statements questioning the intelligence of people at AFD discussions and using this forum incorrectly. As for what happens on Russian Misplaced Pages, that is their busines. I hope you have read @]'s comment as I think it sums this situation up nicely. ] (]) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:::: I haven't questioned anybody's intelligence. It is just my experience that many people trust the nominator and vote "delete" without much thinking. They maybe quickly visit the article in discussion, look at the "References" section, that's enough for them. And they typically don't speak Russian or Hebrew or whatever. So, when they see "Selepen", they hardly go to yandex.ru and search for "Шелепень". --] (]) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:::: Okay, "summon" is not the right word. Sorry. "He asked you to come". But that "I am going to be generous" sentence doesn't look polite. --] (]) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:::: According to , "summon" and "ask to" are the same thing. --] (]) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:::::@] | |||
| :::*:::::Cambridge Dictionary definition of summon (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/summon) is "to order someone to come to or be present at a particular place, or to officially arrange a meeting of people." | |||
| :::*:::::No-one ORDERED me to take part in this discussion. | |||
| :::*:::::If there is so much significant coverage for these skaters then the simple solution is for you to add it to the articles in question with suitable references and then AFDs will end as keep. | |||
| :::*:::::I am now finished with this discussion and I hope the admins step in and end it soon. | |||
| :::*:::::All the best to everyone involved. ] (]) 16:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:::] wrote the following in his original complaint: ''”…decided to mass-delete articles that don't comply with WP:NSKATE… I am sure most articles he deleted had the right to stay per WP:GNG.”'' I don’t have the ability to “mass-delete” anything, and if most of those articles met ], the users at AFD would have voted to keep them. Just two examples of MC’s falsehoods. ] ] 16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*::::OK. But you have also mass-prodded articles, that's the same as "deleting". (Like a "delayed deletion".) --] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Let me help you out here, Moscow Connection. As it happens, Bgsu98 is a veteran editor with both tens of thousands of edits and a long history of editing skating articles. He is not, as you imply, some bomb thrower hellbent in laying waste to skating articles. Moving right along ...<p>(2) Your curious assertion that he was the first person to AfD no-longer-qualifying skating articles is inaccurate; I did so myself, right after the NSPORTS changes, and I recall several editors also doing so.<p>(3) The Bialas AfDs did not close as Keep, as you wrongly assert. They closed as "no consensus", with almost no participation and multiple relistings; that's ''exactly'' the kind of situation where renomination to seek an actual consensus is appropriate.<p>(4) Rules change on Misplaced Pages, by the bucketload. I have a hard time seeing what is "very unfair" about this, unless "very unfair" is a secret code for "I don't like it, so it's unfair." And ... seriously? You've been on Misplaced Pages for fifteen years, have over sixty thousand edits, have participated in nearly a hundred AfDs? I'd expect this level of confusion from a first-week newbie, not from an editor of your experience. ] 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::He only joined in 2021. I've looked at his "Pages Created" count, what he has been doing is creating pages for small figure skating events (for their yearly editions) since late 2023. That's hardly "a long history". --] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::“Small figure skating events” like the National Championships of the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, and Italy; the Grand Prix series, including the Grand Prix Final; and the Challenger Series events? 1) Article Creation isn’t the only metric by which Misplaced Pages contributions can be measured, and 2) Referring to any of those events as “small” is ridiculous and insulting to all parties involved. I should have never even responded yesterday when three different administrators asserted that the original complaint was groundless. I’m done responding to this complainant. ] ] 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Given it is acknowledged that large numbers of articles on figure skaters do not meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria ({{tq|What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE.}}), I’m not really seeing anything unexpected here. — | |||
| :] (]) 12:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :As someone uninvolved in all of this, I’m reading that OP gets into a dispute about AfDs and then goes to ANI to make their grievances more visible to admins. Does OP not realize that admins are primarily responsible for moderating, closing, and relisting AfD discussions? Also, as someone else pointed above, this is a content dispute: it does not meet the standard for being urgent, chronic, or intractable. OP’s choice to insult another user by calling their behavior “crazy” multiple times is inappropriate and makes me believe that they might have just thrown a ]. ] (]) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :the bar for notability for skaters went up, someone came along and started nominating based on the new guidelines, and OP is upset. that seems to be the gist. i was not involved but didn't that happen in the porno biography area a few years ago? some change raised the bar so a lot of stuff was deleted. ] (]) 16:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Visakha veera has been blocked indefinitely for repeatedly making legal threats like . I'd also like to note that he had been warned about possible in ] territory. ] (]) 20:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I do heavily advise slowing down on the nominations. There is not enough editors in the figure skating topic area to give the appropriate amount of time to search for sources for these articles. To be honest, I'm sure that a good number of ones that were closed as "delete" were actually notable but no one did any in-depth BEFORE search (many would not have coverage in English and the coverage would be in foreign newspaper archives). I asked the user yesterday about the extent of the BEFORE searches and only got "Yes, but not as much as some people like" – and then I asked what search was done for the most recent example, from a few hours prior, and they said they had no recollection (which is concerning IMO, to have no idea what searches you did for an article you nominated a few hours prior). Note that the AFD rationales are often ''really'' poor; many are simply {{tq|Non-notable figure skater}}, which doesn't say much of anything. ] (]) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*It's no excuse for Visakha veera's behaviour but the background to it is repeated POV-pushing on ] (and to a lesser extent also on other articles) by Faizhaider, claiming that ] is an official language in post-partition AP, "supporting" his claim with references that say nothing of the sort, while refusing to accept sources, including the Andhra Pradesh government web portal, that say that ''"the official language in Andhra Pradesh is ]"'', with "official language" in the singular. Which since there's a lot of tension around the status of various languages in India, and perhaps more so in Telangana and "new" Andhra Pradesh (which were split into separate states partly along language lines only two months ago) than in other parts of India, means that there was quite a bit of provocation leading up to the legal threat. ] ] 20:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:I will slow down on nominations and focus on improving other aspects of the the FS articles, such as updating the infoboxes and tables to conform with our MOS. ] ] 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::And @], you can help by, when the nomination involves a person whose native language is written in non-Latin characters (e.g., Cyrillic or Hebrew), replying in the AfD with a link to the native language web search for that person to help establish the presence or absence of notability support. — ] ] 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::But there are 45 (!) articles nominated for deletion. I looked at the AfD page and understood that it was physically impossible to do anything. So I decided to bring this situation to the attention of the Misplaced Pages community. It is easy to create 1000 AfD nominations with the same rationale ("Non-notable figure skater"), but even these mere 45 AfD nominations utterly scared me and discouraged me from even looking at ]. (I really can't do anything. I have some other articles, the ones I created, that need attention. And I have long "to do" lists that wait for years to be taken care of.) --] (]) 17:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The answer being, "So?" If neither the article creators nor anyone else has sought to provide ] for these articles -- the Ievleva article, for example, was created '''seventeen years ago''' -- then that just suggests no one's given enough of a damn to bother, and Misplaced Pages will survive these stubs' loss. It is not, nor ever has been, "physically impossible" to do anything about mass deletions; that's ridiculous. An AfD discussion is open for seven days, and it's easy to find adequate sources for an article ... certainly, in the cases of these Russian skaters, for a native speaker of Russian such as yourself. If you can't, the answer isn't that there's some flaw in the process or that Bgsu98 is pulling a fast one on us all. The answer is that the subjects are non-notable, and don't merit Misplaced Pages articles. ] 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::: The nominator has agreed to slow down, so the point is kind of moot, but I still wanted to make clear: Ravenswing, 45 AFDs rapidly is ridiculous, especially when next-to-no-BEFORE is done and there previously was no indication of stopping – remember that there's only a few editors in the topic area – ''and'' many of these, which are notable, require more than simple Google searches to find the coverage that demonstrates notability (i.e., for many, the coverage would be in places such as difficult-to-find offline newspapers in foreign languages) – making so many nominations rapidly without appropriate searches will inevitably result in some truly notable ones being deleted due to the lack of effort. While ''you'' may not care about the stubs, others do, and simply because the two editors who drive-by to the nom and say "Delete per above" didn't find coverage absolutely does not equate to the subject being confirmed non-notable. ] (]) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Actually, I have attempted to do something yesterday. I voted and commented on two nominations. ("]" and "]".) Cause these two are Russian figure skaters, and I know they are famous enough. Immediately a user came and wholesale dismissed all the sources I found. I don't really want to play that game, it's too tiresome. I have found another source for Alexandra Ievleva just now. Let's see what the outcome will be.<br />But really, I can't do it anymore. Maybe if these were articles I created, I would invest into searching for sources. Now, I just tried a little bit and saw that some people really want to delete these articles for whatever reason. There are a few people actually searching for sources at some nominations, but mostly it's just that old "you go and provide third-party reliable sources independent of the subject, so I can look at them and dismiss them" game.<br />Okay, people will say I am the bad person here, but I have actually tried to save a couple of articles. I don't understand why people so eagerly want to delete articles than can actually be kept. (Okay, there are mostly interviews and short news about the figure skaters placing here and there or missing some events, but those sources are reliable enough. And one can actually take the sources into account and leave the articles be.)<br />By the way, I have tried searching on what was once ], but the news search doesn't work anymore. (.) There's nothing prior to 2024 when Yandex sold its assets including the news engine. And I can remember when the list of news articles there went back to 2003 or so... --] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::What I’m reading is that you don’t like how AfD works, and there hasn’t been any departure from normal processes. ANI is not the appropriate venue to discuss these issues. ] (]) 10:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I'm sorry if this looks like a ramble. These were initially two or three separate replies. --] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitrary break=== | |||
| {{Od}} ...{{Tpq|editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes}}. Just curious if you or anyone else honestly believes that the opinions of these editors takes priority over the view held in the real world that six million articles falls substantially short of "the sum of all human knowledge". contained the following statement: "According to one estimate, the sum of human knowledge would require 104 million articles". I know some of you are in serious denial and will try to suppress this as a result, but I'm gonna keep saying it anyway. We don't have the sum of all human knowledge, nor are we trying to achieve it. At best, we're the sum of what Google and legacy media has spoon-fed you today within the past X number of years.]/]/] (posted 00:37, January 9, 2025 UTC) | |||
| :RadioKAOS, I'm not going to argue about whose "view takes priority" in the area of the sum of human knowledge but in an AFD discussion, decisions are made by determining the consensus of the editors who bothered to show up and present compelling policy-based arguments. That is typically editors who are active on Misplaced Pages and have an opinion about an article, not any scholar coming up with estimates on the necessary number of articles we should have. How many AFDs do you participate in on a regular basis? And there is no one here that who will attempt to "suppress" your argument. As long as you are not personally attacking any editors, I think you are free to have whatever opinions you do have about this project. No penalty. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Liz}} The problem is that these editors who "bother to show up" don't equally represent the community. Maybe I'm wrong, but there are some people who are mainly active on AfD and who act as "gatekeepers".<br />A normal editor can easily not notice when a page is nominated for deletion, but the AfD regulars will come and vote "delete".<br />Also, I wonder how it happened that the NSKATE guidelines were changed so drastically. I think I have found a discussion about that but I am not sure. A user who was tired of people voting "keep per ]", proposed to get rid of the "Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports)" completely. And then there was a discussion with around 70 people attending. But for some reason at least some sports got spared the worst fate (or got out intact), while figure skating was "destroyed". Moreover, the ] revision history shows signs of edit warring. So it is just possible that the "deletionists" were the most active/agressive and they won. Some sports wikiprojects defended their sports, and some like WikiProject Figure skating weren't active at the time and didn't do anything. --] (]) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::], I guess you can choose to call them "gatekeepers" but I consider them dedicated volunteers. The number of editors who participate in AFDs has declined for at least the past two years, so if you can think of a way to get more editors involved, or if you want to help out by spending, let's say, 10 hours a week evaluating articles and sources in AFD deletion discussions, your help would be welcomed. But don't criticize the editors who actually show up and help. Without them, we would only have the opinions of editors who nominate articles for deletion and I'm sure you wouldn't like it if all of those nominated articles were simpy deleted without any feedback at all from other editors. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am not an AfD regular, and what happens there scares me. When I commented, people just bombarded me with "This is not a third-party reliable source independent of the subject", and it didn't look to me like they even knew what "third-party" was. (I could swear my source was third-party and reliable and independent, but they said it was not and bombarded me with some random links to the WP space.) --] (]) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I had a look at the AfDs you participated in and I think I can explain why there. In all the links you provided were to sports.ru - these are not independent because sports.ru is the website for the Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member. They thus don't demonstrate the subject has any independent coverage of their athletic career. I hope this helps. ] (]) 14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You act like some people on AfD who dismiss sources "for the sake of dismissing". Why did even think it was a website for some "Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member"? It is just a sports news website (a sports portal) like any other. --] (]) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::]. Really, that's quite similar to what happens on AfD. I can go deep into Google Search, spend lots of time, but some people will just say "not third-party" or smth like this. Where do they see that and how do they come to their conclusions? It's a mystery to me. --] (]) 21:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :(nods) Heck, "some authority" came up with canards such as that we all ought to take 10,000 steps a day, drink eight glasses of water a day, and that our basal body temps are all 98.6. I likewise decline to bow before the suspect, threadbare wisdom of "one estimate" that we need 104,000,000 articles ... speaking of serious denial. (grins) ] 07:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{re|Ravenswing}}, why are you trying to "repulse" my attemps to save a couple of articles at AfD? First, you came here to defend Bgsu98. And then, you came to the two nominations where I commented, only to wholesale dismiss all the sources I found.<br />And when I found another source, you said that there were "3 sentences" while there were actually 7.<br />I've looked at your contributions, you don't look like someone who can read Russian or has any interest in figure skating. So why are you doing this? (Okay, you can have the articles, you won.) --] (]) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please be careful with the ], Moscow Connection. --] 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay. --] (]) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My 2 cents. In my experience, Bgsu clearly does not conduct BEFORE searches (and seems proud of it), ignores actual coverage of the subjects (even when present in the articles), mass nominates batches of articles (50 in 30 minutes is a hilarious example), consistently fails to adhere to AGF, quickly re-nominates articles when the result is not to their liking, inaccurately summarizes examples of SIGCOV when they are provided in discussions, and tops it off by clearing their XfD logs. ] (]) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: That's a significant number of evidence-free aspersions you're casting, would you like to evidence them? Incidentally, mass-nominating articles isn't necessarily an issue; I have done it in the past but I still examined each article before nominating them in one batch. ] 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I do not wish to dig through hundreds of AfDs, no. Just providing what I've gathered in my experience. And I disagree that 50 AfDs in half an hour is not an issue. | |||
| :::::::Here is one example of the types of responses you can expect to get when you provide SIGCOV in one of his discussions: {{tq|Nobody is going to add anything to this article. The same people pop up on these AFD's, squawk about how someone having their picture taken for their local newspaper qualifies as "significant coverage", and then the article is left in the same crappy condition it was when we started.}} ] (]) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::And ] is an example of the nom wholly ignoring GNG and insisting on using deprecated NSPORTS guidelines ''after'' SIGCOV was added to the article. Dozens and dozens of more examples. ] (]) 21:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::] example of ignoring SIGCOV ''already present'' in the article. ] (]) 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{Ping|GiantSnowman}} {{Ping|Black Kite}} ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] more examples, all within a week of eachother and many with SIGCOV already present in the article. ] (]) 21:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::] is an example from two days ago where they nominated a skater who finished top 4 at the World Championships because they assumed the sources in the article were the only sources available on the subject. ] (]) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::OK this AFD, coupled with the historical ones, is very concerning. I understand that not every editor is going to be able to find every source, but it appears that Bgsu98 does not even bother looking. I would support a topic ban from AFDs. ]] 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::] and ] is an example of four users expressing their concerns about BEFORE searches and their misunderstanding of notability policies. More recently, concerns were raised ] and , although bgsu deleted the latter from their talk page with the message {{tq|Stay off my talk page. You have some nerve using the term “good will” considering your appalling behavior.}} ] (]) 22:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::And here are ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] examples of nom ignoring the concept of GNG and/or entirely disregarding SIGCOV already present in the article. As Liz notes ], close to 100 articles were deleted through PROD before I was able to contest them. Many of these that I contested and were later kept in AfDs with clear GNG passes are present among the examples I've given. ] (]) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Thanks - anything more recent than May 2024? ]] 22:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It would be helpful if you could provide some examples of a) a number of nominations in a short period of time and b) several AFDs where the rationale is deeply flawed. ]] 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: If you go to 10 May 2024 , you get exactly '''50''' nominations in 30 minutes. A good number of those were kept per . ] (]) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Great, thanks - see above, I think we need an AFD topic ban. ]] 22:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, let's start with that I'm a frequent participant at ANI, and I no more "came here to defend" anyone than any other editor who's chimed in here. I dismissed those sources wholesale because I burned some time to look over each and every one of them (as did more than one editor), and found that ] provided the "significant coverage" in detail to the subjects that the GNG requires. As it happens, I have edited skating articles in the past -- you're not claiming to have truly gone through my whole twenty-year contribution history, are you?<p>So why am I doing this? Perhaps it's strange to you that anyone could act out of a dispassionate wish to uphold Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, instead of out of partisan motives, but you'll find that most ANI regulars do just that. ] 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I've participated in a lot of these AfDs, I believe mostly !voting delete, and I've gotta say I am not happy to see it implied that AfD participants were blindly going along with Bgsu. I guarantee that I perform thorough searches on every single AfD I !vote it, ''especially'' these mass-noms with essentially no rationale. Bgsu's noms are, for better or worse, fairly accurate and generally result in the deletion of articles that should be deleted. ''However'', I have seen several examples of incivility and assuming bad faith from this user (although I have experienced neither myself) and I agree that the sheer quantity of nominations does not promote a healthy level of community input. The individual noms are generally okay, but mass noms like ], tried participating in, and gave up on can be a little overwhelming. I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for. ] </span>]] 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I did say a few days ago I wasn't going to engage in this discussion any further but since I keep getting notifications about it I figured I'd weigh in as the conversation seems to have gone in a totally different direction. As @] and others have pointed out I too am not happy that it is being implied that people who voted in these AFDs are blindly following @] without doing any independent research. I refuted this on the figure skating talk page when this all started and on this page. Also, as has been previously pointed out by other editors, this particular discussion began with @] basically not liking the rules on significant coverage and then coming to this forum to seek retribution against @]. Now it seems that their improper use of this forum, ref bombing of articles and general complaining that they don't like something and how unfair it is in their opinion, may actually lead to them getting what they want. This sets a very poor precedent that if you don't like something on Misplaced Pages and you jump up and down and wail about it enough you can get your way. Yes @] probably nominates too many similar articles at one time but they have agreed to slow down now, and yes they have nominated articles for AFD that have then been kept because significant coverage was found, but they have also nominated a lot of articles which have not been found to have significant coverage and have subsequently been deleted following the due, consensus based procedure and closed as such by an admin. @] is already seeking to have articles which have been deleted following AFDs unilaterally reopened. If you now sanction @] we may as well just give Jimmy Wales a call and ask him to hand over Misplaced Pages to the whims and wants of @] ] (]) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*I haven't asked anybody to give Misplaced Pages over to me. What do you mean by "unilaterally reopened"? If you are refering to me asking {{u|Star Mississippi}} to undelete the "]" article, what's wrong with it? It was deleted without a proper Google search, and I have found some sources for her. Just look at ]. At the very end, a user that goes by the name of {{u|Kvng}}, noticed: {{tq|No one in this discussion (including myself) has mentioned anything about searching for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG}}, but that was all, no one did anything. You and another user seem to have claimed here that you do a proper search on every Bgsu98's nomination, but I don't see you on that AfD page.<br />You really sound like you think I'm doing something awful in my attempt to rescue an article. Come on, she's not someone terrible who wants to promote herself on Misplaced Pages or something. She's just a fairly famous figure skater. You don't need to defend Misplaced Pages from her. --] (]) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*I've decided to save "]" (]) and I've already found a couple of dozen articles talking about her. Yes, maybe the others will say those are mostly interviews and the Women's Sport website is not good enough, but I have found lots and lots about her! I don't think you or Bgsu98 would be able to do that cause you don't read Russian and don't know how to search (I tried to add different additional key words, and every time I found something new). --] (]) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:1 you don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what, 2 now you say I "don't know how to search" which is yet another unfounded suggestion that I don't make any effort before giving opinions on AFDs, 3 you don't know what searches were done on Lilia Biktagirova and neither do I, 4 I wasn't involved in that discussion and I try to focus more on adding to articles then deleting them, 5 my point was, and is, you don't like the rules so you have launched a campaign of complaining to try to get your way instead of going through the proper channels and seeking to get consensus to alter said rules. Frankly I'm tired of this and of you belittling everyone else as if you are the only person who knows what is right and are somehow able to read the minds and intentions of everyone else. Go ahead and, as you put it, "save" your Russian skaters. I genuinely hope you do and that the articles are filled with interesting and well-sourced information. That's the aim of Misplaced Pages to inform the population about things worth knowing. ] (]) 00:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:*"{{tq|You don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what}}"<br />— What I do is called ]. What you just did by claiming you can read Martian, I honestly don't know.<br />I've started this discussion because I saw the user's 45 nominations at ] and that scared me a lot. --] (]) 01:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:*:It's called ironic humour and, with everything going on in the world right now, if a Misplaced Pages AFD scared you a lot then you are obviously in the very fortunate position to have so few worries. Anyway I'm moving on to spend my time more productively. I sincerely wish you the best in your endeavours. ] (]) 01:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **I appreciate your input and insight. As I told ] earlier, I promised to slow down on nominations, and in fact, I had decided that I wouldn't even entertain the idea of additional nominations until the ones already in the system work their way through.<br>I can also promise to strive to be more thorough in researching these potential nominations and provide more detailed rationales in the future. I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two! ] ] 23:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:Sorry, Bgsu, I completely missed that you had committed to slowing down. I think that's a great idea that resolves the issue here. Just remember, when you get frustrated by other editors, do your best to stay polite – if you can't, simply step away from the keyboard for a moment. I don't want to see you get in trouble for one too many snarky comments. ] </span>]] 09:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **20 nominations per day is 7300 per year. The limit should be more like 0. (And if it is decided to be 1 or something like that, Bgsu98 will have to demonstrate that he has searched for sources every time. I prefer 0, naturally.) --] (]) 00:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:A limit of 0 is asinine, and I highly suggest you strike this comment. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **::Yeah, agreed - really not helping move away from the comments above the MC is here because they don't like AFD. ]] 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:While I do not know whether @] should be restricted from AfD as I haven't been able to go into the weeds on this, I disagree with {{tq|I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for.}} @]. No editor should be nominating 20 articles per day. That's unsustainable for AfD participants, clerks or closers. We do not have the editor volume to assess that many nominations from one nominator. ] ] 00:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::20 per day is a lot, but given the numbers thrown around above (50 in 30 minutes) I figured it would be a massive improvement. But since Bgsu has committed to nominating ''far'' fewer articles with {{tq|Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two!}} I suppose the whole discussion is moot. ] </span>]] 11:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I don't think it's that easy. The question is who will check all the hundreds or thousands of his previous nominations. Definitely not me. (I've looked through several active ones, found some sources, commented here and there, and got very tired.)<br />As I have commented below, when problems were found with {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}'s articles, he was told to go through all his articles and check them. (Actually, there was a user who volunteered to help, but that user was revealed to be Sander.v.Ginkel himself, cause no one in their right mind would have volunteered to check 40000 articles. I, personally, don't want to be a slave and don't want to check Bgsu98's past nominations, especially knowing how little effort he put into creating them and that I would have to spend years looking for sources.) --] (]) 11:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::It's a volunteer project. Someone may choose to, as you did initially, or no one will. But unless they're salted, there's nothing prohibiting restoration to drafts if ] can be found. We can fix going forward but can't always fix what happened before even when there's a collaborative effort. ] ] 13:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Of note. User JTtheOG is canvassing apparent like-minded editors to this discussion, and . ] (]) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:They are not like-minded actually. In fact, both had previously expressed they disagreed with my initial assertions, which I had not yet provided evidence for. I was notifying them of examples being provided here of previously unsubstantiated aspersions. ] (]) 23:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::"As per previous discussions..." I love hearing that ] is having discussions about me with other users, but has never once attempted to communicate directly to me. (Snide comments in AFD's don't count as broaching conversation.) ] ] 00:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** If even that's true, no none came. (No one of the whole two.) And Bgsu98 did the same by pinging his like-minded AfD colleague. (He pinged him immediately.) --] (]) 00:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * As a fellow ] participant, and without having gone over the particular cases, I am normally a rather deletion-oriented editor but am an inclusionist for skating specifically as sources are not as online on this topic as usual, and often in foreign languages, so I am not usually in favor of deleting a skater's article unless we really do exhaust all possible sources of notability. I do request that {{ping|Bgsu98}} convene a broader discussion over notability as I also do disagree with the current guidelines, but even without that a discussion is warranted. Even if a mass deletion ''is'' warranted, it should be handled in one mass AfD, not a gazillion separate ones.--] ] 01:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I came across this randomly in my watchlist.. can I recommend ''everyone'' take a step back and focus on the issue at hand? Currently, ] states the following: {{tq|Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability: The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.}} So, I'd ask {{ping|Moscow Connection}} to please consider whether their views on BEFORE are in line with what it actually says. I appreciate that MC states many of these nominated articles are for non-English speaking and in some cases non-Western world skaters, and so it may not be possible to find many of the potential sources in an English language Google search.{{pb}}But MC, can you identify any deletion nominations for which there were sources that could be found in any of the following: ''a normal Google search'', or a ''Google Books search'', or a ''Google News search'', or a ''Google News archive search''? If you can identify such, please provide the deletion discussion, and a link or other method of showing us how you came across the sources on one of those searches. If you can't, then it sounds like your argument is more for '''expanding ] to require non-English language searches for non-English subjects'''. I take no strong view on whether it would be a good idea - I think that BEFORE should certainly ''recommend'' more far reaching searches for subjects who may not be satisfied by a Google search.. but ''required''? Not everyone knows how to use other search engines, and they may not even know what terms to use (or be able to type them easily). And that doesn't even begin to touch the big problem with Google - Google results (if you're logged in, at least), are '''significantly''' based on your search history, and if you use Google Chrome browser (on mobile or PC), or the Android OS, they are also based on your usage of those platforms (such as websites visited, apps used, etc). So it's entirely possible that MC searching Google may see a result on the first page or two that someone else searching Google would not have seen on the first couple pages at all.{{pb}}Regardless, that's an argument/discussion to be had on another page (likely ]). Since this all seems to be a misconstruing of BEFORE by MC, and assuming everyone involved tones down the rhetoric, I'd recommend this move towards a reminder to MC that BEFORE, as it stands now, does '''not''' require anything beyond a Google (and Google News and Google Books) to be searched, and until that changes, the mere fact sources exist on other search engines does not constitute a violation of BEFORE unless there is evidence they would've been found through those search means. And I recommend that MC (or anyone, really) starts a discussion ''at the appropriate place'' if they think changes to BEFORE are necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** I read this and tried to search some names from AfD on Google Books. A search for ]'s name definitely returns something non-trivial: ("Nicole Nönnig kehrte allerdings nach kurzer Pause zurück . Mit Matthias Bleyer bildete sie ein Paar , das 2003 sogar internationale Wettbewerbe bestritt . Die Schlittschuhe haben Nicole und Matthias inzwischen jedoch an den Nagel ..."). --] (]) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:I'll leave this to others to discuss, but this is the type of "evidence" you would be expected to produce to show that the user did not comply with BEFORE. That said, one instance of mention in a book does not meet ], so unless you can show that there are ''multiple'' instances of ''significant'' coverage in reliable sources that would've been found on a BEFORE, then it still doesn't mean that the user did not do a valid BEFORE. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 01:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:: Here's a link to the book: . (I've tried and tried, but I don't know how to add "bks" to the Google Books search URL.) --] (]) 01:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:: A search for "李宣潼" on Google News returned this article: and a couple more. The one I linked looks very solid, it is a full-fledged biography. (The AfD discussion is here: ]. As usual, the rationale is: {{tq|Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements.}}) --] (]) 02:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:: And one more article → about Li Xuantong and her partner ] (also nominated for deletion by Bgsu98). It's like a print magazine article + interview, looks "massive". --] (]) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:: Another example: ].<br />A simple Google News search for "김유재 2009" returns a lot. I didn't look too far, but I found two lengthy articles about her and her twin sister on the first page (, ) and voted "keep".<br />(I would also note that there are already some AfD regulars present in that discussion. But no one has googled her name.) --] (]) 03:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:: OMG, Bgsu98 nominated her sister for deletion, too: ]. He nominated her on January 1, and no one has commented since. (Okay, I'll vote now and save her.) --] (]) 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:::You ''do'' realize there’s a difference between an article about a person and the person themselves? You’re not saving anyone here. You are a volunteer Misplaced Pages editor, not a volunteer firefighter. ] (]) 06:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **::::{{re|HyperAccelerated}} Did it sound strange or silly? Sure, I understand the difference. But people do say "article's notability" when it's actually "the notability of an article's subject". I thought that an article and its subject are interchangeable in colloquial wikispeech. --] (]) 06:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I know the entire thing is a bit of a long read, but I would like to note that Bgsu98's tendency to make XFDs without any regard for GNG/BASIC - even for those where GNG/BASIC is met (], ], ]) - dates back to ]. In fact, last year ] (which they then deleted) that this issue was creating more work for editors, but this is still continuing as of late. There seems to be an IDHT issue with ]. ]@] 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Alright, trying to defuse the situation more. {{ping|Bgsu98}} It appears that MC has been able to provide at least two examples for which there are ''multiple'' examples of potentially significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. And another user has identified at least 3 other AfDs in which sources were quickly found by other users. Yes, some of them (such as MC's examples) were found by Google searching the non-Latin alphabet version of the subject's name, but nothing in BEFORE suggests that searching only the subject's Latin name is appropriate. And it appears that these sources are all found with a quick Google search of the subject's name in the non-Latin script. Can you explain why you did not find these sources, or why, if you did find these sources, you did not identify them at the AfD discussion and/or did not consider them sufficient for GNG? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 04:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::What do you think of the limitations on nominating articles that ] already stated they were willing to adopt? It's higher up in this discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I spent a good 30-45 minutes reading this discussion before I made my first comment attempting to defuse this. I do not think that a voluntary restriction is going to be a good thing here, unless it is given the enforceability that a consensus here can give. I initially was concerned that EC was making this report with a poor understanding of BEFORE. But given that EC (and another editor) has/have now provided multiple examples of Google searches that show, at least at first glance, one or more sources that meet GNG for their related articles, I think there is ample evidence that Bgsu98 is violating BEFORE. I don't particularly care ''why'' they're violating BEFORE, but I would support waiting for their explanation regardless.{{pb}}If Bgsu98 is unable to provide any legitimate explanation for the at least 3 cases that have been identified now as having clear sources in the searches required by BEFORE, I would support a restriction on nominating articles for deletion in any way (PROD or AfD, or otherwise) since they cannot be trusted to follow BEFORE before they do so.{{pb}}All of that said, I think this should be moved to a subsection - starting with EC and Miraclepine's reports of specific cases. I stepped in as what you may call an inclusionist, thinking I'd be in support of sanctions immediately, but this is a complicated situation, and to be blunt, everything above my comment seems to have led nowhere. At the same time, I support giving Bgsu98 a chance to respond explaining why their BEFORE search was sufficient, before any sanctions are issued. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've provided some 20 examples as well. ] (]) 05:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would say: "Not before Bgsu98 goes through all his previous nominations and his PRODs and searches for sources for them." He probably deleted (okay, "nominated") hundreds of pages, he did enough damage and now should work on fixing it. --] (]) 05:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's not too helpful right now, man. No one can be forced to do anything. ] (]) 07:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't propose to force anyone. But I have just came across a ] and remembered how he was told to go through all the articles he had created and check/fix them before creating more. We have a similar situation here, I think. --] (]) 07:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Articles that should not have been deleted have been kept by consensus at AfD. This is how AfD works. They are in the exact same state that they were before they were nominated, perhaps even better by ]. No “damage” has occurred. Additionally, if you think an article has been deleted when it shouldn’t, it is ''your'' responsibility to bring your concerns to DRV. This does not change just because you made a thread at ANI. You do not get to pick and choose which policies apply to whom. ] (]) 18:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Bgsu has already agreed to limit their nominations to a couple a day. This is a far stricter constraint than what could have probably been reached by consensus. What more do you want? For reasons I don’t understand, your response to this is “the limit should be more like 0” without any grounding in policy. As I see it, Bgsu is plainly negotiating in good faith, while your behavior is bordering on bullying. ] (]) 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] has hit the nail on the head. This discussion should have been tossed immediately or at least closed down well before now. The early responses were that this was a content dispute not appropriate for ANI then the OP kept going with rapid fire posts and a few editors who appear to have a pre-existing axe to grind with @] revved it up into what it has become. As a side note it will be very interesting to see how the outstanding AFDs are adjudicated and by whom. ] (]) 18:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{OD}} | |||
| *'''Oppose any sanctions''' to Bgsu98. I did a spot-check of some of the more contentious AfDs and, honestly, the keep !votes did not provide a compelling argument to keep in any of those cases. As I mentioned to {{U|Moscow Connection}} above, for example, they provided six links to one of the subjects - and every single link was in the sports.ru domain which is not independent and does not establish notability for a Russian athlete. It's very unfortunate that so many editors here have expressed either distain for or fear of the AfD process, which is integral to the quality of this project and which I would heartily encourage more editors to participate in. And I can assure those people with misconceptions that many AfDs conclude with an article being kept or with no consensus - which is a de-facto keep. The sum of all human knowledge is a lofty goal. But one philosophical point I would ask extreme inclusionists to consider is that there is a difference between knowledge and data. AfD is a process whereby we distinguish between knowledge and data according to criteria - imperfect criteria surely but criteria - which we agreed to as participants in this project. We shouldn't be punishing a person for efficiently doing a hard job just because it's one that has a side-effect of upsetting people. ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:In case it was not already clear I too '''Oppose''' sanctions against @]. They should be given the chance to prove they will stick to their pledge to slow down on AFD nominations. Also sanctioning them will set a precedent for others who are unhappy with AFD proceeses and outcomes to seek similar sanctions against other nominators and could well have the effect of putting many people off participating in the process for fear of retribution when in fact it would be better if more people took part. ] (]) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Whereas I '''support''' some kind of restriction on the number of AFDs they can start per day. ]] 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I offered up self-imposed restrictions above, including the caveat that there would be no further skating nominations until the ones currently in the system work their way through. According to ], my last nomination was January 7th. As more contentious AFD's can sometimes take up to a month to process, that should allow for sufficient time. ] ] 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::To be fair, your log is regularly cleared, including your ]. ] (]) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Once an AFD is settled, I remove it. What's the problem? The log shows active AFD's only. ] ] 21:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * How about ] just agrees to not nominate more than, I don't know, two articles per day (based on their comment {{tq|I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two!}}) and we end the discussion? ] (]) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] I second this proposal. ] (]) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::We should definitely end it. I'm not an admin but that seems more than fair. ] (]) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Two a day is fine by me. ]] 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** I think there should be a requirement for him to show some sources he has found. (In every nomination. If there aren't any, then a link to a Google search query can suffice.)<br />Cause I've seen him lately on some figure skater articles in my watchlist, and I don't see him adding any references ever. It looks like his edits are purely technical. (As well as his nominations.) He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content, just updates scores and changes the table formatting. (And nominates for deletion.)<br />Does he ever search the net? That's the question. Has it happened even once that he wanted to delete an article and then found a source for it, added the source and went away? --] (]) 21:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:Wow. Mister "I would also like to note that I am polite" is again denigrating others' work, as if adding scores and formatting tables to meet Misplaced Pages's MOS is unimportant. "He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content." Yep, very polite. ] ] 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: And, as I've said, one should also search in the skater's native language. And for Russian figure skaters, Google doesn't work, you need Yandex. (And Yandex is not good as a search engine, some effort is needed to find anything. The major sports websites have profiles for everyone, you need to find the needed profile and go from there. It sounds too complicated, but that's how it is.) --] (]) 21:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** Also, he doesn't appear to know how to use the ]. The ] article had a good reference, I found it in the archive. His nomination (]) doesn't mention the reference, like if it doesn't exist. Maybe he didn't even look at the references section. --] (]) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** What I mean is that he should be required to show some sources he has found and to explain why these sources do not suffice. (After all, if he nominates an article, then obviously he doesn't find the coverage sufficient.)<br />There's always something. (Almost always.) But since he nominates mostly skaters who have finished their careers, the number of potential sources (news articles) found on the internet shouldn't be big. There are usually just a few. --] (]) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Smm380 and logged out editing == | |||
| ::*I think that about sums it up. I'm having a hard time digging through Faizhaider's various relevant edits but I agree that he doesn't seem to be quite innocent either in this dispute. I've explained to Visakha Veera that they may be unblocked once they retract the legal threat. But I'm also wondering if a temporary topic ban for both editors as part of an arbitration enforcement would be justified. ] (]) 21:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Smm380}} | |||
| :::*I would definitely support a topic ban for both editors, regardless of length. A topic ban that for Faizhaider should include adding Urdu as official, co-official or second language to any article relating to India, broadly construed. He has been told to stop his POV-pushing, and knows he's being watched, but a topic ban, regardless of length, would send an even clearer message to him than just a message from me on his talk page. ] ] 06:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{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) | |||
| :::: Dear ], your statement ''"which were split into separate states partly along language lines only two months ago"'', tells that although you are involved in the article & discussions but you may not be aware of exact background, Telangana was not carved out of Andhra Pradesh along language lines but in contrast Andhra Pradesh is first non-Hindi state which got splitted and that was due to development issues (and not language). | |||
| :::: Admins, my edits may be called POV but they are NPOV as can be seen throughout my discussion I have been patiently answering the points raised by other editors in ambit of WP policies and decorum. But other group seems to come one after one raising same points which I have answered already, then too I didn't lost my cool and urged the editor(s) to go through previous comments. Intrestingly, I have constantly been asked to produce proof from official sources while they are now relying on ambigous blog/news link. When they were not able to answer my points and logic they lost their cool and started abusing me (they also had coversation in Telugu and used words like stubborn to define me). In whole discussion I have been ] and tried to answer each and every objection. I have given numerous links and quoted Acts & Laws of India & Andhra Pradesh to show status of Hindi, English & other state language(s) but nobody seems to be looking at them and totally ignoring them. User has been removing data on AP and other articles while discussion was going on and that too without edit summary. Recently I have not tried to restore any of the removed content so I fail to understand how that mounts to POV push or edit-war. | |||
| :::: I'll urge admins to closely go through the discussion at ] and also look at postings of all editors involved on various other User Talk pages as there have been attempt of ] against me & my edits.--<b><span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:green">]</span></b><i><sup>]</sup><small>]</small><sub>]</sub></i> 06:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *As an uninvolved editor, the impression I get is of rather extreme bullying. The legal threats and threats of blocking are obvious violations of ] and despite a sudden retraction, under duress, of the threats, I am not convinced of the sincerity of said retractions. ]]] 18:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Neither am I. The unblock request looks to me like the verbatim what they need to say to get immediately unblocked, followed by a series of rants about someone else being the problem, and then another insincere repeat of the verbatim text to get unblocked. Not at all sincere and I think the disruption would continue if they were unblocked.--v/r - ]] 19:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{edit conflict}} Faizhaider, you are in fact edit warring because you keep adding your preferred references although they have been challenged by several other users. All I can see on your part is ] ( does not state anything about the official status of any language) and edit warring about it . You are even being inconsistent in your editing since and you remove a statement that said that Urdu was in fact the co-offical language in AP while you keep pointing out that the AP public employment act will "still" be published in Urdu. ] (]) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I noticed the concerns raised regarding edits made both from my account and an IP address, and I’d like to clarify that this was neither intentional nor malicious. I simply forgot to log into my account while making those edits. | |||
| ===Propose topic bans=== | |||
| :I apologize if this caused any confusion. My sole intention was to improve content related to Ukrainian history, a topic I am deeply passionate about. | |||
| ====Faizhaider==== | |||
| :Regarding the delayed response to your messages, I sincerely apologize. I hadn’t noticed the notifications until recently, as I was unfamiliar with how Misplaced Pages’s messaging system works. Now that I understand it better, I’ll ensure to respond more promptly in the future. | |||
| After reviewing Faizhaider's contributions at the article ], the discussion at ] and ] I conclude that Faizhaider is pushing a somewhat unclear agenda related to adding Urdu as one of the official languages in the current Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Regardless of the merit of sources provided by either side it has become evident that Faizhaider's edits to the article have become disruptive in a manner of edit warring, POV pushing and a lot of ] resulting in even more disruption and needless drama. As it happens, ] following the ] ruling cannot be applied on Faizhaider because he was not notified of this possible type of enforcement while editing the article. While a block would be justified for edit warring I would like to seek a solution that may last longer than some two or three days. I therefore propose a topic ban as follows: For the period of one month, Faizhaider must neither add nor remove the Urdu language at any articles concerning topics of India broadly construed. This discussion serves as notification for discretionary sanctions in the ARBIND case enabling further action. ] (]) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I truly appreciate the valuable work you do to maintain the quality and reliability of Misplaced Pages. I will make sure to contribute responsibly and stay logged in during my future edits. ] (]) 16:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban as proposer. ] (]) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban per De728631's proposal. ] ] 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Another not here IP == | |||
| {{ping|De728631}}, {{ping|Thomas.W}} I'm not sure if you have seen recent conversation on ], but the situation seems to be more cooled-off and clear than 24 hrs ago as it is now clear from various sources that the confusion is not only at WP but it even engulfs legislators of AP. I'm sorry for miopic view & stand but I felt that long standing information on article was being removed (without any comment summary) in absence of any hard proof (may be due to POV push & bias). Now we have reached consensus to maintain status-quo on the article. So, I'll ask for reconsideration of topic ban.--<b><span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:green">]</span></b><i><sup>]</sup><small>]</small><sub>]</sub></i> 10:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{User|2601:18C:8183:D410:1D8C:39C9:DCEE:1166}} is altering another users posts to insert political commentary ] as well as making PA's, with a clear statement they do not intend to stop ], and edit warring over it as well. ] (]) 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Now past 3rr reinsertion of their alteration of another users post. So its now vandalism. ] (]) 14:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Visakha veera==== | |||
| Visaka veera has probably overreacted in the recent dispute with Faizhaider but seeing unblock request I fear he is simply walking the same road as Faizhaider, namely arguing ad nauseam that his sources ] while playing down the issue that led to his block. This makes me agree with Judasfax and TParis that Vv's retraction of the legal threat may not at all be sincere. Provided that the indefinite block of Visaka veera is lifted following his latest request or within four weeks from now I propose a topic ban of the same nature as the one for Faizhaider: For one month after his being unblocked, Visaka veera must neither add nor remove the Urdu language at any articles concerning topics of India broadly construed. Any failure to abide by this restriction or will result in an indefinite block per ] sanctions. ] (]) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban as proposer. ] (]) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban per De728631's proposal. ] ] 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As well as this tit for tat report ]. ] (]) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Velebit == | |||
| :IP blocked for edit warring. --] 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| A long indef-blocked tendentious editor has reappeared, yet again, at these IPs: | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| * ] - from December 2013 until today | |||
| * ] - from July 2013 until April 2014 (and two months later it was globally blocked as an open proxy) | |||
| == Heritage Foundation planning to doxx editors == | |||
| Earlier cases are documented at ]. The latest user I had suspected at ANI was ] - who went quiet soon after that, in May 2013. | |||
| {{atop|result=Closing to prevent a split discussion. The most central discussion about this is currently held at ]. —] 22:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| See ]. Various sources are beginning to report on this, see , . It seems they plan to “identify and target Misplaced Pages editors abusing their position by analyzing text patterns, usernames, and technical data through data breach analysis, fingerprinting, HUMINT, and technical targeting,” and “engage curated sock puppet accounts to reveal patterns and provoke reactions, information disclosure,” and “push specific topics to expose more identity-related details.” An IP user on the discussion page says "they intend to add malicious links (sources) that will set cookies, grab your IP, and get tracking going for your device. This has likely already started. Be careful, there are lots of ways to hide where a link goes." ] (]) 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think there's a far more productive discussion going on at ]. ] (]) 17:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::A friendly reminder: It's always a good time to review the strength and age of account passwords, plus consider two-factor verification. The world is constantly changing... ] (]) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Isn't doxing a federal/punishable offense in ten states (more or less), including DC? If they grab the information of or out a minor, that can easily be taken on as a form of harassment and won't end well. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::No doubt the Trump adminstration will make pursuing such cases a high priority. ]] 22:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm unsure why this isn't a WMF issue, due to potential legal and safeguarding issues. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The WMF has been made aware. ] (she/her • ]) 19:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Truffle457 == | |||
| This has been going on since November 2005. Yes, you read that right - almost a decade now. | |||
| {{atop|result=Editor blocked indefinitely. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{user|Truffle457 }} | |||
| I recommend we formally declare a site ban. --] (]) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Velebit was indefinitely blocked eight years ago, and it's obvious that nobody's going to unblock him. We already consider this editor banned. ] (]) 23:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree, but I'd prefer to have it in writing so I don't get any raised eyebrows when I detect and proceed to block him next time. --] (]) 23:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is why de facto bans exist and are defined as such in the banning policy.—] (]) 01:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even beside that, you can remind the eyebrow-raisers that the user in question is block-evading; ] is linked in the ]. But yes, as Ryulong says, that's policy; even such idiots as Willy on Wheels have never been banned by Arbcom or by Jimbo or by the community. ] (]) 03:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Thanks to both of you, but I still prefer having this quick discussion as opposed to depending on a small note from the banning policy. I take the other small note from it seriously - site bans are supposed to be a measure of last resort. --] (]) 06:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Formalizing a ban on of this disruptive user will make it a little easier to block on sight. There doesn't seem to be any downside.- ]] 11:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I don't even know what to call this. This user has few edits but most are like this. ] (]) 22:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :This is a new user with only a single level I notice on their page. I've issued a level II caution for using talk pages as a forum and added a welcome template. If this persists, stronger measures may be needed. -] (]) 22:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :], I'd advise talking with an editor, through words, not templates, before filing a complaint at ANI. That's a general recommendation unless there is active vandalism going on. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::His comments are disturbing tbh. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The user's response to {{U|Ad Orientem}}'s warning demonstrates that they have no insight into their misconduct and are ].--] (]) 23:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{notdone|Indeffed}} per WP:CIR. -] (]) 23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, by having a conversation, you discerned that CIR applied. Some communication, I think, is better than silence at least when you are trying to make sense of an unclear situation. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == YZ357980, second complaint == | |||
| {{pagelinks|Netball}} | |||
| I have again reverted {{u|YZ357980}}'s insertion of an image of dubious copyright; change of Somali Armed Forces native-name to an incorrect format; and violation of ] at ] - see ] which had another editor fix the incorrect file format. I believe this editor is ] and not willing to communicate and I would request administrator attention to this matter. Kind regards ] ] 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :For the record, that image has been on Commons since 2015 and was made by a different user. That said, YZ357980 continues to make these borderline disruptive edits and has ''never'' posted on an article talk page or a user talk page. I've pblocked them from articlespace until communication improves, as it is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::1. Thankyou!! Much appreciated!! | |||
| ::2. Yes I was aware of the status of those images, but I repeatedly told YZ357980 that it was of borderline copyright and WP had to follow US copyright law. I have managed to get the equivalent Iraqi ones deleted; I will go after the Somali ones to try to get them deleted. | |||
| ::3. ''Someone'' (an anon IP) posted on his talkapage as if replying, see . Please feel free to reconsider your actions should you wish, but I continue to believe YZ357980 is NOTHERE. ] ] 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given which is clearly YZ not logged in, the block has been changed to full indef. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == My reverted edit at List of Famicom Disk System games == | |||
| There's an edit war going on at ], which looks to me like a flare up of the issues at the heart of ] (which is long, involved and I don't fully understand). I've reverted IPs here and on ] in the past, but all the current participants appear to be editors with sane edit histories. ] (]) 00:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=At worst, this deserves a {{tl|minnow}}. This is, at heart, a content dispute, and ] is the place to discuss it. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :There is currently a discussion ongoing about categories, sparked by a recent ]. All the editors involved are quite sane. If racepacket shows up again, I will notify ] at once. ] (]) 02:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hi | |||
| I added {{tl|clear}} to the top of table of ] to make the table use the whole horizontal space. I did it according to other list of video games articles and reception section of some video games articles to help the table list look better or not reception table to conflict with references (double column references more specifically). | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{archive top|result=Given that this is the ''fifth'' time this has occurred, I have closed the AFD and salted all three titles. And I'll simply block the named accounts per ]. ] 09:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| This editor is pushing the biographical article ] to be on Misplaced Pages. The article was first created through the ] process by an IP editor. It was subsequently by another editor, at which time I interjected myself and the page back to draftspace since it had not been reviewed by an AfC participant. ] then the submission. Then ] took it upon himself to the draft and the page back to mainspace. | |||
| However {{ping|NakhlaMan}} reverted my edit and with a rude language called it "UGLIER" and calls it waste of too much space. | |||
| Since the submission was declined by an AfC participant with the decision of ], I the article at ] a second time and recommended in a comment there that if the article was deleted to ] it to prevent its recreation. ] also appears to have ] invoked, and he also to place a reviewer userbox on his userpage but he does not have that "right". | |||
| With my edit, it adds just a small space to the top of list heading but the table could be read easier and uses the whole available space. ] (]) 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| He is passing himself off as an AfC reviewer, but he does not have the required time of service (90 days, his account is 5 days old), nor the number of edits (500, he has 30) required to be an AfC participant, which leads me to believe that it is an ] for the sole purpose of getting the subject on Misplaced Pages. ] ] </span>) 01:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think this is the right place for this. Yes, the user could have been much nicer on their opinion, but this is too much of an escalation, too fast. I would advise commenting on their talk page, or on the page talk page. Cheers, ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) {{nacmt}} | |||
| *This is a problem because it has great potential to upset the editors who took the time and trouble to create articles at ]. Having an article accepted by an 'over enthusiastic' editor who does not meet the experience/expertise threshold and then having that undone, followed be re-acceptance, and AfD is not an experience that most new editors would wish to go through | |||
| :Yes, their edit summary was mildly rude, but this is not actionable, please open a discussion on the article's talk page.]] 04:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :They performed the same erroneous acceptance with ] which has been returned to Draft: space | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :I had previously asked the editor ] to cease, but it seems to no avail. | |||
| :I have placed a firm and formal warning on their talk page, but have no confidence that it will be complied with. The mves themselves are easy to deal with. The problem is the aftermath of upsetting new editors that is impossible to solve. ] ] 06:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*I have left a very clear message to this editor ] reinforcing the invitation to come here to contribute to the discussion. I suspect English not to be their first language, so have made the suggestion that they find a translator. ] ] 08:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * We've already been here at least four times before, as well; see ] (3 tries at getting this article in), and also ] (identical), created by the same IP and promoted from AFCH by ], who am I guessing is the same person. ] 09:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Edit War in Korean clans of foreign origin == | |||
| == ] spamming passive-aggressive, sarcastic attempts to derail discussions, edit warring, and meatpuppetry == | |||
| {{Atop|Ger2024 blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{archive top|Muffinator is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to ]. Furthermore, it speaks profoundly on ] that after this thread had already boomeranged without their intervention, their only comment was to suggest that the user who reported them was acting in good faith and only needed supervision. Parabolooidal - you're an outstanding person.--v/r - ]] 21:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| User: Ger2024 | |||
| This user has repeatedly added comments of a sarcastic and passive-aggressive nature on multiple talk pages. | |||
| {{Userlinks|Ger2024}} | |||
| *They brought up irrelevant information in attempts to derail discussions {{Diff|page=Talk:Alan_Turing|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Alan_Turing&diff=prev&oldid=620042747|oldid=620042747|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism&diff=prev&oldid=620570490|oldid=620570490|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism&diff=prev&oldid=620572467|oldid=620572467|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=620040556|oldid=620040556|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=620019293|oldid=620019293|label=here}}, and {{Diff|page=Talk:Prince_Azim|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Prince_Azim&diff=prev&oldid=620036243|oldid=620036243|label=here}}. | |||
| Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began. | |||
| *] {{Diff|page=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology&diff=prev&oldid=620423221|oldid=620423221|label=here}} - attempting to recruit members of an otherwise uninvolved WikiProject. | |||
| In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs). | |||
| *Edit warring {{Diff|page=Talk:Prince_Azim|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Prince_Azim&diff=next&oldid=620699902|oldid=620699902|label=here}} (reverted the page to their preferred version, then accused ''me'' of failing to verify consensus.) | |||
| Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert. | |||
| *They made personal digs at me {{Diff|page=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard|diff=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=620693487|oldid=620693487|label=here}} and {{Diff|page=Talk:Prince_Azim|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Prince_Azim&diff=prev&oldid=620042011|oldid=620042011|label=here}}, accusing me of inconsistency ("you edited page X but didn't make the same change to page Y" and "you added this page to category A but didn't add it to category B") | |||
| :This report belongs at ]. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) {{nacmt}} | |||
| *Additional passive-aggressive comments {{Diff|page=Talk:Alan_Turing|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Alan_Turing&diff=prev&oldid=620037493|oldid=620037493|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Talk:Alan_Turing|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Alan_Turing&diff=prev&oldid=620038393|oldid=620038393|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=620039158|oldid=620039158|label=here}}, and {{Diff|page=Talk:Prince_Azim|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Prince_Azim&diff=prev&oldid=620042011|oldid=620042011|label=here}}. | |||
| :Who posted this complaint, they didn't leave a signature which, to me, shows a lack of experience. They also didn't leave any diffs so it's impossible to judge if there were indeed reverts. And as HeartGlow states, this is more suitable for ANEW which focuses on edit-warring. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unclear if genuine question or rhetorical, but in case it's the former, it seems to be ]. (They have over 1000 edits and have been editing since 2022, but it appears they may be used to using the Reply tool, which might explain why they didn't think to <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> since replying in that manner does that automatically? I think? <small>...Not trying to excuse it so much as I'm trying to understand it.</small>) - ] (]) 08:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry about that, I was a bit sleep deprived when I made, I'll go to WP:ANEW. | |||
| :::And yea im way too used to the reply tool, i think i make these posts like once perhaps every few months so i got a bit rusty on this. Thanks! ] (]) 13:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == Subtle vandalism by 8.40.247.4 == | |||
| *I explained this on the user's talk page {{Diff|page=User_talk:Parabolooidal|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Parabolooidal&diff=620696693&oldid=620279134|oldid=620279134|label=here}}, which they responded to on an entirely different page {{Diff|page=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=620698678|oldid=620698678|label=here}}, claiming it was a threat, presumably because I mentioned that "disruptive editing may result in a suspension or ban." This demonstrates a lack of willingness to listen, which is why I feel that an administrator needs to be involved in order to correct the user's behavior. | |||
| {{atop|1=Excellent report results in a two-year block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] (]) 02:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * {{Userlinks|8.40.247.4}} | |||
| Since early 2020, ] has consistently and ] made edits that: | |||
| :I took a quick look at each of the diffs in ''They brought up irrelevant information in attempts to derail discussions {{Diff|page=Talk:Alan_Turing|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Alan_Turing&diff=prev&oldid=620042747|oldid=620042747|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism&diff=prev&oldid=620570490|oldid=620570490|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism&diff=prev&oldid=620572467|oldid=620572467|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=620040556|oldid=620040556|label=here}}, {{Diff|page=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=620019293|oldid=620019293|label=here}}, and {{Diff|page=Talk:Prince_Azim|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Prince_Azim&diff=prev&oldid=620036243|oldid=620036243|label=here}}.'' Each time, the material seems at least vaguely relevant. I don't see attempts to derail discussions. We needn't be concerned about passivity; I don't see aggressiveness or a worrying degree of sarcasm. I don't see behavior that needs to be "corrected". -- ] (]) 02:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * minimize achievements and contributions of black people in American society | |||
| *]'s latest disruptive behavior is to remove the banners of (non-autism) projects that the user is not affiliated with, using misleading edit summaries and then demanding that the entire project get involved, as seen {{Diff|page=Talk:Dan_Olmsted|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Dan_Olmsted&oldid=prev&diff=620817441|oldid=620817441|label=here}} and {{Diff|page=Talk%3AVideo_self-modeling|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AVideo_self-modeling&diff=620820917&oldid=620820578|oldid=620820578|label=here}}. ] (]) 20:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * obscure or soften wording about right-wing and far-right leanings of conservative figures | |||
| * promote fringe, racist, or pseudo-scientific theories | |||
| The IP generally attempts to disguise the edits by lying about changes made in the edit summary. Here is a list of problem edits in chronological order: | |||
| ===Muffinator and the topic of autism=== | |||
| ::I am an involved editor. Muffinator seems to be adding his own personal wikiproject to talk pages based upon tenacious reasons, e.g. a source from a couple of scholars written decades after the subjects death. These additions have been questioned by multiple people on the talk pages, and on ]. Muffinator does not seem to argue the reasons for inclusion, rather than the right to include his wikiproject. He makes personal attacks whilst stating that he is refusing to discuss. Whilst making those attacks, he complains about attacks against himself. I have pointed him towards ], ] and ]. In this case I think we should be looking at ] in this case. ] 02:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The issue of the WikiProject banners themselves is already being discussed in multiple venues. I don't see the need to add it here too. The fact that you may agree with what side of the issue Parabolooidal sits on is no excuse for Parabolooidal's behavior. Martin, why do you insist on misrepresenting my statements and behavior? I ''have'' argued the reasons for inclusion multiple times; you just keep ''saying'' that I didn't. The first edit you mentioned is a warning about disruptive behavior made before the one on the user's talk page, not a personal attack. In the second HiLo48 calls me arrogant and stupid. That unambiguously ''is'' a personal attack. ] does not apply. ] (]) 03:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Do you really think calling another persons edits "childish" is not a personal attack? ] 03:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Again you're choosing to summarize my comment with the most negative interpretation possible. If you look at the comment as written, it is apparent that I was merely pointing out that I suspect the rationale of being sarcastic and not genuine. ] (]) 03:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just checked the "meatpuppet" link which turned out to be a polite request for comment from psychology Wikipedians about this autism project. I am in agreement, this calls for a minor ]. ] ] 02:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am pretty sure Psychology has a lot to do with autism. Hardly meat puppetry. ] (]) 03:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm an involved editor, but my take on this is that ] is attempting to set up wikiproject on autism as a social phenomenon but has failed to sufficiently distinguish autism as a social phenomenon from autism as a medical phenomenon and is swimming thus against the tide of a range of editors (including myself) with a long history of work enforcing ] / ]. My suggestion is that ] either switch to only working on what ] / ] can be found for or recast the wikiproject and it's tools using terms that clearly place it outside of medicine. ] (]) 03:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Incoming ] in 5...4...3...2... <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 03:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" | |||
| :Another involved editor here, who has found Muffinator quite confrontational and aggressive on this matter. I am one of many (obviously) who expressed concern over the unexplained addition of the Autism tag to article Talk pages. Despite the obviousness of this fact, at one stage he attempted to sweep aside my objections with a snide and mathematically incorrect comment that I was the only one possibly confused by the new tag, he had explained it to me, so the problem was solved. When I called him on this poor attitude and stupid statement, he called my post a personal attack and deleted it. Is the boomerang really on its way? I hope so. ] (]) 07:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ! width="100" | Date | |||
| ::Here are my suggestions: ban Muffinator from both (1) Adding ] or ] to biography articles and (2) Adding the Autism WikiProject banner to any article. Both behaviors are causing unnecessary disruption, and he has already invited hundreds of users to WikiProject Autism, any of whom could assist him with these tasks if they agreed with him at all. ] ] 11:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ! width="225" | Page | |||
| ::: I would second that, in view of my short—but unpleasant—exchange with Muffinator on my (, ) and their (from to ) user talk page. - ] (]) 11:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ! Issue | |||
| ::::I don't believe that I have ever interacted with Muffinator, but after reading through all this and the related talk pages that led to this, I have to agree that that a topic ban for her/him is appropriate. I also think that the topic ban should include the admonition that any breach(es) will lead to escalating blocks. Muffinator does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia and needs to be given a clear, unambiguous warning that the community will not tolerate this sort of behaviour. - ] ] 14:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| :::::Please note that the hundreds of users I have invited to the project were found through an indiscriminate look at the autistic/Asperger Wikipedian categories (plus a few who I suspect of being "interested in the topic"). It is obvious from my contribution history that I have been simply going through the list alphabetically and not attempting meatpuppetry. I am indeed here to build an encyclopedia; if I have gotten sidetracked with issues like project banners, it's only because frivolous disputes feel like an interruption to me. Sometimes I only have time to either address the disputes or ignore them and work elsewhere, and either way I must invoke ] to do so. ] (]) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | Mar 4, 2020 | |||
| (involved editor) As already outlined, Muffinator has been adding tags to articles that are tangentially related to autism. As well, this editor has declared that ] does not apply to ] as, in his/her view it is not a medical condition. . In that same discussion at the High functioning Autism talk page (s)he as declared that a secondary source in a peer reviewed journal is not a reliable source. As well, in that discussion (s)he claimed that ] is a 'hate group'. This editor has, as well, been the subject of discussion at the medicine wikiproject, here. , these discussions were, again, about this editor's POV pushing that autism is not a medical condition. In this discussion at ] Muffinator once more claims that autism is not a disorder but a 'harmless neurological variant' and that the ] is not a reliable source. In short, I do not think this user is here to build an encyclopedia, but is here to ] and push a fringe POV that autism is not a medical disorder. I propose not just a ban on adding tags to articles but a topic ban for Muffinator from all autism related articles. ] (]) 11:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | '''McComb, Mississippi''' (]) | |||
| *All editors have opinions. I am not going to conceal what my opinions are ''on a talk page'' just because they are not ]- or ]-compliant. Notice that I did not ever remove ] from ] or delete any medicine-based sources, nor did I edit ] to state that it is a hate group. In fact, the only edits I recall making to that page were a change from "charity" to "organization" with an edit summary pointing out that "hate group" would also be POV, and a suggestion to merge the page with ]. Also, I stated that ''"Inclusion in the DSM" is not a reliable source'' for making judgments that the DSM itself doesn't make (], not that the DSM isn't a reliable source. Once again, my statements are being re-interpreted to fit another editor's opinion of me as a person. ] (]) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | | |||
| :Just looked at that WP Medicine talk page, and wow... he refuses to acknowledge even that the discussion is about him. Yes, having seen his viewpoint in action I would support a topic ban. ] ] 11:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Removal of section about black people gaining the right to vote with the Voting Rights Act. | |||
| ::Yes, I was looking at that earlier. Support topic ban for Muffinator. (I'm completely univolved) ] (]) 12:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| * I have to add another '''Support''' a topic-ban from autism at this time. I have to say that my interactions with Muffinator haven't been 100% negative, I can point to at least one case where they appeared to back off after sourcing was provided that didn't support their position, and I thought their general idea of starting a WikiProject Autism was productive, or at least has the potential to be. But that's swallowed up by their lack of acceptance of sourcing guidelines as they apply to this topic area, their characterization of Autism Speaks--one of the largest and most influential autism advocacy organizations--as a "hate group", disruptively confrontational attitude in discussions regarding this topic area, and a general ] behavior (see their contribs to their User page to see the "sworn enemy" counter they're keeping). <code>]]</code> 16:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | May 31, 2020 | |||
| **Although it wouldn't erase the page history, I am willing to delete the userbox altogether if the wikilink to ] (which has been there since the box's inception) isn't sufficient to point out that it is lighthearted hyperbole. ] (]) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | '''John Derbyshire''' (]) | |||
| ***I don't know enough about the subject to judge, but calling Autism Speaks a hate group based on . So that in itself shouldn't raise any more red flags than e.g. calling the GOP a hate group (which we can all agree on, right?). Whether or not one's POV is righteous, however, does not affect whether one can push it. --] 21:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | | |||
| *] may be acting in good faith and perhaps just needs some supervision to prevent disruption as happened now at ] ] (]) 21:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Removes phrase describing ], a white nationalist organization, as white nationalist. Summary: "{{!xt|Fixed a typo}}". | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| |- | |||
| {{archive top|1=As noted, this discussion has been closed and further disussion, if any, needs to be done through the un(topic)banning process. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 00:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| | Jul 21, 2020 | |||
| **The move of the disability guide was a misuse of ] which I have acknowledged by putting my name in as supporting the proposal to move the page back. ] (]) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | '''Richard Hayne''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * "{{!xt|Reorganised wording}}" means removing criticism. | |||
| * "{{!xt|made favourable LGBT commentary more vivid}}" (what?) replaces the subject's stance on homosexuality with a vague and unsourced statement about Urban Outfitters and the Hayne family. | |||
| |- | |||
| | Jul 28, 2020 | |||
| | '''Louie Gohmert''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Softens "opposes LGBT rights" to "generally opposes LGBT rights legislation". Removes the words "defamatory" from section on Gohmert's false allegations. Removes whole section on Gohmert's opposition to making lynching a hate crime. | |||
| * Summary: "{{!xt|Grammatical issues.}}" | |||
| |- | |||
| | Sep 24, 2020 | |||
| | '''Back-to-Africa movement''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Omits the context of Christians accepting slavery when the slaves were Muslim to make it sound like religious Americans had always been morally opposed | |||
| |- | |||
| | Jan 14, 2021 | |||
| | '''Virginia Dare''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Removes description of VDARE as a group associated with white supremacy and white nationalism. | |||
| |- | |||
| | Apr 28, 2021 | |||
| | '''Bret Stephens''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Hides his climate change denial, so the sentence now basically reads "Bret Stephens has an opinion on climate change". Uses summary "{{!xt|Removed redundancy}}" (it wasn't redundant). | |||
| |- | |||
| | June 25, 2021 | |||
| | '''John Gabriel Stedman''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Removes sentence on pro-slavery leanings (admittedly unsourced) and sexual exploitation of one of his slaves (sourced). Summary: "{{!xt|Minor grammatical / spelling errors revised.}}" | |||
| |- | |||
| | Oct 7, 2021 | |||
| | '''Appalachian music''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Replaces the "various European and African influences" in the introduction with a phrase implying the music's origins were European, and that African-American influence only came later, which is untrue. | |||
| * Rewords " call and response format ... was ''adopted'' by colonial America" to say " ... was ''also common'' in colonial America". | |||
| * Removes entire paragraph about African-Americans introducing the banjo to white Southerners. Further down, changes "African banjo" to just "banjo". | |||
| * Summaries: "{{!xt|Added links to traditional folk music wikis}}" and "{{!xt|Verbiage clean-up}}". | |||
| |- | |||
| | Nov 27, 2021 | |||
| | '''Steve Sailer''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Removes all mention of Sailer, backed by sources, as holding racist, white supremacist, and anti-semitic views in the introduction. | |||
| * Removes description of Sailer's human biodiversity theory as pseudoscientific and racist. | |||
| * Summary is "{{!xt|Added a link to human biodiversity}}" – true, but leaves out the 6,000 deleted bytes. Makes the same edit two more times, but is reverted each time. | |||
| |- | |||
| | Jan 26, 2022 | |||
| | '''Mongoloid''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Removes phrase calling it a disproven theory. Replaces sentence on racist origins in Western scholars with mention of Eastern scholars also promoting the theory (unsourced). Adds a phrase saying that actually, it's up for debate. | |||
| |- | |||
| | Jul 6, 2022 | |||
| | '''Indian Mills, New Jersey''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Deletes phrase about white colonists displacing Native American families. Summary: "{{!xt|Removed a dead link}}". | |||
| |- | |||
| | Feb 20, 2023 | |||
| | '''Myth of meritocracy''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Changes sentence on institutional racism to describe it as "theoretical institutional racism". | |||
| |- | |||
| | Mar 26, 2023 | |||
| | '''Millford Plantation''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Hides the plantation's origins in slavery by renaming description from "forced-labor farm" to "farmstead". Summary: "{{!xt|Added link to slavery in the USA}}". | |||
| |- | |||
| | Jun 17, 2023 | |||
| | '''John Birch Society''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Removes mention of the society being right-wing, far-right, and radical right in introduction. | |||
| * Further down, removes description as being ultraconservative and extremist, and Southern Poverty Law Center's classification as antigovernment. | |||
| * Summary: "{{!xt|Removed faulty and vague links.}}" | |||
| |- | |||
| | Jan 9, 2025 | |||
| | '''Robert Gould Shaw''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Removes sentence on the battle inspiring African-Americans to join the Union Army during the Civil War. Summary: "{{!xt|Grammatical clean-up}}". | |||
| |- | |||
| | Jan 9, 2025 | |||
| | '''Virginia Dare''' (]) | |||
| | | |||
| * Edits the page again four years later, this time using VDARE's closing as an excuse to remove all mention of it. Claims it is "{{!xt|no longer relevant}}", which is a crazy argument. | |||
| |} | |||
| The IP doesn't make enough edits at a time for vandalism warnings to rise to level 4, and thus has never been blocked (which is why I'm reporting this here and not at ]). These groups of edits are also spaced out over months, so a different user warns the IP each time (eight times so far!). The user, unfamiliar with the IP's editing history, treats the old warnings as "expired" and simply issues another level 1 or 2 warning. | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban for whatever length of time is necessary. I don't think Muffinator, as an SPA, is here to build an encyclopedia. I have not personally edited any of the topic-wide articles and so perceive myself as an uninvolved editor, but I have noted the editor's behavior via threads on WikiProject Medicine. ] (]) 21:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **] is a hyperbolic accusation. I have demonstrated an interest in non-autism topics, and even if I hadn't, a narrow interest isn't the only criteria for SPA. ] (]) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***Muffinator, this discussion is over. If you want to appeal your topic ban, check out ] for your options. ] ] 22:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***Muffinator, please be careful, this might be considered a violation of your topic ban. ] (]) 23:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***Just as a note (not bearing on this one way or another), but editing in other topic areas to point at and say 'I'm not an SPA' is a very common tactic of SPAs. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 00:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| I believe this IP should be banned for a while. Unfortunately, there are probably many more like this one that haven't been caught yet. --] (]) 09:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User Jim-Siduri is back as IP == | |||
| :I spot checked these and yeah this is bad. Using false and misleading edit summaries to remove in most cases sourced descriptions to slant articles. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">] | ]</small> 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jesus Christ. Blocked for two years, since it looks like the IP is stable. ] ] 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you! ] (]) 19:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think this discussion is a good example of providing all the infomation needed to the admins to make the decision. If only everyone who complained here did the same. ] (]) 19:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Egl7, anti-Armenian behaviour == | |||
| ], who was ], is back . ] shows this is certainly his and the IP is fairly stable. Could we get a block on this IP as well, or possible page protection on his favorite targets? ] (]) 04:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Egl7 indef'd for being here to argue instead of building an encyclopedia. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| : Blocked IP two months for now. ] ] | |||
| {{userlinks|Egl7}} | |||
| ::One user, in the block discussion, recommended a ]. Since the editor appeared to be profoundly well-meaning but ], a ban did not seem appropriate. If there is further block evasion (sock-puppetry), it might be necessary to consider a ban. As it is, he has been told that he can make a standard offer in six months. If the block evasion continues, that will be off the table. ] (]) 21:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: would appear to be the same user. ]] 09:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Egl7 clearly has bone to pick with Armenia, including dancing on the fine line of ], not to mention severe ] issues. As a Russian admin admit perfectly put it when they indeffed Egl7; | |||
| So, someone with the Siduri church ].—] (]) 22:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| #Egl7 never tries to take responsibility for their actions, instead being upset and obsessing over that I didn't revert a random IP that added "Armenian" under "common languages" in an infobox almost two years ago , mentioning that 7 (!) times | |||
| == User conduct ] == | |||
| #According to Egl7, having three things (out of 25) about Armenia on my userpage - being part of the ], being interested in the history of ], and opposing the denial of the Armenian genocide, means I support "Armenia's actions" , whatever that means. They never explained it despite being asked to, which leads me to the next thing. | |||
| #Here is this incredibly bizarre rant by Egl7 for me having stuff about Armenia on my userpage and not Azerbaijan, accusing me of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment and whatnot; | |||
| #Egl7 does not understand when someone is not interested in engaging in ] whataboutism, instead resorting to ], first on my talk page , then an article talk page , then their own talk page . This random question about the ] appeared after I asked them if they denied the Armenian Genocide since they considered me having a userpage about it part of "supporting Armenia's actions". According to this well sourced Wiki section , the term "genocide" is a "fabrication" for the Khojaly massacre, which is "used to counter the narrative of the Armenian genocide." | |||
| #Dancing on the fine line of ], if not denying it | |||
| #Despite being blocked on the Russian Misplaced Pages for it, their first action here was trying the very same thing they were indeffed for ; changing "Nakhichevan" (Armenian spelling) to "Nakhichivan" (Azerbaijani spelling) | |||
| #I truly tried to have ] despite their disruptive conduct and previous block, but this user is simply ]. There also seems to be severe ] at hand, as they struggle understanding a lot of what I say, including even reading ], which I had to ask them to read 5 (!) times before I gave up. As seen in our long discussion , they also to struggle understand basic sentences/words, such as the difference between "official" and "common". | |||
| I'm not going to respond to Egl7 here unless an admin wants me to. --] (]) 13:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I've tried to stand above it repeatedly, but yeah... this user's conduct of bad faith towards me is leaving me quite sour and annoyed. I wish for an administrator to evaluate the conduct of ] at ] per the ]. --] (]) 04:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === HistoryofIran, anti-Azerbaijani behaviour === | |||
| :This isn't necessary. Linking to a ] (]) is not a personal attack, although I agree it is bad faith. My mind is '''already''' made up on that, there is '''no''' point trying to change it. The end. ] (]) 05:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] | |||
| @] clearly has bone to pick with Azerbaijan, including ] my ] work which includes correction of arrangement of the "Today is part of" infobox following the country, in which, at present, the largest part of the territory of the Nakhchivan Khanate is located. @] is reverting back changes, saying that my https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nakhichevan_Khanate&diff=prev&oldid=1268162595 edit is not an improvement without any real reason and without offering any argument. Also they are stating that there is a restriction according to ], while ignoring edits of other users. I asked them many times to open a discussion so both sides could offer different proposals which in turn would lead to a consensus. In response all my requests were ignored. Also they have been accusing me of having conflicts with other users and countries while I have never noted or mentioned any and they have been impolite to me all the time, while i have never been impolite or rude to them. I want to say that I am blocked on ru.wikipedia, again, because of no real reason(They are vandalizing and projecting their actions onto me) and now i'm even worried that en.wikipedia will do the same to me. | |||
| ::As stated in ]... | |||
| ::*''"Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views"''. Check. | |||
| ::*''"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence"''. Check. --] (]) 05:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And that's why I said it didn't matter. You are bringing it up even though I said it didn't matter at that point. Again like I said, my mind is ''already'' made up, and there's no point changing that. So is ] not allowed to be cited as a policy? Yeah right, not. I have '''no''' intention of getting in a ] here. The discussion is over, we already reached a compromise, no need to unnecessarily drag it out at now. This is off-topic, unnecessary, and not helping your cause here. It's over already. ] (]) 05:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh no, a personal attack does not matter to you? Oh jeez... and I've explicitly requested evidence, but no... so I can't even defend myself and you expect me to just take it, while you went on and on with it (you know you pushed), despite my request to comment on content. --] (]) 07:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I said it didn't matter but since you are still going on about it, the comments that I "thanked" you for on other articles, was what used to I base your ] on to me. The fact that you're continuing to go on about it re-enforced it to me, but I said it ''did not'' matter at that pont. You even said "Yes, it didn't matter and never did"... but then you bring it up ''again'' 4 paragraphs later. ] (]) 08:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I had ignored your bad faith quickly , then suddenly you after it didn't went your way. Accusing me again with no explicit evidence or explanation and saying that it doesn't matter in one breath, what a load... Yet, you remove talk page comments, which include to evade scrutiny (for socking). This is clear. --] (]) 08:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This was a reply to your also accusing me ''after'' I already agreed with you right . It's too late for you to go back that far now with what you're doing here anyway. This is still going around in circles. Just drop it. ] (]) 08:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::No, I asked how it was a POV that ''the numbers is a figure that Vietnam reported'' (which even the sources states). You decided to answers my question based on the editor and not the content, so you didn't stop. Also, you were set to remove this fact and actually did, so you did hide this fact. --] (]) 09:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::No, I said the sources all basically say the same thing and does not contradict each other. You're the one focusing on editor 4 paragraphs later, after you and I said it didn't matter, so you didn't stop. Also, you were set to remove the Chinese casualties and actually did. This is becoming hypocritical and still going around in circles. Again, it's best to just drop it. ] (]) 09:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The diffs are self-explanatory, that you did focus on contributor rather than content. Secondly, I removed numbers of Chinese losses and causulties, because this was uncited (or do you casually forget to mention this, I don't see you contest it); this is a non-issue that you try to spin into me having COI. On the other hand, you removed cited information while focusing on claiming that I had COI. --] (]) 14:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::You're the one focusing on contributor rather than content, the diffs are self-explanatory. I keep saying your conflict of interest ''does not matter'', so the fact that you keep talking about it only re-enforces to me what I said even more. Like I said, the sources say the same thing and do not contradict each other in this case. And you're also removing that the ships sunk are a Chinese source. I did not revert the majority of your edits obviously, although I do keep bringing it up such as now. I do not want to get in an edit war or battle ground with you. You can just put citation needed instead of removing it altogether. This is an issue obviously. I don't see this happening on Iraq War, Vetnam War, Afghan War, etc which has the figures that their countries reported, which you choose to ignore. Your own arguments applies to yourself big time. Again, drop it, this is not going anywhere. ] (]) 18:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::(1) You made several attempts to discredit me with no evidence, which I requested. It was a comment on me rather than the content. This was right at the start, you made no attempt to be civil but to focus on the editor from the start . People tend to comment on editors if they have no strong basis on the content, and it was the case but you took it further by making it a point. (2) The source say "according to Vietnamese accounts", this is clear. I'm faithful to the source; you improperly want to combine several sources that state different things. (3) I did not remove a Chinese source about which specific Vietnamese ships had sunk, because both the citation and information is in the body of the article (and isn't something to put in an infobox). So keep accusing me of removing cited information (to unjustly accuse me of COI), since I've once again proven that you're wrong. I guess the easy way for you is to simply yell COI (without evidence) instead. (4) The burden of proof does not lie with me when I remove uncited information. Even though you like to discredit me by saying that I'm removing uncited information (heck, I even had to defend from your criticism that I replaced uncited information with cited information , because you are blindly set on commenting on me as an editor). (5) If your false accusation of me truly didn't matter to you, then you shouldn't have brought it up firstly, shouldn't have continued bringing it up secondly, or make it your main focus to try "win" a discussion thirdly. However, your "it doesn't matter" cry is essentially you trying to shut me up and force me to take your continued abuse and unsubstantiated accusations, while continuing your bad faith behavior in the same breath. --] (]) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::You're still going around in circles. I commented about the content of sources technically saying the same thing. Presumed killed and killed are the same thing, so it doesn't matter what source says it as long as it does not contradict each other. And I don't see this happening on Iraq War, Vetnam War, Afghan War, etc which has the figures that their countries reported, which you choose to ignore. You are also the only one removing information here. You can just put a "citation needed" tag instead of removing it altogether. ''You'' are the one commenting about yourself 5 paragraphs later even after I said your conflict of interest does not matter, just because you had nothing else to say. This is still being repeated over again, which you are stuck on. I do not care about your conflict of interest. It is quite clear what your main area of interest is, and I said it doesn't matter. I also thanked your contribs on most Chinese articles which gave me the impression of your conflict of interest. Again, I said ''also it does NOT matter'' so the fact that you are stuck on this is only re-enforcing to myself what I said even more now. Again, I don't care about your conflict of interest. You're just nitpicking now and ignoring the rest of the conversation. As for content, a compromise was already reached so we are done. There's no need to drag this out. You are still being hypocritical here. Even ''you'' said your conflict of interest didn't matter but then you bring it up even ''4 paragraphs later'' and you are still stuck on it, just because you have nothing else to say. Citing a COI policy is not a personal attack and I also continuously say that your conflict of interest ''does not matter'' over and over again, so quit being stuck on it. And dial it back a bit with your battle ground mentality. This is not going anywhere. ] (]) 01:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::And even now you are sneakily attacking me, expecting me to take it while professing sanctimonious innocence (just like you did when you were a sock ). --] (]) 12:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::And using my agianst me is ]. Seriously, what does that have to do with this? Think what you want, this is obviously going no where. ''Again'', you are still being hypocritical with your comments here. ] (]) 17:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::] is applicable. Anyway, I didn't use it against you to win a content dispute; I used it to highlight the irony of you assuming bad faith without evidence on my character versus your past. My statements are substantiated and truthful. --] (]) 19:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::You are ''still'' being hypocritical here. You're the one ''not'' commenting on content here, and ignoring the rest of the conversation because you have nothing else to say. It's already over, so what's the problem now? ] (]) 20:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The user also has the habit of removing talk page comments (that he/she does not like)—as was the case (in this case to avoid ], yet scrutinize my edits with no diffs provided)—which but also when (in case there's doubt about the sock connection ). --] (]) 05:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :And this is becoming ] at this point. OK then, what is your point in this case? What does WP:SCRUTINY have do ? ] (]) 06:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The difference is that I can substantiate my comments without lacking evidence. You are repeatedly accusing me (and I tried to ignore it as evidenced by that talk page, but you don't know when to stop commenting on editor rather than content) and removing my talk page comments (similar behavior during your socking period). Also to your earlier comment, the content discussion is not over, since I've requested comments from the three relevant Wikiprojects (but that's not why we are here). --] (]) 06:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::And I could've easily started ] account also. By the way, this is not helping your cause. Again, are you going to answer my question? What's the point of this? You are also being hypocritical here. You tried to ignore what? WP:COI? I said that didn't matter and then you brought it up again 5 paragraphs later. Your own argument about personal attacks applies to yourself right here. This is becoming ] and ]. ] (]) 06:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The admin can see for himself/herself how often you tried to push me (leading to this), while I kept mentioning to comment on content instead. You also wouldn't meet the criteria for ] by the way, because it's shown above that you have still have your old behavior (such as removing talkpage comments) and evading scrutiny. --] (]) 06:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What does socking have to do with this? That's already over. And yes, I ''do'' also meet the criteria ]. I have ''no'' sanctions against me and I am ''allowed'' to remove by you. There is no evading strutiny here. You are in the the wrong in this instance. ] (]) 07:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is not some random accusation without evidence; it is a fact that you socked. My main point was to highlight the sanctimoniousness of this ordeal (that is, that you socked and give bad faith to those who oppose you without evidence). And still... You removed a talk page comment to try avoid scrutiny; it should be reinstated. --] (]) 07:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So, I socked over year ago, I was new. It's already over, the issue already solved. What does that have to do with this? And I said WP:COI didn't matter and you want to still go on about it. This is going around in circles again. By the way, read ]. ] (]) | |||
| ::::::::Yet, you still display the same behavior as then (despite given a second chance), removing my talk comments. Notwithstanding that you were out of line when you made it a point to focus on your unsubstantiated allegation of COI rather than the content. --] (]) 07:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I am allowed to remove personal attacks. Linking to a policy is not a personal attack and I even said that it didn't matter at that point. You're the one still focusing on it. A compromise has already been reached on the content, so there is not anthing to comment on. This is ''still'' going around in circles. ] (]) 08:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| They are also dancing on the fine line of denying ], if not denying it. | |||
| @], it's best if we avoid each other completely. This is obviously not going work between us as evidenced here. ] (]) 07:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I was not planning on meeting again, not unfounded bad-faith'd people, that's for sure. --] (]) 07:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, and you're not helping your cause here, that's for sure. You should also read ], and dial it back a bit. ] (]) 07:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm blunt, yes, but not without a a ground to stand. You even admitted that it was in bad faith and that you will continue with it (second comment in this discussion). --] (]) 08:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I said my own mind was made up and there's no attempting to change it. I also keep sayng it does ''not'' matter, and so did you before you decided to refocus on it again four paragraphs later on the talk page. ] (]) 08:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thank You. ] (]) 15:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Both of you do realise that if you continue your spat here, no admin will take it seriously. Both of you should just drop it now, and ignore each other moving forward. No one is going to be sanctioned for blunt commentary. Both of you are showing ] and neither is looking good, so just back away, cool off and go do something else. ] (]) 12:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Boomerang''' this is a clearly retaliatory filing. I think Egl7 is ]. ] (]) 15:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :What I want is that this user (1) quit his bad faith attitude or clearly demonstrate the accusations by providing explicit diffs and reasons as requested (because as of now, the user has supported the false accusations by saying that I'm removing uncited information); (2) stop hammering on about it in my face, while trying to shut me up from responding but hypocritically still accusing me without evidence in the same sentence (e.g. "''you have COI, but that doesn't matter''" and the user knows this is pushing me); (3) stop removing talk page comments altogether; and (4) stop attacking editor rather than comment on content in a talkpage discussion. I do not find this unreasonable. --] (]) 13:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Boomerang''' obvious retaliatory filling. ] (]) 15:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, ''are'' removing uncited information, obviously. There's no changing my mind especially now, even though I still say it doesn't matter. You are the only one still going on about your conflict of interest, you obviously have nothing else to say. Again, I am allowed to remove personal attacks by you. You are also being hypocritical: why don't ''you'' stop attacking editor rather than comment on content in a talkpage discussion? I do not find this unreasonable. A compromise was already reached so you're the one trying to drag it out for no reason. Lets stop this, it's still going nowhere. ] (]) 18:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :As a non-EC editor, you should not be discussing Armenia/Azerbaijan issues at all except for making specific, constructive edit requests on the relevant talk pages. Once you received notice about the restriction, none of your related edits were in good faith, and all may be reverted without being considered edit warring. And quite frankly, the diffs that HistoryofIran has presented about your behavior don't look great. Your behavior on Russian Misplaced Pages doesn't affect your rights on English Misplaced Pages, but since you brought it up, I have to agree that you were there and now here more to fight than to edit a collaborative encyclopedia. ] (]) 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are simply avoiding ]. Mentioning that you have received a second chance from socking is not a personal attack, since this is substantiated and truthful. You were also called out during you socking phase for removing talkpage comments, and this is also applicable to my comments on that article's talk page (you did it to others too with your latest account Supersaiyen312, so you never left that behavior behind from your socking phase).--] (]) 19:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] tell me, please, if there is a restriction why are everybody's edits are ignored except mine? You are not doing justice. ] (]) 15:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Again, what does that have to do with this? Using my old blocks is ''not'' helping you here, and your only doing this because you have nothing else to say. This is also ]. You're also going off topic, especially since you don't know the situation. It's over, leave it alone. ] (]) 20:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Because the restriction is specific to people who do not have extended confirmed status. ] (]) 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::i know that i'm being picky and can sound like a snitch, don't get me wrong, but, at least, i'm editing from an account while other users are editing from random IPs. How is it possible for a random IP to have an extended confirmed status? ] (]) 15:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The person you created this obviously retaliatory report against is not an IP and does have EC status. The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward. ] (]) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not taking about @] here. Look up the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nakhichevan_Khanate&action=history. You can see that there are IPs, edits of which were ignored even if those edits have been done after the restriction had been set. This is what makes it unfair. By this logic my edits should've been ignored too. ] (]) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No IP has edited the page in question in nearly a year. You are complaining about a non-issue. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The restriction has been set much earlier than a year. ] (]) 16:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Right, but at ANI we deal with {{tq|urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.}} The IP edits here are old news. Further, having now reviewed the page's last 5 years of history...out of 7 IP edits made, 5 were reverted almost immediately, 1 is arguably not covered by GS/AA (]), leaving exactly 1 edit that probably should have been reverted but wasn't (], which added "Armenian language"). You'll notice upon minimal investigation, however, that HistoryofIran's most embattled edits to this page were to ''remove'' "Armenian language" from the article in July of 2023; it's rather disingenuous to accuse them of all people of turning a blind eye here. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::This does not refute what I said above. ] (]) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::There are actually 2 or more of them. I guess it's his duty to support both sides and remove or add information which is or is not necessary. ] (]) 16:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'm not sure what you're trying to say here at this point, but it also doesn't matter. HoI raised multiple valid concerns regarding the quality of your editing in an area that per our community guidelines, you should be intentionally avoiding. In response, you filed a retaliatory report and are now arguing technicalities that are tangential to the substance of HoI's initial report. The fact that you are arguing such trivial, irrelevant points is evidence against you in these proceedings. Your best course of action is to follow Simonm223's advice above. Failure to take that advice at this point is almost certain to end with you blocked. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident? ] (]) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's not. However, someone making an inappropriate edit without being caught does not make your inappropriate edits into appropriate ones. There have been many successful bank robberies in history, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to rob the bank next to my grocery store. You need to start focusing on how ''you'' conduct yourself, not on how others do, because right now, you appear to be headed towards a block. ] (]) 16:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I understand you. But i want to note that no matter how successful are the robberies, a lengthy criminal investigation will be launched. In addition, i want to say that i wasn't aware of those edits before I did mine. ] (]) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You did receive a warning on your talk page. Your conduct issues are not limited to violating ECP. You would be wise to heed the advice given in this thread from Simonm223 and Rosguill. The community does not have much patience for nationalist editing. ] (]) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident? ] (]) 16:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::], {{tq| The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed}}. That includes complaints about other editors. Which you should know already, as you have been repeatedly warned about GS/AA and should have read that page carefully. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::So Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident, which in my case is "HistoryofIran, anti-Azerbaijani behaviour"? I am asking this because you said that "The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward". And still, what you said in this comment does not refute what I said above. ] (]) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Lists of everyone that has been sanctioned for GS/AA violations, or CT/AA violations more broadly, can be found at ] and further at ] under each year's Armenia-Azerbaijan (CT/A-A) section. Note that this only lists people who repeatedly ignored warnings and got blocked for it, simple reverts are not logged. I would encourage you to avoid getting your own username added to that list. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * All I see is Egl7 doubling down. I have already tried to tell them that there was nothing wrong with the IP edit they are fixiated on, and that it doesn’t excuse their unconstructice edits regardless. The fact that they were caught red handed in genocide denial and anti-Armenian conduct and then fruitlessly attempts to make me appear as the same with Azerbaijanis by copy-pasting part of my report and replace “Armenian” with “Azerbaijani” says a lot about this user. ] (]) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] "There was nothing wrong" | |||
| *:As @] said 1 is arguably not covered by GS/AA (]), leaving exactly 1 edit that probably should have been reverted but wasn't (], which added "Armenian language"). | |||
| *:As I understand you were aware or now are aware of those edits done by those IPs what tells me that you admit that you ignored or are ignoring the edits that have been done after the restriction has been set and now you are still stating that there was or is nothing wrong with those IPs' edits. ] (]) 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::And we're done here. If you can read my comments here close enough to try to use them to make tendentious arguments at HoI, you should be able to understand that I already told you this is not even slightly appropriate. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I '''endorse''' this block. ] (]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ]'s unreferenced edits == | |||
| ===Section break=== | |||
| Both of you shut up now. Supersaiyen312, ] is when someone has something to gain monetarily from editing an article. It is not whatever the hell is going on on this page that I cannot even wrap my head around because of this pigheaded dispute. Cold Season, stop being a dick about the fact that Supersaiyen312 was previously blocked for something that is not related to this dispute. I recommend that these two be banned from this article and from ever being near each other again just to save the rest of the community time and energy.—] (]) 21:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I'm reporting {{Ping|Yemen meh}} for unreferenced edits. They've been told many times in the past to post references, and looking at their contributions page, they have done so many unreferenced edits in the last few days. ] (]) 09:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I can see that you don't, since the article is not the issue here and this wouldn't be here if it was just content-related; it could have been on any article and it would still have the same outcome. And it's quite clear that we have no intention to be near eachother after this. Also, your characterization of ] is wrong by the way. --] (]) 22:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I simplified. COI is when someone has a vested interest in the article topic which I doubt is the case here. Both of you need to stop being at each other's necks and editing this article all together.—] (]) 22:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::<s>Looks like it's already over.</s> And yes, I agree with your proposal, this argument went no where. Nevermind, it looks like the argument is continuing after all. ] (]) 22:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, just few days ago - this happened. ] (]) 10:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User conduct: ] making bad faith reports to ] == | |||
| == IP hopper repeatedly adding unsourced and incorrect information to UK Rail articles == | |||
| I am not sure why, but this editor has made a of reports recently (within the past day or so) to ] that had no merit, even going so far as to report accounts with no edits - , , , , , , and. report was questionable, as was one, which was reported as promotional, but that editor wasn't making promotional edits, just edits to basketball related articles. was reported ("without much doubt") as promotional for Winston cigarettes, yet that editor was nowhere near that topic. He even went so far as to a Wikimedia Foundation member! Then there are these "Osama" related reports - , , , , and, which these accounts either have no edits, or fewer than five in as many years. | |||
| Discussion moved from ] to avoid cluttering up that noticeboard with discussion. | |||
| I think this conduct is disruptive to the project and just wastes the time of the admins who patrol that page because they then have to investigate the editor(s) reported in order to validate the report. As you can see from the first diff I posted, a lot were declined based on the fact that they didn't violate the username policy. ] ] </span>) 06:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Why would you characterize these reports as "bad faith"? Bad faith doesn't mean "I think it was wrong", it's much more akin to "malicious" or "trolling". He nominated a lot of Nazi-themed account names, and that's hardly bad faith. It might not show good judgment, but it's almost certainly good faith. ] (]) 06:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I feel there has to be clear evidence as to the validity of the report. In these cases, it was (mostly) a "blanket" report with no thought given as to checking if the account made any edits (promotional or not) to determine if the username was indeed against policy. It certainly wasn't ] on the part of the editor(s) being reported, IMO. ] ] </span>) 07:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Yes, it looks like he himself failed to assume good faith. But I think he honestly believed the usernames were against policy. His judgment was poor, and his understanding of policy is, at best, flawed. He should probably take a voluntary break from UAA before someone suggests a mandatory one. ] (]) 08:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *See also ] where activity concerning Nazis and creating redirects (two topics) by Hoops gza was briefly discussed. It appears that there is too much frenetic activity without a commensurate degree of understanding. ] (]) 11:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *We all make mistakes, but his volume is such that he seems to be swamping the noticeboard with a lot of pointless reports. Not all, by any means, but a lot. I think he should be strongly encouraged to slow down and be much more careful. reporting of ] was rather bizarre. ] (]) 14:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * {{Nao}} I was brought here by a ping on DeltaQuad's talk page based on a {{Tps}} comment I made in regards to the fact that I would create most of these accounts as an account creator through ACC as AGF. Looking over this user's talk page, and seeing that this has been an ongoing problem for over three months now, I'm not sure that AGF still applies to this user continuously making this same mistake over and over and over and tl;dr... I saw that at least three or four administrators has ], and it appeared that two months ago the user did. Then, out of the blue so to speak, ]. Other than this difficulty with UAA, the user seems to be mostly a half decent (albeit new and naive) editor, and my personal thoughts is that a simple topic ban would hopefully resolve the issue. — <span class="nowrap">{{U|]}} <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 14:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Agreed. Some of these are understandable; an obvious reference to Hitler is obvious. But many of these are egregiously bad reports. Anyone with "KL" as their initials is going to draw scrutiny? What's next, a user can't name him/herself after their boat because it might have the initials "SS" in it? And calling "Winstonisthebest" clearly promotional? {{facepalm}} Perhaps a break is in order here. --<font face="Book Antiqua">] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 19:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I have reported usernames of Nazis because they are highly offensive. I believe that ''those'' usernames should be blocked on sight. Am I missing something? I will refrain from reporting non-obvious violations of accounts that are currently active until this is resolved. - ] (]) 15:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Hang on. Even once the ridiculousness of your filings has been pointed out to you, on multiple venues including this one, you're '''still''' insisting that Wikimedia employee is a "Nazi" with a "highly offensive" name? WTF. ] (]) 18:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just because you are biased against the Nazis doesn't mean they are against the username policy. ] ] </span>) 19:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wait, what? Hmm, this is starting to get weird. First, full disclosure: I'm "biased against the Nazis," too. ArcAngel, surely I've misunderstood you: you do understand that any username that actually ''does'' suggest a Nazi affiliation ''is'' against our policy for disruptive or offensive usernames -- right? The question before us is these rather imaginary, Nazi-usernames-everywhere issue -- right? I'm sure that's so. Hoops gza, as for you, I don't see what kind of "resolution" you're looking for: you should take this as a warning to "refrain from reporting non-obvious violations of accounts" ''now and henceforth'', and stop wasting people's time. If you don't, you'll just be topic banned for lack of ] in this area, and surely you don't want that. ] (]) 21:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, I wasn't aware of that policy, thanks for clarifying that. The way Hoops worded his statement made it seem like he was Nazi-biased. It just seems like any name or combination of initials with a ''historical Nazi tie'' he was reporting, even if it is/was genuinely a current person's name (as in the case of the WMF member). I aldo don't think he should be allowed to warn editors directly if there is no issue (as in case, where a 'crat and said the name was fine). ] ] </span>) 21:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also, as I've stated numerous times in talk page messages to Hoops, ''please'' also refrain from reporting accounts that have never been used or have not edited in years, unless they are blatantly obvious violations (eg. a user name of "FuckYou" or something of the sort). ] (]) 22:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|ArcAngel}} We also do not allow usernames to be named after bands or musical artists. {{ping|Shawn in Montreal}} I need some more clarity on what I may report. There are admins who have declined the '''usernames that actually ''do'' suggest a Nazi affiliation''' on the grounds that they are stale or have not edited. There are also two very close variations on ]'s name (changing a single letter in the name, for instance) that were declined for similar reasons. Who cares if these are stale, they are grievous violations. - ] (]) 22:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Connormah, you declined various Adolf Hitlers. - ] (]) 22:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| There is a user at the 27.55.xxx.xxx range that is repeatedly adding unsourced and invalid information to UK rail articles. The primary problem is the addition of a Maximum Speed to steam locomotives - steam locomotives in the UK did not really have a formal maximum speed, so this parameter is not used in these circumstances. As the user is hopping between IPs, it's proving nearly impossible to leave adequate warnings on talk pages, and as noted at AIV a rangeblock would affect a large number of innocent good faith users. Is there a way forward here, or is it a case of whack-a-mole? | |||
| :{{ping|Hoops gza}} I see nothing in ] that ''explicitly'' states that that usernames that contain names of bands or musical artists are disallowed. I suppose they would be covered under the "groups" provision, but in my view usernames such as Vanhalenisabest, or Journeyrocks are not in violation of the policy. ] ] </span>) 22:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Diffs: | |||
| :Concerning usernames that have not been used in a long time, they really shouldn't be reported to WP:UAA even if they are egregious policy violations. Such abandoned accounts do no harm whatsoever to Misplaced Pages, and reporting them just makes more work for the admins that deal with username issues (who should otherwise be dealing with current username issues). As the WP:UAA instructions prominently display, "Do not report a username unless it has been used in the last 2-3 weeks. Older accounts are likely abandoned and reports of such users will be summarily declined." If you disagree with those instructions, it would be better to get consensus to change them rather than repeatedly violate them. -- ] (]) 22:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * {{user|27.55.93.62}} - {{diff2|1268535786}} | |||
| * {{user|27.55.83.83}} - {{diff2|1268296480}} & {{diff2|1268295870}} | |||
| * {{user|27.55.79.100}} - {{diff2| 1267871857}} | |||
| * {{user|27.55.70.101}} - {{diff2| 1267858727}}, {{diff2| 1267858319}} & {{diff2| 1267859313}} | |||
| * {{user|27.55.68.32}} - {{diff2| 1267728237}}. | |||
| Cheers, ] (]) 10:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems the only answer is to continue playing w-a-m until our Thai friend gets bored. ] (]) 11:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User violating WP:No original research == | |||
| ::I've created an edit filter, ], to detect IPs in that range editing articles that contain {{tl|infobox locomotive}}. I've set it just to log for the moment; let's see what it catches. — ] (]) 12:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{U|Richard Harvey}} insists on inserting ] into ]. This image was uploaded as the sole edit by it's uploader without any sources. Richard Harvey argued in the that since Montserrat is a member of the that means they must have one, but that was inconclusive. In fact, another British Overseas Territory of Saint Helena does not have a local red ensign even though it is a member of that organisation, so using the organisation's membership as the sole source even when it does not directly say Montserrat has a red ensign is inappropriate. In their most recent re-insertion of this image, Richard Harvey added even more by claiming Montserrat is simply entitled to a red ensign (instead of them being granted) and that they have an unofficial one already. There are no sources of any sort to support that this flag exists in any manner, several which infer the exact opposite, and it therefore violates policy and can not be on that article. I am asking for an admin to remove the image. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 08:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :First off please note that I am not the uploader of the image to the article and I am neutral in its usage and have not violated the 'Neutral Research' policy. I have been caught up in this as a Reviewer, whilst attempting to authenticate the flags validity. This is purely a content dispute that should be dealt with by consensus on the article talk page, as I advised Fry1989 on my ]. However it seems he prefers to use Administrators to achieve his aims. There are several images in the article that are unofficial, but kept as useful, this image is no different. I have previously added a supporting reference from the red ensign group website, which officially states that Montserrat is a member of the British Red Ensign Group and entitled to fly a Red Ensign on their ships. I have today reverted a deletion of the image by ] and reworded the entry to advise it is an example image that has been uploaded by ]. It should be noted that ] has attempted twice to have the image deleted by Admins at to prevent its use in the article; and is currently attempting again to have the previous Admins decisions reversed. On that deletion request I have stated my own interpretation of the authority to use a red ensign (in the reference from the Red Ensign Website):- (b) in the case of British ships registered in a relevant British possession, any colours consisting of the red ensign defaced or modified whose adoption for ships registered in that possession is authorised by Her Majesty by Order in Council" is that permission to use a red ensign that meets the required design is already authorised. There is also this statement on the British Government website which states the same:- | |||
| == Persistent addition of unsourced content by 78.135.166.12 == | |||
| *The Red Ensign Group (REG) is a group of British shipping registers. | |||
| {{userlinks|78.135.166.12}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning & hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|Aardman Animations|prev|1267727350|1}}, {{diff|Aardman Animations|prev|1267781677|2}}, {{diff|Aardman Animations|prev|1268129045|3}}, {{diff|Miramax|prev|1268143287|4}} (addition of content not in pre-existing source, Pixar not mentioned), {{diff|Aardman Animations|prev|1268538057|5}}. ] (]) 16:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *The registers are operated by: | |||
| == Persistent violation of established consensus on McLaren Driver Development Programme == | |||
| :*the UK | |||
| {{atop|1=OP has ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :*the Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey) | |||
| ] is one of many motorsport-related articles that includes sections listing which racing championships drivers have won. Historically, these sections have only included season-long racing series championships, not simply the winners of notable races. However, ], ], and ] have persistently tried to list winning the ] as a "title." I have addressed this and explained the consensus multiple times, and repeatedly asked for them to return to the page to the consensus and start a discussion about changing that consensus, but all have refused and have insisted persisted with continually reverting the page. ] specifically has engaged in edit warring and personal attacks as well. All I am asking is that the page be reverted to consensus, without the one single race included as if it is a season-long championship, and then we can discuss why or why not to add it. All have refused. I don't think this ever needed to be escalated to the admins but literally everyone else involved has refused to have a simple discussion about this. I really don't understand their behavior. Personally I believe this change would significantly impact dozens of articles and would require larger discussions at the WikiProject level, but again, it does not seem like others are willing to have this discussion. ] (]) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*UK Overseas Territories (Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar; Montserrat, St Helena, Turks & Caicos Islands) | |||
| :*'''Comment''': the relevant talk page discussion can be found . No "personal attacks" were exchanged. Instead, ] and I have tried to urge the user above to seek consensus peacefully instead of and ''imposing'' their views. The user cites an "informal consensus" but has been unable to its existence. | |||
| *Any vessel on these registers is a ‘British ship’, and is entitled to fly the British Merchant Shipping flag the ‘Red Ensign’ (or a version of it defaced with the appropriate national colour). | |||
| :] (]) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}}{{u|Lazer-kitty}}, this looks like a content dispute. The steps for resolving such disputes are listed at ]. I think you would find it very difficult to pursue this dispute here, but first you would need ]s showing bad conduct by others, and your conduct would also be looked at. ] (]) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Phil Bridger}} I mean, scroll up. The guy literally just attacked me and accused me of making threats and trying to impose my views, both of which are false. It was absolutely just a content dispute until they started behaving that way. ] (]) 18:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Lazer-kitty}}, your second comment at ] was {{tpq|First off, apologize immediately for your insults above. These are completely uncalled for.}} There were no insults and such a rapid escalation of aggression is inexplicable. Forced apologies are worthless. Then, you described this routine and mundane content dispute as "vandalism" even though you presented no evidence of deliberate intent to {{tpq|obstruct or defeat the project's purpose}}, which is required for a valid accusation of vandalism. It looks to me like you are being far too aggressive here, and so I recommend that you adopt a more collaborative attitude. ] (]) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, that comment was in response to {{tpq|I kindly urge you to cut down your condescending tone and edit warring, or external measures could be taken.}} You don't consider that insulting? I do. I was not being condescending, I sincerely tried my best to be polite, nor was I edit warring. Literally all I want to do is be collaborative and they all refuse. I have asked for collaboration numerous times! ] (]) 18:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, that's not an insult. You're talking down to other editors, which can feel condescending to them. I strongly urge you to dial it back and engage in creating a new, solid consensus around this topic. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Reading through the talk page is pretty bizarre - Lazer-kitty is insisting their opinion is consenus against 3 editors who disagree with them. I know nothing about motorsport but to me this is evidence that consensus is against LK, not with them as they claim. I think this earns a trout for opening this filing, the misunderstanding of the concept of consensus, and for battleground behaviour - but there's nothing here that needs admin attention. ] ] 18:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks to everyone involved for bullying off me this platform. Never in my life did I expect that 20 years of editing would end with being gaslit by multiple admins and editors. Really appreciate your efforts in killing this encyclopedia. My only hope is that one day someone forks Misplaced Pages into a new encyclopedia with competent oversight, i.e. people who can see through obvious trolling and bad faith actions, and who don't rely on aggressive tone policing to make their judgements. ] (]) 19:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{nacc}} The filer appears to have ]. —] ( ] • ] ) 19:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :As multiple people have pointed out, you are seriously overreacting. Your behaviour is completely disproportionate to the content dispute you are involved in. You only have yourself to look at there. If this is how you react to people disagreeing with you, you are the one with a serious problem. ]]]1 20:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Engage01: ad hominem personal attacks and one against many == | |||
| I am therefore believe the use of the image in the article is valid. ] (]) 09:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::These points raised by Richard Harvey were already discussed in the file's DR, and there is nothing that supports the idea that being a member of the Red Ensign Group automatically means that a member has their own red ensign. As I stated, Saint Helena is a member but they '''do not''' have their own red ensign, they use the undefaced ]. Jersey is also a member but they were only their own red ensign in 2010 which supports that red ensigns must be <u>granted</u> or <u>adopted</u> by order. There is no evidence that Montserrat has ever been granted or adopted a local red ensign. FOTW is considered a reliable source and they do not show Montserrat having a red ensign, and neither do other trusted flag websites. I can't find this flag on any flag shop website, I can't even find any photos of unofficial ones. There is simply ZERO sources that this flag exists in any capacity. It is original research that is completely unsourced and most likely the imagination of the uploader. It can not be used according to ] | |||
| {{User|Engage01}} has been arguing to include an incredibly lengthy quote in ]. Upon my removal of the quote and suggestion to bring it to the talk page, they've begun a large-scale argument that me and most other editors that disagree with the addition of the quote as lacking competence, not understanding quality, or one-word "wrong" replies. Consensus is clearly against them but instead of coming up with actual policy-based reasons for every other editor !voting in the poll they set up (all in favor of not having the quote) they've chose to accuse us of not understanding policy or not seeing that the individual in question is important in the matter enough to deserve a long quote. They haven't been around for long, and have gotten multiple warnings for personal attack-type language in the conversation. I've been asked by them to "remove myself from the conversation" and they suggested I was "learning while you edit" while not understanding ]. I don't have time to add any diffs (all the comments are still live) except for ], them blanking their talk page, and ] a few minutes later, where they keep their argument at "I can't understand how editors can misapply "undue weight."". This could be a severe case of ] with the blanking. I'm hoping whoever sees this can at least get them to cut out their personal attacks. Cheers. ] (]) 19:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::As for Richard Harvey's false bad faith allegations, let me make it clear I am not trying to get the file deleted to prevent it's use on Misplaced Pages, rather it is the opposite. It keeps getting kept in that DR because Richard Harvey keeps re-inserting it on Misplaced Pages articles without sources. I have stated that I will be more than happy to create an SVG version of the image, should even a single source supporting that this flag exists ever arise, but there are none at this time. The file is fake that is pretending to be real and is therefore deliberately misleading which is a valid reason for deletion on Commons. The outcome of the DR is irrelevant however, because Misplaced Pages has it's own policies that apply to this situation. The image can not be used at this time. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 19:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'll make a brief note that although Montserrat was permitted to have and use a Red Ensign per the permissions that were granted to it by virtue of it being part of the REG, you are correct that the existence of a Montserrat version of the flag is in doubt. In all actuality, ships registered to Montserrat would only fly the standard non-defaced Red Ensign. I've just spent the last 15min or so looking around on the net and have not found any reliable source that indicates the existence of a Montserrat defaced Red Ensign. I would agree that the image cannot be used at this time until a reliable corroborative source has been found. ] (]) 19:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I thought I removed the quote first, but it was removed again by Departure. Nevertheless this user has made personal attacks on my User talk page as well. I posted two warnings and on their talk page but Engage01 just very quickly. I wish to ] but this user started a new section on my talk page (linked above) to argue about "undue weight" which is something I don't recall mentioning at all in this situation. | |||
| :I've been having a poke around trying to see if I can get a WP:RS for the flag. Tentatively, I've so far found that an image from a non-RS site (it's on eBay) that corroborates Richard Harvey's view that Montserrat does indeed have a red ensign. I'll keep poking around to see what else I can find. At this point, I'd put it up for FFD and see what others come up with. ] (]) 19:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I remember now. I from the body of the article to inside the citation but I had a feeling that it was only a gradual stage before it would be fully removed by ]. Thank you for bringing this to the ANI. ] (]) 19:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::eBay has many imaginary and fake things, that does not support that this flag is real in any capacity, especially if that is the only sole image that can be found of it outside of the JPEG that was uploaded to Commons. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 19:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I've pblocked them for one week from the article and its talk page for disruptive editing, personal attacks, incivility, and bludgeoning. ] (]) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The method of engagement at that talk page is really poor. I've closed the section now that the editor has been p-blocked, no need to continue to sink time into it. ] (]) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I know they're partially blocked from that page, but I went through their edit history and I found ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] different diffs of them adding the quote in question into the article (at least 7 of which were after it had been removed), and I think that constitutes edit warring. They never got notice for violating 3RR but they ''very clearly'' did. Maybe the block from the Palisades Fire should be extended or expanded? I've seen worse sanctions for less disruption. ] (]) 20:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Problems with Pipera== | |||
| :The image should be removed. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 18:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Pipera blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::Indeed, after I spent some time looking around, the only conclusion was that the image I found was for a self made ensign. One would think that if the flag is as important as it seems then finding a real image would not be so hard. | |||
| *{{userlinks|Pipera}} | |||
| I've tried to avoid bringing this here, but I've reached the point where I cannot keep dealing with {{user|Pipera}}. They continue to add unsourced and unrelated information to articles, refuse to take on formatting advice, continue to assert that they know better than the reliable sources in articles, and continue to post walls of text on talk pages that do not help with collaborative editing.<p> | |||
| I've listed some illustrative diffs below along with explanations where needed. I've tried to be concise but it's difficult at times to explain the issues. There are more problems I've got documented, but I tried to not overwhelm this filing.<p> | |||
| I'm concerned that Pipera does not understand what wikipedia is for and what we do - their continual references to the fact that they are a descendant of the article subjects and that they know through their own research that historians or scholars are wrong, is a big problem and they have not taken explanations of what we do here (as opposed to a genealogical research site) on board. Their continual sourcing problems - removing sources, adding unsourced information, arguing that sites like WikiTree are reliable, arguing that they know better than the reliable sources, and, worst, the changing of sourced information to say something different than what the source actually says - all these are big red-flag issues. Explanations of how they have issues have been met with either no-engagement with the points raised or walls of text. I also have ] concerns as they seem unable to edit without formatting, grammar, and other issues.<p> | |||
| As for a solution, I'm open to suggestions. A topic ban from medieval biographies would probably solve the current problem, but I'm not sure that will not just move the problem elsewhere. If someone would volunteer to mentor Pipera, that might work, but I've exhausted my good faith already in the last month, and it would need to be someone with a lot of patience, and I'm not sure the CIR issues won't just show up somewhere else. | |||
| * ] at ] Pipera changes sourced information to have it say something that the source does not quite say, adds information that is unrelated to the subject of the article, along with grammar issues. I pointed out the problems with these edits on the ] which got a ] that repeated parts of the article and frankly, I'm not sure what they meant to convey with it. | |||
| * ] at ], Pipera removes sources from sourced information, adds unsourced information, and generally mucks up the text and formatting. After being reverted by an editor and re-adding their edits, they post ]. I documented the problems with their edits ], but they were never addressed. | |||
| * ] At ], Pipera adds a citation needed tag to an already cited sentence, one cited to the '']''. | |||
| * ] at ], Pipera changes Enguerrand's offspring from a daughter to a daughter and son, removing the sourced statement that Enguerrand had no male offspring, and changing his brother and successor Guy into a son instead. This is done while keeping the three sources that previously supported Guy as a brother, not a son. One of the attached sources is Musset p. 104, which can be accessed at the Internet Archive See talk page where a discussion about another source that supports Enguerrand as having no male offspring is dismissed as "There are a number of updated versions the work" but without substantiating such a claim. | |||
| * ] at ] Pipera copies an earlier section of the article into a new place without removing it at the older location so that now the article repeats the section starting "Katherine Keats-Rohan argues instead...". This series of edits also adds unsourced information and removes sourced information. I ] with the statement "remove repetition and restore sources to information" but was ] with the edit summary "Undid revision 1267745167 by Ealdgyth (talk) sorry this is my family tree and I know what was placed here is correct". There are further edits to this article ] and then a discussion on the talk page about what they ] actually turns out to be a charter. I ] on the talk page, and that got a flurry of replies on the ] just don't make any sense to me. Maybe they are upset that some historians might think Sibyl was illegitimate? They keep saying things like "They state Sybil of Falaise might have been yet another b######d." which took me a bit to realize that they were censoring "bastard". Note that the article still in places calls this charter a "will" and says that "In the charter of William de Falaise, he bequeaths everything to his wife Geva." However, Pipera at ] claims to translate the charter and their translation says nothing about William bequeathing everything to his wife - it's a standard gift-charter giving some property to a church, with his wife mentioned as also giving the property along with William. This raises serious issues about Pipera's ability to read and understand sources and use them appropriately. | |||
| * ] Pipera adds unsourced information as well as a long series of genealogical descents to an article about a 12th-century nobleman, much of the information is not really related to the subject of the article. | |||
| * ] at ] Pipera changes sourced information without updating the source, removing the "probably" from "probably was the son", and making it a categorical statement that Richard was the son of Robert de Courcy. | |||
| * ] at ] Pipera removes sources from information and adds unsourced information. I ] with an edit summary of "Restore sources to information, no need for this heading, and we do not need a list here" but was ] with the edit summary "with all due respect we have this everywhere in Misplaced Pages, further it adds clarity to the entry. In my opinion. Further, added the name of Williams wife Avice to the entry BTW she is the daughter of the Earl of Skipton her mother is Cecily de Rumily they are my 23rd Great Grandparents". I then attempted to discuss at the talk page ] but this has been ignored. | |||
| * 9/10 Jan 2025 at ] - I reply ] to a comment of theirs. Pipera ] with an edit summary of "Do not delete my tak page responses", but I did not delete any of their responses, I merely replied. Two edits later, they ] they had started, including the replies that I had made to them, pointing out problems, violating ]. | |||
| Pinging {{user|Eric}}, {{user|Celia Homeford}}, {{user|Ian Rose}}, {{user|Dudley Miles}}, {{user|Newm30}}, {{user|Andrew Lancaster}}, {{user|BusterD}}, and {{user|Paramandyr}} who have also dealt with this editor. ] (]) 20:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've tried to avoid bringing this here, but I've reached the point where I cannot keep dealing with ] (] '''·''' ]). They continue to add unsourced and unrelated information to articles, refuse to take on formatting advice, continue to assert that they know better than the reliable sources in articles, and continue to post walls of text on talk pages that do not help with collaborative editing. | |||
| == List of people known as The Great == | |||
| :I've listed some illustrative diffs below along with explanations where needed. I've tried to be concise but it's difficult at times to explain the issues. There are more problems I've got documented, but I tried to not overwhelm this filing. | |||
| :I'm concerned that Pipera does not understand what wikipedia is for and what we do - their continual references to the fact that they are a descendant of the article subjects and that they know through their own research that historians or scholars are wrong, is a big problem and they have not taken explanations of what we do here (as opposed to a genealogical research site) on board. Their continual sourcing problems - removing sources, adding unsourced information, arguing that sites like WikiTree are reliable, arguing that they know better than the reliable sources, and, worst, the changing of sourced information to say something different than what the source actually says - all these are big red-flag issues. Explanations of how they have issues have been met with either no-engagement with the points raised or walls of text. I also have ] concerns as they seem unable to edit without formatting, grammar, and other issues. | |||
| :As for a solution, I'm open to suggestions. A topic ban from medieval biographies would probably solve the current problem, but I'm not sure that will not just move the problem elsewhere. If someone would volunteer to mentor Pipera, that might work, but I've exhausted my good faith already in the last month, and it would need to be someone with a lot of patience, and I'm not sure the CIR issues won't just show up somewhere else. | |||
| :* ] at ] Pipera changes sourced information to have it say something that the source does not quite say, adds information that is unrelated to the subject of the article, along with grammar issues. I pointed out the problems with these edits on the ] which got a ] that repeated parts of the article and frankly, I'm not sure what they meant to convey with it. | |||
| :That ha been reolved, | |||
| :* ] at ], Pipera removes sources from sourced information, adds unsourced information, and generally mucks up the text and formatting. After being reverted by an editor and re-adding their edits, they post ]. I documented the problems with their edits ], but they were never addressed. | |||
| :The page dealing with his children has yet to be resolved. | |||
| :* ] At ], Pipera adds a citation needed tag to an already cited sentence, one cited to the '']''. | |||
| :That has been resolved. | |||
| :* ] at ], Pipera changes Enguerrand's offspring from a daughter to a daughter and son, removing the sourced statement that Enguerrand had no male offspring, and changing his brother and successor Guy into a son instead. This is done while keeping the three sources that previously supported Guy as a brother, not a son. One of the attached sources is Musset p. 104, which can be accessed at the Internet Archive See talk page where a discussion about another source that supports Enguerrand as having no male offspring is dismissed as "There are a number of updated versions the work" but without substantiating such a claim. | |||
| :In regard to this matter see: ] which no one has replied to., | |||
| :* ] at ] Pipera copies an earlier section of the article into a new place without removing it at the older location so that now the article repeats the section starting "Katherine Keats-Rohan argues instead...". This series of edits also adds unsourced information and removes sourced information. I ] with the statement "remove repetition and restore sources to information" but was ] with the edit summary "Undid revision 1267745167 by Ealdgyth (talk) sorry this is my family tree and I know what was placed here is correct". There are further edits to this article ] and then a discussion on the talk page about what they ] actually turns out to be a charter. I ] on the talk page, and that got a flurry of replies on the ] just don't make any sense to me. Maybe they are upset that some historians might think Sibyl was illegitimate? They keep saying things like "They state Sybil of Falaise might have been yet another b######d." which took me a bit to realize that they were censoring "bastard". Note that the article still in places calls this charter a "will" and says that "In the charter of William de Falaise, he bequeaths everything to his wife Geva." However, Pipera at ] claims to translate the charter and their translation says nothing about William bequeathing everything to his wife - it's a standard gift-charter giving some property to a church, with his wife mentioned as also giving the property along with William. This raises serious issues about Pipera's ability to read and understand sources and use them appropriately. | |||
| :See: ]. And ]! | |||
| :* ] Pipera adds unsourced information as well as a long series of genealogical descents to an article about a 12th-century nobleman, much of the information is not really related to the subject of the article. | |||
| :* ] at ] Pipera changes sourced information without updating the source, removing the "probably" from "probably was the son", and making it a categorical statement that Richard was the son of Robert de Courcy. | |||
| :Richard was the son of Robert de Courcy, and his mother was named Herleva de Bernieres. His father was Balderic 'the Teuton' and an unnamed granddaughter of ] . He was one of nine children bound by this relationship. | |||
| :He actually is his son. | |||
| :* ] at ] Pipera removes sources from information and adds unsourced information. I ] with an edit summary of "Restore sources to information, no need for this heading, and we do not need a list here" but was ] with the edit summary "with all due respect we have this everywhere in Misplaced Pages, further it adds clarity to the entry. In my opinion. Further, added the name of Williams wife Avice to the entry BTW she is the daughter of the Earl of Skipton her mother is Cecily de Rumily they are my 23rd Great Grandparents". I then attempted to discuss at the talk page ] but this has been ignored. | |||
| : ] ] ] 5,529 bytes +76 ''Undid revision ] by ] (]) with all due respect we have this everywhere in Misplaced Pages, further it adds clarity to the entry. In my opinion. Further, added the name of Williams wife Avice to the entry BTW she is the daughter of the Earl of Skipton her mother is Cecily de Rumily they are my 23rd Great Grandparents.'' '']: ]'' | |||
| :* 9/10 Jan 2025 at ] - I reply ] to a comment of theirs. Pipera ] with an edit summary of "Do not delete my tak page responses", but I did not delete any of their responses, I merely replied. Two edits later, they ] they had started, including the replies that I had made to them, pointing out problems, violating ]. | |||
| :Proceedings by Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Publication date 1919 | |||
| :https://archive.org/details/proceedings65some/page/8/mode/1up?q=Sibyl<nowiki/>+ | |||
| :<nowiki>*</nowiki> Eyton, in his Domesday Studies, styles this " an old legend (we can call it no more) of the Welsh Marches We cannot imagine how Henry I. could have such a niece as this Sibil ; nor can we say how Sibil de Falaise was related to William de Falaise, or why she or her descendants should have succeeded to any of his estates." ] (]) 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support block''' <s>topic ban</s> possibly per nom. I've been watching the complete palaver that is ]—"]"!—with askance. Their talk page comments are ], and ] and they seem to delight in... misunderstanding. Repeatedly. If as Ealdgyth suggests, the TB proves insufficient, the this can be revisited, but in the meantime, it's worth a shot.{{pb}}I had an edit-confliuct posting this, due to Pipera posting above. And incidentally proving ''the actual point''. The reply is bizarre; they seem to have ] Ealdgyth's original post. They are completely incapable of communicating in a manner that is not disruptive. ]'']''] 21:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Changing my suggestion to a full block; their replies demonstrate they either don't understand what Misplaced Pages is for, and are unwilling to learn, or simply don't care. Either way, NOTHERE applies in spades. ]'']''] 21:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Talk:Henry I of England - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Henry_I_of_England ] | |||
| :In regard to this matter, I was restoring an earlier version of the article. listing the children legitimate, illegitimate and mistress to the children section of the article. it was not my work it was the work of others that came here circa 2006 -7 that placed this here, and it was removed. | |||
| :I added: | |||
| :* ''Baldwin, Stewart (2002). . The American Society of Genealogists.'' | |||
| :I was told that this was an unreliable source when the work is on the American Society of Genealogists website, Baldwin is a writer of historic books. He is a valid source of information, further his work in the reference section shows some of the sources that are in the Misplaced Pages articles. | |||
| :I was told that WikiTree is a user generate source, Misplaced Pages is also a user generated source. | |||
| :Additionally, I was told that Alison Weir was not acceptable in the article. | |||
| :== Using these within a Misplaced Pages Article == | |||
| :] | |||
| :Broken up into: | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :There is no rule here stating that these cannot be used within any part of a Misplaced Pages entry. | |||
| :You also removed Alison Weir as a reference, explain to me why she was removed? ] (]) ] | |||
| :Regards ] (]) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Finally, other genealogical sites like WikiTree have attempted to place the children of Henry I in the right place and manner, in other incidents globally people are now adding Henry I as the father of Sybil de Falaise based on the article here at Misplaced Pages. She is not the niece of Henry I whichever way this is stated, in relation to William Martin https://en.wikipedia.org/William_Martin,_1st_Baron_Martin#References this has been resolved, and yet on my talk page I went into great detail about the usage of the tag in two other Misplaced Pages articles. | |||
| :Also, I am academically qualified to read source materials like: | |||
| :: '''Robert of Torigni''' or '''Torigny''' (]: ''Robert de Torigni''; c. 1110–1186), also known as '''Robert of the Mont''' (]: ''Robertus de Monte''; ]: ''Robert de Monte''; also Robertus de Monte Sancti Michaelis, in reference to the abbey of Mont Saint-Michel), was a ] ], ], and ]. He is most remembered for his chronicles detailing English history of his era. | |||
| :: https://entities.oclc.org/worldcat/entity/E39PBJxhgfHcDqQdqcGCG7gh73.html and '''', and read their works and apply them to any historic context as I have in other genealogical sites as well as read Parish Registers in the 1500's and apply this to research. | |||
| :] (]) 21:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please block this person now, any admin who sees this. I have lost count of the number of Misplaced Pages policies which they are intent on ignoring, and if swift action isn't taken this discission will be longer than the rest of this page put together. ] (]) 21:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree. ] (] - ] - ]) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree. --] 21:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Because I came to Misplaced Pages to extend articles, add new information, rolled back and not one academic response. I have been given personal opinions of which I have taken on board. I have not gone into iny article with the intent to add incorrect information to the articles. I have been adding here since 2001, and decided to come into these articles to expand them. That is my intention to do so. In the case of ] I was adding to the Family and children section and added additional links I have not entered any other part of the article. | |||
| :::In the case of ] there is no way she can be ] nice as the records of his brothers and sisters state so. I have raised these concerns in the talk page, see Talk:Sibyl of Falaise - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sibyl_of_Falaise as I see it. ] (]) 21:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *They have been '''blocked'''. ]] 22:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| An IP refuses to accept that several persons they have added to the list do not qualify. Now that IP has vandalized my user page. ] (]) 10:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cheers, {{u|GiantSnowman}}. ]'']''] 22:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{la|List of people known as The Great}} | |||
| :*{{IPuser|223.204.35.184}} | |||
| :The last edit on the article talk page was in February 2013. ] (]) 11:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, I got here late. Thanks to Ealdgyth for bringing this issue here, and to all who participated. After an initial attempt at dealing with Pipera's disruptions and chaotic editing/communication pattern, I must admit I soon walked away. Thanks those with more patience than I for trying longer. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *CF's user page and the article semi-protected for a week, and IP's blocked for a week. I have no idea if the IP's '''content''' is OK or not - that's for the article talk page - but if they are not going to discuss, and are going to vandalize, then I guess it isn't going into the article, at least for a week. --] (]) 11:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks to Ealdgyth for the thread. I participated sufficiently to see this was real problem, but didn't act decisively. ] (]) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == An IP who gave me a fake 4im warning == | |||
| :*Thanks. That list gets a lot of reversions because people don't realize it's specifically for people who are called "the Great", not great people. There was no such claim in the three articles in question. ] (]) 13:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| There was a IP address (]) who | |||
| == User SecretJournalsofCongress == | |||
| {{archivetop|Indef blocked by ]. ] <small>(])</small> 15:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| Someone needs to look at the Talk pages of ]. This user, although having been asked to calm down, is producing completely OTT edits there. His/her words seem to be racist and religionist. ] (]) 13:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow..... just wow. It seems we have an anti Semite, Holocaust denier and, well, other stuff. Serious case of ]. ] (]) 13:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, I think that he is above all an anti-Catholic troll (if I understood well what he wrote :-)). Anyway, on that page what he is writing is definitely ]. ] (]) 13:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah maybe you are right. Nonetheless, serious competence issues. ] (]) 14:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<small>So this user is ]?</small> Might as well ignore until he starts editing mainspace, and then we need not wait to block. ] (]) 14:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| # Called me blind in an edit summary after i reverted his edit | |||
| == Continued incivility by Knight of BAAWA == | |||
| # trouted me and gave me a 4im warning | |||
| I think this is the appropriate place to take this report. | |||
| ] was on July 11 for "], ] and ]." Since his return, he has continued this behavior, including not-so-stealthily using the same insult that contributed to his temporary block (''statist''). | |||
| Thanks, ] ] ] 22:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, a 4im warning was certainly an overreaction and the edit summary could have been nicer, but your revert was obviously wrong. The IP has since self-reverted the warning. No admin action is needed here, but you should read IP edits more carefully before reverting them, and consider changing your distasteful signature. ] (]) 22:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Distasteful? What do you mean? it is simply a videogame refrence to ]. | |||
| ::And i did admit fault for the bad edit (and for my unnecessarily silly first response). | |||
| ::Thanks, ] ] ] 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::However, @] I was gonna change it due to me changing my username soon. So, in the meantime, i will change it. ] ] ] 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It would be great i you could remove all of the extraneous phrases and change it so that it is just your username and a link to your User talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I fail to see the need to jump all over Tenebre over their signature. There are a number of other editors and admins who have similarly goofy signatures and jumping down one editor's throat seems petty. ] (]) 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Community block appeal by ] == | |||
| :Well I am certainly seeing some failure to assume good faith. This sort of behavior can be very disruptive in contentious area. While I personally don't want to take admin action in this area due t lack of knowledge of the surrounding subject and discussion perhaps another admin more versed in the dispute can take a closer look? | |||
| {{user links|Drbogdan}} | |||
| :{{u|Callanecc}} may have some perspective being the prior admin to block this user. ] 16:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This user has asked for a review of their community block enacted as a result of a six months ago. Just FYI for context the original title of the section on their talk pages was ''"Request to restore editing per ] as suggested"'' and several users involved in the previous discussion were pinged, and a block review began there before I shut that down and informed them it needed to be done here, so there's going to be some volume of comments right away, in addition to the lengthy text of the request itself. ] ] 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| - MY (overdue perhaps) REPLIES Somewhat new to all of this (been busy in other wiki-areas over the years - see below), but seems it's been over 6 months since the start of my (start date = July 6, 2024) - perhaps ] may now apply I would think - and hopefully, ] and ] (direct and/or indirect) apply here as well of course. Thanks. ::<q class="inline-quote-talk ">::I closed this quickly a few minutes ago since the latest comments have been fairly plain personal attacks, rather than discussing the substance of the complaint and appropriate action. It took me a while to organize my thoughts and copyedit myself - there's a lot to unpack here.</q> Thank you for your comments and conclusions. As before, I've been very busy recently with mostly real-world activities (but also with some earlier online activities - ++ and others) . Sorry for my delay in not responding earlier of course. Hopefully, my presentation here is appropriate and entirely ok (I'm really new to this wiki-area). ::<q class="inline-quote-talk ">::Here we have a science expert mass-adding content based on low-quality popular science churnalism to our science articles, expecting that other editors will review it and determine whether to improve or remove it, and a complaint from the editors who have been cleaning up after them supposedly for many years. This discussion can be summed up with a quote from the ] essay: "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up." We excuse this behaviour from very new editors who don't yet understand that ] with ] and ]. The community expects an editor with 90,000 edits to understand what content should be in an article and what constitutes a reliable source, especially for an editor who is also a subject matter expert.</q> Mostly untrue claims. Certainly none intentional. As before, claims have been exaggerated (also noted by others and elsewhere) and/or (with no or few supporting diffs) (along with - ie, ) (). Such claims, perhaps to seem more credible than they really may be, seem to have been presented under cover of apparent ] of one sort or another. In addition, the importance of ], in some relevant instances, have been downplayed and/or dismissed outright. For one example of possible related contention, the very long-time (many years) ] article, originally a very enriched (helpful/useful) version (seemingly at least), and justified by ], is , but is currently (without discussion or ]) changed to a less helpful/useful ] instead. Seems like ] rules may overrule ]? Seems so at the moment in this instance. At least until there's a better resolution of the issue through further discussion and ] I would think. In any case, lessons learned here of course. ::<q class="inline-quote-talk ">::Drbogdan's replies to deserved criticism in this thread have been dismissive of the problem at best, if not signalling that they believe their academic credentials excuse them from needing to improve. The community has historically rejected this approach, and rejects it here. Since Drbogdan seems not to understand that they are making a mess and seems uninterested in learning how not to continue making messes, the community's consensus is that Drbogdan is '''blocked indefinitely'''.</q> Not true. Never said or thought this. Ever. Not my way of thinking. I've always tried to be open to improvement. Seems the better road generally. After all, nobody's perfect. Everyone could benefit from improvement of one sort or another I would think. My academic (and related) credentials have been presented only to describe my qualifications to edit Misplaced Pages, which, I currently understand, may be ok. Please let me know if otherwise of course. Nonetheless, my current UserPage is . (My earlier UserPage, if interested, is ). ::-- ::<q class="inline-quote-talk ">::Separately from this close, I also *must say* that their habit - eccentric, maybe? - of hacking together *long run-on strings of comments* - interspersed - as they are - with *forced pause* breaks and sprinkled with self-aggrandizing - and off-topic, yes - links to their *achievements* makes it - as others have said here - quite frustrating to converse with them. All the worse that the vast majority of their comments of this sort do not substantively reply to the comments they are left in response to.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div></q> Not ever true in my edits of mainspace articles. May be somewhat true on some talk-pages only. In any case, lessons learned here as well. Any specific rules broken in my editing have been entirely unintentional. As far as I currently know, all edits that may have been of some issue earlier have been completely corrected some time ago. I currently know of no real rules broken that may not be a matter of unsettled opinion. If otherwise, please specify rules that may have been an issue (and related diffs of course), and suggested ways that I may further improve my related edits going forward. I expect to adjust accordingly (and appropriately) as needed at the first opportunity of course. Thanks. ::::I'm also going to leave links here to ], ], and ]. ] (]/]) 8:18 am, 6 July 2024, Saturday (6 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−8) Thanks again for all your comments and conclusions. I should note that I have , including (+++++and more); as well as to ; ; ; ; ; ; and . ADD: ] (]) 10:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == IP insists on adding country identification for places like ] == | |||
| Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (]) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Misplaced Pages are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "]" and "]", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Misplaced Pages, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Misplaced Pages as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "]" on some online websites. Re any apparent ]: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way. | |||
| Incidentally, I entirely agree that my earlier user page needs a version trimmed down to the very basics, and without any material whatsoover that may possibly be understood as promotional. I have no problem doing that of course. Seems I may have been too ] with that (and related presentations, including those involving references and the like). In any case, thank you for reviewing my request here. I hope my replies (noted above) help in some way to restore my en-Misplaced Pages editing. Stay Safe and Healthy !! - ] (]) 12:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Prior talk page discussion=== | |||
| {{collapse top|prior discussion copied from ]. ] ] 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| '''Strong oppose:''' DrBogdan has never acknowledged their destructive editing tendencies or willingness to be overly promotional in weighting their contributions to wikipedia, a trait was has continued well into their CBAN with promotional-ish replies here () and his largely being to maintain promotional links. He continues above in lionizing the volume of his edit history without regard for quality and linking, inexplicably, his facebook, livejournal, and wordpress pages. | |||
| I and other editors have spent a lot of time since their ban cleaning up the daily updates and image galleries added persistently to articles. | |||
| The IP user ] shows a strong and long-standing pattern of insisting on adding country identification to the names of U.S. places such as ], despite being repeatedly informed of relevant Misplaced Pages consensus indicating otherwise as recorded at ] / ]. The user has been warned repeatedly (e.g. at ]) and previously blocked for such behavior, but seems to just that the practice is appropriate and is continuing the behavior, including today. The user also appears to have tried to disguise such action using a . —] (]) 17:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Since his ban, I did more cleaning at Commons and this not contributing to the project. In this process I learned that Drbogdan has had a history of uploading images with copyright issues, as well. The meat of it, though, has been how he absolutely ruined entire science articles that have required complete rewrites to bring up to standard. | |||
| *I agree with the IP. Why would we omit the country name just because the United States is involved? --] (]) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Commonname, utility, redundancy. State names (Georgia excepted) are unique signifiers while the national name is not. In other words, it's because ] is a unique placename while ] is a useless one, and ] fails all relevant naming conventions. --] <small>]</small> 18:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not sure I agree with the IP, but naming conventions are solely about the name of an article, not how it's referred to in other articles (]). And the IP's change of ] to ], Illinois is ]. --] 18:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This is not the place to discuss ], its parents, or its children. This is a place for administrator attention, which seems like a very limited scope problem, discussion of which should not require discussing place names at all. ] (]) 18:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I have maintained since it’s very time consuming. So far I’ve had to rewrite (with help from others in places) ,, , , , , and , in addition to the cleanup done before his CBAN. All of these were victims of indiscriminate image galleries added to articles and daily updates on mission status. If we look at one I still haven’t gotten to, like ], it’s still an absolute mess of images smeared all over it. The intent of this list isn't to be any kind of gravedancing, but rather Drbogdan's major contributions have been so consistently low-quality that it's necessary to manually review every single article he's been heavily involved in to remove indiscriminate galleries. | |||
| :I don't see the reasoning behind adding the ''United States'' to American places, when AFAIK we're (for example) excluding ''United Kingdom'' from British places. We need consistancy (if possible) for including/excluding sovereign states, in these situations. ] (]) 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is different from WP:USPLACE, which governs page ''names'', not page contents. Excluding the country from an article is an oversight if unintentional, and downright disruptive if intentional, because we are an international encyclopedia. Administrator attention has been attracted, and administrator tools will be used to enforce ] when people intentionally violate it. ] (]) 19:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree that country names in these instances are unnecessary and merely add clutter, but that is almost beside the point. I think the matter has been brought to ANI for administrator attention because we have an editor who 1) persistently makes a kind of edit that is routinely reverted; 2) ignores admonitions of various editors to discontinue that kind of edit; 3) has already been blocked once for the same kind of edit and 4) has now at least once misrepresented the nature of his edits in the edit summary. ] (]) 19:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The IP editor is correct. It would be very foolish to ask for admin action against them. --] (]) 19:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, the IP is correct; country name ''should'' be included. GD, for British places something like 'X, England' or 'Y, Wales' is preferable to 'Z, United Kingdom'. ]] 19:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm merely recommending 'across the board' consistancy. Either we include the sovereign state, or we don't. I'm not picky about which, just wish them to be consistant. For example: ''Cardiff, Wales'' is alright, as long as we have ''Toronto, Ontario'' or ''Austin, Texas'', etc.] (]) 19:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::]. --]''''']''''' 22:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It's been like a month since the IP did any of that work. It is funny to see the country name listed for cities that are globally known. Chicago, Illinois, USA - as opposed to Chicago, Illinois, Luxembourg, for example. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It has not been a month. was today. But I'm starting to think those edits generally pale in comparison to about 15 new edits by ] since this conversation began here. —] (]) 19:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why's that then? --] (]) 19:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Speaking only for myself, I would say it's because - to my eyes - an IP was blocked for adding what seemed to be cluttery, inessential information to articles on the strength of a policy (]) that does not, on its face, demand such precision; and, when the matter was brought to ANI, Nyttend's response was to routinely restore the edits (and more) for which the IP was blocked. Now, perhaps this is all ancient water under the bridge for those who've been with the project from its inception (and who suffered through the debates) and to them the proper course of action is obvious, but I'm not exactly a novice, and the answer is not quite so clear to me, and it is - well, dispiriting to be told (albeit indirectly) that I threaten being "disruptive" by trying to reason through this. ] (]) 19:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ec}} The reason I said that is that those edits by Nyttend appear to be responsive to this conversation and are reverting the actions of several editors on this subject without waiting for the discussion to unfold and consensus to be clarified (and because they include the helpful clarification that ] is in the United States, for those readers of articles about American professors who might not be aware of that). And because many of the edit summaries include the imperative command "do not remove", which looks like an attempt to use forceful language to achieve what cooperative consensus building might not. —] (]) 20:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am unpersuaded by the argument that "United States" needs to be added after the first mention of any U.S. state, or "Canada" after the name of any Canadian province (and so on down the line) because "not all readers are from country X". The issue isn't nation-centrism but rather whether a particular place is likely to be so unfamiliar to English-speaking readers that it demands further disambiguation. In many, many cases the additional information is just so much clutter, particularly since the state name will be wikilinked the first time through and anyone who is not sure where to find "]" or "]" can easily click through to find out. ] (]) 19:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::In that case, feel free to make such a proposal at the appropriate place. Bear in mind that our articles have to make sense in print where there are no links. --] (]) 19:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is why I noted above that administrative tools will be used, if necessary, to enforce WP:CONTEXTLINK and to ensure that intentional disruption be prevented. ] (]) 19:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ec}}I may do that, but I'm not sure where. Not under article naming conventions, where country names are already (sensibly) not required in article names. And though ] is cited above as demanding country names to accompany state / province names, it strikes me as anything but definitive, noting merely generally that "an article about a building or location should include a link to the broader geographical area of which it is a part" and using as an example, not (e.g.) "Austin, Texas, United States" but rather Arugam Bay. I appreciate that the views here are strongly held but (so far) am not clear on where this particular protocol has been established. ] (]) 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] not only says nothing explicitly about this issue, it also provides an example of appropriate phrasing in which "Moscow" is not clarified with a country identifier. —] (]) 19:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Since this matter is not going to result in administrative action, it will shortly be closed here and archived. Before that happens, I would like advice about where to continue discussion of this issue. To my eyes (and evidently those of a few other editors as well) neither style or nor Misplaced Pages policy mandates the reflexive, invariant inclusion of country names alongside states or provinces or other well-known political subdivisions. And - if, well, style or policy does, I'd like to know where it is set forth so that I can make the case that it shouldn't. Thanks. ] (]) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *What I mainly want to know is why {{ping|Nyttend}} has gone thru reverting a whole bunch of months old edits of mine... --]''''']''''' 22:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Without delving into my personal opinion on the subject, I echo the concerns above about Nyttend's interpretation of CONTEXTLINK, which states only that an article should "include a link to the broader geographical area of which it is a part", without explicitly noting that it must be a country. Illinois is a broader geographical area of which Chicago is a part, so taking a ]'s view of the policy, the country does not seem to be needed. This seems like a content dispute, not a cut and dry, black and white policy question. Certainly, no administrative tools should be involved in enforcing one side or the other, as consensus has not been reached (at least if it has no indication has been noted on this page) on whether the country should be included. As such, it seems ] ought to be used. '''] ]]''' 02:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Drbogdan’s defence here and in the past has been a mix of the ] and blaming my “persistence” at the ANI, despite my initial arguments at ANI being opposed to a ban. I think it’s pretty clear at this point that Drbogdan is motivated to edit, but unwilling to acknowledge any of the shortcomings in their editing process and I don’t actually see a planet in which their presence here is a positive given the timbre of this unban request. Especially considering it was so obviously going to be posted bang-on the six month mark. ] 12:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User talk:151.56.11.27 and "The List of non existent recording" (''sic'') - Advice sought == | |||
| *'''Support''', although it sounds like he has some hair-shirt wearing and more 'splaining to do. Nothing wrong in asking for this return after six months (that's what six months means, not six months but maybe wait an extra week or two). Thanks to Warrenmck for their cleanup, not a fun thing to do but needed when mistakes are made. That's what the six month wait is for, punishment for those mistakes. Once six months is served and understanding is admitted the slate should be swept clean and the fatted calf slaughtered for a feast. In seriousness, I've missed Dr.'s edits to science and space articles, he catches and posts new information at a commendable rate and I often learned about recent events from those edits. Taking Warren's concerns into account, maybe Dr. can explain a bit more about understanding why many editors had such concerns to begin with. Thanks, and, hopefully, welcome back. ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|Once six months is served and understanding is admitted}} | |||
| *:''And'', not ''or''. Above Drbogdan is actively complaining about the edits made to ] since his ban, and refusing to acknowledge that there were any issues with systematic low quality edits in the first place. For all people like to address his science credentials, by his own biography those are all in medicine and as an actual ] editor in the areas he's most keen to edit I've relied far less on my credentials in editing these articles than he has. There were other space-centric ]s hitting a wall with his editing pattern in the ANI, as well, if I recall. This is what resulted in several editors discussing a proclivity for ] and ]; he has been operating on the assumption that his ability to accurately weight information within planetary science and astrophysics is good, despite constant removal of added content in those fields. Expertise is non-transferrable. ] 13:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, and Drbogdan, if he comes back, has to adhere to those things or he won't be editing for long. A six-month indef ban seems long enough for someone to realize there may be a few things to do differently (hard to do for those of us who know everything and think that our way ''is'' the highway). He knows that his edits will be closely watched again, so maybe when an edit seems like it may be in question he can bring it to the talk page first (either the article or to one of the "watchers" for comment). Several ways to go about this, and better to have him editing and being careful about penalty calls than watching from the sidelines. ] (]) 13:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't want to bludgeon this, but I'm genuinely curious how you can possibly read an understanding of the underlying problem on his part from a post which basically can be summarized as "It wasn't me/I didn't do it/It wasn't intentional". I think there's some very serious wishful thinking on your part, because the above request to be unblocked actually contains every single element that lead to his CBAN; a refusal to recognize issues in the quality of his edits or in fact any meaningful wrongdoing at all and promotional editing. | |||
| :::::{{tq| I currently know of no real rules broken}} | |||
| ::::This isn't the basis for the removal of a CBAN as "lesson learned" ] 13:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I may be optimistic and hoping that this discussion will bring more comments from Drbogdan about these concerns. As I said, when we think we're right but other editors disagree then the process is to go through a long discussion to try to talk some sense into them (as seen from our point of view, which hopefully includes the ability to change our own mind) - because in Misplaced Pages even a 13-year-old high school student has as much say as a Dr. or professor. That power given to the uninformed is a trademark of Misplaced Pages, but somehow it works and the place runs well while growing and improving by the second. Dr. gives much weight to IAR, as he should (IAR, undiscussed by most editors, is policy and a darn good one), but you have to know it when you see it (from the perspective of that 14-year-old (who just this second had a birthday) editing while in study hall). ] (]) 14:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] in Drbogdan's case included a lot of copyvio, both at Commons (uploading non-free images) and in article spaces (linking copyright violating youtube videos inline in articles). ] 15:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (]) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Misplaced Pages are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "]" and "]", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Misplaced Pages, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Misplaced Pages as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "]" on some online websites. Re any apparent ]: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way. ] (]) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] and I have been discussing the behaviour of the above name IP editor in adding recordings to the "Recordings" sections of opera articles. After being challenged to produce evidence that these recordings exist, and with no reply forthcoming and based on our own research of likely sources, many of these have been removed from the articles themselves. But today, this editor added "The List of Non existent recording" (''sic'') to his/her/their "Talk" page. | |||
| So, as you can see I have collapsed the above discussion for the moment. This is a community-imposed block based on a consensus determined at ], it must go through the same process if an unblock is to be considered. I can, however copy over the above comments if and when that is done so the users who have already commented don't have to start over. Before we go there, I'd like to ask, in light of what I have just explained and the feedback already given, if you are sure this is the appeal you want to submit for review by the community? ] ] 01:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Just a few minutes ago, another recording was added to the "List" but not to the article. A warning has been given. How do we proceed? Keep giving warnings? Is it legitimate for any editor to use his/her own Talk page to create fictional lists of this sort? ] (]) 21:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your comments. And clarification of the relevant procedure. Yes, you may submit the related appeal. Thank you for your help with this. Stay Safe and Healthy !! - ] (]) 01:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Hyper Criticus, possibly another sock of ] == | |||
| ::That's a bad idea. Bebblebrox was giving you a subtle hint. Rewrite your appeal to address the main concerns. ] (]) 01:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for your comments - seems like my current appeal above addresses the main concerns presented in the original ANI concluding comments - at least as far as I'm aware of at the moment - am I overlooking something? - ] (]) 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Many things. I've previously addressed them up above and they have recently been addressed in the current, now collapsed thread. This isn't rocket science. You're intelligent, and I think you can figure it out. ] (]) 02:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Seems like my very last comments (copied below) in the collapsed thread does that in fact. Certainly intended to do that, and thought I did in fact - ] (]) 02:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Copy of my last comments in the thread: | |||
| :::::{{tq|Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (]) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Misplaced Pages are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "]" and "]", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Misplaced Pages, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Misplaced Pages as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "]" on some online websites. Re any apparent ]: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way. ] (]) ]}} ] (]) 02:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Incidentally, I entirely agree that my earlier user page needs a version trimmed down to the very basics, and without any material whatsoover that may possibly be understood as promotional. I have no problem doing that of course. Seems I may have been too ] with that (and related presentations, including those involving references and the like). ] (]) 03:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A stated interest in using '''bold''' and '''IAR''' to more of a degree than most editors may seem too close to how you've edited in the past that a group of users objected to. Maybe tone that down or even go the opposite way - in some instances where you believe IAR to be the correct solution maybe plan to first take these to talk pages for feedback (you can likely "feel" when an edit will be objected to, and those are the ones to discuss beforehand). In any case, after an indef ban, editing practices should at least be modified to take others points-of-view into account. Make sense? ] (]) 12:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thanks for your comments. Yes. I *completely* agree with everything you've noted (and had thought of all of this earlier myself as well). I fully expect to do all of this at the next oppotunity. No problem whatsoever with any of this. - ] (]) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| *Shouldn't this be on ], not ]? <small> also, this is weird. This section, and this section only, has a pause between typing the "<nowiki>]]</nowiki>" at the end of links when I hit it fast. Not other sections on the page, and not the edit summary box either...</small> - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **<small>Tech issue appears to start after the "Separately from this close" quote above. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| **:I put the discussion here because this is where the block was decided. Seems like it should go back to the same place? | |||
| **:I've had a really long couple of days but if there are still technical problems here tomorrow I'll look into it. ] ] 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***:I ''think'' unblock requests usually go on AN, but that's fair. And as a further note, the "delay" between the "]]" typing gets longer the further I go down the page when editing that section. Editing just this subsection, it's just fine, so there's something in that quote or just below it that is making Firefox go pear-shaped. It's ''very'' weird. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Further Discussion of Community block appeal by ]=== | |||
| Since creating their account today, {{u|Hyper Criticus}} has been making tedious syntax changes solely to articles I've edited most recently, which I'm assuming they've gotten from my contributions list. , , , , and so on. of theirs to another article I had edited minutes prior to their edit was reverted by another editor, although Hyper Criticus did not react with the same hostility as they had when attacking me and . ] (]) 21:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Any replies from Drbogdan to further comments here may be copied over. ] ] 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I'm not sure what that stream of consciousness is trying to say but it goes nowhere near addressing the issues resulting in the ban. ] (]) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I'm not seeing anything in the Wall of text that shows the editor understands why they were banned and how their behaviour needs to change. ] (]) 23:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I see nothing here that suggests Drbogdan understands the problem and is willing to take positive steps to avoid it. Rather the opposite. ] (]) 00:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' unblock request does not address the reason for their ban. And the content of the request just goes to show why the ban should be continued and why they are not of benefit to the community and are just wasting other editor's time. ] ] 01:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' fails to address the reason the ban was given, nor give any adequate assurances that the behavior that resulted in the ban will not be an issue going forward.] (]) 02:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose:''' The standard offer requires that banned users promise to avoid engaging in the behaviors that led to their ban. I do not see any such promise in this unblock request, so this appeal should be struck down. ] (]) 06:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : The frustration they express and the nature of their changes (frivolous grammar and sentence structure changes to articles I've contributed to significantly or just simply recent ones shown up at my contributions page) suggest another in a series of socks that have been popping up over the past week or so since {{u|Harmelodix}} was blocked as a ], the most recent being {{u|EastCoaster007}} and {{u|CountGramula}}. Either way, admin intervention will be helpful; I don't feel like getting into an edit war with an editor I have no faith will be responsive to any serious discussion about their edits. ] (]) 21:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. The unblock request provides neither adequate specifics to convince me that the previous ban was improperly applied, nor any apology nor promise to do better regarding the behavior that led to the ban. —] (]) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Hmm, so your prose sucks donkey balls... You Americans come up with such funny expressions. ] (]) 23:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - The unblock request largely shows the same issues they were blocked for - self promo (links to facebook, wordpress and livejournal), not taking on community advice (all responses are "nuh-uh, not true"), and difficulties communicating (formatting is a mess and responses are only tangentially related to what they are quoting). Their defense is mainly "I never did anything that bad", not the required acknowledgement of the problem and indication of improval. In the unblock request they specificly use of the ] article as an example of a good contribution - which has {{tq|The name ''Jazzy'', for example, was taken from a girl named Jazzy who grew up in Grand Junction, Colorado, USA. Her father worked for NASA and contributed to the findings and naming of the rocks.}} unsourced in the second paragraph. ] ] 09:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **Your fans all thought you were an American by now, {{U|Drmies}}. You can come up with funny expressions any time you want. ] ] 06:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***Well, I have the debt to prove I'm at least culturally part-American. But {{U|Cullen328}}, expressions like "put out" and "brown-nosing", who could come up with that? Or that master of all bad words, "mother******"? Whereas I was criticized in some other forum for saying "ridiculousest", as if thereby I lowered the bar for linguistic civility and ambitiousness... ] (]) 14:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *OK, I was going to block but good old {{U|Kww}} beat me to it. Thanks Kevin. As for the "frivolous grammar and sentence structure changes", well, I'm sorry, but Jazzerino is, on occasion, a very decent writer, and those changes, right or wrong, aren't frivolous. I hope Kevin doesn't use mass rollback. Anyway, this one's blocked, and we wait for the next one. Take it easy Dan, ] (]) 23:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Unconstructive editing by Wolverine X-eye == | |||
| == Eyes on Robin Williams, please == | |||
| Could any free editors keep their eyes on ] for the next bit? Not sure if pre-emptive RPP is a good idea, but I'll have a weather eye out myself and will send it there if necessary. Thanks. --] (]) 23:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : FYI the article has been placed under full protection for 12 hrs due to concerns about the rate of editing. --] (]) 23:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's certainly no new information at this point. CNN is already into its loop of reporting the same story over and over, filling the gaps with quick interviews of those who knew him. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{archive top|] and ] are both hereby requested to not be so '''''like that''''' all the time. --] (]) 22:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| The above user has been adding in section breaks on a concluded conversation in order to change the meaning and context of the discussion. I was revert by ] and I posted on his page and requested he self revert. Neotarf not only added another section break but it was a ]y one for sure. It's been a shit fest the last week but Neotarf was warned about changing section headers at arbcome case request where he told that editor to gyf or Go fuck yourself. ] came and posted ] and Neotarf responded ] wanting to recall him. There are some serious disruption and point issues here as well as a failure to get the point. ] (]) 00:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :] has been issued the required notification]. I'd like to point out that I followed the instructions in the bright yellow box that takes up about 1/4 of the screen that explicitly tells me I must do so. ] (]) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I am posting this here because, among other concerns of continued disruptive editing, I believe that this user's actions are impacting the quality and integrity of the GAN process. I’ve looked at this for long enough and tried to aid where possible, but it seems that @] is unwilling to change their behaviour on this website, hence why I saw fit to bring this here. | |||
| ::I have no idea what all the upset is about other than it involves naughty words. I complained about a that had some very nasty words including a racial slur and that because it was a section heading it was showing up in watchlists and recent changes. | |||
| They have passed several articles through GAN over the past few months that exhibit many edits in a short period (numbering into the hundreds), often paired with unexplained removal of information. These absurdly high edit counts clog up page histories and are not exclusive to their GAN targets either, as can be seen in ] three-month-old discussion on the user’s talk page from back when I first noticed this ‘unusual editing style’. Some examples from around this time follow below, although I should add that this editing pattern has not changed: | |||
| ::While complaining about this the section heading accidentally ended up in my edit summary. Another user came to my talk page(]) to let me know about this so I could remove it under ]. About 5 days later Neo shows up to complain about us talking behind his back? | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| Wolverine has been asked multiple times to try and reduce their edit counts so that page histories remain useable, and despite saying they will, have refused to take any actual action in this regard. One can see this pattern repeated over and over on their contributions page. | |||
| Sadly, high edit counts with minimal change are the least of the issues present here. Most recently, Wolverine passed Fennec Fox, but after closing and reopening the GAN himself in the middle of an active (and not strictly positive) review by another user. A new review was started by another user within a few days, and while they did acknowledge the existence of the second review, nothing was done about its improper closing and only a few sentences were added to the article between the two reviews (which can be found and respectively) | |||
| ::This whole issue is confusing and I am not sure what the issue are but if he is going to use racial slurs as part of a debate then Neo can at least keep them out of section headings which end up in edit summaries. ] 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Neotarf is modfying the comments and putting breaks in the middle at random points of the conversation and changing the context. As I explained to Sarek when the conversation is ongoing there is not problem but when it's concluded we don't need section breaks at random by someone trying to be a revisionist. ] (]) 01:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| In many places where editors don’t immediately agree with Wolverine, he turns to insults, personal attacks and otherwise inappropriate comments. A non-exhaustive list of examples follows below: | |||
| ::I guess this is a completely different section header issue. I thought it was related because I just got a message on my talk page from him about a section heading. ] 01:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Under ‘Your talk page’, accusing another editor of inappropriately handling a discussion with a minor (the other user was, in fact, not a minor). | |||
| * Fennec fox GAN , | |||
| * List of pholidotans merge proposal , | |||
| * Narwhal talk page | |||
| * Own talk page | |||
| The user has also shown an unwillingness to put effort into article improvement when requested in the review processes, and an unwillingness to put effort into finishing reviews they start. Again, a non-exhaustive list of examples can be found below. | |||
| :::], Yes, he keeps trying to change or add subtitles, seemingly at random and in this case add them in the middle of now concluded portions of the thread thus changing the context of yours and my comments. I have no problems adding those when the conversation is ongoing but the actions behind aren't for convenience it's a passive aggressive attempt to change the context. It's also the overall context of their behavior, John came through asking if they might need to take a break and that some of their behaviors were passive aggressive, Neotarf has responded as you yourself noted in an irrational manner like they did on your page. They demanded to be able to start a recall on John because they accused them of personal attacks. This whole clusterfuck was because of neotarfs inability to understand context of wording and incessant forum shopping. ] (]) 01:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Own talk page, starting and then not finishing two GA reviews (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wolverine_X-eye/Archive_2#Inactivity_during_reviews) and drive-by nomination of the World War I article, a bit of a while back when compared to other examples in this case (6 months). https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wolverine_X-eye/Archive_2#Drive-by_nomination | |||
| ::::Specifically ] and later reverted by Sarek who then self reverted ] and then the really passive aggressive one with nice wording ] ] (]) 01:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * After being advised to do a thorough check on all the citations in the narwhal page (see the closing comments on , Wolverine opened a for the article four days later stating that they ‘need to know where the article's source-to-text integrity is at’, indicating a fundamental lack of knowledge about the state of the article that he had, at this point, attempted to promote to FA four times in five months. In this same review, he also tried to get others to do a source review for him or make a peer review spot-check count in place of a spot-check at the next FAC. | |||
| :::::I'd like to point out more bad faith and disruption by ]]. ] transplanted a {{diff|User talk:John|620832307|620820730|scattered discussion}} from his page to neotarf's page. Neotarf has now accused this admin of "Signature forgery" and struck both John's comment and my comment. I reverted this and advised they may remove completely but they may not strike another editors comment. ] (]) 08:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for the wiki coding G.A. but usually especially when a thread is about modifying anothers comments, don't modify, especially in this situation I don't expect Neotarf to react well. I hit the dumb link and was trying to thank you btw and I mistakenly thanked Neotarf, that was not my intention lol. ] (]) 08:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{OD}}to point out the relevant policy see ] specifically the section that states "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." ] (]) 08:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| I hope that a satisfactory conclusion can be reached, and thank you for your time. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == User:Omnipaedista == | |||
| I just want to denounce for improper behavior by this user. | |||
| --] (]) 01:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This "denouncement" seems to be a ] retaliation for my opening WP:ANI#User:Melenc a while ago . Melenc has been been making personal attacks against me and has been inserting false/inaccurate information in articles during the past few months rudely ignoring my attempts at explaining academic standards and policy to them. --] (]) 01:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::For the currently topic do you have any explanation? --] | |||
| I just try to be calm with the user, but he attacks me and reverts my comments from his talk page.. so how I can communicate with..? (]) 02:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Despite their previous personal attacks , I did reply in good faith to their last comment on my talk-page ]. --] (]) 02:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Please check their talk-page history and edit log . I have reviewed all of them. I estimate that most of their contributions here were either reverted for violating some guideline or policy or needed to be modified for the same reasons. This editor simply refuses to engage in dialogue. They instead keep creating a mess in articles related to Greek etymology by removing reliably sourced information, overlinking, or adding inaccurate information that needs to be corrected by others (see my latest comments on their talk page). This is getting quite time-consuming. --] (]) 02:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I am open to explanations, i' m bidding on wikipedia, but user not allows any other user .When I insert an atymology or a wikilink, he revert it and then put it back again by himself. | |||
| --] (]) 02:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't plan on getting involved in this, except to say that my ] that you linked to is a follow up. The original is from June and can be found higher up on that archive page at ]. ] (]) 00:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It is needless to say that assigning the blame for the lack of communication to me is grossly inappropriate and that the phrase "I just try to be calm with the user" is downright patronizing. --] (]) 02:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi, {{u|The Morrison Man}}, let me address this promptly. So your first paragraph talks about the high number of edits I make to GAN pages. Well, I don't necessarily see that as a problem because you're the only editor who has made complaints about this, and if I may, I'm by no means the only editor who exhibits such behavior, so it's not at all clear to me why you're targeting me on this. Now regarding the 3 articles you listed, those were the articles that you brought to my attention in that discussion, and since then I've not repeated the behavior. The Fennec Fox incident is not an issue IMO. The editor in the first GAN clearly stated that they think the article was not up to GA-standards and that I should re-nominate it. Seeing that they were new to GAN and that they happened to be inactive at the time, I decided to help them close the nomination as that was their intention, but they didn't seem to know how to follow through with that. In Example 1, I read the whole discussion and it was pretty clear the editor was a minor. Sure, the talk page owner happened to talk to two people, one a minor, the other not, but they clearly spent more time with the minor talking about irrelevant stuff that aren't wiki-related. The editor even admits that they were in fact talking to a minor. The Fennec fox GAN examples are not personal attacks. They're just criticism. There's a difference. About Pholidota: I got a bit heated after Elmidae insulted and made hostile comments towards me. Yeah, that was a pretty contentious discussion overall. The Narwhal talk page link is not a personal attack or a insult, rather it's simply telling the IP to leave me alone as they were annoying me with those pings. I wanted to be as blunt as possible. The last link is just me explaining to a new editor why I reverted their edit. I said I didn't want to have the conversation again because if you look through the archives, you'll see that we had that exact discussion, but with a different article, before. I didn't think it was gonna happen again, and I sure didn't want it to happen for a third time, so I let the user know. Your last part talks about me not putting effort in my nominations and reviews. Well, I'm not the only editor who struggles to finish reviews, and I'll admit that sometimes I bite off a little more than I can chew. I did finish one of those reviews though. I would also state that I've made over 30 reviews, and out of those 30, I failed to complete maybe six of them. World War I was a drive-by nom, I'll admit, didn't realize that at the time, but that's the only case where I've unwittingly made a drive-by nom, so...We reach the end of your comment, and regarding your remarks about the FAC situation, well all I can say is that I needed insurance before I made another nomination, as the last two noms failed for sourcing issues. I was not confident about my scanning of the article's sourcing, so I needed a source review to see if the sourcing issues were still evident. I did scan a large portion of the article's sourcing but I just needed that extra insurance. Yep, that should be it. ] (]) 07:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The fennec fox edits are ''absolutey'' ]. {{tqq|Is this all about the message I left on your friend's talk page? You don't do much reviewing and judging by this review you also don't seem to be an experienced reviewer. This review has been unfair and your judgment on multiple aspects are off by a long shot}} is ]. Also {{tqq|I decided to help them close the nomination as that was their intention, but they didn't seem to know how to follow through with that.}} - you ''do not'' close your own GANs. If you start it, you do not close it. Full stop. {{tqq|The Narwhal talk page link is not a personal attack or a insult}} - no, sorry, it is indeed a ]. ] is one of the ], it is ''not'' optional and you seem to spend a lot of time tap-dancing on or over the line of it. I suggest you reconsider your approach in many areas to maintain a civil, collaborative environment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{Re|The Bushranger}} I made that comment based on a comment they made . I also took into consideration the fact that they reviewed my GAN as their ''very first review'' less than 24 hours (if I'm not mistaken) after nomination. And so I'd say that's my evidence for the comment. I apologize if this is not enough. Regarding the Narwhal bit, I didn't intend to make the comment a personal aattack. I intended to make it clear to the IP that I didn't want them to annoy me with those pings. I could have handled the situation better, I agree. But what I found annoying was that they attacked me on the basis of a YouTube video that discusses how I wrongfully reverted the creator's edit, only to later realize my mistake, rectifying it accordingly. Nevertheless, I will definitely take your words above into consideration. ] (]) 09:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == KirillMarasin promoting medical treatments and "conversion therapy" == | |||
| == ] on ] == | |||
| {{user|KirillMarasin}} | |||
| {{Userlinks|Hilsea}} has made edits that are unsourced and POV on {{Pagelinks|2014 Sarcelles riots}}. He claims the information he added are important, yet he does not source his claims. He also claims that the information he deletes are unverified, but it is in the article's sources. He has also deleted (perhaps accidentally) a source. | |||
| I think we have two related problems with KirillMarasin. First up, he promotes and seeks to legitimise the pseudo-medical practice of "]" (, , Yes, that really is a medical claim being sourced to Reddit!) and secondly he adds medical claims to other articles which are either unreferenced or which are improperly referenced to sites selling supplements (, , and ). Attempts by multiple editors to warn him have been unavailing and I read as both a personal attack and a highly offensive suggestion that I practice "conversion therapy" on myself. Beyond that, this is a clear and sustained case of ] and ]. --] (]) 02:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 1st set of edits: | |||
| :Even if my edits are not high-quality, the article on conversion therapy has a lot of gaslighting, saying time and time again there are no treatments, when the opposite is true. ] (]) 09:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2014_Sarcelles_riots&diff=620228985&oldid=619761541 | |||
| ::Not according to science baaed RS which is all that matters from Misplaced Pages's PoV ] (]) 10:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::What is RS? ] (]) 12:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Good question! You were supposed to know that in order to edit Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not only are your edits not of high-quality, at least two of your sources are garbage, and you're edit warring at that article as well. You need to step away from that article.]] 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why would you even consider 4Chan to be a legitimate source for anything, let alone a science/medicine-based topic? That, in of itself, is a major issue. ] (]) 11:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Just looking at the three ] edits mentioned by DanielRigal, makes a medical claim without citing any sources at all and cites reddit and 4chan for medical claims. Finally, cites a paper in the Journal of Neurosurgery for the claim that {{tq|some methods of conversion therapy were working}}. The paper in question in fact says that {{tq|while Heath claimed that the patient had a full recovery and engaged exclusively in heterosexual activities, other sources argued that the patient continued to have homosexual relationships}}. Any of these diffs on their own would be totally unacceptable. {{pb}}Additionally, a glance at ] shows that KirillMarasin not only added these claims once, but reinstated them after their removal was adequately explained. e.g. they add the "some methods of conversion therapy were working" claim, the addition is reverted with the edit summary explaining that the source does not support the addition, KirillMarasin reinserts the text with the edit summary {{tq|It doesn't need deleting, I'll try to edit it to better reflect the article.}} When somebody reverts an edit because it contradicts the cited source, you need to fix that error {{em|before}} reinstating it. ] (]) 10:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Would a ] on ] prevent further inappropriate editing? Note this is a ''question'', I'm not familiar with ] and it may very well not have any bearing or may be the wrong approach here. --] (]) 11:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think there's a CIR issue as well. The slipping of sources from 4chan into a contentious topic seems either like overt trolling or a serious lack of understanding of sources.] (]) 11:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'd still like to ], even though I'm beginning to have my doubts. I think this is a CIR issue first and foremost, with a mixture of POV-pushing and lack of understanding of ], ] and ]. Since they are here, and reading this page, and haven't edited since they started following this conversation, I think {{re|KirillMarasin}} should read those policies first, before they attempt to edit again. If they continue with their current editing pattern, though, a ] would be entirely appropriate. — ] (]) 12:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Not all of the problem edits have been ]; the ones listed by the OP aa diffs 5 through 8 are on sexual health matters not under that GENSEX guideline. A more general medical topic ban, widely construed, may be more appropriate. -- ] (]) 14:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{user|KirillMarasin}} has been here for more than a decade. It's hard to believe that suddenly, he doesn't know that 4Chan isn't a usable source - and in a topic like this, too. Signs are pointing to NOTHERE. ] (]) 14:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == History of disruptive COI editing == | |||
| I reverted his 1st set of edits, but he made a 2nd set: | |||
| *https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2014_Sarcelles_riots&diff=620691324&oldid=620329696 | |||
| I didn't wanted to go through this, but I'm done being patient. There appears to be a long history of disruptive COI editing by {{u|Armandogoa}} on his father's article ]. He usually edits this page after every few months or so, and seems to add unreferenced content as per his latest edit done on the page here . I had many of his edits reverted myself. | |||
| I have not yet reverted the 2nd set of edits. | |||
| --] (]) 03:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I also did place a COI warning on his talk page over a year ago . But he seems to not understand it this way. His father is an active politician, and considering our ] policies, I think this editor should be blocked to prevent any other controversial or peacock material added in the future. ]<sup>2003</sup>(]) 07:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Looks like Hilsea is dismissing any sources that disagree with his version of events as "unverified", e.g. . ] (]) 05:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::These issues should be discussed on the article's talk page. The article is currently a mess. ] ] 06:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive ] == | |||
| ::{{re|Article editor|Hilsea}} Seems to be a content dispute. There is some debate over whether the quote "Death to the Jews" was uttered. The quote must be included, also should be included are the questions raised over it. See ] for my suggestion. As to the Berlin incident, that seems to have no relation with the article. ] (]) 06:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Russavia disruption, requesting multiple article protection == | |||
| ] has , to stop changing content without a reliable source but continues to do so ignoring and being non-responsive to warnings. Sumeshmeo got 3 same warnings in 2023. I do not think that Sumeshmeo is here to improve Misplaced Pages pages. ] (]) 10:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Banned user {{noping|Russavia}} has been editing Misplaced Pages at a dozen articles, using multiple proxies. To prevent this kind of disruption, I would like the following articles and pages to be given temporary semi-protection: | |||
| * In future, it helps if you provide diffs when making a report so people are better able to assess it. Having looked at Sumesheo's contribs, is a recent egregious example where not only do they change the text of the article, they also change the title of the source cited so it appears to support that claim (and break the url in the process). In fact as far as I can tell, every single edit they have made so far this month is to increase the claimed gross takings of a film, without ever providing a source or explanation, in most cases explicitly contradicting the existing cited source. ] (]) 11:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| == Uncivil behavior == | |||
| There's even a bit of disruption from Russavia at ], ironically, with the guy saying for good measure.<br> I know I'm supposed to notify a user who I am discussing at ANI but this guy is using throwaway proxies, and he clearly knows what is going on around here. ] (]) 05:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Semi-protecting ] would be counter productive, as new users and IP'a are the people who are meant to use it to request uploads.... --]]<small>]</small> 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Mdann52}} is now semi-protected for 3 days. How will IP editors be able to request files to be uploaded during this time? ] (]) 09:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::]: Please consider unprotecting ]. Lots of IPs request files for upload and they need to be able to continue doing this. As an example, I took a look at the first 20 requests at ], and out of those, 20% had been placed by an IP. The remaining 80% requests were made by users with accounts, but presumably some of them weren't autoconfirmed yet. --] (]) 14:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Jasper_Deng}} has been continually bludgeoning a conversation about a page rename, casting unsupported aspersions, acting uncivilly, and newcomers (me). | |||
| : Page protection might be acceptable, but this blanket reverting of IP edits (not even confirmed yet by a CU to be a ban evading sock) really isn't good - every edit reverted by Binksternet has been a good edit that improved each and every article, it just seems to be such a monumental waste of time and effort for all concerned to go around reverting edits, then someone else following behind re-reverting so as to 'take responsibility' for the edit. | |||
| : There has to be a better long term solution than this endless nonsense, surely. ] (]) 17:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Teahouse''' | |||
| == Hell in a Bucket disruption == | |||
| {{archive top|] and ] are both hereby requested to not be so '''''like that''''' all the time. --] (]) 22:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| Several times I have asked ] to stay off my talk page. However he continued to edit my talk page, Arbitrator Newyorkbrad , however he continued to stalk and edit my talk page . Again, I made a request for him to stay off my talk page. , however he continues to make edits to the page. . Can someone put a stop to this disruptive behavior? —] (]) 08:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| During a lively discussion about a , it occurred to me that I might be able to improve this encyclopedia by starting a conversations that could '''POTENTIALLY''' lead to future guidance or policy regarding how to name natural disaster articles. | |||
| :Please see ] the existing thread and the reasons why these edits were made. I'd like to point out that for the second time ] has failed to notify of an ANI thread as required. ] (]) 08:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::User:Hell in a Bucket, you were pinged by the notification system, if you didn't get notified, how did you get here so fast? —] (]) 08:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::As the disruption seems to have stopped for the moment, I am withdrawing the request. —] (]) 08:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As a piece of advice from past experience, your request that he stay off the page generally isn't relevant and can in fact work against you as it demonstrates an unwillingness to engage in normal discussion-based problem solving. You can delete his comments as quickly and summarily as you want, but unless there has been an interaction ban Hell's still permitted to post on your talk page if he follows the same standards of conduct that apply on every other talk page. --] <small>]</small> 08:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I give pretty good advice when you actually read it huh? I would like to point out the disruption stopped because Neotarf actually started following the ] which has been a rather large issue with Neotarf and encourage users to read the Neotarf thread that still needs admin attention including the passive aggressive nature of their behavior, markedly regarding their sadness about my life mentioned on bishonen page and ani notices etc. ] (]) 08:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|erachima}} Actually, if a user requests that you refrain from editing their page it is expected that whoever that is requested of follow this request, required notifications for AN, ANI, Arbcom, etc, aside. An interaction ban is not required. However, a request to refrain from posting on another editor's talk page does not cover edits of existing text to that talk page, which is a rather grey area. Rather than further heat up the situation, I recommend that HiaB refrain from further edits to Neotarf's page as it serves little purpose beyond stirring up hornets. ] (]) 10:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with both of you. I am not posting there further except in the course of encyclopedia business, ie warning and required notices. ] (]) 10:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As stated, Blackmane, I disagree. The judgment is invariably made based on post content with no regard for whether the talk page owner liked the posts being on "their" page, refusal to communicate is commonly held as an exacerbating rather than mitigating factor in disputes, and userspace and civility guidelines do not support your interpretation. --] <small>]</small> 10:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Per ]: ''If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests''. Failure to do so would be uncivil, and a block would be expected for a repeat offender. ] (]) 10:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks Hawkeye7, I knew it was noted somewhere, it just didn't come to mind where that was. ercahima, users have a great deal of leeway on how they user the space provided for their account (I won't say their space as it belongs to the foundation). Userspace and civility guidelines are not violated unless there is recalcitrant refusal to communicate with all users for no reason. In this case, Neotarf has asked HiaB not to post to their page, which they haven't. However HiaB is fulfilling the unspoken requirement, as they've said, that official and admin board notifications are an exception to this. ] (]) 12:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Above, Neotarf asks "{{tq|Can someone put a stop to this disruptive behavior?}}". The answer is ''yes''. All that is needed is for Neotarf to stop adding fuel to the fire—stop and all the drama will stop. ] (]) 10:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's also "A pox on both your houses" blocks in the tool chest. I say this to both disputants, ''knock it off''. I almost think it's time to revive the "If you bring a frivolous AN* complaint, you will be summarily blocked for 36 hours" proposal. ] (]) 15:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would be ok with that. Neotarf's personal heat:light ratio has been above 1 for quite a while now. It might do them good to have an enforced break. --] (]) 15:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Neotarf - It's tough to get behind you when you misrepresent the situation. HiB didn't 'drop the f bomb', he quoted you. And perhaps you also need to read NewYorkBrad's comments and not just focus on the parts where NYB is talking about HiB.--v/r - ]] 21:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::], I'd like to point out I'm happy to drop my own stick but ] has to stop trying to manipulate the situation and drop theirs. My only interactions at this point have been to enforce pedia policy and I'm perfectly happy to let this be a thing in the past if I don't have to see the forum shopping and continued accusations of racism, misogyny and whatever else floats into their thought process. I've been very up front with people that I do not have those issues and since the first I've been up front that the accusation was a large part of the issue. The passive aggressive lamentations need to stop or be stopped though. ] (]) 21:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm an Objectivist. Your actions are your responsibility. You can drop the stick and walk away at any time regardless of what Neotarf does, and they can do the same at any time. The problem is that neither of you have.--v/r - ]] 21:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::], you are entirely correct, at present I feel the need to defend myself against several accusations being made by Neotarf on an ongoing basis. The Arb case is shut down, I left it alone until Neotarf starting rearranging a completed discussion. I then reverted talk page comment modifications so these issues are separate. ] (]) 21:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Every time I see user A file and ANI report on user B and then not long after user B file a report on user A it is a fair bet that neither are acting like angels. If you two have a beef work it out on your talk pages, if you are forbidding someone to use your talk page then you should avoid this person. I am sure you two can handle this without ANI and if ANI does handle it then it is likely neither of you will come out smelling like roses. ] 21:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| They followed me to the teahouse and: | |||
| == CSU Craiova == | |||
| {{archive top|result=Content dispute/edit war, I am looking at it. ] 10:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| The page {{la|CS Universitatea Craiova (football)}} has been edit by an user , {{u|Cricrucra}} that is editing this page in the wrong way by adding false data about this football club. The history of this club is just a copy-paste of the history of another football club founded in Craiova, {{tl|FC Universitatea Craiova}}. The CSU club was founded in 2013 by the Craiova City Hall.If you can google the CS U Craiova history you'll find the Universitatea Craiova history which is another club which was excluded by FRF from all competitions. Please ban this user from editing. | |||
| Thank you. | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| *Bludgeoned me | |||
| == ] adding non-free content to h{{gender:Vranak|is|er}} user page == | |||
| *casted aspersions {{tq| it is frowned upon to post about an ongoing decision making discussion elsewhere (unless it is to raise serious misconduct concerns) as it could be considered WP:CANVASSING, particularly when the incipient consensus is leaning against your position}} You'll note that my post in the teahouse was asking how to start a conversation about potential future policy improvements, not at all about the ongoing conversation. And even if it were, the practice is quite common on noticeboards, why would it be any different in the teahouse such that it would be WP:CANVASSING? | |||
| {{archive top|result=NFCC#9 is quite a simple policy to follow, and it is equally simple to block editors who wilfully ignore it after multiple warnings; I hope it will not be necessary in this case. ] 17:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| This user continues to add ] to his user page in violation of ] despite being told not to do this. --] (]) 14:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you tried ''talking'' to the editor about it? — ] (]) 14:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::This was brought up on the user's talk page. The user's edit summaries to the user page suggest that {{gender:Vranak|he|she}} is refusing to listen. --] (]) 15:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Most editors respond pretty well when you talk ''with'' them and help them to understand policy, rather than robotically reverting and/or templating them. I recognize that fixing NFCC is a thankless job, but talking to editors in order to get them on board with policy is much more effective long-term than beating them over the head. — ] (]) 15:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Quick question Stefan: why do you even care? What's your angle on this? I'm about ready to tear into your psyche and your petty, slavish motivations, but I'll let you answer this simple question first. ] (]) 15:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Non-free content can cause legal issues for Misplaced Pages regardless of where it is used. That's why there are strict criteria for usage. Your usage undoubtedly fails point #9, which states NFC can only be used on content articles. I think ] only has Misplaced Pages's best interests in mind, and I'm sure he's not the only user who objects to this non-compliant usage. ]] 16:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Can cause legal issues? Has anybody — and I mean an actual rights holders — ever complained about an album cover being used in a userbox before? Let me know if they have. ] (]) 17:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When it comes to copyright infringement, preventative is more important than responsive. Please review ]. ]] 17:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: You're living in a climate of fear to say such a thing. I mean, just stop and think about this for a second. Why would anyone, and I mean anyone with the slightest trace of good sense object to their album artwork being featured in a user box? I mean really, why would they have any trouble with that at all? ] (]) 17:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: If you wish to propose changes to the policy defined at ] you can make proposals on the corresponding talk page, but you can't just defy the policy. --] (]) 17:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: {{ec}} I don't know, but that's irrelevant. If we set a precedent for leeway on copyright violations, they would become rampant. Eventually someone would notice, and perhaps even take legal action. By then, there could be too many violations to deal with. ] is a policy to be taken seriously. Understand that copyright infringement is '''illegal''' under the laws by which WMF and WP are bound. ]] 17:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| In the process they said {{tq|Don't overthink this}} to me. | |||
| *Vranak has been doing stuff like this since 2012 (see ) and consistently responds with namecalling and innuendo rather than reasonable discussion. The comment immediately above, coupled with repeated deliberate and unjustifiable violations of copyright/NFCC policy, lay a sound foundation for a block, and Vranak should be warned that another violation will result in one. ] (]) 16:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Don't be so obtuse Wolfowitz. Nobody really cares about such minor infringements of copyright, except a handful of hyper-vigilant narcissists bent on applying the rules at any and every opportunity. I know how you guys work. Grow up and find something more productive to do, would you? ] (]) 17:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It is not for us to decide what someone else may or may not want or care or notice--that's not how the law works. WMF has made their legal statements and policies, and we ''have to follow the legal policy'' even if we disagree with it. You're welcome to find an appropriate place to start a discussion on changing the policy. But in the mean time, you are bound to follow it. ] (]) 17:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| To which I replied {{tq|Please do not patronize me by suggesting I am overthinking this, and please don't WP:BLUDGEON me by responding to every comment I've made to someone else regarding this.}} | |||
| == Vandalism by IP == | |||
| A user from this address ] is using multiple IP's to push their point of view on the '']'' articles, specifically '']''. When the reasons why their contribution was removed were presented (]), the user unfortunately resorted to insults (]), (]), and then began widespread reverting (eg. ] and then vandalising pages (]). I advised ] - (]) - who was good enough to protect '']'' and then block the user for 48hrs for persistent edit warring. Perhaps this needs to happen on several key FF articles to prevent this? | |||
| For your consideration ] (]) 15:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I would say that in general admins are loathe to perform pre-emptive semi protect unless there are signs of chronic edit warring, or at least an impending edit war. I can only suggest that an eye be kept on it and the a request popped into RFPP if something does break out. Admins may differ in their opinion though. ] (]) 19:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *They then me by again saying in part {{tq|I'm afraid you are overthinking it}} | |||
| == Uncivil edit summary from 71.246.152.85 == | |||
| * and made continued, unsupported, exaggerated claims of misconduct against me {{tq|Don't cast the WP:ASPERSION of "willful disrespect".}} | |||
| {{archivetop|Bold NAC here. IP blocked 48 hrs, edit summary revedeled. If any other admin may revert the redvdel should choose, per Chillum's comment. The increasing heat to light ratio is probably what the troll wants. Shall we move along then? ] (]) 19:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| '''Talk page''' | |||
| See {{diff|Düsseldorf_Airport|620907462|620897011|this}}. I'm really sick of this kind of editing. At least I don't need to hide behind an IP.--''']''' ''{{sup|]}}'' 17:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :What exactly do you hope to accomplish by bringing that here? Satiating the troll's desire for attention, notoriety and controversy? ] 17:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Betafive has a point. The edit is stale, so there's not much, if anything, to be done to the IP. —''']''' (]) 17:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Have you heard about the ]?--''']''' ''{{sup|]}}'' 17:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, but it's a stale edit (so the editor does not need to be "stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption"), so other than a possible revdel of the edit summary, what's the emergency that warrants an AN/I report? —''']''' (]) 17:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Back on the talk page, they: | |||
| It is not that stale. We block IPs for 24-48 ours regularly so a 5 hour old very abusive comment does warrant a block. I assume this IP went to bed and is going to do it again in the morning so I have made a preventative block on the IP for 48 hours. I have also deleted the edit summary per ]. | |||
| * by replying to my vote | |||
| * | |||
| *Bludgeoned another editor as well | |||
| *Collapsed their bludgeoning with a close note that they agree (with themself?) that their comments were {{tq|more than necessary after taking a second look}} | |||
| Just recently I noticed they | |||
| I don't think ANI is for emergencies only. I also think our editors should be protected when they are abused in an edit dispute, otherwise NPOV is in danger of being replaced by the point of view of only the thickest skinned. It is not unreasonable for someone to come here to ask an admin to look at this sort of thing. It is not as though we have a special place to deal with personal attacks. ] 17:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''So I warned them to stop bludgeoning on their talk page''' | |||
| Jetstreamer could have been more clear about what action he wanted. I don't know if he was seeking a block, a revdel or just advice. I did the block and revdel, but I am short on advice until the way Misplaced Pages responds to personal attacks changes. ] 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| In the edit note, they: | |||
| :Is that seriously the sort of shit that merits revdel these days? For fucks sake, it wasn't even a personal attack (unless you think there's something wrong with being gay.) ] 17:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Again tried to intimidate me because of their status as an experienced editor {{tq|As someone who is still rather inexperienced you should not be attempting to warn experienced editors like me.}} | |||
| ::Using the pejorative "faggot" to insult another user, directly or indirectly, is homophobic and grossly offensive... ]] 17:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Cast aspersions and threatened me with a block {{tq|Your comment here is grossly uncivil and if you ever comment like this again you will be the one considered for a block.}} | |||
| :: Do you really think calling one of our editors a '''fagg''' does not qualify with ]s wording: '''slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value'''? | |||
| : | |||
| :: Fagg is a slur where I come from, even when spelled wrong. I doubt he meant cigarette. What do you mean '''these days'''? You signed up on the 7th. ] 17:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Casting aspersions and threatening me with a block again {{tq| | |||
| :::@Chillum: We don't have a Witiquette board any more, true. We do have {{tl|uw-npa}}, though, and we have {{tl|uw-npa4im}}. I guess, philosophically, for one-off issues like that, I'm inclined to ignore the issue and ] them the attention. If they do it repeatedly, that's another matter. It would be nice if there were a queue similar to ] for revision-deleting edit summaries like these so that they could be ''quietly'' dealt with. | |||
| Posting that WP:SHOUTING on my talk page is grossly uncivil and unwarranted and will get you blocked the next time you do that.}} | |||
| :::@Betafive: That was a pretty clear slur using language related to sexual preference. It's no more acceptable to use that language than parallel language regarding race, gender, or disability. —''']''' (]) 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *And again attempted to intimidate me because of their status as an experienced editor {{tq|But you are in absolutely no position to attempt to enjoin me from further participation in that process. You do not understand the policies and guidelines you're trying to warn me about; don't pretend that you do (especially with respect to WP:OWN).}} | |||
| :::: As a fag myself, I wish people would grow a pair and recognize that words have only as much power as you give them. BTW, this account may only be seven days old, but I've been here much, much longer; long enough to remember when admins had better things to do than feed trolls. ] 18:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *And again, cast more unsupported aspersions in an uncivil manner {{tq|Coming to my talk page unprompted and without the other user's involvement is crossing the line to you harassing me. Cut it out.}} | |||
| :::::If you choose to show me another edit history of yours then I will take that into account. Otherwise it appears to me that you signed up on the 7th. While there are legitimate uses of alternate accounts you cannot expect to keep your history when using a brand new account. ] 18:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: So because I didn't keep track of the various IP addresses I've been assigned over the past ten years, you think it's legit to assume my very first introduction to Misplaced Pages was five days ago? LMFAO, no wonder people are leaving in droves. ] 18:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Even if you have a history, how am I to know if it is one of a blocked editor or an admin of perfect behavior? I can't really assume anything about your past. You leave me with no information except what I can see from the 7th. ] 18:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: You asked me what I mean by "these days," and I explained. Regardless of whether I was blocked or an admin in a previous life, I know what the fuck I'm talking about-- there was a time when admins would have blocked the troll and moved on. It didn't merit a revdel is all I'm saying. ] 18:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: {{ping|Chillum}} Also, your excerpt from ] is misleading. The full sentence reads: "This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, '''and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations.'''" ] 18:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Calling a gay person a fag is suggesting that they should be burned like a bundle of wood. Fag is a synonym for kindling. It is not ordinary incivility. It is grossly offensive. ] 18:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's a myth, read ]. Besides, the troll didn't call him a fag. The troll said he looked like a fag. ] 18:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This has been an upsetting experience for me. Perhaps I am too sensitive to edit on wikipedia.] (]) 12:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Glad to say you agree he is a troll. We block trolls too. Do you really think that the edit summary contained some sort of encyclopedic value that suggests I should reverse my revdel? Do you think the encyclopedia would be better if I did that? Is that what you want me to do? ] 18:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :After leaving making this post, I noticed @] also left a comment ''about'' me, casting even more aspersions in a thread I started on @]'s talk page that had absolutely nothing to do with @]: | |||
| ::::::Are you serious? Of course you should block the prick, but I didn't see anything in that edit summary that merits revdel. Now that this thread has gone on this long, people are going to be wondering what the hell was said to cause all this controversy, so yes, I think you should reverse the revdel. ] 18:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|This user needs mentorship as they are flying too close to the sun. The comment I just removed from my talk page and the one I left them at User talk:Delectopierre#Stop suggests that I am not the most effective one to convey that to them. My participation in the RM isn't that unusual and I consider their comments highly condescending and, now, aggressive to the point that I will want to see them blocked if they do it again.}} ] (]) 12:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I can't agree that this is "an ordinary personal attack". The IP made an objective remark on his openness to being gay (which he is if you check his userboxes), and then uses that fact to defame his contributions, even using a pejorative. Homosexuality had absolutely nothing to do with the edit, it was an attack solely on the editor and solely for the purpose of being offensive. I'm also more inclined to respect the opinion of Chillum, who has been entrusted with this tool, over the editor who believes that we need to "grow a pair". ]] 18:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Both users are right: Jasper Deng when they say, "I am not the most effective one to convey that to them", and Delectopierre when saying, "Perhaps I am too sensitive". ] (]) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: "You look like a fag" cannot possibly be defamatory unless you think there's something wrong with being gay. Do you? ] 18:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :My impression, based on this brouhaha: you are easily offended, but at the same time keen to tell off others. Bad combination. While Jasper Deng dislikes being harrangued on his talk page, but at the same time tacks unrelated complaints about you onto conversations not involving him. Bad combination. From the unassailable heights of my own moral perfection, I suggest you both simmer down and get back to editing. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 14:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: "(offensive, vulgar, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) A gay person, particularly a man." When you use the word "faggot", it comes attached with that defamation. It doesn't just mean "homosexual", it means "homosexual (which is bad)". It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what that IP thinks, and he thinks "being a faggot" is bad. Intent is what matters, and that edit summary was intended to defame. ]] 18:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is nothing wrong with being homosexual but that word is a homophobic slur in the same way that the n word is a racist slur. It can be insulting and uncivil without being defematory, or implying that there is anything wrong with being gay. ] (]) 18:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Review of an article deletion == | |||
| ::Just a comment from another fag: I too am a fag and am not offended by that word irl and agree totally with betafive's sentiment that ''words have only as much power as you give them''. Having said that, betafive - you know as well as I do that there is a lot of people who do think that word is a slur and offensive and should not be used to describe someone, regardless of what their sexual orientation is, and as this is a website that encourages civility and good faith editing, it would probably be in everybody's best interest not to use that word like this IP editor did.]] 18:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top|result=The correct venue for this is ]. ] 14:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::I agree, that's why the IP was appropriately blocked. But revdeling the edit summary? ] 18:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, I will like to request a review on the deletion of the article on Prisca Abah ] (]) 14:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would defer to the admins judgment in this particular instance, as you should. I think anyone reading this thread will get a pretty good idea of what the edit summary said.]] 19:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{ab}} | |||
| Tell you what Betafive, if an admin, any admin wants to reverse my revdel of edit summary then I will not object. But I will not be undoing it. I think it unambiguously falls under the criteria for revdel and I don't see what benefit it is to the encyclopedia. ] 18:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Riddle me this: what purpose does the revdel serve? ] 18:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::More importantly, what purpose did the summary serve? ]] 18:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You advocate revdeling all useless edit summaries then? ] 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, but you're just setting up a strawman. An experienced admin found the comment offensive enough to warrant hiding, and, now that it is hidden, a legitimate reason that outweighs the reason for deletion should be made if you want it unhidden. The edit summary's only purpose was to attack a user, can you name an encyclopedic reason to keep it? What benefit does this unsolicited insult serve to the project? ]] 18:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
Latest revision as of 14:27, 11 January 2025
Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
- Before posting:
- Consider other means of dispute resolution first
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion Centralized discussion- Refining the administrator elections process
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- 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) | |||||||||
| 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 |
| 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 |
| Other links | |||||||||
Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from User:DarwIn
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)
- Honestly, this is an interesting idea but I think this needs to become an Arbitration Committee issue. The community is so heavily divided on this, it’s actually ridiculous. This whole situation just is bonkers. Like why is this at ANI anymore. Reader of Information (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- By an interesting idea I meant my idea of it becoming an arbitration committee issue is an interesting proposal. Reader of Information (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe it may help too, if Darwin will promise to avoid interacting on main space with Skyshifter. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway. Darwin 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think Darwin should avoid interacting with Skyshifter on all spaces on en.wikipedia.org. It's clear Darwin has made Skyshifter feel uncomfortable, and I don't appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. Darwin 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary one-way interaction ban, broadly construed, as in effect. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway yes, that's correct. Darwin 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary one-way interaction ban, broadly construed, as in effect. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. Darwin 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think a one-way interaction ban between the editors would be for the best here. While I think there is some merit to a Gender and Sexuality tban, as some of Darwin's recent edits appear to be about righting great wrongs in the topic area, I believe the interaction ban would solve most of the issues raised here. Isabelle Belato 17:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? Darwin 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- All your edits related to the subject, both here and on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. Isabelle Belato 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato You're evaluating my edits on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages to punish me in the English Misplaced Pages? Darwin 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger Can you explain how my general edit history in wiki.pt is relevant in any way to an accusation of cross-wiki harassment? Darwin 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato You're evaluating my edits on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages to punish me in the English Misplaced Pages? Darwin 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- All your edits related to the subject, both here and on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. Isabelle Belato 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? Darwin 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Would recommend that Darwin walk away from the general topic. This would avoid any need for topic bans. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Clarification
- Hello @Nil Einne - and others. Please recall that my opinion was specifically over the declaration of the child gender by her mother at or before her 4th birthday, by her mother own account based on classical gender stereotypes. It's specifically about that. I've no way to know what gender the child is or will eventually be in the future, and gladly accept whatever she chooses - as I would if she was my own child. I've eventually been harsher than needed in the DYK comment because that specific situation where a minor is extensively exposed with full name, photographs, etc. by her parents on social networks, newspapers and whatelse is generally condemned in my country, to the point of eventually configuring a crime here. Obviously Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with that when it comes to the spread of information, but in my view - obviously wrong, from the general reaction here - exposing the child in yet another place, let alone wiki.en main page, was a bit too much.
- As for misgendering, I am one of the founders and former board member of ILGA Portugal, which after 30 years still is the main LGBT association in Portugal, though not an active member for many years for moving away from Lisbon, where it's headquartered. For more than 30 years I've been on the fight against homophobia and transphobia, not specially in Misplaced Pages, but on the streets, where it was needed in the 1990s here in Portugal, when the whole LGBT thing was just starting and most people couldn't even tell the difference between a drag queen and a trangender woman. I was beaten up, lost my 2 front teeth on homo/transphobic street fights (the first one at 18 years old, for publicly defending from booers in the audience a trangender girl which was acting at a local bar )- and whatelse. I never had even the least impulse to misgender any of the many trangender people that always have been around me, and the few situations where that may have happened were online with people that I knew for years as being one gender, and took a while to sink they are another, because online there's not the ever helping visual clue. So it's kind of disheartening to be treated like this in a strange place by people I don't know just because I expressed an (harsh, agreed) opinion defending the age of consent for children, and condemning their parents interference on that.
- The TBan is not very relevant for me, as I seldom edit here and despite the activism of my past days LGBT is not my primary interest on Misplaced Pages, but I'm considerably saddened by the misunderstandings, bad faith assumptions, false accusations that have been told here about me, though eventually the flaw is not in the whole group that has their own rules and culture, but in the newcomer which don't understand it well in all its nuances, as was my case here.
- Finally, as the misunderstandings continue, I never came here after Skyshifter, which as is public and she knows, I've always considered a good editor and helped several times with articles and what else (which is also why I felt confident to answer with a 😘 when she called me a dictator in another project, though it was obviously not the most appropriate way to answer it, and for which I apologize to Skyshifter). In this last row I wasn't even directly involved in her indefinite block in wiki.pt, despite being mentioned there. I didn't even touched the articles she created here on Thamirys Nunes and Minha Criança Trans or addressed she here in any way. I came here because of the DYK note, which, as said above, I thought was an exaggerated exposition for that case here on the English Misplaced Pages. As you extensively demonstrated here, it is not, and I defer to your appreciation. Despite that, after this whole situation I've not the least interest on interacting in any possible way with Skyshifter, with or without IBan.
- And that's it. Hopefully you'll excuse my verbosity, specially in such a festive day, but I felt this last clarification was needed. I also present my apologies to all those who may have felt offended by an eventual appearance of cockiness or defiance which I inadvertently sometimes transmit in my speech. I'll return here if specifically asked to, otherwise I'll leave the debate for this community. Again, stay well, and have an happy new year. Darwin 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Proposed Community Sanctions
I offered DarwIn an off ramp above and their response was to reiterate their views on a highly controversial subject and their responses to concerns about their interactions with Skyshifter have been entirely unsatisfactory. This looks a like a pretty clear case of IDHT revolving around their strong disagreement with one of our guidelines. Frankly, I came very close to just blocking them after their response to my suggestion. This discussion has already dragged on long enough. For purposes of clarity, nobody is required to agree with all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. And yes, gender is a highly controversial subject. I have my own disagreements with parts of MOS:GENDERID. But as the old saying goes, themz the rules until they aint. Editors are free to disagree with community P&G, but are not free to ignore or flout them. It's time to settle this.
Proposed DarwIn is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to WP:GENSEX broadly construed and is subject to a one way IBan with user Skyshifter, also broadly construed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I note that Darwin has agreed above to the IBan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - He's already agreed to avoid that general topic area in future & Skyshifter. PS - If a t-ban is imposed? limit it to six-months. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why should the community accept voluntary TBAN and IBAN which can easily be reneged on when we can impose it as a community sanction and ensure that any violation is actionable? TarnishedPath 01:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support topic ban and IBAN, both broadly construed - sorry GoodDay but I do not trust this user's words, and so we need a proper sanction. GiantSnowman 18:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Just read through the above and good grief. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I said above I would support this proposal if it was brought forward, and I do. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why it should be a one-way iban? Skyshifter started this topic with the characterization of their opponent as "a known transphobic editor". A normal editor would be blocked just for writing this. I am not sure a iban is needed, but if it is needed it must be mutual. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's actually a fair point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent WP:RGW impulse. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 You have been misjudging me - It was quite the opposite, actually, if it's worth anything. Darwin 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the WP:GENSEX area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 OK, I didn't knew the child used those pronouns when she was 4 years old, I commit to use them here if I would ever talk about that issue again (which I definitely will not, anyway). Darwin 20:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the WP:GENSEX area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 You have been misjudging me - It was quite the opposite, actually, if it's worth anything. Darwin 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent WP:RGW impulse. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's actually a fair point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- If they weren't before they are now... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, to be clear, I oppose a one-way IB. I do not find this argument convincing. Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support this seems like a reasonable set of restrictions, I hope they can stick to it Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I never edited in that topic here, as far as I can remember, not is it a primary interest I have, so it certainly will not be difficult to hold, even if it comes out to me as incredibly unbased and unfair. Darwin 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits to DYK were within that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back And those were the only ones, and I voluntarily stopped them yesterday immediately after being reverted. How does that configure the kind of systematic behaviour that would justify a topic ban? I really apologize, but in this moment the way I see this is a kind of Salem witch hunt, with people accusing me of all kind of slurs and abominations, even when they are in directly opposition to my stance here. You seem to be punishing me for my opinions and the way I (supposedly) think about a very particular issue (if 4 years old have self determination or not), which comes out to me as really unfair and unworthy of a project like this. Darwin 20:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is that in direct opposition to your stance there? Your edit summary says "forgot that English has the neutral pronoun, which is useful in these cases. fixed." which suggests that it is in line with that stance Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I'm sorry, I seem to have missed your point. What is wrong with correcting the gender to a neutral pronoun in such a situation? Darwin 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This edit might help you get the point. At this point your conduct on this page is becoming a serious behavioral issue... you can't lie, sealion, obfuscate, and misdirect endlessly without consequences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I can fix those too as I did yesterday, if you think it's important 🤷🏽♂️ Darwin 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are not supposed to edit comments after they have been responded to in that way. But by fix do you mean change to "she" or do you mean change to "they"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Change to "she", following this wikipedia rules, certainly. So if I can't fix them, what do you propose instead to mend it? Darwin 20:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given the sheer quantity of lies and obfuscations from you (the truth is apparently a last resort) the only fix I can see is a formal one, a topic ban and an interaction ban. Up above you so easily went from "I never edited in the topic area" to "those were the only ones" that I don't even think you understand that you were caught in a blatant lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back There was not any "lie", please stop assuming bad faith. I thought you were referring to the main space only, which I believe is a fairly assumption to do, if the used word is "editing". Darwin 20:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- At best you're saying that you lack the competence on enwiki to adhere to any voluntary restrictions. This will be my last comment unless pinged by an editor other than you, my apologies that this has been an unpleasant process for you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Darwin has a long history of editing in WP:GENSEX albeit generally less controversially. an example. Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 That's documented with the sources and all, and the proposition there was that the tupinambá was gay, not a woman. It's not even gender related. So you desperatly want something to justify a TB, bring it on. I'm fed up with what seems to be a circular and nonsense discussion on this board, where whatever I say is a lie and with bad intentions. I don't even edit here in the gender topic, but if it makes you happy, bring it on. Darwin 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- DarwIn WP:GENSEX covers gender and sexuality. You have been saying you aren't interested in the topic area. It appears to be one of your main areas of interest on en.wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 Thanks for clarifying that. Fact is that I don't edit much here. I've occasionally added or fixed some LGBT related stuff in the past when it crossed my main interest, History, but it certainly is not a primary interest, despite being LGBT myself. Darwin 20:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- DarwIn WP:GENSEX covers gender and sexuality. You have been saying you aren't interested in the topic area. It appears to be one of your main areas of interest on en.wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 That's documented with the sources and all, and the proposition there was that the tupinambá was gay, not a woman. It's not even gender related. So you desperatly want something to justify a TB, bring it on. I'm fed up with what seems to be a circular and nonsense discussion on this board, where whatever I say is a lie and with bad intentions. I don't even edit here in the gender topic, but if it makes you happy, bring it on. Darwin 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back There was not any "lie", please stop assuming bad faith. I thought you were referring to the main space only, which I believe is a fairly assumption to do, if the used word is "editing". Darwin 20:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given the sheer quantity of lies and obfuscations from you (the truth is apparently a last resort) the only fix I can see is a formal one, a topic ban and an interaction ban. Up above you so easily went from "I never edited in the topic area" to "those were the only ones" that I don't even think you understand that you were caught in a blatant lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Change to "she", following this wikipedia rules, certainly. So if I can't fix them, what do you propose instead to mend it? Darwin 20:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are not supposed to edit comments after they have been responded to in that way. But by fix do you mean change to "she" or do you mean change to "they"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I can fix those too as I did yesterday, if you think it's important 🤷🏽♂️ Darwin 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This edit might help you get the point. At this point your conduct on this page is becoming a serious behavioral issue... you can't lie, sealion, obfuscate, and misdirect endlessly without consequences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I'm sorry, I seem to have missed your point. What is wrong with correcting the gender to a neutral pronoun in such a situation? Darwin 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is that in direct opposition to your stance there? Your edit summary says "forgot that English has the neutral pronoun, which is useful in these cases. fixed." which suggests that it is in line with that stance Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back And those were the only ones, and I voluntarily stopped them yesterday immediately after being reverted. How does that configure the kind of systematic behaviour that would justify a topic ban? I really apologize, but in this moment the way I see this is a kind of Salem witch hunt, with people accusing me of all kind of slurs and abominations, even when they are in directly opposition to my stance here. You seem to be punishing me for my opinions and the way I (supposedly) think about a very particular issue (if 4 years old have self determination or not), which comes out to me as really unfair and unworthy of a project like this. Darwin 20:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits to DYK were within that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I never edited in that topic here, as far as I can remember, not is it a primary interest I have, so it certainly will not be difficult to hold, even if it comes out to me as incredibly unbased and unfair. Darwin 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Bushranger. charlotte 20:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. As GoodDay noted, the problem appears to already be addressed. If the problem persists then go for a sanction. Look we let people argue their point here and it does seem like most of the support is because editors feel Darwin isn't contrite enough, not that they expect the issue to continue. Note that I'm not weighing in on any interaction bans. Springee (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Springee. This entire issue could have been dropped days ago when DarwIn acknowledged he would walk away, and instead seems to have been needlessly escalated again and again and again. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Pppery: days ago? I think you might have misread the time stamps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support the TBAN; personally I'd have indeffed several outdents sooner, but here we are. No opinion on the IBAN. ⇒SWATJester 23:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Given what's happened, I think an enforceable topic ban is better than Darwin stepping away. IMO the BLP issues is far more concerning than gensex one so I'd support a BLP topic ban as well, but it seems likely a gensex one would be enough to stop Darwin feeling the continued need to express their opinions on a living person. Since Darwin is going to step away anyway and barely edits en, it should be a moot point and if it's not that's why it's enforceable. As for the iban, while I don't think Skyshifter should have described Darwin in that way when opening this thread, I think we can accept it as a one time mistake under the stress of apparently being followed and given questionable way Darwin ended up in a dispute here with someone they'd had problems with elsewhere I think a one-way iban is justified. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? Darwin 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times #c-DarwIn-20241229133200-Skyshifter-20241229132800, #c-DarwIn-20241229152900-Simonm223-20241229150600, #c-DarwIn-20241229154200-Blue-Sonnet-20241229154000, #c-DarwIn-20241229154100-Simonm223-20241229153800, #c-DarwIn-20241229160700-GiantSnowman-20241229154400, #c-DarwIn-20241229172200-Ad_Orientem-20241229171800. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like thought police. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here. Darwin 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. Darwin 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:DarwIn, I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. Liz
- @Liz: Thank you for the wise advice, I'll be doing that. Darwin 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: you can think whatever you like about living persons. I have a lot of views on living persons which I would never, ever express on wiki for various reasons including BLP. Also you defence is bullshit. No one ever asked you to make accusations around living persons to defend your actions. And yes it is fairly normal that editors may be sanctioned if they feel they need to do such things about living persons on ANI as part of some silly argument or defence. I recall an editor who was temporarily blocked after they felt the need to say two very very famous extremely public figure living persons (and some non living) were sex predators to prove some point at ANI. And I'm fairly sure a lot of people have said and feel those people are sex predators including some Wikipedians I'd even probably agree in at least one case, they just understand it's not something they should be expressing here. Nil Einne (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- For clarity, what I mean by my last sentence is that I'm sure quite a few people would agree with the statements. I'm sure such statements have been made elsewhere probably even in opinions printed in reliable sources (I think the editor did link to some such opinions). I'm sure even quite a few Wikipedians would agree that one or more of these people are sex predators, I think I'd even agree with it in at least one case. However most of us understand that our personal views of living persons, especially highly negatives views are generally not something to be expressed on wiki except when for some reason it's important enough to the discussion that it's reasonable to say it. When you keep saying something and in the same paragraph acknowledge the English wikipedia doesn't consider your opinion relevant, then it's clear there was no reason for you to say it. You're still free to believe it just as I'm still free to believe all those things about living persons that I would never express on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:DarwIn, I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. Liz
- I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. Darwin 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like thought police. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here. Darwin 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times #c-DarwIn-20241229133200-Skyshifter-20241229132800, #c-DarwIn-20241229152900-Simonm223-20241229150600, #c-DarwIn-20241229154200-Blue-Sonnet-20241229154000, #c-DarwIn-20241229154100-Simonm223-20241229153800, #c-DarwIn-20241229160700-GiantSnowman-20241229154400, #c-DarwIn-20241229172200-Ad_Orientem-20241229171800. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? Darwin 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Darwin's replies and conduct here indicates that he simply doesn't get it.
- MiasmaEternal☎ 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per GoodDay and Springee. Ciridae (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support TBAN per Bushranger. Darwin has already agreed to the 1-way IBAN — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Given the history at pt.wiki, I think this is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. There should be no interaction between the parties, which Darwin has agreed to.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The agreed-upon IBAN takes care of the ongoing issue. While the edits related to the child were problematic, this doesn't appear to be case of significantly wider problems in this topic area, and the full scope of MOS:GENDERID may very well be surprising to editors who don't do much in that area. I don't think there's been near enough here to no longer WP:AGF. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Support TBAN/IBANWeak support TBAN/Strong support IBAN - WP:NQP suggests that queerphobia is inherently disruptive. calling a queer activist a "troglodyte", the previous history of abuse on pt.wikipedia, and the current responses from Darwin indicate WP:NOTHERE behavior. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- "A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago , is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. EEng 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. EEng 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK boomer. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you certainly put me in my place with that one. EEng 21:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK boomer. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. EEng 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- "A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago , is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. EEng 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand. Speaking up for the witch is a sign I too might be a witch. I'll try to be more careful in future.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misgendering BLPs is disruptive. A Johnny Cash related username is not. Suggest the IP WP:DROPTHESTICK - while we may disagree with Boynamedsue regarding their interpretation here they have done nothing wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. It's stopping a disruptive editor from continuing to edit disruptively. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) NQP is an essay. Essentially it's an op-ed piece. It does not carry any force in the realm of WP:PG, and the views expressed there are controversial. (See the essay's talk page.). IMO words with some variation on "phobe/phobic" &c. are being routinely weaponized by people on one side of hot button cultural/political debates as part of an effort to demonize those on the other side of these debates. As such, I am inclined to view the use of such terms as a specie of WP:NPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- fair enough, i'll remove my vote for TBAN.
- sidenote, I have no qualms with labeling a behavior as queerphobia. I don't think calling out discrimination or disruptive attitudes is inherently a vio of NPA. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- ... I am indecisive.. I'll add weak support for TBAN, I still think the topic area should not have folks who are disruptive like this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pervasively misgendering a child based on the belief that a child cannot express a desire to transition is a form of transphobic behavior. If it was a similar comment made about a BLP on the basis of religion or skin colour there would be no mention of WP:NPA. Misplaced Pages is generally good about handling racism. It is a perpetual stain upon the reputation of Misplaced Pages that it's culture continues to worry more about the feelings of people who take transphobic actions than of the victims of the same. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as unnecessary given the commitments already given. WaggersTALK 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
| Let's not. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC). Edited to include edit conflict comment. CNC (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
| This is affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As a ptwiki user that know what's happening but talked to both sides of the discussion throughout it: This whole discussion started as a beef between Skyshifter and DarwIn. Skyshifter didn't accept some changes DarwIn made to an article "of her" (quotes because articles doesn't have owners. I respect her pronouns), and when discussing with DarwIn, called the whole Portuguese Misplaced Pages project a sewage (here)/in her UP, thus being banned and the ban being endorsed on the block discussion (in portuguese). The discussion was based on the references for the article, was solved in the ptwiki with an outburst from Sky, and that was it. This whole problem was brought here for a single reason only: Beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. A single change or a single opinion on a DYK shouldn't be reason for a TB or IBAN anywhere in the world, especially considering that it was a difference interpreting the references. I know that my statement won't change anything, as there is an apparent "consensus" on TBanning and IBANning him, though I wanted to make things clear for everyone. I am totally open for questioning regarding any of my statements above, and I will supply you with any proof I have and you need. Just ping me here and if the inquiry/proofs are extremely important, please leave me a message on my portuguese talk page (direct url). It can be in English, just for me to see you need me here. Cheers. Eduardo G. 03:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) JardelW is a user who was banned from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages due to his detestable behavior. This individual used the same Telegram group that he is now criticizing. The editor was banned from this group due to his behavior, in which he called respected users of the community "worms, scoundrels, trash and deniers". And DarwIn is one of the administrators of the group where he is banned, so you can already imagine why he is here. Now, once again he is trying to destabilize the community by defending an editor who called the entire project a sewer and made unproven accusations against an administrator. At this point, the account is practically banned and the article that caused the discord has its deletion or merge defended by several editors. By coming here, JardelW and Skyshifter are, in a way, stating that the entire community is prejudiced. Yet another offense enters the list as proof of Jardel's destabilizing behavior. Furthermore, this user already tried to carry out the same destabilization by contesting on meta the banning of IPs, a consensual decision among hundreds of editors. And when he was still blocked, went to Meta-Wiki in an attempt to intervene in the Misplaced Pages domain, where he is banned, simply because he did not agree with the deletion of an article. And this without presenting any evidence. It is clear that Jardel's objective here is to take revenge on the community, and he will be punished for it. InvictumAlways (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
|
- InvictumAlways - this is your second edit ever, and your account was just created today - how did you get to this ANI post? jellyfish ✉ 05:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I saw a discussion in the group and created the account to not appear as an IP. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Jardel The objective of the channel is to be a more relaxed place. And it's not official, as you said yourself previously. Angry moment? Are you sorry? After your block, you attacked editors on a social network, as attested by a CheckUser: . And there are no prejudiced comments. That's a lie. Where are the links? And how much time have you devoted to the project when all you do is attack others? Enough of this nonsense. I ask that an administrator evaluate the conduct of this account. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't realize the discussion was closed. Sorry. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Supporting both IBAN and TBAN. Someone who actively believes in misgendering should not be allowed into this area when they have already demonstrably made another editor uncomfortable. The snarky reply to GiantSnowman does not convince me they would respond well if another editor brought up a similar concern in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can't we give this child and her mother some privacy? What is it about gender issues, as opposed to other medical or developmental issues, that seems to give everyone a right to comment? Let's just report what reliable sources say and leave it at that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- talkpages def are covered by BLP as per the policy page.and the policy gives wide latitude about what the subject may have redacted if they object to info, even if they had previously or somehow otherwise placed that info in public domain.
- concerns about privacy have to weigh against dueness but arguing the book gives dueness to try to be internet sleuths and discover and identify a child is probs not gonna pass the smell test.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Misplaced Pages, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Children cannot consent, their parents can. (CC) Tbhotch 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would totally agree, but that is irrelevant here, nothing Darwin did was related to revealing the child's identity. He criticised the mother in strong terms on talkpages and this is what the BLP argument comes down to.--Boynamedsue (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ask yourself whether Misplaced Pages would even entertain this discourse if the identity was anything other than a trans one. The answer is a flat no. Darwin's interpretation of the mother's interpretation of her daughter's identity is inappropriate for the project, is disruptive and is openly antagonistic toward trans editors. I think nothing more can be gained from endlessly debating whether we should pretend there is a carve-out to BLP requirements for children within oppressed minorities. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Misplaced Pages, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support TBAN, no comment on IBAN. This is blatant POV harassment. (CC) Tbhotch 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Editors in this topic area can and often do disagree on the underlying issues, which often helpfully ensures that all such material on Misplaced Pages follows our policies and guidelines. However, the responses to Ad Orientem's request and various replies above shows that the proposed remedies would be appropriate given the BLP issues in play here.-- Patar knight - /contributions 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose any sanctions I’m sorry if I’m interfering in something I’m not involved with, but I’ve been watching this discussion and I think it’s needlessly toxic. What I’m seeing is a misunderstanding of some inappropriate WP:OR on a hot-button issue sparking a dispute that turned into “DarwIn is a transphobic bully” which I don’t think is true. I think the two main parties should simply avoid each other voluntarily and the situation will quickly de-escalate. Dronebogus (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support TBAN, indifferent to IBAN. Having followed this topic for a few days, it's convinced me that a topic ban for both GENSEX and BLP is entirely appropriate in this instance. My initial scepticism passed after reading responses from the editor and realising that the understanding of BLP policy appears to be even more incomplete than I originally thought. The deceleration from the editor to avoid such topics voluntarily is irrelevant, as combined with the lack of understanding over the concept of broadly construed, commitments have already been made and broken within this discussion alone. So respectfully, I believe this WP:NOTHERE type editing, whether it is attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or simply WP:BLUDGEONING discussions, is nonetheless disruptive and uncivil at times. CNC (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dronebogus. I'd say "we're better than this" if I believed it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Skyshifter, if anything, is harassing Darwin in this instance. Darwin has agreed to an IBAN, never mind that he's expressed desires to deëscelate what has become the longest thread on AN or ANI as of writing. JayCubby 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support This is a pretty explicit case of POV harassment. Their replies to the topic likewise do not give me faith they will adhere to a self imposed limitation. Darwin claimed to have agreed to step away before the ANI was created, but the edit history shows that Darwin continued editing the page up until an hour before Skyshifter created the ANI. Thus, there should be an actionable sanction. I fail to understand how it is Skyshifter doing the harassment at all as Cubby suggests. Darwin even called skyshifter a troglydite (here) to boot. Relm (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh my fucking god. This whole thread is nuts. I wish I could pardon my french but this is CRAZY.
- Never in a million years would’ve I expected myself to be responding to a thread like this but I mean here I am.
- Although Skywing’s concerns of harassment are valid especially if he’s being tracked across Misplaced Pages’s website, as far as I know, there are no guidelines that state someone can be punished for actions on another Misplaced Pages.
- I support the notion of Darwin being topic banned from gender related articles (especially trans ones), for the simple fact that his conflict of interest with transphobia has clearly caused a disruption to the Misplaced Pages community.
- I oppose with the IP-ban because if anything this SHOULD’VE ended a week ago when Darwin voluntarily said he would not edit those pages as well as avoid any interaction with Skywing.
Reader of Information (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. Relm (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand, I meant that. Apologies. I misunderstood what it stood for. I would prefer if the IBAN was two way instead of one-way. Seems hardly fair in my honest opinion when both I suppose are equally responsible and to share the blame. This is a messy situation so putting the blame on one when both are equally responsible seems hardly fair. But that's my two cents.
- NOTE: I don't condone homophobia or queerphobia or whatever the term is (I'm not really informed enough in this situation to know what Misplaced Pages calls it so I'm adding both just in case) so please don't take it as me defending either side as that is NOT my intent.
- Cheers,
Reader of Information (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- This reply reminded me of the essay WP:CLUE. CNC (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol. It is accurate. That literally is what it is I suppose lol. Reader of Information (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This reply reminded me of the essay WP:CLUE. CNC (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. Relm (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose any sanctions against Darwin per Dronebogus. I wish we were better than this, but like TBUA, I don't actually believe that we are. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support both TBAN and IBAN. Their behaviour at DYK might have been mitigated if they had taken responsibility here instead of doubling down. A TBAN and IBAN will reduce disruption. TarnishedPath 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at Special:Diff/1267644460 accusing me of coming to their talk page to "
further troll me with this nonsense warning
". TarnishedPath 01:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at Special:Diff/1267644460 accusing me of coming to their talk page to "
- Support both. I'm baffled that some people above are saying "well, they agreed to stop voluntarily" - did they not read the massive post Darwin made above? It amounts to an extended "I'm sorry that you were offended." Trusting that someone will avoid the same mistakes in the future on their own requires that they understand and admit to those mistakes, which is obviously not the case here; how can we trust that an editor will abide by a self-imposed restriction when they won't even meaningfully acknowledge the errors that made that restriction necessary? Therefore, sanctions are necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support both. To make sure I haven't lost my goddamn mind, I read this discussion twice. I personally believe Darwin is in the wrong here. His behavior on enwiki violates both GENSEX and BLP sanctions (), and he doubled down when he had the chance to defend himself (Special:Diff/1267644460 and comments above). Even if we play devil's advocate and assume Darwin's claims about Sky being a troll/vandal and sockmaster (which is a heavy accusation to make) on ptwiki are true, her work on enwiki has shown that she's changed for the better. This is coming from a person who has interacted with Sky a couple of times (Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Virtual Self (EP)/archive1, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Virtual Self (EP)/archive2, Talk:Quannnic/GA1); she is an amazing editor on here. For the sake of everyone involved and to avoid another mess like this, the sanctions above should be enforced. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 08:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - the doubling (and tripling) down that this user engaged in above has convinced me that Misplaced Pages would be better off if he did not engage in the relevant topic areas. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 17:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support both IBAN and TBAN. With all due respect to Dronebogus, there is no way this can be chalked up as just an OR misunderstanding when Darwin has gone out of his way to repeately misgender the individual in question while throwing personal attacks at Sky. Regardless of any issue at another wiki, the behavior here is unacceptable per our rules and guidelines. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support TBAN and IBAN: Really blatant transphobia. In case it gets lost in the weeds, Darwin's original comment sparking this whole thing was not just blatantly offensive but full of bullshit:
According to the sources in the article, after forcing the child she and her husband wanted to have as a boy to "behave like a boy" for 4 years, forcing him to play with cars, football and Marvel heros and even listen to heavy metal at 2-3 years old, and chasticizing him for liking "girl stuff" and throwing away all his "girl like" toys, until the poor child was proposing to die and reborn as a girl so he could play with that stuff, this openly conservative women finally gave up imposing such "boy stuff" on him and at 4 years old decided he was a girl instead, thrusting that identity on the child since then and eventually forming that NGO to "spread the word". I don't know this section very well, so maybe such troglodyte and incredibly prejudiced display of behaviour is something so bizarre it would be worth to have here, but I have to disagree.
- 1)
the poor child was proposing to die and reborn as a girl so could play with that stuff
- no source ever said this kid said that "so she could play with that stuff". The sources just say she persistently wished she'd been born a girl and said as much repeatedly. Darwin's offensive speculation as to why is not supported by any sources. Here's a quote from her mother about this nonsense:A boy who likes to play doll is not a trans girl. But a boy who besides liking to play doll, has desire to be the doll, be a girl, dress and have the look of the doll, then we are talking about a child who may have a gender issue.
- No source in the article says her mom "decided was a girl, thrusting that identity on the child since then" - On her 4th birthday, she told her
My love, from today you wear whatever clothes you want, play with whatever you want and can be whoever you want
- the mom said she'd stop pressuring her daughter to be a boy and that she could be who she wanted, and her daughter decided. - She is now 9 years old, almost 10, and happily trans. So, this is not even a case of insisting a 4-yr old can't tell they're trans, it's insisting that, after 5 years of being happily herself, it must have been forced on her.
- 1)
- The only
troglodyte and incredibly prejudiced display of behaviour
is expending this much energy attacking a fucking 9 year old and claiming her mother made her trans. I'm ashamed that PT wikipedia allowed him to do this there, and sanctioned Skyshifter for calling him on such blatant transphobia. We should have no tolerance for this bullshit whatsoever. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- Given that this involves cross-wiki behaviour, does anyone know if this is something which is actionable in the universal code of conduct? TarnishedPath 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support formal TBAN, indifferent to IBAN Snokalok (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support both TBAN and IBAN. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that any sanctions are necessary to stop disruption; indeed to the extent DarwIn was disruptive (and I am not convinced they were the problematic party), they have stopped, out of what appears to me to be a genuine understanding of how to avoid the locus of disruption. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. I read through this entire epic saga and left with the impression that they didn't really seem to get that the BLP and MOS issues aren't something they can just shrug their shoulders at. --Emm90 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Skyshifter taking matters from another Misplaced Pages to seek revenge.
| 100% affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This entire subsection is about Eduardo Gottert casting aspersions on Skyshifter and providing no diffs or evidence of this "revenge" except for statements about what is going on on another language Misplaced Pages which have no bearing on what occurs here. I'm closing this now before this WP:BOOMERANGs on to Eduardo Gottert and editors start proposing a block for personal attacks. Baseless counter attacks are generally dismissed at the English Misplaced Pages ANI. Please do not reopen this section. Liz 09:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. On the 29th of December, User:Skyshifter started an AN/I based on a claim that User:DarwIn, a sysop at ptwiki, was cross-wiki harrassing her. To make up those claims, she used as a single proof, of him editing on a DYK nomination here. AFAIK, DYK nominations are open for debate. She accused him of transphobia, a very harsh word, over some 5 edits on the same page, and all the other arguments in her accusation were from the ptwiki with absolutely no relation to the English Misplaced Pages, and she tried to "force" that it was a cross-wiki harrassment, when it wasn't. The sole reason for that AN/I is a beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. But all of this happened only, and just because of her banishment for the portuguese wiki. She is the cross-wiki harrasser in this situation, as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log. This is all for revenge of some articles that are being debated and will be either deleted or merged with other articles, and especially over her permanent block on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, after calling the whole platform a sewage (here and in her UP), casting aspersions over other users and using ducks and meatpuppets to revert back the articles (one of her meats is currently being blocked from ptwiki too, see it here, with all the proofs). The block discussion taking place at the moment has 10 administrator votes in favour of the block, and absolutely no contrary opinion whatsoever. Despite some not-so-good arguments from DarwIn in the AN/I above, it is more than clear that the reason for the opening of the said AN/I was personal and for revenge. I'm open to any questions regarding this topic, as there is plenty of evidence to sustain my claims. All of this that she's doing would clearly fall under pt:WP:NDD, here called WP:ASPERSIONS I think, and disruptive editing/WP:POINT, and in the AN/I above she's commiting WP:BLUDGEON, repeating the eye-catching word "transphobia" over and over, without sustaining her argument accordingly, seeking to block a sysop at other 3 projects and rollbacker here, with the sole objective of tarnishing his block log, just for revenge and self-fullfillment. Eduardo G. 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
|
Incivility and ABF in contentious topics
Hob Gadling's uncivil comments and assuming bad faith on multiple contentious talk pages is not necessarily egregious but I suppose it is problematic and chronic, consistent and ongoing. I would appreciate some assistance. Here are some diffs from the past few days:
Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883
WP:NPA
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324
Profanity
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966
Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877
Unicivil
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441
Contact on user page attempted
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795
Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Think this calls for a fierce trout slapping and some direct words. I cannot really endorse a forced wikibreak according to WP:COOLDOWN, as this is just an angry user and frankly, I don't see direct personal attacks, I just see unfriendly behavior and prick-ish attitude, no outward disruption of the project either. Also, I have to ask for further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions, as
some diffs from the past few days
are not indicative of chronic issue. The holiday times, like Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Years' can be some of the most stressful times for people during the year. Not saying I like seeing this, but I can understand the feeling. BarntToust 04:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Would I be the person to provide you with that
further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions
? I did think that it would be more than a WP:FISHSLAP, since that's forone-off instances of seemingly silly behavior
and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern warning. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would I be the person to provide you with that
- @Lardlegwarmers: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. Hob should know better, and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. But I would caution you about WP:BOOMERANG and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your inappropriate recently deleted user page, removing sections from other people's talk page, and it seems like you're having a problem handling a WP:DISPUTE and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith.
- Furthermore it does appear that you might be WP:FORUMSHOPPING because your attempts at WP:POVPUSH for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. passively accusing editor behavior, directly accusing a specific editor bad behavior, claiming WP is political, RSN Report #1, RSN Report #2 to push for an article edit request, bringing the Covid discussion over to the teahouse, and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding Misplaced Pages's policy and guidelines and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards WP:CONSENSUS. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. TiggerJay (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address unique issues as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. (
All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution.
]) Thank you for your time and input. - Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hope the editors who read this will notice the ABF here:
trying to report other editors in bad faith
. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address unique issues as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. (
@Lardlegwarmers: Jay brought something to my attention with a recent version of your user page. It looks like there is large language model (ChatGPT) text about "COVID-19 Natural Immunity" copied and pasted on there. What in the cheeseballs?? What made you think hmm, let's prompt ShatGPT to churn out 700 words about this random out-of-pocket topic, and I'm gonna post this on my Misplaced Pages user page for no reason! I'm confused. This specific revision also assumes bad faith about IP editors, and here's the rich part: just as you copy-pasted text from ChatGPT about COVID to your user page, you go on to write a section that addresses use of AI. Quoting from an AI chat bot without attribution is plaigiarism.
I'm just confused with what you are doing here. So I'd like to ask you, since you are here at ANI now, what in the sam hill is going on here? If there is a reasonable explanation for this goofiness, I suggest you produce one, not from a prompt entered into ChatGPT, in your own words. BarntToust 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is an old version of their user page, and it is not plagiarism to quote from a chat bot even without attribution, so we must assume that you are attempt to detract from the OP's complaint. The issue at hand is an experienced editor who joins talk page discussions without understanding the topic at hand (which they admit in one instance ), and are frequently use derogatory language and tone towards other editors. This behavior does not seem like a new thing for them and they clearly know how to skirt the edge of what would be considered a personal attack by an admin, so this merits a formal warning. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @IntrepidContributor, you should familiarise yourself with WP:BOOMERANG. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. BarntToust 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a WP:TROUT slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. BarntToust 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- BarntToust You're being bitey and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- well, I tend to get concerned when someone with LLM text pasted on their userpage comes up from the water. If that's considered bite-y to reiterate my concerns in intentional lighthearted analogy in order to seem less hard-headed, then I guess we're done here. @Thebiguglyalien, I invite you to weigh in on whether you think a formal warning or a trout slap is what needs to happen to Hob. BarntToust 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- BarntToust You're being bitey and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a WP:TROUT slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. BarntToust 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @IntrepidContributor, you should familiarise yourself with WP:BOOMERANG. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. BarntToust 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- That content from ChatGPT was meant to go in my sandbox as experiment or for assisting with research into a future article. The LLM can generate wikitext with links to articles that already exist. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are writing an article backwards and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @Lardlegwarmers, I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. BarntToust 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @IntrepidContributor, I'm pointing out questionable content on someone else page. please look at this diff on Lardle's user page for context, in which they copied ChatGPT text without attribution, then said that using ChatGPT without attribution is plagiarism. That contradictory stuff is what I was questioning. please click on the diff for context. BarntToust 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I use it more like a (really good) search engine or a thesaurus. It can give a lot of suggestions for a human writer, but ultimately you use your own mind and RS to formulate the facts and how to present them. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! BarntToust 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! *curtsy* Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! BarntToust 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are writing an article backwards and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @Lardlegwarmers, I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. BarntToust 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The lack of civility in this contentious topic is significantly hindering editing efforts, especially since most issues concern neutrality and tone, which requires a careful and nuanced approach. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't see anything in the original report that does anything other than show that Hob Gadling calls a thicko a thicko. What is wrong with that? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- ...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, in British slang, "thick" = "stupid". GiantSnowman 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- ...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
There is not enough context for the examples of impatience from Hob Gadling which the OP offers. For example, Lardlegwarmers, do you really expect a warm welcome for your 'attempted contact on user page' here? Or for your puritanical reproaches about HG's use of "profanity" (which normally turns out to mean using the word bullshit, which is by no means banned from Misplaced Pages, nor is its expressiveness easy to replace with something more flattering). Considering what they're replying to, this supposed "disparag of another editor's intellect and reasoning skills" seems pretty temperate. And so on. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
- I'm not suggesting we should wash anybody's mouth out with soap. The editor's consistent uncivil behavior is more than just the occasional salty diction here and there. I mean, look at this user page discussion where an editor is asking for a discussion on why Hob Gadling reverted his edit. It seems as if the person was trying to do it on the talk page and was ignored. Hob Gadling gruffly tells the other editor to get lost. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My experience is that this kind of aggression is standard operating procedure for the defendant. I'd basically given up on them seeing any consequences for it - it's been going on for a long time, so I assumed this is one of the cases where editors with enough "social capital" get an exemption from CIVIL. I doubt a trout will have lasting effect. - Palpable (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My experience with and attitude toward Hob is 100% the same as described here by Palpable. It goes back a while ... ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Hob Gadling failing to yield to WP:BLPRESTORE, apparently missing both the discussion and RSN link from the talk page. Asserting an unreliable source as reliable in order to describe the subject as having a ‘victim complex’. SmolBrane (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that Hob edited the talk page after re-adding this content; he should have self reverted if he missed this discussion prior. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Propose serving of trout to both. Hob likely may have acted a hair too strongly to a source of exasperation; but not enough for any warning. Lardlegwarmers provides a large helping of such and I would suggest a boom if not for BITE. Albeit, Lardlegwarmers’ knowledge of WP is beyond the average for an editor with 5x the posts. I would suggest a non-logged warning to Lardlegwarmers on the concept of collaboration for their own good. Otherwise, we are likely to see them back here given their attitude at both this filing and at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. (Disclaimer, I have been involved.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- For context, O3000, Ret. is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Recuse
Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. SmolBrane (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Recuse
- Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you click through the diffs, you’ll notice that many other editors have received the rude comments, so this is more than a 1-on-1 scuffle with me and Hob Gadling. I stopped compiling examples after finding 9 examples of visible hostility out of their most recent dozen diffs, but like I mentioned to BarntToust above, I can go back further if you need me to, to illustrate the chronic pattern. And the handful of other editors who have spoken up here who have been aggrieved speak for themselves. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- For context, O3000, Ret. is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a note, Hob Gadling removed the ANI notice without comment and has not responded here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Never said they weren't. Just noting that they clearly received the notice and chose not to respond here, which is a response in and of itself. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
| Extended discussion |
|---|
|
Wish Hob Gadling would not act like a profane teenager on talk page discussions and that they'd treat people without the smartass-y-ness and contempt. If they are so committed to being pissy towards other users while being shut-off in their own la-la-land, maybe they need a block until they're willing to face the music. BarntToust 01:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
|
It should be noted that Lardlegwarmers, after only truly starting editing two months ago, has been actively pushing WP:FRINGE misinformation, particularly on Covid related pages. They have actively been making claims that the scientific community is trying to cover things up, such as here, and has been using poor quality sources to try and claim that major published scientific papers on the topic are false, such as here. This entire thread just sounds like an attempt to silence another editor who has been actively dealing with fringe POV-pushers across numerous articles, such as those linked by Lardlegwarmers above. Silverseren 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. And it seems that's the case here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!)
bullshit
to describe an argument that did, in fact, turn out to be bullshit shows how weak it is. What's more alarming is that that was what led Lardlewarmers to try and their target on their talk page, a hamhanded effort whose sheer inappropriateness they remain sufficiently tone-deaf to that they made the mistake of bragging about it here as part of their "report". This is a straightforward WP:BOOMERANG situation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "turn over a new leaf" in situations like this one. Misplaced Pages would be better off if people were more willing to tell people to stop before it's too late and stop treating aggressive or uncivil behavior as a "lesser" crime. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The reason I cited numerous diffs was to substantiate, as I said in my post, that this is a chronic and ongoing habit of rude and uncivil behavior. I posted the diff of Hob Gadling's user page not to "brag" (and I don't understand how you inferred that), but rather to show that I followed ANI procedure to address conduct disputes first on the user page and that my attempt was dismissed without Hob Gadling addressing it except to blank the comment with the explantion that I wasn't welcome on his page.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!)
- I am not trying to silence anyone. See above, I recommend a stern warning about consistent uncivil comments and that’s it. If Hob Gadling has something substantive to say, they can say it without demeaning the editors as if this is a combat sport instead of a discussion about articles of text. I encourage y'all to check out the discussions linked to by Silverseren. I have been careful to use sources, present my suggestions in good faith, and stay neutral in personal interactions. I am genuinely trying to find consensus. I'll mention that Silverseren is also involved in the content dispute, providing sources that myself and several other editors believe do not verify an extraordinary claim in the article. (Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Silver_seren-20241231185800-Slatersteven-20241230182700) It's getting to the point where we should do a content moderation over that, since I am sure that the sources do not verify the claim but Silverseren apparently is sure that they do. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type. As the Alien above said, you
Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning.
now WP:DROPTHESTICK. TiggerJay (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to Misplaced Pages:Civility, the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the fallacies contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ad hominem, as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person (Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250103194100-Hob Gadling-20250102085800). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record I do agree with you that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been bating you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, rather we depend on WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to
steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person
. However, that is not what I read in that reply. Out of the gate you're calling Hob uncivil, their arguments are false, and then lobbing further accusations. You get the discussion wrapped up arguing over who said what, and what they meant by it, and why your positions are valid and theirs are not. As for bad faith, I'll invite to other editors to comment below if they agree that I'm the one presuming bad faith towards you. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250105151700-Credibility_of_major_scientific_journals_on_Covid) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think I understand what you're referring to about RS. Yes, there are times when a source is otherwise considered reliable (or even un-reliable) but consensus can be found with regards to a specific narrow aspect of it that might warrant it's inclusion or exclusions, or some variation on how it is presented or the weight afforded to it in the article. And that comes through talk page consensus as you mentioned and does not necessarily need to be unanimous. TiggerJay (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250105151700-Credibility_of_major_scientific_journals_on_Covid) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record I do agree with you that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been bating you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, rather we depend on WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to
- No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to Misplaced Pages:Civility, the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the fallacies contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ad hominem, as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person (Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250103194100-Hob Gadling-20250102085800). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type. As the Alien above said, you
Being entirely blunt, if we have two visions of Misplaced Pages: one in which people are occasionally rude or incivil to people who tout pseudoscience concerning major diseases and one in which pseudoscience concerning major diseases makes its way into article space then I'll gladly sign up for the rude / incivil Misplaced Pages over the pseudoscience one. This is to say that being rude is most certainly a lesser offense
. Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please check out the article and discussion. The lab leak theory is not pseudoscience, but rather a scientific hypothesis which important scientists have suggested is worthy of serious investigation (]). Although the evidence strongly favors a zoonotic origin, the investigation is inconclusive. In any case, I would favor a Misplaced Pages where civil discussion leads to a balanced representation of what is published in reliable sources. If your position is supported by the sources, there is no need to resort to name calling. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What you are describing is a different idea: the COVID-19 bioweapon conspiracy theory. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus.
the World Health Organization is recommending in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe is required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. ]
The fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs.
(]) Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Beyond what @Objective3000 said, for all parties, it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil WP:BRINE. TiggerJay (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Hob Gadling wants to "deal with" new editors who threaten Misplaced Pages, it should not be through aggression and insulting them openly, but through quality sources and discussion. Editors who sympathize with "fringe" ideas might be more cooperative if they didn't have to defend themselves against offensive comments in response to their suggestions. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Beyond what @Objective3000 said, for all parties, it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil WP:BRINE. TiggerJay (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If this "old grievance" about the FTN exemption to CIVIL really has been thoroughly hashed out, could someone link the discussion from WP:FTNCIVIL or something? Being up front about it would save time here at ANI, plus it's always heartbreaking to watch as earnest new editors learn about this the hard way. - Palpable (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am in the diffs.
- I would still like a pointer to the discussion of why FTN regulars get an exemption from CIVIL, I honestly think that should be better understood. - Palpable (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above:
Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic.
] Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- That diff certainly doesn't prove anyone is exempt from policy. I think it's interesting Palpable said he was following diffs instead of saying he was involved in the content dispute underlying this complaint. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above:
- They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, they're one of the pro-fringe editors in the linked discussion. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- What you are describing is a different idea: the COVID-19 bioweapon conspiracy theory. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus.
- It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
| Extended discussion |
|---|
|
- Nie JB. "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2020 Dec;17 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#c-GPinkerton-2021-01-18T14:40:00.000Z-ScrupulousScribe-2021-01-18T14:27:00.000Z
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Shibbolethink-20250104081900-IntrepidContributor-20250103151400
Send to AE?
Given how long this has gone on for, may I make a suggestion? Send this to WP:AE since ANI seems incapable of resolving this, and it falls solidly into the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
- That matches my experience and I'm grateful to the people willing to say it out loud, but surely it would save a lot of drama and forum shopping if someone just wrote it down? - Palpable (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The IP made no such claim? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I thought that was implicit in the request to move the civility complaint to a forum about fringe theories, but you're the expert. - Palpable (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- FYI WP:AE is arbitration enforcement, not the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's what I had thought, but the not logged in guy seems to be saying that a civility complaint should be moved to AE because it's a better venue for "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
- It's really striking to me that the main argument here is not over whether Hob is civil, it's whether he should have to be. - Palpable (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- FYI WP:AE is arbitration enforcement, not the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I thought that was implicit in the request to move the civility complaint to a forum about fringe theories, but you're the expert. - Palpable (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The IP made no such claim? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As others have noted, being brusque with pseudoscience-pushers is an insignificant offense when compared to agenda-driven editors who are only here to advocate for a fringe topic. Esp. when they have only been editing for a handful of months. Zaathras (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I do agree that from an objective and absolute POV (e.g., of an external user evaluating Misplaced Pages) it is better to have an uncivil but pseudoscience-free Misplaced Pages than a civil but pseudoscientific Misplaced Pages, from a subjective and relative POV (e.g., of editors making internal decisions together) it is impossible to systematically abandon a relatively less important principle on the basis of a relatively more important principle without completely annihilating the less important principle. That's why wp:Being right is not enough is policy.
- Moreover, as others have also noted, because WP:CIVIL is a principle that at some point does get acted upon, we would all be better off if no one, on any side of any given debate, would minimize it. User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Too much presumption of intent here with regard to 'pseudoscience-pushers'. It is easy for us to diminish our opponents in this way. Civility and NPOV are equal pillars. SmolBrane (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I second to motion to bring this to WP:AE. BarntToust 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Topic ban for Lardlegwarmers
Lardlegwarmers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A cursory look through this account's contributions has me convinced that they ought not to be contributing to COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory pages, widely construed. More generally, it seems they are using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to promote a lot of what I would deem "anti-establishment" claims which necessarily run right up against the WP:MAINSTREAM remit of our encyclopedia. In fact, they are close to being a single-purpose account in this regard. Topic ban from American Politics might help reorient their problematic proclivities.
jps (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring to prevent an RFC
@Axad12 has removed an RFC tag from Talk:Breyers#Request for comment on propylene glycol now twice within an hour.
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RfCs provides a list of circumstances under which you can stop an RFC started by someone else, and disagreeing with the question or wishing that it contained additional information is not in the list.
We have to be pretty strict about this, because an RFC is one of the few ways to attract the broader community's attention when there's an Misplaced Pages:Ownership of content problem or a Misplaced Pages:Walled garden that needs outside attention. The fact that an editor doesn't welcome outside attention sometimes indicates that there is a problem. I'm not saying that these things are happening in this case, but the rules have to be the rules for all RFCs, not just for the ones we agree with, because these things do happen in some cases. We can't really have opponents of an RFC question/proposal, no matter how well intentioned or how justified they think it is in this one case, unilaterally deciding that the rest of the community doesn't get to find out about the dispute.
I wouldn't bother with this here, except that it's already past my bedtime, so I need someone else to handle this. The proper way forward is to run the RFC, and for the loyal opposition to take the advice about how to respond that they'll find in the first two questions of the Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/FAQ. See you tomorrow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC.
- I am perfectly happy to take instruction on that point if I am incorrect but the removals were undertaken in good faith.
- The idea that I should be reported to ANI for this just because it is past someone's bedtime (and they don't have time for talk page discussion) seems to me rather an over-reaction. Axad12 (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, I am perfectly happy to volunteer to replace the tag if an administrator indicates that that is the appropriate course of action. Axad12 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad12, please do not tamper with the RFC. I have already commented there again based on my previous assessment five weeks ago, and I have absolutely no conflict of interest in this matter. In my opinion, you are taking too aggressive a stance on this issue. I happen to be an administrator but I am also involved with the dispute as an ordinary editor. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad12, I'd strongly suggest you return the tag. WhatamIdoing, a {{trout}} for WP:GRENADEing. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for both of your advice. I will shortly replace the template.
- The COI issue does not relate to Cullen, it relates to another user entirely. I would be grateful for input on the underlying COI issue, which seems to me to have been an exceptionally serious abuse. Axad12 (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? A company quite reasonably does not want to be falsely accused of adulterating their edible product with antifreeze, based on what a fringe source wrote, and you consider that
exceptionally serious abuse
? Cullen328 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? A company quite reasonably does not want to be falsely accused of adulterating their edible product with antifreeze, based on what a fringe source wrote, and you consider that
- Indeed, I am perfectly happy to volunteer to replace the tag if an administrator indicates that that is the appropriate course of action. Axad12 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I'm referring to the series of events outlined here where a paid COI editor has a COI edit request turned down and then starts cultivating a co-operative project member to implement non-contentious COI edit requests before reintroducing the contentious COI edit request and immediately tipping off their repeatedly canvassed project member to implement that contentious request.
- I feel that that is an exceptionally serious abuse - clearly it is an attempt to distort the COI editing process by attempting to make sure that a previously co-operative project member deals with a resubmitted request rather than waiting for a random volunteer working out of the relevant queue (one of whom had previously declined the request).
- As I said above, I am quite happy to take instruction on this point - but personally I feel that what happened there was highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- In other words, you want highly misleading content to remain in the article, just to make a point? Cullen328 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cullen, my post directly above is clearly about a point of process rather than a point of content.
- Even if the original COI edit request was incorrectly declined that would not justify the paid COI editor attempting to game the system to get the request through at the second time of asking. Axad12 (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Asking a second time" is not WP:Gaming the system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, but for a COI user to attempt to influence which user will deal with the second request does constitute gaming the system. Axad12 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Read the guideline instead of guessing about its contents from the WP:UPPERCASE. See, e.g., An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policy in bad faith, by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. Asking an individual to help has nothing to do with finding wording in a policy to justifying disruptive actions or stances that are not intended in that policy.
- I also direct your attention to the item that says Gaming the system may include...Filibustering the consensus-building process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was using the phrase 'gaming the system' in it's natural application (not specifically referring to WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM, which I didn't know existed until you linked to it above). Clearly the COI user was attempting to distort the COI edit request process in some way - whether one refers to what they were doing as 'gaming the system' or some other similar phrase is neither here nor there. Axad12 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, but for a COI user to attempt to influence which user will deal with the second request does constitute gaming the system. Axad12 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Asking a second time" is not WP:Gaming the system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that ever since the original COI edit request back in August the clear talk page consensus has been that the material should remain within the article and is not
highly misleading
. - I've been part of that consensus position since approx October/November. Since that time the user who opened the RfC has repeatedly been opening new threads, continually trying to re-address a subject where they are repeatedly in the minority and presumably hoping that those who previously opposed them do not turn up to oppose them again. Axad12 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- In other words, you want highly misleading content to remain in the article, just to make a point? Cullen328 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe we should hold an RFC on whether the RFC tag should be there? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right, I've had breakfast now so am in a position to make a more serious reply. This is a content issue (on which I hold, as yet, no opinion). On this page we often tell editors that the way to settle a content issue that hasn't been settled by more informal methods is by holding an RFC. Axad12, you should express your opinion as part of the RFC, not oppose holding it. By your behaviour you are turning people against you who might have supported you. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've already said that I'd be happy to replace the tag if instructed to do so, and upon being instructed to do so I immediately replaced it. As far as I can see that issue is now resolved.
- I've asked for comment on the underlying COI issue, which is not a content issue. Axad12 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- RFCs can handle COI issues. In fact, when WP:COIN can't resolve a dispute, they sometimes host an RFC to settle it. The nice thing about an RFC in such situations is that if it closes with an outcome like "The consensus is stick it to these fully policy-compliant, completely disclosed paid editors by making sure that this article implies the company's product was adulterated with a poisonous industrial chemical, just because we found one fad diet book that used this language, because it's really unreasonable of them to not want sensationalist and derogatory information in our article about their product" then you can generally be sure that the result will stick for at least 6 months and usually longer.
- But you've got to get that consensus first, and I'm not sure you will. For one thing, it's been my not-inconsiderable experience that when someone objects to holding an RFC because the question is biased, that's a fairly reliable sign that they expect the RFC result to not match their preference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My concern (rightly or wrongly) was simply that there was a COI element to the request which had not been disclosed. I swiftly requested clarification on that point and upon receiving that clarification I immediately reverted myself.
- It isn't really relevant here but actually I didn't expect the RfC to develop contrary to my preference. That was because the previous 4 months had indicated a consistent consensus opposing what the instigator of the RfC was proposing. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I don't actually have a particularly strong preference one way or the other on the issue at stake - I've simply consistently observed during November and December that the consensus was against Zefr, which seemed to me to be a simple matter of fact based on the various talk page threads from August to December. Axad12 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- On matters concerning the Breyers article, Axad12 has been an uncollaborative, disruptive, and hostile editor tag-teamed with Graywalls, who is the main proponent over months of using the slur, "antifreeze", to describe a minor GRAS ingredient that is the subject of the current RfC. Both users have ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate for a factual, well-sourced article. Both users refused collaboration on the Breyers article content at DRN.
Having never contributed a sentence or source to the Breyers article, Axad12 has blatantly reverted simple, sourced edits claiming a false consensus which has no good source to support the propylene glycol/"antifreeze" claim and no evidence of consensus input by other editors over the last many weeks. An evolving consensus on the RfC is to exclude mention of propylene glycol as undue.
Scientific and legal literature concerning propylene glycol (article link) placed on the talk page have been ignored by both users, without attempts to discuss or apply what any objective editor reading the sources would agree are authoritative.
Proposal: Because of Axad12's hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC, tag-team behavior with Graywalls on the Breyers article edits, canvassing each other on its talk page, and here, as another example, Axad12 and Graywalls should be A-banned from the Breyers article and its talk page.
Support. Zefr (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strike as withdrawn for Axad12 ABAN to concur with Cullen328 and the oppose decisions below.
- Graywalls is a separate case remaining undecided here. Over the 2024 article and talk page history at Breyers, this user was the main purveyor of disinformation, and has not acknowledged his talk page hostility and errors of judgment, despite abundant presentation of facts, sources, explanations, and challenges for information below. Graywalls should commit to abstain from editing the Breyers article for a given period, as Axad has done. Zefr (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Zefr:, your domineering and territoriality to that article is a big part of escalation and if anyone, it should be you who should refrain from it. Blatantly disregarding consensus and going so far as saying
Statements of facts supported by reliable sources do not need talk page consensus.
as done in here which goes to show you feel you're above consensus. You weren't persuaded until you were corrected by two administrors Aoidh and Philknight on the matter on the belief you're entitled to insert certain things against consensus. You also were blocked for the fifth time for edit warring in that article, with previous ones being at different articles with dispute with other editors, which shows your lack of respect for community decision making. Graywalls (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Well, your concept of what was a false consensus has been dismissed by the RfC result, so you should move on from this bitterness and distortion of truth. In reply to Aoidh and Philknight at the Breyers talk page, I stated in my next comment, "Yes, a key word unintentionally omitted in my response concerning statements and sources was "verifiable". As there are few watchers/editors of the Breyers article (62 as of today, probably many from Unilever who do not edit), I provided statements of facts verified by reliable sources, whereas this simple practice appears to not be in your editing toolkit.
- The obligation remaining with you in this discussion is to respond to Cullen's 2-paragraph summary of your behavior below in the section, The actual content that led to this dispute. Let's have your response to that, and your pledge to abstain from editing the Breyers article - you did say on the talk page on 29 Nov that you would "delegate the actual editing to someone else." I think your defiance to respond to challenges in this discussion section affirms my recommendation that you are ABANNED from the Breyers article and IBANNED from attacking me because you are unable to face the facts. Zefr (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was a no commitment suggestion that someone, meaning neither YOU or I. Not that Zefr continue editing and not I. Your controlling, WP:OWN approach was a significant portion of the problem. Additionally, you proposed administrative sanctions against me, but did not tell me about it as required. I only figured out after someone told me about it on my talk page. Why did you do that? Graywalls (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You had already been notified of the problem you caused at the Breyers article in this talk edit on 5 Jan. Now, you are engaged in conspicuous deflection to avoid answering the Cullen328 paragraphs and the several requests for you to explain and own up to your disruptive behavior and non-collaboration. Regarding OWN, there are few editors at Breyers. I countered your attempts to slander the article with the "antifreeze" term and bogus diet book references by applying verifiable facts and sources.
- OWN:"Being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership, provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or amend others' edits. This too does not equal ownership, provided it does not marginalise the valid opinions of others and is adequately justified." If you had offered valid content and sources, I would have collaborated.
- I'm sure editors have seen enough of your personal grievances expressed here. Please stop. I'm not returning unless an exception occurs. Zefr (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was a no commitment suggestion that someone, meaning neither YOU or I. Not that Zefr continue editing and not I. Your controlling, WP:OWN approach was a significant portion of the problem. Additionally, you proposed administrative sanctions against me, but did not tell me about it as required. I only figured out after someone told me about it on my talk page. Why did you do that? Graywalls (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You need to notify Graywalls of this discussion. I have done so for you. In the future, remember to do so yourself. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: I have reverted Zefr on 3 occasions on the Breyers article over the last few months. That was because the edits they had made were, at that time, contrary to talk page consensus. The fact that I had not contributed to the article is neither here nor there in that regard.
- I have not
ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate
, I have simply objected to Zefr's repeated attempts over a 3 month period to re-open a discussion where the consensus has always been against them. - Six different users have previously objected to the changes Zefr has been trying to make and that was clearly a majority of those who commented between August and December 2024.
- I accept that the current RfC is going Zefr's way, however that fact should not be used to reinterpret events over the last 4 months where Zefr has historically been in a small minority insufficient to claim a consensus in favour of the changes they wished to make.
- Also, the idea that I made a
hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC
is untrue. As I have pointed out above, my actions were in good faith and it can be seen that I immediately volunteered to revert my removal of the template if I received instruction from an admin to that effect. - I cannot see that I was ever canvassed to appear at the Breyers talk page, I arrived there entirely independently back in November having been aware of the ongoing situation re: the various COI edit requests because the COI edit request queue is the volunteer queue that I spend most of my time here working from. I've probably read pretty much every COI edit request that has been made on Misplaced Pages over the last 6 to 12 months and there are a small number of talk pages that I look at from time to time.
- Graywalls and I work on similar cases and sometimes we find ourselves working alongside each other, especially if material has been discussed at WP:COIN, but occasionally ending up in the same place and on the same side of an argument does not entail tagteaming. Axad12 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I was the one who suggested RfC in the first place. here, because I felt it was not a productive disagreement anymore. Leading up to the RfC, there was rough talk page consensus to include a mention pf propylene glycol, but if consensus in RfC determines that it should be left out, I have no intention of fighting it. Someone raised a concern there was only one source, so I added another source. Other than this, I've not really touched contentious parts of this article recently. I'm not sure why Axad12 removed the RfC and I can't speak for their actions, but the accusation of Tagteam is unwarranted. I've taken deferent steps to not continue to engage in back and forth edit warring and I'd like to believe that I'm approaching this the correct way. I do want to bring up concerns about Zefr's civility though. Please see User_talk:DMacks#Breyers_disruptive_editing for some concerns I raised. I also find leaving snarky comment about being a PhD student who disagreed on contents troubling Special:Diff/1261441062. @Aoidh: also felt Zefr was "weaponing" claims of edit warring to restore their "preferred version" earlier on in the dispute. Please see Special:Diff/1257252695 Graywalls (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I think you were correct to recommend an RFC. Hopefully the RFC will reach a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd just like to echo that sentiment. I'm all in favour of consensus.
- My position on this article hasn't been motivated by a partisan view on Propylene Glycol but has simply been in relation to serving the consensus position as it stood at the time. That is the approach I hope I adopt on all Misplaced Pages articles. If the consensus alters on this article (as seems likely) then I'll adopt the same approach in relation to serving the new consensus.
- My primary area of interest on this website is COI issues. I'm simply not interested in content disputes or in pushing any kind of POV on Misplaced Pages. I'm not the sort of user who flagrantly disregards a newly emerging consensus by editing contrary to the outcome of an RfC.
- I'd welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that going forwards (i.e. without an article ban). Axad12 (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The mention by Graywalls for an RfC on 27 Dec had no influence on the one existing. As an uncomplicated process, an editor truly sincere in having community input would have posed a simple objective question. Graywalls, why didn't you take 5 minutes and create the RfC question you wanted? What would have been your RfC question?
- Specifically for propylene glycol (you are still defending its use in the article by adding another garbage source yesterday - see comments about this book in the RfC):
what do you believe propylene glycol does in a frozen dessert and what would you prefer the article to say about propylene glycol? I have asked for this clarification on the talk page many times and in the DRN, but you ignored the opportunity to collaborate and clarify.
- Have you read the sources in this talk page topic?
- Your reverts in article history and combative talk page behavior over months revealed a persistent intent to disparage the Breyers article, focus on the "antifreeze" slur (mainly promoting this source), and restore a skeletal version having no sources more recent than 2018 here, after tag-teaming with Axad12 to do your bidding on 17 Nov. That version also has misinformation under the section 'Ice cream', falsely stating that Breyers changed their ice cream ingredients by using other additives, which in fact, were used to evolve a new category of frozen desserts not intended to be ice cream. I believe you know this, but you and Axad12 persisted to favor misinformation for the article.
- The RfC I provided came from steps in the lead of WP:RFC: 1) generally poor talk page progress, where one editor seeking facts verified by current sources was opposed by Graywalls, Adax12, and NutmegCoffeeTea, all defending a version including "antifreeze"; 2) an RSN post here where Graywalls argued that a web link by the Seattle PI made the Motley Fool article an RS; 3) initiate DRN for which Graywalls, Axad12, and NutmegCoffeeTea abstained from collaboration to improve the article; 4) providing a science- and law-based talk page topic on 19 Dec, which appears to be willfully ignored by Axad12 and Graywalls, who responded only with hostility and defiance against the facts; 5) seeking third opinions from admins, first by BD2412 (talk page on 29-30 Nov) and by DMacks on 27 Dec, resulting in verbose trolling by these two users. Axad12's response on 27 Dec was to revert constructive edits and tag-team with Graywalls.
- Axad12 and Graywalls should be ABANNED from the Breyers article for exhibiting 1) hostility on the talk page to good faith proposals for making the article better, and 2) persistence to perpetuate misinformation on propylene glycol. Simply, what history shows that either editor has tried to improve the Breyers article? Both users meet most of the definitions of WP:NOTHERE for the article, its talk page, and the RfC. Zefr (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Zefr, I've already indicated on several occasions that I welcome and support the developing new consensus. Graywalls has made a similar comment below. That being the case, I don't really see what purpose an article ban would be intended to serve.
- Admittedly there has been some quite heated disagreement over recent months, but it seems that we all now have the robust talkpage consensus that we were hoping for in one way or another and that all three of us are happy to move forward in support of that consensus.
- You were clearly in the minority for quite a long time and I can appreciate that you found that experience frustrating. However, to continue to make allegations above of bad faith, trolling, tagteaming, etc. about those who constituted the valid majority for several months is just an attempt to perpetuate strife on an issue which is now, as far as I can see, satisfactorily resolved. Axad12 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I think you were correct to recommend an RFC. Hopefully the RFC will reach a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Filed under: sometimes you hurt articles by treating COI editors as the enemy. The problem here is two users who should really know better edit-warring over the course of months to reinstate TikTok diet influencer silliness into a Misplaced Pages article, repeatedly reinstating WP:PROFRINGE content (implicitly, if not explicitly). We currently treat a little "avoid antifreeze" bubble in a diet book (which includes Breyers in a list of brands) and a book published by one of RFK Jr's antivax publishers as WP:DUE for including the insinuation that an FDA-approved and much-conspiratorialized additive is harmful. They've been repeatedly removed, but two editors keep putting them back, whether because of a misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS/WP:FRINGE or in pursuit of COI purification. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take your point but I think you're misjudging the situation somewhat. Prior to the opening of the current RfC it was approximately 6 or 7 users in favour of inclusion vs 3 or 4 favouring exclusion. I only reverted the attempts at exclusion because those attempts were contrary to the talk page consensus.
- I'm perfectly open to the suggestion that that consensus position was wrong but the simple fact of the matter was that there was at that time no consensus in favour of exclusion.
- It has only been in the last couple of days that the requesting editor has been able to demonstrate a consensus in favour of exclusion. And that's great, I have no problem with that at all. In fact I welcome it.
- My understanding is that editors wishing to make changes to article text should not do so if there is a consensus against what they are trying to do, and that under such circumstances an edit can be (indeed should be) reverted. If I'm mistaken on that score then I'm perfectly happy to take instruction. However, I really want to stress that my actions were based primarily upon that reasoning and were made in good faith. Axad12 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Axad12, you should not revert something because other editors want it to be reverted. You should only make content changes that you personally support. This is necessary for BRD to work. See WP:BRDREVERT for an explanation of why. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites:, the antifreeze matter is WP:DEADHORSE since I believe everyone's pretty much agreed it doesn't need to be in there. Zefr has taken issues with me, Axad12, NutMegCoffee and possibly some others. They've tried to get the article "set in place" to their preferred version, but that was declined admin Daniel Case who determined it to be content dispute Special:Diff/1260192461. Zefr inferring alleging I was
"uncooperative"not collaborating/cooperating in the way that he was hoping in DR, but I don't believe that to be so. There was nothing intentional on my part to not cooperate. I'll see if @Robert McClenon: would like to share their observation on that since they closed the dispute. - https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Breyers/Archive_2#c-Rusalkii-20240814014600-Inkian_Jason-20240801145900 here's another uninvolved editoring erring on the side of inclusion. A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus. Reading through the current plus the archived discussions, up until the RfC, the general consensus is in support of having PG mention and Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus. As I mentioned, if consensus changes with the RfC, I'm not opposed to going with that. Graywalls (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (adjusted Graywalls (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC))
- For the record, I never stated the word "uncooperative" at DRN or the Breyers talk page, but rather "non-collaborative", as discussed in the thread with Robert McClenon below.
- "Set in place to their preferred version" and "Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus" should be translated to using "facts verified by reliable sources", which is the simple goal for the Breyers article that Graywalls has obstructed over months.
- It's incredible that Graywalls says even today above, knowing the comments on the RfC and months of being presented with facts and sources about why propylene glycol is safely used in thousands of manufactured foods: "A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus."
- Here's your chance to tell everyone:
- Why do you feel propylene glycol was used in Breyers frozen desserts (in 2013, not since)? What concern do you have about it, and what government or scientific source says it's unsafe in the amounts regulated by federal laws? Give a sentence here that you think meets consensus and uses a reliable source. Zefr (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're right, you did not use that specific word. I've corrected my response due to wording. Graywalls (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
A Non-Mediator's Statement
I am not entirely sure why User:Graywalls has pinged me about this dispute, saying that I "closed this dispute". The accuracy of the statement that I "closed this dispute" depends on what is meant by "this dispute".
I closed the DRN thread, Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_252#Breyers, on 12 December. I obviously didn't resolve a dispute that has been continuing for another three weeks, and the claim that I closed the dispute looks to me like an attempt to confuse the jury. User:Zefr had opened the DRN thread on 3 December, complaining about the insertion of the word antifreeze and of the mention of propylene glycol. I was not entirely sure beyond the mention of antifreeze what the issues were. There were questions about what the procedure was for handling a one-against-many dispute; I think that Zefr was said to be the one. There was a long question that may have been about whether DRN is voluntary; DRN is voluntary. Then Zefr said that the case could be withdrawn because no one else was commenting. The disputants other than Zefr never did say exactly what the article content issues were, perhaps because they didn't want to discuss article content, and were not required to discuss article content. If anyone is implying that I resolved or settled anything, I have no idea what it was.
I see that the dispute either was continuing in other forums for three weeks, or has reopened. I see that User:Axad12 edit-warred to prevent an RFC from running, making vague but noisy statements about conflict of interest. I don't know who is said to be working for Unilever or for anyone else. It is clear that this dispute is longer on antagonism than on clarity. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon:, I pinged you, because I felt you'd be a good commentator to evaluate whether you also felt I was "not cooperative" in the process as Zefr says. I tried to participate, but it got closed shortly after I posted a comment in it. Graywalls (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Was that purposely mis-stated to be provocative and mislead the discussion here?
- I said you were non-collaborative, which describes your behavior throughout your editing history on the Breyers article, its talk page, and the DRN. You refused collaboration at DRN, which is the whole point of the process. DRN FAQ: "refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building."
- You were notified about the DRN on your talk page on 3 Dec, and you posted a general notice about it on the Breyers talk page on 6 Dec, so you were aware of the process, but ignored it. Meanwhile, your editing history over 6-12 Dec shows dozens of edits, including many on the Breyers talk page.
- You made no attempt to collaborate at DRN, posting only one off-topic comment on 12 Dec.
- I requested closure of the DRN on 12 Dec due to non-participation by you and the others. On 13 Dec, I notified the Breyers talk page of the DRN closure. cc: Robert McClenon. Zefr (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Zefr:, As been said to you by others, participation is not mandatory. Other editors are not required to and you shouldn't reasonably expect them to prioritize their real life schedule or their Misplaced Pages time on dispute that you runs on your own schedule to your DRN you started around your own schedule on your own terms. I have initially waited to give others time to comment as their time allows. I'm also not particularly fond of your berating, incivil, bad faith assuming comments directed at myself, as well as a few other editors and it's exhausting discussing with you, so I'm not feeling particularly compelled to give your matters priority in my Misplaced Pages time. Graywalls (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
A Possibly Requested Detail
Okay. If the question is specifically whether User:Graywalls was uncooperative at DRN, then I can state that they were not uncooperative and did not obstruct or disrupt DRN. Graywalls took very little part in the DRN proceeding before I closed it. They were not required to take part, although they say that they would have made a statement if the case had stayed open a little longer. The antagonism that I saw was between User:Zefr and User:Axad12, and I collapsed an exchange between them. I did not read what I am told were long previous discussions, because I expect the disputants at DRN to begin by telling me concisely what each of them wants to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Graywalls was not uncooperative at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. User:Zefr is making a slightly different statement, that User:Graywalls did not collaborate at DRN. That is correct. And I noted above that their mention that I had closed the dispute depended on what was meant by the "dispute". and looked like an attempt to confuse the jury. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon Zefr did not use the word uncooperative although did say uncollaborative and I used the two interchangeably in my ping. I did participate in it Special:Diff/1262763079. I haven't participated in DRN until that point, so I wasn't really sure how it worked. Graywalls (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The actual content that led to this dispute
Two month ago, Breyers included this shockingly bad content: As of 2014, some flavors of Breyer's ice cream contains propylene glycol as an additive. Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze and it is clear fluid made by "treating propylene with chlorinated water to form the chlorohydrin, which is then converted to the glycol, an alcohol, by treating it with a sodium carbonate solution." Propylene glycol is formulated into Breyer's fat-free and Carb Smart ice cream to make it easier to scoop.
The notion that an article about an ice cream company should include a detailed description of how a Generally recognized as safe food additive is manufactured is bizarre enough, as is the cherrypicked and glaringly misleading assertion about "antifreeze", but the reference used to support the Breyers claim was a book called Eat It to Beat It!: Banish Belly Fat-and Take Back Your Health-While Eating the Brand-Name Foods You Love! written by a quack/crank diet profiteer named David Zinczenko. I invite any editor to take a search engine look at Zinczenko's body of work, and come away with the conclusion that his writings are anything other than fringe and unreliable. Despite the glaringly obviously non-neutral and tendentious problems with this shockingly bad content, editors including most prominently Graywalls and Axad12 dug in their heels, fighting a reargard action for nearly two months, determined to make this mundane routine ice cream company look as bad as possible. Their self-justification seems to be that big bad corporations have no right whatsover to try to remove atrociously bad content about their products from Misplaced Pages, and that any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association. I am not an advocate for corporations per se, but I am an advocate for corporations being treated neutrally like all other topics, rather with disdain and contempt, which was the case here, as I see it. I do not know what the best outcome is here, but I certainly encourage these two editors to refrain from any other unjustified and poorly referenced anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- A striking and shocking aspect of this sordid situation is that two editors, Graywalls and Axad12 were able to concoct a false "consensus" supporting various versions of this garbage content. And then when another editor tried to start a RFC about the appallingly bad content, Axad12 tried over and over and over again to stop the RFC and defend the atrocious content rather than correcting it, aided and abetted by Graywalls. When the RFC actually went live, it soon became clear that many editors agreed that the content these two editors advocated for was utterly inappropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cullen,
- As per my comments above, my motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time. I did not
concoct
that consensus, at least 5 users other than me were against excluding the material. - I have never had any particularly strong opinion one way or the other on the content issue and I try as best as I can not to get involved in content disputes. I have not
dug in heels
or attempted to promote any kind of fringe opinion and nor have I engaged inanti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end
. - Similarly I do not hold the view that
any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association
, or any opinion even vaguely resembling that view. On the contrary, I have often implemented COI edit requests on behalf of corporations or have pointed out to corporate employees how such requests would need to be amended to conform with sourcing or other requirements. Repeatedly engaging in that activity would presumably make me veryevil
indeed, in my own eyes, if I held the view that you attribute to me. - I reverted the Breyer edits in good faith because there was no consensus in favour of them. If I was incorrect on a point of policy in that regard then fair enough, however please do not attempt to attribute to me sentiments which I do not harbour.
- Also, I did not attempt to stop the RfC
over and over and over again
. I removed the tag twice, then requested guidance from administrators and immediately replaced the tag when requested to do so. The tag was removed, in all, for a matter of minutes and had no meaningful impact on the progress of the RfC. I have accepted elsewhere that I now appreciate that the basis on which I removed the tag was inappropriate. I have also stated thatFrom my standpoint wasn't a process that I was familiar with - but I can see from the many excellent contributions here that this is the best way of resolving content disputes
. I have also stated that I welcome and support the new consensus. Axad12 (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , Axad12, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I
obviously dislike
Breyers or (their parent company) Unilever, or indeed that I consider either to beevil
? - To the best of my recollection, I've only ever made 3 mainspace edits to the Breyers article - each time on the stated basis in the edit summary that the edit I was reverting was contrary to consensus.
- I've re-read the extensive talk page discussions in recent days and I can only see that I ever commented on the COI angle and the nature of the consensus. Those comments were based on my understanding of policy at the time. I do not see
anti-corporate diatribes
or evidence that Iobviously dislike
Breyers or Unilever. - Indeed, I do not hold any particularly strong views on Breyers, Unilever or any other corporations. Axad12 (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I said, Axad12, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to Talk: Breyers to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- My activity on that talk page has solely been in relation to pointing out what I felt (rightly or wrongly) was a valid COI concern and observing that from Aug to Dec there has never been a consensus in favour of exclusion.
- Anything beyond that is simply you attributing motives that do not exist.
- I have never stated or implied that
a corporation does not deserve neutrality
and nor do I hold such a view. - I happily admit that I'm quite animated and enthusiastic about COI issues and reverting edits which appear to be contrary to consensus. With the benefit of hindsight probably I should have let go of those issues at an earlier stage and vacated the field for those who actually had an appetite to argue on content grounds.
- I'd also point out that for a significant part of the last 2 months I had actually unsubscribed from the relevant talkpage threads and only ended up getting involved again due to being summoned to the Dispute Resolution thread. If I had been
determined over the last two months to maintain various versions of biased non-neutral content
then hopefully it stands to reason that I would not have unsubscribed in that way - thus resulting in a situation where I was actually completely unaware of much of the talkpage and mainspace activity over the period that you refer to. Axad12 (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your
motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time
. You are also obligated to actually look at the disputed content and the sources supporting it. Why didn't you do that? Why were you unable to see what multiple editors in the RfC are commenting about? You shouldn't just blindly revert content like that, without taking a look for yourself to see if the complaint about the disputed content has any merit, like it being reliably sourced and due for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- That's a very fair question.
- The answer is that I was inclined to believe the opinions of editors much more experienced than myself who were against exclusion, particularly the editor who turned down the original COI edit request (whose work on COI edit requests I have the greatest of respect for).
- User Whatamidoing has already pointed out above that my error lay in accepting those users' opinions. I agree with Whatamidoing's observation there.
- I can only say that what I did was done in good faith based on my understanding of policy at the time. I now know where I erred (in several different ways) and I am glad to have received instruction in that regard.
- However, I really cannot accept the repeated suggestion that I vindictively masterminded a long anti-corporate campaign to keep bad material in an article. That suggestion is fundamentally not true. Axad12 (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I entirely accept that.
- For clarity, when I said
my understanding of policy at the time
I meant my understanding of policy at the time - I wasn't trying to suggest that the policy has changed since I made those edits. - What I am saying is that those edits were not made with malice, they were made because I accepted the opinions of other users more experienced than myself, opinions which I now know that I ought to have questioned. Axad12 (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I said earlier in this thread, I am 100% supportive of the new consensus in favour of excluding the previously disputed material.
- Virtually all of my time on Misplaced Pages is spent at COIN and dealing with COI edit requests. I'm not the sort of user who spends their time edit warring over POV fringe material and generally being disruptive.
- So, the last thing I would ever do is attempt to reinstall material where a very robust consensus at RfC has indicated that it should be excluded.
- I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that I can be trusted in that regard. Axad12 (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Judgement isn't about following consensus, it’s about making considered decisions. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, quite so. I have acknowledged my error in that regard in my first response to Isaidnoway, above, re: the very useful input I received from Whatamidoing. Axad12 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad, if I read what you wrote correctly, and please correct me if I misunderstand: I will stay away from that article because I support the current consensus. My concern is what if consensus was to shift on that article? TiggerJay (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies if my earlier response was unclear. My point was that I have absolutely no intention of edit warring over the previously disputed material (or any other material) so I don't see what purpose it would serve to ban me from the article.
- I have only ever made (to the best of my knowledge) 3 previous edits to the article (1 in November and 2 in December?). These were all on the basis of a misunderstanding on a point of policy which has been pointed out to me above and which I have happily acknowledged and accepted. The issue at stake was not that I harbour any partisan view in relation to the content dispute, it was that I edited to reflect the views of other editors whose opinions I respected on the matter in question.
- I do not see any reason for the community to anticipate that I would made a similar misunderstanding of policy going forwards.
- Hopefully this clarifies... Axad12 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Judgement isn't about following consensus, it’s about making considered decisions. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your
- As I said, Axad12, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to Talk: Breyers to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I
- Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , Axad12, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been expecting something to happen around User:Axad12, whom I ran into several months ago during a dispute at COIN. What I noticed back in October was that Axad12 seemed to be clerking the noticeboard, making prosecutorial noises, and sometimes unsupported accusations (ex:
...the existence of COI seems quite clear...
1,...in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest...
2,As I said, the fact that there was a significant undeclared conflict of interest in relation to editing on Paralympic Australia-related articles was demonstrated some years ago.
3) towards what they thought of as COI editors (this was about whether User:Hawkeye7 had failed to adequately announce their conflict with Paralympic Australia, where they've been openly helping as a volunteer on our community's behalf for many years, and after they had just made an almost invisible contribution on the Signpost). I often find such clerking of noticeboards by relatively unseasoned users to be troublesome; Axad12 has 490 edits at COIN, about 12% of their total 3801 edits (but about a third of the roughly 1500 edits total on COIN since September). If you use a hammer all day, you might begin to think that all objects are potentially nails. BusterD (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Rereading the discussion this morning 90 days later, it reads worse than I made it sound above. An uninvolved admin tried to close the thread and chastised Axad12 in that close. The OP asked the thread closure be reversed, so the close comments were moved down to the end of the thread. BusterD (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea for Axad12 to take a break from WP:COIN and associated matters and concentrate on other areas of Misplaced Pages for a few months. I was going to use a cliché here, but I see BusterD's already used it in the last sentence of the post before last, so won't. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only so many ways to screw in a lightbulb. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- In fairness, the overwhelming majority of my posts at COIN over the last year or so have been simple helpful contributions. The two matters discussed above were atypical and in both cases I've taken on board the advice I was given.
- If (per the figures above) I've been making about a third of all the contributions at COIN over that period then my behaviour would have been reported here long ago if I was either disruptive or incompetent.
- That said, I won't deny that I've been seriously considering retiring from Misplaced Pages over the last two months. The only reason I've not done so is because other users have specifically encouraged me to carry on because they value my work at COIN and on COI issues generally.
- All I can say is that what I have done, I have done in good faith and when I have occasionally erred I have learned lessons. I have acknowledged above that I've made mistakes and I'm grateful to those who have given me advice. Axad12 (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've been reported here now. Over stuff that's current, and applicable. In that matter, you seemed to believe your expertise in COI matters allows you to decide what constitutes a valid RFC. That seems like a problem to me. I'm providing evidence on related behavioral matters. Having made one third of all recent edits on a noticeboard is not the high achievement you might think it is. Stay or retire, but learn to better assume good faith here, even when dealing with COI contributors. Most accounts are fine. You've been working in a narrow area where you deal with many bad faith users. I can understand why that might wear on any editor. The proof will be if you can incorporate these valid complaints into your future action. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Buster, I know that we've had crossed words in the past so I'm grateful for your understanding and your measured response above. Yes, I deal with many bad faith users and yes it does wear on me sometimes.
- I don't claim any great expertise in COI matters but I do have the time to dedicate to the project and I've picked up a decent awareness of the methods that can be used to detect and prevent UPE/PROMO etc activity.
- I believe that in the past when I've been given advice on points of policy I've taken that advice on board and would hope to continue to do so in the future. Axad12 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This comment is not about you, but you might be interested in it: I've been thinking for years that a rotating duty system might be helpful. Of course we're all WP:VOLUNTEERS, but we might be less stressed, and get more representative results, if we each spent a week at ANI and a month at RSN and a week at CCI each year than if one editor spends all year at ANI and another spends all year at RSN (and nobody is at CCI – anyone who is looking for an opportunity to deal with really serious problems should please consider spending some time at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations. The few regulars there will be so grateful, and who knows? You might find that you like it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've been reported here now. Over stuff that's current, and applicable. In that matter, you seemed to believe your expertise in COI matters allows you to decide what constitutes a valid RFC. That seems like a problem to me. I'm providing evidence on related behavioral matters. Having made one third of all recent edits on a noticeboard is not the high achievement you might think it is. Stay or retire, but learn to better assume good faith here, even when dealing with COI contributors. Most accounts are fine. You've been working in a narrow area where you deal with many bad faith users. I can understand why that might wear on any editor. The proof will be if you can incorporate these valid complaints into your future action. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only so many ways to screw in a lightbulb. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea for Axad12 to take a break from WP:COIN and associated matters and concentrate on other areas of Misplaced Pages for a few months. I was going to use a cliché here, but I see BusterD's already used it in the last sentence of the post before last, so won't. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rereading the discussion this morning 90 days later, it reads worse than I made it sound above. An uninvolved admin tried to close the thread and chastised Axad12 in that close. The OP asked the thread closure be reversed, so the close comments were moved down to the end of the thread. BusterD (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do think that it's worth zooming out and looking at the article as a whole. Comparing the version from before the current rewrites started to the current version makes it obvious that the tone of the article has become vastly more promotional, with much more focus on glowy feel-good aspects that are only mentioned in lower-quality sources (the story about the original creator hand-churning it?) And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) to the weird
In 2013, Breyers introduced frozen desserts made with food additives (section above) that were intended to create smooth, low-calorie products. However, the new desserts evoked complaints by some consumers who were accustomed to the traditional "all-natural" Breyers ice cream.
, which 100% reads like marketing-speak (downplaying the reaction by making it sound like it's just that people loved the old version so much. In fact, the current version doesn't mention Breyer's cost-cutting measures at all, even though it's a massive aspect of coverage.) That doesn't necessarily justify the version above, but it's important to remember that this was originally a one-word mention in a larger list -Following similar practices by several of their competitors, Breyers' list of ingredients has expanded to include thickeners, low-cost sweeteners, food coloring and low-cost additives — including natural additives such as tara gum and carob bean gum; artificial additives such as maltodextrin and propylene glycol; and common artificially separated and extracted ingredients such as corn syrup, whey, and others
, the longstanding wording, is not unreasonable and doesn't really imply that there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol, just that it's an additive. I think the context of that larger shift to a much more promotional tone to the article is significant (and looking over talk, most of the actual dispute has focused on that.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- I agree that the longstanding wording doesn't really imply there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol. But the source being used doesn't even mention "maltodextrin and propylene glycol", that I can find, so those two particular additives were not even verifiable at the time. And then propylene glycol was removed, and when it was added back here as "a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze", was really when this dispute seem to take a turn for the worse to keep this content in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aquillion, about this And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) – I don't know what other sources say, but the cited sources don't say that at all. The cited sources are both from Canadian dairy farmers' marketing associations, saying that their product is good and costs more than imported oils, but doesn't actually WP:Directly support a claim that Breyers uses imported oils, or that Breyers has done anything to cut their costs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- (As this is strictly a question of content, please consider replying at Talk:Breyers instead of here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aquillion, WhatamIdoing, and Isaidnoway: would you all mind if I copy over the thread, starting at Aquillion's "I do think that...." over to Breyer's talk? Graywalls (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't mind, but my contribution to this thread is relatively minor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aquillion, WhatamIdoing, and Isaidnoway: would you all mind if I copy over the thread, starting at Aquillion's "I do think that...." over to Breyer's talk? Graywalls (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- (As this is strictly a question of content, please consider replying at Talk:Breyers instead of here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aquillion, about this And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) – I don't know what other sources say, but the cited sources don't say that at all. The cited sources are both from Canadian dairy farmers' marketing associations, saying that their product is good and costs more than imported oils, but doesn't actually WP:Directly support a claim that Breyers uses imported oils, or that Breyers has done anything to cut their costs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that the longstanding wording doesn't really imply there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol. But the source being used doesn't even mention "maltodextrin and propylene glycol", that I can find, so those two particular additives were not even verifiable at the time. And then propylene glycol was removed, and when it was added back here as "a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze", was really when this dispute seem to take a turn for the worse to keep this content in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, and a Diddly Question
I would like to thank User:Cullen328 for providing the background and content information. I also have a possibly minor question for User:Axad12. They edit-warred to try to stop the RFC on the content, and said that there was an exceptionally serious abuse
of the conflict of interest process. I may not have done enough background research, but I don't see where they have identified who has been the paid editor or undisclosed paid editor, or what the conflict of interest content is. If there has been paid editing, who has done it, and have they been dealt with? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert, probably the best single overview of the COI issue is given in this post .
- My impression at the time of the events, and subsequently, was that the activity was designed to distort the COI edit request process. I still feel that what happened re: the COI edit requests was irregular but I note that no other user seems to have supported me in that regard so I've not taken the matter any further. Similarly, while I felt that those events had a bearing on the RfC I now accept that the RfC relates solely to the content matter specifically under discussion. Axad12 (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find your characterization of events inaccurate. You stated "we have the resubmission of the request to remove the disputed material in a COI edit request thread here "
- But this was not a resubmission. The original COI request was to remove a list of ingredients (including propylene glycol) which was sourced to a blog and which the COI editor says is outdated and doesn't reflect current ingredients. Meanwhile, the link you give as an example of "resubmission" was the COI editor requesting the removal of "the recent content addition related to propylene glycol". Both requests involve propylene glycol, but they are clearly separate requests concerning separate content.
- We want COI editors to propose changes to talk pages. The fact that this COI editor, apparently frustrated by a lack of responses to their requests went to the Food and Drink Wikiproject to request someone look at their edits, and then went to an active participant of said Wikiproject and requested they look at their requests, is not suspicious or abnormal. And I think it's highly inappropriate how Axad12 argued at length on the talk page that User:Zefr was "cultivated" by the COI editor "to do their bidding". I support other editors in recommending Axad12 take a break from COI issues. Photos of Japan (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd just like to stress here that I only linked to my post above because Robert McClenon asked for the background to the COI element. I was not trying to re-open that issue or to request that any action be taken on that issue. I have already accepted that there is absolutely no support for the position I adopted there. Axad12 (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't answer my question. The link is to a conversation between User:Axad12, User:Graywalls, and administrator User:DMacks. The links from that conversation show that there is antagonism between Axad12 and Graywalls on the one hand and User:Zefr on the other hand. They show that there is discussion of conflict of interest, but they show no direct evidence of conflict of interest editing by any editor. They don't answer who is said to be a paid editor making edit requests, aside from the fact that paid editors are supposed to make edit requests rather than editing directly, so I am still not sure what the issue is. I haven't seen any evidence of abuse, let alone of
exceptionally serious abuse
that warranted edit-warring to prevent an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- The paid editor is User:Inkian Jason who is open and transparent about their COI. The edit request which began this episode was when Inkian Jason began this discussion where they pinged User:Zefr about having uploaded a photo of the company's logo and asking if they would be willing to add it to the article. Secondary to that they also asked about the appropriateness of the recently added propylene glycol content. The COI issues centered around whether Inkian Jason "cultivated" Zefr by pinging him to remove the added propylene glycol text after they had previously requested the deletion of a sentence about the various ingredients used in the ice cream (which included propylene glycol). Photos of Japan (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal 2: Article Ban of Axad12 from Breyers
NOT IMPLEMENTED Axax12 has voluntarily agreed to avoid editing Breyers. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Proposal 1 has been lost up in the early postings.) I propose that User:Axad12 be article-banned from Breyers and Talk:Breyers for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert, I believe I have acknowledged and accepted my various errors in some detail above. I would be grateful for the opportunity to take on board and apply the very valuable input I have received from various more experienced users over the course of this thread. I'd therefore suggest a counter-proposal, that I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr and refrain from making any future comment on the matters under discussion in this thread (once this thread is complete). In addition, if I go back on any of those voluntary undertakings I would be happy for it to be upon pain of an indefinite site ban. Axad12 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad12, I wonder what your intent is with your counterproposal. Robert McClenon has proposed an article ban for 6 months. Your counterproposal is, in effect, an indefinite article ban, an I-ban with Zefr, and a topic ban on the topic of propylene glycol in Byers, all without the usual escalating blocks for violations, instead jumping straight to an indef. While this would solve the issue, it's much more draconian. What's your reasoning for requesting harsher restrictions? EducatedRedneck (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The purpose of the counter proposal was simply to indicate that I have only good intentions going forwards and I am happy to demonstrate those intentions upon pain of the strongest possible sanction. Evidently I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking, as I'm aware that eyes will understandably be upon me going forwards.
- As I've said before, I'm a good faith user and I'm amenable to taking instruction when I have erred. I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that without being subject to a formal ban. Axad12 (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fail to see a distinction between what you proposed and a formal ban. Your proposal is on
pain of an indefinite site ban
. "A rose by any other name" comes to mind here. Your voluntary adherence to the terms of the proposal would be indistinguishable from being compelled into adherence by threat of an indef. If you still want this course of action, fair enough, I just don't think it'll do what you're envisioning. EducatedRedneck (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fail to see a distinction between what you proposed and a formal ban. Your proposal is on
- I really don't recommend that, Axad. Sure, take a break from that article if you want to. But it's really easy to forget about a dispute years later, or even for a company to change names and suddenly you're on that article without knowing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- For clarification, I would be happy to undertake voluntarily any measures that the community may suggest and upon pain of any sanction that the community may suggest. I believe that there is value to undertaking such measures voluntarily because it allows one to demonstrate that one can be trusted.
- Also just a brief note to say that in about an hour and a quarter's time I will have no internet access for the next 12-14 hours. Any lack of response during that period will simply be for that reason and not due to a wilful refusal to communicate. Hopefully I have indicated above that I have been happy to respond to all questions.
- No doubt matters will progress in my absence and I will find out my fate upon my return. Axad12 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad12, I wonder what your intent is with your counterproposal. Robert McClenon has proposed an article ban for 6 months. Your counterproposal is, in effect, an indefinite article ban, an I-ban with Zefr, and a topic ban on the topic of propylene glycol in Byers, all without the usual escalating blocks for violations, instead jumping straight to an indef. While this would solve the issue, it's much more draconian. What's your reasoning for requesting harsher restrictions? EducatedRedneck (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert, I believe I have acknowledged and accepted my various errors in some detail above. I would be grateful for the opportunity to take on board and apply the very valuable input I have received from various more experienced users over the course of this thread. I'd therefore suggest a counter-proposal, that I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr and refrain from making any future comment on the matters under discussion in this thread (once this thread is complete). In addition, if I go back on any of those voluntary undertakings I would be happy for it to be upon pain of an indefinite site ban. Axad12 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as less stringent than what Axad has proposed above within this section, but still prevents further disruption. EducatedRedneck (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose because Axad12 seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. Cullen328 (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. I also oppose Axad12's counter proposal. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Given Cullen328's comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. I just don't see a need for such strict measures. Photos of Japan (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose the formal sanction, but I do support Axad12s voluntary sanction =
I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr ... I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking
. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN
NOT IMPLEMENTED Axad12 seems to have agreed to step back from COIN, and there isn't consensus for this. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clerking at COIN seems to have given User:Axad12 the idea that everyone whom they don't know is probably a paid editor, and something has given them the idea that they can identify "exceptionally serious abuse" without providing direct evidence. I propose that User:Axad12 be article-banned from WP:COIN for two months. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert, just a brief note to say that I do not believe that
everyone whom don't know is probably a paid editor
. The overwhelming majority of my contributions at COIN are simple constructive contributions and the matter described above is highly atypical. Axad12 (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Robert, just a brief note to say that I do not believe that
- Oppose because Axad12 seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. Cullen328 (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Given Cullen328's comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would prefer it if Axad12's voluntary commitment was to stay away from WP:COIN rather than the company article in particular. It is very unhealthy, both for Misplaced Pages and for the particular user, for anything like a third of the edits on any noticeboard to be from any one user. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support this is a good idea, and not vindictive. It will do Axad12 some good to get away from the COIN for awhile, and get out there and roam around Misplaced Pages and see where else they can contribute constructively. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think a formal ban is unnecessary. Axad has done a remarkably good job of articulating a positive response to this incident, and it's to his credit that he has reacted so constructively under such pressure.
- I also think it's good for everyone to try something different on occasion. I think it's easier to walk away for a bit if you're sure that others will step up to fill your place. So with such proposals (not just this one), I'd love to see people saying not only that they support giving someone a break, but also that they'll try to step up to help out in that page/process/noticeboard for the length of a ban. It could be as little as checking in once a week or answering the easy questions. Who is willing to actually be supportive in practice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- People will fill the space. WP:COIN managed before Axad12 showed up, and will manage if they stop editing there. Nobody is indispensible. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's only for two months, it's a good thing to get away and get a breath of fresh air, and yes, his response has been positive, but even he admits in the Breyer debacle, he was relying on other editor's opinions in evaluating the disputed content, so getting away from the COIN desk for a couple of months, and getting some experience in other areas of the encyclopedia will be beneficial, if and when, he returns to COIN. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t want to derail the voting process here, but a couple of points in relation to COIN…
- (Apologies for the length of this post but I feel the contents are relevant.)
- 1) It has been observed elsewhere that “COIN has no teeth” (forgive me for the absence of a diff but I think it's a commonly acknowledged idea). I've discussed that issue at some length with Star Mississippi and they've acknowledged that there is (in their opinion) insufficient admin oversight at COIN and that too many threads have historically gone unresolved without action being taken against promo-only accounts (etc).
- Star Mississippi has encouraged me to refer such cases to admins directly to ask them to intervene. I’ve been doing so over recent months and this has significantly improved positive resolutions on COIN threads.
- If I’m not active at COIN then that won’t be happening and very little action will be being taken against the promo only accounts reported there. Thus, while I acknowledge Whatamidoing’s earlier point about cross-training etc, and the points made by other users, there is an underlying unresolved issue re: admin oversight at COIN, which might also be resolved via some kind of rota or by a greater number of admins looking in from time to time.
- I’ve not consciously been clerking, and I certainly don’t aspire to be “the co-ordinator of COIN”, but there is something of a vacuum there. Consequently I’ve often posted along the lines of “Maybe refer this to RPPI?”, “Is there a notability issue here?”, etc. etc. in response to threads that have been opened.
- I absolutely accept 100% that, in terms of experience, I’m probably not the best person to be doing that – but I have the time to do it and I have the inclination, and in the absence of anybody else serving that role I’ve been happy to do it. But, as I say, really this is an underlying unresolved issue of others not having the time or inclination rather than an issue of me going out of my way to dominate. What I'd really like is if there were others sharing that task.
- 2) Also I'm not really sure that the extent to which I perform that sort of role has any real link to me making assumptions about whether COI users have good or bad faith motivations. On the latter distinction I think it's fair to say that I'm usually (but admittedly not always) correct. There have also been occasions when others have been asking for action to be taken and I've been the voice who said "no, I think this is a good faith user who just needs some guidance on policy". I hope that I'm normally speaking fair in that regard.
- Most of the accounts who are taken to COIN are recent accounts who wrongly believe that Misplaced Pages is an extension of their social media. Most accounts who fall into that category are advised along those lines and they comply with policy or, sometimes, they just go away. Then there are the repeat customers who are often clearly operating in bad faith and where firmer action needs to be taken. I'm conscious of that distinction, which seems to me to be the single most important point when dealing with COIN cases. I've not been adopting some kind of hardline one-size-fits-all approach or characterising all COI activity as bad per se. However, more admin oversight at COIN would certainly be appreciated, if only so that there were a wider range of voices.
- Thus, in an ideal world I think I would continue to be allowed to operate at COIN, but as one of several regular contributors.
- Apologies for the length of this post but hopefully this is a useful and relevant contribution. Please feel free to hat this post if it is considered wildly off-topic. Axad12 (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This comment just reinforces my support position that a two-month break is a good idea. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Isaidnoway, all I can say is that if Misplaced Pages is looking for people with the time and motivation to dedicate to the project, and who are amenable to taking instruction, then here I am.
- If I’ve been felt to be overly keen to contribute in a particular area then fair enough. I’m just not sure that a formal ban is the way to go about resolving that. Axad12 (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good grief, it's only two months, not a lifetime, I've taken breaks form the project longer than that, and guess what, the place didn't fall apart, and neither will COIN if you take a small break, formally or voluntarily. You claim -
If I’m not active at COIN then that won’t be happening and very little action will be being taken against the promo only accounts reported there.
I just don't believe that to be true, because as Phil Bridger points out - WP:COIN managed before Axad12 showed up, and will manage if they stop editing there. Nobody is indispensable. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- I really don't wish to argue, you've expressed your view and that's fine. However, the point of my long post above wasn't that "I am critical to COIN". The post was simply intended to highlight the fact that there are very few regular contributors at COIN and to express a hope that a wider range of contributors might get involved (following on from earlier related comments by Whatamidoing). That would be healthy all round, regardless of my situation.
- Also, when I've seen similar situations arise in the past, good faith (but over-active) users seem to usually be given the opportunity to voluntarily take steps to allay any community concerns, rather than being handed a formal ban. I'd just be grateful for a similar opportunity. Axad12 (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good grief, it's only two months, not a lifetime, I've taken breaks form the project longer than that, and guess what, the place didn't fall apart, and neither will COIN if you take a small break, formally or voluntarily. You claim -
- Apologies for the delay. I cannot provide a diff either as I can't recall where we had the conversation but acknowledging that what @Axad12 attributed to me is correct. There are simple blocks that are sometimes needed, but there aren't as many eyes on COIN to action them. I believe I've found merit to any Axad reported directly to me and if there were any I didn't take action, it was due to bandwidth as my on wiki time has been somewhat limited over the last six months. As for the merit of this report, I am not able to read through it to assess the issue so it would not be fair of me to weigh in on any element thereof. Star Mississippi 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This comment just reinforces my support position that a two-month break is a good idea. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I have read through this long, entire discussion. I'd just like to point out to Axad12 that, to me, it's kind of like you are saying what you think we want to hear so it's hard to know how reflective this incident has caused you to be. I think it would be a mistake for you to think you only made mistakes regarding this one article and instead reconsider your approach to the entire COI area. Sometimes "the consensus" is not correct and can violate higher principles like NPOV and V.
- I'll just mention that the COI area has caused us to lose some invaluable editors, just superb and masterful editors who were on their way to becoming administrators. They devoted incredible amounts of time to this project. But their interest in rooting out COI and pursuing UPE caused them to completely lose perspective and think that they were a one-man/woman army and they took irresponsible shortcuts that led them to either leave the project voluntarily or be indefinitely blocked. It's like they fell down a rabbit hole where they began to think that the rules didn't apply to them because they had a "higher calling" of getting rid of COI. This lack of perspective caused us to lose some amazing editors, unfortunately, but ultimately they were damaging the project.
- You seem like an enthusiastic editor and I'd rather not see the same thing happen to you so I recommend you cut back on your time "clerking" COIN and just make this task one of a variety of areas you edit in instead of your primary activity. Liz 08:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Liz, thank you for your comments. I welcome your perspective and I'm not unaware of the dangers that you highlight.
- I think this is now day 5 of what has been a rather gruelling examination where I’ve co-operated to the very best of my ability. Most of the material under discussion has related to a series of regrettable misunderstandings where I’ve openly acknowledged my errors and would now like to move on.
- Therefore I’d be grateful if, following a period of reflection, I be given the latitude to continue my activities as I think best, taking on board all the very helpful advice that I’ve received from multiple users. At this moment in time I'm not sure exactly what that will look like going forwards, but it will involve a very significant (perhaps complete) reduction in my concentration on COI issues and much more time spent on improving articles in non-COI areas where I've previously contributed productively (e.g. detailed articles on specific chess openings).
- If I subsequently fall short of community expectations then by all means bring me back here with a view to imposing extreme sanctions. I do not think that that will end up being necessary.
- I have only the best of intentions but I must admit that I'm finding this prolonged process psychologically wearing. I therefore wondered if we might bring matters to a swift conclusion.
- I am genuinely very grateful for the thoughts of all who have contributed above.
- Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, all: This thread's over 100 comments now. Can we please stop now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seconding. Axad seems to have agreed to step back from COI-related editing for a while, all discussions are trending strongly towards no formal sanctions - could this be closed? Rusalkii (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, all: This thread's over 100 comments now. Can we please stop now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sanctions are intended to be preventive, not punitive. At times Axad12 can get too aggressive, and removing the RfC template was one of that. Other issues were also raised but unless these issues continues, formal sanctions are unlikely necessary. Graywalls (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I haven't gone through the entire saga on the Breyers page, but for a while I was active in COI edit requests at the same time Axad12 was, and noticed their conistently very combatitive/aggressive approach towards any editor with a declared or suspected COI. I mentioned this to them and they said they had already stepped back from answering COI edit requests because of this, which I though at the time (and still do) showed a genuinely impressive amount of self-awareness. I rather burned out on the edit requests and came back a few months later to see the queue vastly decreased thanks in part ot Axad12's efforts, but also what seemed to me like very little improvement, if any, to the way they approach COI editors. I would regret to see Axad12 banned from this topic area, but I would like to see them approach it with somewhat more kindness. I would (regretfully) support sanctions if this kind of behaviour continued, but there's no need to jump to that now. Rusalkii (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just a note to acknowledge the essential truth of Rusalkii's description above of my activities. There have, however, also been examples where I've shown considerable kindness and patience to COI editors and assisted them in re-formulating requests in a way that conforms with the relevant policies.
- I've always seen activities at WP:COIN and activities dealing with COI edit requests as two rather different things (with the former involving primarily undeclared COI, and the latter involving declared COI). With the benefit of hindsight I accept that my exposure to the former probably coloured my approach to the latter in an unhelpful way and that being heavily active in both spheres simultaneously was not a good idea.
- I would happily undertake never to deal with a COI edit request ever again and I have no particular desire to continue my activities at COIN either. The extent to which it was unhealthy to be operating in both areas is thus now effectively a moot point but I acknowledge that it was a factor in the matters under discussion here. Axad12 (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
- I think it's just you. Liz 06:21, 9 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)
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)
- I will point out that consort is generally considered synonymous with the word spouse. Elizabeth I's mother, for example was officially the "queen consort" of the united kingdom. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed, but in this person's inention was to make Kosem be perceived as not wife, but concubine. While I do agree that all wife of monarch is also his consort, this person meant 'concubine' and I was afraid they gonna delete also other parts, when I was reffering to Kosem as sultan's wife, hence I inetrvened. English for some reason reffer to all sulatns partners as 'consorts' regardless if they are married or not, that's why it's important to highlight when consort was actually wife, like in Kosem's case. Sobek2000 (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will point out that consort is generally considered synonymous with the word spouse. Elizabeth I's mother, for example was officially the "queen consort" of the united kingdom. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry in Philippine articles
Page protected. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request an immediate and extended range block for 49.145.5.109 (talk · contribs), a certified sock of LTA Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaysmay15 from editing 2025 in the Philippines and other related pages pending a result of a protection request, the second to have been filed for that page after the first instance of sockpuppetry by the same account was deemed not serious enough. See also Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Yaysmay15. Borgenland (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems like this should be reported at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaysmay15, not at ANI. That's where the checkusers are at although they are generally reluctant to connect an IP account with a blocked sockpuppet. Liz 04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is already confirmed in the SPI. However, as it is an IP account that can't be indeffed, I'd had to check my calendar too often to see when their existing block expires. 15:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Borgenland (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that 2025 in the Philippines has been protected for the rest of the year, this probably isn't necessary. Also, worth noting that as p-blocks are limited to ten pages, we'd need to remove one from the block to add the 2025 page. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Wigglebuy579579
- Wigglebuy579579 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps engaging in disruptive editing behaviour:
- they created dozens of articles by copy-pasting AI-generated text;
- they ignored all warnings onto their talk page;
- they duplicated draftified articles by simply recreating them.
Miminity and I have been cleaning the mess for hours, warned him several times, but he just ignores everything and starts again. – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would support indefinitely blocking this user. Their output is entirely low quality AI-generated slop, and they are contributing nothing of value to the encyclopedia while placing considerable burden on others. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Est. 2021, can you provide some examples so we don't have to search through their contributions? Thank you. Liz 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some pertinent examples Draft:Toda_Religion/2 (moved to mainspace by Wiggle and then back to draftspace) and Draft:Indigenous religions of India (exactly the same scenario as previous). These are all obviously AI generated based on their formatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: Examples include:
- among others. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: This editor left a message on my talkpage and again it is clearly written by AI. Here's the link Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some pertinent examples Draft:Toda_Religion/2 (moved to mainspace by Wiggle and then back to draftspace) and Draft:Indigenous religions of India (exactly the same scenario as previous). These are all obviously AI generated based on their formatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are any of the references in Draft:Pfütsana Religion/2 real or are they all hallucinations? I'm having trouble finding them on web searches. They're also suspiciously old even though there is more recent relevant literature. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Misplaced Pages:Large language models essay recommends G3 for articles for which text-source integrity is completely lacking. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rsjaffe: Using BookFinder.com, Citation #1, #3 (might be a dupref of 1) does exist but has different author, Citation #2 does exist and is correct. #4 is dupref of #2. A quoted google search and a google scholar search about #5, 8, 9, 11 (The journals does not seem to even exist) yields no result. No result for 6, 7, 9, 10 (Nagaland State Press does not seems to even exist) 12 Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to hear from @Wigglebuy579579, but, if the results of the reference searches on the other drafts are like this, then all those drafts should be deleted as unverifiable. LLM output can look very correct while hiding significant falsehoods, and it will be impossible to sort fact from fiction in those articles if they haven't been validated word-for-word with real sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Click all the link on the Draft:Toda Religion/2, all of them are {{failed verification}}. Either the page does not exist or the website itself does not exist. The JSTOR sources leads to a completely unrelated article. I think by the looks of it, this draft is safe to delete
- @Wigglebuy579579: care to explain? Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to hear from @Wigglebuy579579, but, if the results of the reference searches on the other drafts are like this, then all those drafts should be deleted as unverifiable. LLM output can look very correct while hiding significant falsehoods, and it will be impossible to sort fact from fiction in those articles if they haven't been validated word-for-word with real sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rsjaffe: more ref-checking at Draft:Pfütsana: as Miminity observes, The Angami Nagas: With Some Notes on Neighbouring Tribes exists (although with the BrE spelling of the title) and I accessed it at archive.org. It does not mention pfütsana anywhere in its 570 pages. The closest we get is pfuchatsuma, which is a clan mentioned in a list of sub-clans of the Anagmi. The draft says
The term Pfütsana is derived from the Angami language, where "Pfü" translates to "life" or "spirit,"
which is contrary to what The Angami Nagas says – pfü is a suffix functioning sort of similarly to a pronoun (and I think I know how the LLM hallucinated the meaning "spirit" but this is getting too long already). I looked at a couple of the sources for Draft:Indigenous religions of India as well, and I haven't been able to find a single instance where the source verifies the claims in the draft. --bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Thanks for checking. Those are now deleted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Est. 2021 and Miminity, thanks for supplying examples that can be reviewed. Liz 04:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have deleted Draft:Pfütsana Religion/2 and Draft:Toda Religion/2 as they have falsified references. Checking the others would be appreciated. Also, editor has been warned on their page about inserting unsubstantiated demographic data in articles. User talk:Wigglebuy579579#January 2025. I think we’re running out of WP:ROPE here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rsjaffe: Draft:Sekrenyi Festival: J.H. Hutton's The Angami Nagas (1921) doesn't mention any such festival, but talks about a sekrengi ritual which includes the "purification" elements described in the draft. But that's as close as it gets. The rest of the ritual described in the draft is very different from the festival described in the book (let's just say that it is not something that would attract tourists like the draft claims), and the etymology is sheer nonsense. So again I believe it is an LLM that, like the proverbial blind chicken, has found a seed and then, like the same chicken but without a head, is running in confused circles around it.
- It also amuses me a bit that a book from 1922 is used to support a statement about how the festival is a popular symbol of the culture today. (FTR, publications from the era of the British Raj should never be used to support claims about ethnic/tribal/caste related topics, though that is a bit tangential to the issue here.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have deleted Draft:Pfütsana Religion/2 and Draft:Toda Religion/2 as they have falsified references. Checking the others would be appreciated. Also, editor has been warned on their page about inserting unsubstantiated demographic data in articles. User talk:Wigglebuy579579#January 2025. I think we’re running out of WP:ROPE here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a pity that the editor has not engaged with this discussion. The areas they're editing in could use more work, and I get the impression that they are here to improve the encyclopedia. However, the way in which they're going about it needs reform, and if they don't explicitly commit to reform, I am inclined to block this editor for the overreliance on LLMs and the careless inclusion of incorrect and false references. What do others think? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest a topic ban on creating article as the editor seems to have okay-ish mainspace edits. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I came across their edits several days ago, when a link they provided (with an archive link) didn't exist, even when I substituted ".in" for the correct website domain of ".com", so I've got no idea where they got those links from in the first place?
- They've responded to my talk page warning, but after going back to edit the exact same article they haven't fixed/reinstated the source so I'm now a little concerned that it came from AI & the user didn't find it themselves. They've done a lot of work on this article so I'm hoping it's just a one-off, but thought I'd best mention it.
- Their previous edit had the summary "Fixed errors" and removed almost a dozen sources/links. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is very concerning. And the user is still editing and not responding to this discussion. Blocked from article space and draft space and reinvited to come here to discuss. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
User:BittersweetParadox - Overlinking
Not a problem; request rejectedThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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)
- Overlinking still continuing on despite this ANI (for example), and even with an administrator suggesting they not ignore this ANI, continues on with their edits/ignoring this ANI. The user is not appearing to want to WP:COMMUNICATE whatsoever, and some of their communication over issues in the past does not bode well as well ().
- They are adding many uses of Template:Baseball year, despite the usage instructions saying that the template should not be used in prose text. I really am not sure what more there is to do here, as any attempts at communicating with the user does virtually nothing. Magitroopa (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BittersweetParadox: It's rather insulting to state you'll comment here and then continue to overlink . Please stop editing like this until you can address the above concerns. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: Apologies for the ping, but could there please be some assistance here?... As BX stated above, despite their only communication thus far since this ANI (being a simple, "ok"), they have still continued overlinking- now overlinking even more since BX's comment above: . I'm really not sure what more there is that can be done here apart from a block, as it appears this is just going to continue on, no matter what anyone says here or on their talk page. Magitroopa (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Several of the diffs you give are positive changes, and your inappropriate reverts have caused articles to be underlinked. Leave BittersweetParadox alone. If you insist that he be sanctioned for the negative edits, you'll get some as well. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Automatic editing, abusive behaviour, and disruptive(ish) wikihounding from User:KMaster888
(non-admin closure) While KMaster888's editing history (the original discussion) wasn't inherently bad in itself, their conduct after being questioned about it was bad, violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:SUMMARYNO, and WP:NPA See , , , , , , , , , and their comments on this thread. Indeffed by Cullen328, and TPA revoked after , another personal attack. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating WP:BEFORE
- Bgsu98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.
I noticed an editor named Bgsu98 who had been mass-nominating figure skater articles for deletion. It is too obvious to me that he doesn't do even a minimum search required by WP:BEFORE before nominating. (I must note that most of the skaters he nominates for AfD aren't English, so a foreign language search is required. Sometimes you need to search on a foreign search engine. For example, Google seems to ignore many Russian websites recently.)
I have counted 45 articles nominated by him at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating. And it is worrying that people seem to rely on the nominator's competence and vote "delete" without much thought.
I should note that Bgsu98 doesn't seem to stop even when an article he nominated has been kept. He nominated Kamil Białas (a national medalist) two times with the same rationale (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kamil Białas (2nd nomination)). One can really wonder why he does this.
P.S. More information is here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Figure Skating#Notability guidelines. What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE. It seems that no one acted on this change until Bgsu98 came.
P.P.S. As I stated on the WikiProject Figure Skating talk page I linked above, I think it was very unfair to change the rules. Especially since web sources tend to die out after some time.
P.P.P.S. I would also like to note that I am polite, while Bgsu98 has already accused me of "bad-faith accusations and outright lies" (source). --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- as the closer of several skating AfDs, I have no issue with a DRV if @Moscow Connection or any other editor believes I closed it in error. However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules. That isn't grounds for a DRV nor a report against @Bgsu98 who is nominating based on community consensus. Star Mississippi 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Star Mississippi. But just to give some scope, this cleaning house, mostly of ice skating junior champions, is not recent, it's been going on for at least 6-9 months now, it was originally done through the use of PROD'd articles. But while there have been some objections raised over the past year, Bgsu98's efforts have mostly received support from editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Over the past two weeks, through the use of AFD, we have seen dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of annual national skating championship articles either deleted or redirected. But I just want to note that these AFDs wouldn't have closed as "Delete all" or "Redirect all" without the support of other AFD participants. Very few editors are arguing to Keep them all. Liz 02:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- "However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules."
— They don't meet WP:NSKATE, but most (if not all) are famous people and should meet WP:GNG. Therefore, caution should be exercised when deleting. I don't think a national silver medalist can be unknown, it is just that reliable sources are hard or even impossible to find now. It appears that some years ago the rules didn't require WP:GNG, so skater articles were created with simply "He advanced to the free skate at the 2010 World Championships" or "He is a national senior silver medalist", which was enough for an article to not be "picked at". The editors who created skater articles back then probably didn't want to do more than a bare minimum and didn't care to add reliable sources beyond the ISU website profile. One who decides to delete a skater article must keep in mind that reliable sources probably existed at the time the article was created. Cause, as I've said, these skaters arn't unknown. They represented their countries at the highest possible level of competition.
(I've recently noticed that Google News don't go as far back as before. Some web sites deleted their older content. Some have even completely disappeared. Like, I mostly edit music articles, and I've noticed that if didn't create some articles 10 years ago, I wouldn't be able to create them now.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- Even if being a junior national medallist was enough in and of itself, WP:V has always been a thing. You can't just state some fact that would meet a specific notability guideline like WP:NSKATE without providing verification of the claim without the possibility that the article will be nominated at AFD or redirected. TarnishedPath 02:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi and Liz: A WP:DRV, a deletion review? Is it maybe possible to undelete "Lilia Biktagirova" (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova)? Cause I was searching for sources for Alexandra Ievleva and found something like a short biography of hers, two paragraphs long.
Here: "Тренер Трусовой, почти партнерша Жубера, резонансная Иевлева: кто соревновался с Туктамышевой на ее 1-м ЧР (2008)".
And again, it was Bgsu98 who nominated the article back in May. And he was told, I'm quoting User:Hydronium Hydroxide: "There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale." --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) - After looking at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova, I think no one will say that I was incorrect about how people vote at AfD. There's even a comment like this: "WP:NSKATE lists some very clear criteria for inclusion, which this article does not meet." And then a more experienced user noted that you should actually search for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG, but no one actually searched and the article was deleted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have also found an interview with Lilia Biktagirova: . Yes, it is an interview, but there an editorial paragraph about her (an introductiion). There also a short paragraph here → . Not much, but considering she competed almost 20 years ago... --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes @Moscow Connection you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @Liz provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. Star Mississippi 14:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes @Moscow Connection you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @Liz provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. Star Mississippi 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a content dispute. I think the user violates WP:BEFORE, otherwise it would be impossible to create tons of nominations. And please look at the AfD page, all his nominations simply say: "Non-notable figure skater", "Non-notable figure skater, PROD removed", "Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements" or "Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals". It is obvious that there's no WP:BEFORE research and as little consideration as "humanly possible".
Okay, since Bgsu98 pinged someone in his support, I'll ping BeanieFan11 and Doczilla. (Sorry for disturbing you, BeanieFan11 and Doczilla.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- When closing one AfD, I made some observations about that day's many AfDs and noted in that one close regarding Bgsu98: "The nominator's burst of dozens of nominations within half an hour failed to stimulate any discussion about many of them." In my meager opinion, the massive number of rapid deletion nominations rather strongly might suggest, at the very least, a lack of due diligence regarding each and a likely violation of WP:BEFORE. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a content dispute. I think the user violates WP:BEFORE, otherwise it would be impossible to create tons of nominations. And please look at the AfD page, all his nominations simply say: "Non-notable figure skater", "Non-notable figure skater, PROD removed", "Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements" or "Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals". It is obvious that there's no WP:BEFORE research and as little consideration as "humanly possible".
- Moscow Connection claims to be polite, yet wrote the following: "random people at AfD don't care about actually checking the notability and just vote "delete per nom". Pinging Shrug02 who also found that comment objectionable. I have made an effort to thank editors who have participated in my AFD's, regardless of whether they have always agreed with my findings, because AFD's that end in "no consensus" do nothing but waste everyone's time.
- He has been adversarial and confrontational in every communication to me. From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hanna Harrell: "By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD... Like, you nomitated Kamil Białas 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale... Are you planning to nominate it 100 times?"
- I always appreciate constructive feedback when it's delivered in a courteous and professional manner. Moscow Connection seems incapable of courtesy or professionalism. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- C'mon, User:Bgsu98, civility goes both ways. We can discuss the value of these articles and the AFD process without attacking each other. Flinging mud doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. Liz 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I apologize, Liz; I am just at my wit's end with this editor. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's my take, User:Bgsu98. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. Liz 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I have been pinged on this discussion I thought I would 1 confirm I did find @Moscow Connection to be somewhat rude and condescending in their repeated assertions that those who vote on these skating AFDs do not do any research and are basically sheep just voting delete and 2 most of these nominated bios are a few sentences or just a table of stats copy and pasted so @Liz I doubt anyone spent hours putting them together. Finally I feel @Moscow Connection is now looking to use any procedure they can to try and besmirch @Bgsu98 and derail their valid efforts to remove some of the seemingly thousands of sports bios that do not meet current Misplaced Pages guidelines and are of interest to few, if any, general reader. If anyone is in need of reprimand or sanction over this matter (which has been blown out of all proportion), it is @Moscow Connection Shrug02 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why should I be "reprimanded"? My comments about "people at AfD' were non-specific, while Bgsu98 directly accused me of lying. (In the Russian Misplaced Pages, he would be blocked for this "automatically".)
Also, a note to admins: Can it be that Bgsu98 finds fun in annoying other editors? I can't really explain the content of his user page differently. Yes, surely, different people can have different motivation for editing Misplaced Pages, but I don't think it is a "normal situation" when you look at someone's user page and see how the person likes to be "evil".
And, btw, please note that Bgsu98 summoned Shrug02 here for the purpose of supporting him. I haven't summoned anybody. (Maybe some people would notice, but Bgsu98 deleted my ANI notice from his talk page immediately.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- @Moscow Connection I am going to be generous and presume English is not your first language so your choice of wording might be a little off. However, I was not "summoned" or asked to support anyone. @Bgsu98 pinged me and I gave my view. I did not say you SHOULD be reprimanded, I said IF anyone was to be sanctioned over this matter then it would be you. My reasoning for this is your attacking @Bgsu98, making broad statements questioning the intelligence of people at AFD discussions and using this forum incorrectly. As for what happens on Russian Misplaced Pages, that is their busines. I hope you have read @HyperAccelerated's comment as I think it sums this situation up nicely. Shrug02 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't questioned anybody's intelligence. It is just my experience that many people trust the nominator and vote "delete" without much thinking. They maybe quickly visit the article in discussion, look at the "References" section, that's enough for them. And they typically don't speak Russian or Hebrew or whatever. So, when they see "Selepen", they hardly go to yandex.ru and search for "Шелепень". --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, "summon" is not the right word. Sorry. "He asked you to come". But that "I am going to be generous" sentence doesn't look polite. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- According to this, "summon" and "ask to" are the same thing. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Moscow Connection
- Cambridge Dictionary definition of summon (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/summon) is "to order someone to come to or be present at a particular place, or to officially arrange a meeting of people."
- No-one ORDERED me to take part in this discussion.
- If there is so much significant coverage for these skaters then the simple solution is for you to add it to the articles in question with suitable references and then AFDs will end as keep.
- I am now finished with this discussion and I hope the admins step in and end it soon.
- All the best to everyone involved. Shrug02 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Moscow Connection wrote the following in his original complaint: ”…decided to mass-delete articles that don't comply with WP:NSKATE… I am sure most articles he deleted had the right to stay per WP:GNG.” I don’t have the ability to “mass-delete” anything, and if most of those articles met WP:GNG, the users at AFD would have voted to keep them. Just two examples of MC’s falsehoods. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK. But you have also mass-prodded articles, that's the same as "deleting". (Like a "delayed deletion".) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Moscow Connection I am going to be generous and presume English is not your first language so your choice of wording might be a little off. However, I was not "summoned" or asked to support anyone. @Bgsu98 pinged me and I gave my view. I did not say you SHOULD be reprimanded, I said IF anyone was to be sanctioned over this matter then it would be you. My reasoning for this is your attacking @Bgsu98, making broad statements questioning the intelligence of people at AFD discussions and using this forum incorrectly. As for what happens on Russian Misplaced Pages, that is their busines. I hope you have read @HyperAccelerated's comment as I think it sums this situation up nicely. Shrug02 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why should I be "reprimanded"? My comments about "people at AfD' were non-specific, while Bgsu98 directly accused me of lying. (In the Russian Misplaced Pages, he would be blocked for this "automatically".)
- As I have been pinged on this discussion I thought I would 1 confirm I did find @Moscow Connection to be somewhat rude and condescending in their repeated assertions that those who vote on these skating AFDs do not do any research and are basically sheep just voting delete and 2 most of these nominated bios are a few sentences or just a table of stats copy and pasted so @Liz I doubt anyone spent hours putting them together. Finally I feel @Moscow Connection is now looking to use any procedure they can to try and besmirch @Bgsu98 and derail their valid efforts to remove some of the seemingly thousands of sports bios that do not meet current Misplaced Pages guidelines and are of interest to few, if any, general reader. If anyone is in need of reprimand or sanction over this matter (which has been blown out of all proportion), it is @Moscow Connection Shrug02 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's my take, User:Bgsu98. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. Liz 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- C'mon, User:Bgsu98, civility goes both ways. We can discuss the value of these articles and the AFD process without attacking each other. Flinging mud doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. Liz 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let me help you out here, Moscow Connection. As it happens, Bgsu98 is a veteran editor with both tens of thousands of edits and a long history of editing skating articles. He is not, as you imply, some bomb thrower hellbent in laying waste to skating articles. Moving right along ...
(2) Your curious assertion that he was the first person to AfD no-longer-qualifying skating articles is inaccurate; I did so myself, right after the NSPORTS changes, and I recall several editors also doing so.
(3) The Bialas AfDs did not close as Keep, as you wrongly assert. They closed as "no consensus", with almost no participation and multiple relistings; that's exactly the kind of situation where renomination to seek an actual consensus is appropriate.
(4) Rules change on Misplaced Pages, by the bucketload. I have a hard time seeing what is "very unfair" about this, unless "very unfair" is a secret code for "I don't like it, so it's unfair." And ... seriously? You've been on Misplaced Pages for fifteen years, have over sixty thousand edits, have participated in nearly a hundred AfDs? I'd expect this level of confusion from a first-week newbie, not from an editor of your experience. Ravenswing 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- He only joined in 2021. I've looked at his "Pages Created" count, what he has been doing is creating pages for small figure skating events (for their yearly editions) since late 2023. That's hardly "a long history". --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- “Small figure skating events” like the National Championships of the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, and Italy; the Grand Prix series, including the Grand Prix Final; and the Challenger Series events? 1) Article Creation isn’t the only metric by which Misplaced Pages contributions can be measured, and 2) Referring to any of those events as “small” is ridiculous and insulting to all parties involved. I should have never even responded yesterday when three different administrators asserted that the original complaint was groundless. I’m done responding to this complainant. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- He only joined in 2021. I've looked at his "Pages Created" count, what he has been doing is creating pages for small figure skating events (for their yearly editions) since late 2023. That's hardly "a long history". --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given it is acknowledged that large numbers of articles on figure skaters do not meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria (
What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE.
), I’m not really seeing anything unexpected here. — - Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- As someone uninvolved in all of this, I’m reading that OP gets into a dispute about AfDs and then goes to ANI to make their grievances more visible to admins. Does OP not realize that admins are primarily responsible for moderating, closing, and relisting AfD discussions? Also, as someone else pointed above, this is a content dispute: it does not meet the standard for being urgent, chronic, or intractable. OP’s choice to insult another user by calling their behavior “crazy” multiple times is inappropriate and makes me believe that they might have just thrown a WP: BOOMERANG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- the bar for notability for skaters went up, someone came along and started nominating based on the new guidelines, and OP is upset. that seems to be the gist. i was not involved but didn't that happen in the porno biography area a few years ago? some change raised the bar so a lot of stuff was deleted. ValarianB (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do heavily advise slowing down on the nominations. There is not enough editors in the figure skating topic area to give the appropriate amount of time to search for sources for these articles. To be honest, I'm sure that a good number of ones that were closed as "delete" were actually notable but no one did any in-depth BEFORE search (many would not have coverage in English and the coverage would be in foreign newspaper archives). I asked the user yesterday about the extent of the BEFORE searches and only got "Yes, but not as much as some people like" – and then I asked what search was done for the most recent example, from a few hours prior, and they said they had no recollection (which is concerning IMO, to have no idea what searches you did for an article you nominated a few hours prior). Note that the AFD rationales are often really poor; many are simply
Non-notable figure skater
, which doesn't say much of anything. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I will slow down on nominations and focus on improving other aspects of the the FS articles, such as updating the infoboxes and tables to conform with our MOS. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- And @Moscow Connection, you can help by, when the nomination involves a person whose native language is written in non-Latin characters (e.g., Cyrillic or Hebrew), replying in the AfD with a link to the native language web search for that person to help establish the presence or absence of notability support. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- But there are 45 (!) articles nominated for deletion. I looked at the AfD page and understood that it was physically impossible to do anything. So I decided to bring this situation to the attention of the Misplaced Pages community. It is easy to create 1000 AfD nominations with the same rationale ("Non-notable figure skater"), but even these mere 45 AfD nominations utterly scared me and discouraged me from even looking at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating. (I really can't do anything. I have some other articles, the ones I created, that need attention. And I have long "to do" lists that wait for years to be taken care of.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The answer being, "So?" If neither the article creators nor anyone else has sought to provide proper sourcing for these articles -- the Ievleva article, for example, was created seventeen years ago -- then that just suggests no one's given enough of a damn to bother, and Misplaced Pages will survive these stubs' loss. It is not, nor ever has been, "physically impossible" to do anything about mass deletions; that's ridiculous. An AfD discussion is open for seven days, and it's easy to find adequate sources for an article ... certainly, in the cases of these Russian skaters, for a native speaker of Russian such as yourself. If you can't, the answer isn't that there's some flaw in the process or that Bgsu98 is pulling a fast one on us all. The answer is that the subjects are non-notable, and don't merit Misplaced Pages articles. Ravenswing 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The nominator has agreed to slow down, so the point is kind of moot, but I still wanted to make clear: Ravenswing, 45 AFDs rapidly is ridiculous, especially when next-to-no-BEFORE is done and there previously was no indication of stopping – remember that there's only a few editors in the topic area – and many of these, which are notable, require more than simple Google searches to find the coverage that demonstrates notability (i.e., for many, the coverage would be in places such as difficult-to-find offline newspapers in foreign languages) – making so many nominations rapidly without appropriate searches will inevitably result in some truly notable ones being deleted due to the lack of effort. While you may not care about the stubs, others do, and simply because the two editors who drive-by to the nom and say "Delete per above" didn't find coverage absolutely does not equate to the subject being confirmed non-notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The answer being, "So?" If neither the article creators nor anyone else has sought to provide proper sourcing for these articles -- the Ievleva article, for example, was created seventeen years ago -- then that just suggests no one's given enough of a damn to bother, and Misplaced Pages will survive these stubs' loss. It is not, nor ever has been, "physically impossible" to do anything about mass deletions; that's ridiculous. An AfD discussion is open for seven days, and it's easy to find adequate sources for an article ... certainly, in the cases of these Russian skaters, for a native speaker of Russian such as yourself. If you can't, the answer isn't that there's some flaw in the process or that Bgsu98 is pulling a fast one on us all. The answer is that the subjects are non-notable, and don't merit Misplaced Pages articles. Ravenswing 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, I have attempted to do something yesterday. I voted and commented on two nominations. ("Alexandra Ievleva" and "Viktoria Vasilieva".) Cause these two are Russian figure skaters, and I know they are famous enough. Immediately a user came and wholesale dismissed all the sources I found. I don't really want to play that game, it's too tiresome. I have found another source for Alexandra Ievleva just now. Let's see what the outcome will be.
But really, I can't do it anymore. Maybe if these were articles I created, I would invest into searching for sources. Now, I just tried a little bit and saw that some people really want to delete these articles for whatever reason. There are a few people actually searching for sources at some nominations, but mostly it's just that old "you go and provide third-party reliable sources independent of the subject, so I can look at them and dismiss them" game.
Okay, people will say I am the bad person here, but I have actually tried to save a couple of articles. I don't understand why people so eagerly want to delete articles than can actually be kept. (Okay, there are mostly interviews and short news about the figure skaters placing here and there or missing some events, but those sources are reliable enough. And one can actually take the sources into account and leave the articles be.)
By the way, I have tried searching on what was once Yandex News, but the news search doesn't work anymore. (Here's an example.) There's nothing prior to 2024 when Yandex sold its assets including the news engine. And I can remember when the list of news articles there went back to 2003 or so... --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- What I’m reading is that you don’t like how AfD works, and there hasn’t been any departure from normal processes. ANI is not the appropriate venue to discuss these issues. HyperAccelerated (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if this looks like a ramble. These were initially two or three separate replies. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- But there are 45 (!) articles nominated for deletion. I looked at the AfD page and understood that it was physically impossible to do anything. So I decided to bring this situation to the attention of the Misplaced Pages community. It is easy to create 1000 AfD nominations with the same rationale ("Non-notable figure skater"), but even these mere 45 AfD nominations utterly scared me and discouraged me from even looking at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating. (I really can't do anything. I have some other articles, the ones I created, that need attention. And I have long "to do" lists that wait for years to be taken care of.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- And @Moscow Connection, you can help by, when the nomination involves a person whose native language is written in non-Latin characters (e.g., Cyrillic or Hebrew), replying in the AfD with a link to the native language web search for that person to help establish the presence or absence of notability support. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will slow down on nominations and focus on improving other aspects of the the FS articles, such as updating the infoboxes and tables to conform with our MOS. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
...editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes
. Just curious if you or anyone else honestly believes that the opinions of these editors takes priority over the view held in the real world that six million articles falls substantially short of "the sum of all human knowledge". One such view published almost five years ago contained the following statement: "According to one estimate, the sum of human knowledge would require 104 million articles". I know some of you are in serious denial and will try to suppress this as a result, but I'm gonna keep saying it anyway. We don't have the sum of all human knowledge, nor are we trying to achieve it. At best, we're the sum of what Google and legacy media has spoon-fed you today within the past X number of years. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions (posted 00:37, January 9, 2025 UTC)
- RadioKAOS, I'm not going to argue about whose "view takes priority" in the area of the sum of human knowledge but in an AFD discussion, decisions are made by determining the consensus of the editors who bothered to show up and present compelling policy-based arguments. That is typically editors who are active on Misplaced Pages and have an opinion about an article, not any scholar coming up with estimates on the necessary number of articles we should have. How many AFDs do you participate in on a regular basis? And there is no one here that who will attempt to "suppress" your argument. As long as you are not personally attacking any editors, I think you are free to have whatever opinions you do have about this project. No penalty. Liz 03:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: The problem is that these editors who "bother to show up" don't equally represent the community. Maybe I'm wrong, but there are some people who are mainly active on AfD and who act as "gatekeepers".
A normal editor can easily not notice when a page is nominated for deletion, but the AfD regulars will come and vote "delete".
Also, I wonder how it happened that the NSKATE guidelines were changed so drastically. I think I have found a discussion about that but I am not sure. A user who was tired of people voting "keep per WP:NSPORT", proposed to get rid of the "Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports)" completely. And then there was a discussion with around 70 people attending. But for some reason at least some sports got spared the worst fate (or got out intact), while figure skating was "destroyed". Moreover, the Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports) revision history shows signs of edit warring. So it is just possible that the "deletionists" were the most active/agressive and they won. Some sports wikiprojects defended their sports, and some like WikiProject Figure skating weren't active at the time and didn't do anything. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Moscow Connection, I guess you can choose to call them "gatekeepers" but I consider them dedicated volunteers. The number of editors who participate in AFDs has declined for at least the past two years, so if you can think of a way to get more editors involved, or if you want to help out by spending, let's say, 10 hours a week evaluating articles and sources in AFD deletion discussions, your help would be welcomed. But don't criticize the editors who actually show up and help. Without them, we would only have the opinions of editors who nominate articles for deletion and I'm sure you wouldn't like it if all of those nominated articles were simpy deleted without any feedback at all from other editors. Liz 06:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not an AfD regular, and what happens there scares me. When I commented, people just bombarded me with "This is not a third-party reliable source independent of the subject", and it didn't look to me like they even knew what "third-party" was. (I could swear my source was third-party and reliable and independent, but they said it was not and bombarded me with some random links to the WP space.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I had a look at the AfDs you participated in and I think I can explain why there. In this AfD all the links you provided were to sports.ru - these are not independent because sports.ru is the website for the Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member. They thus don't demonstrate the subject has any independent coverage of their athletic career. I hope this helps. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You act like some people on AfD who dismiss sources "for the sake of dismissing". Why did even think it was a website for some "Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member"? It is just a sports news website (a sports portal) like any other. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- ru:Sports (сайт). Really, that's quite similar to what happens on AfD. I can go deep into Google Search, spend lots of time, but some people will just say "not third-party" or smth like this. Where do they see that and how do they come to their conclusions? It's a mystery to me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I had a look at the AfDs you participated in and I think I can explain why there. In this AfD all the links you provided were to sports.ru - these are not independent because sports.ru is the website for the Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member. They thus don't demonstrate the subject has any independent coverage of their athletic career. I hope this helps. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: The problem is that these editors who "bother to show up" don't equally represent the community. Maybe I'm wrong, but there are some people who are mainly active on AfD and who act as "gatekeepers".
- (nods) Heck, "some authority" came up with canards such as that we all ought to take 10,000 steps a day, drink eight glasses of water a day, and that our basal body temps are all 98.6. I likewise decline to bow before the suspect, threadbare wisdom of "one estimate" that we need 104,000,000 articles ... speaking of serious denial. (grins) Ravenswing 07:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Ravenswing:, why are you trying to "repulse" my attemps to save a couple of articles at AfD? First, you came here to defend Bgsu98. And then, you came to the two nominations where I commented, only to wholesale dismiss all the sources I found.
And when I found another source, you said that there were "3 sentences" while there were actually 7.
I've looked at your contributions, you don't look like someone who can read Russian or has any interest in figure skating. So why are you doing this? (Okay, you can have the articles, you won.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Please be careful with the WP:ASPERSIONS, Moscow Connection. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- My 2 cents. In my experience, Bgsu clearly does not conduct BEFORE searches (and seems proud of it), ignores actual coverage of the subjects (even when present in the articles), mass nominates batches of articles (50 in 30 minutes is a hilarious example), consistently fails to adhere to AGF, quickly re-nominates articles when the result is not to their liking, inaccurately summarizes examples of SIGCOV when they are provided in discussions, and tops it off by clearing their XfD logs. JTtheOG (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a significant number of evidence-free aspersions you're casting, would you like to evidence them? Incidentally, mass-nominating articles isn't necessarily an issue; I have done it in the past but I still examined each article before nominating them in one batch. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not wish to dig through hundreds of AfDs, no. Just providing what I've gathered in my experience. And I disagree that 50 AfDs in half an hour is not an issue.
- Here is one example of the types of responses you can expect to get when you provide SIGCOV in one of his discussions:
Nobody is going to add anything to this article. The same people pop up on these AFD's, squawk about how someone having their picture taken for their local newspaper qualifies as "significant coverage", and then the article is left in the same crappy condition it was when we started.
JTtheOG (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- And here is an example of the nom wholly ignoring GNG and insisting on using deprecated NSPORTS guidelines after SIGCOV was added to the article. Dozens and dozens of more examples. JTtheOG (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another example of ignoring SIGCOV already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: @Black Kite: 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 more examples, all within a week of eachother and many with SIGCOV already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here is an example from two days ago where they nominated a skater who finished top 4 at the World Championships because they assumed the sources in the article were the only sources available on the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK this AFD, coupled with the historical ones, is very concerning. I understand that not every editor is going to be able to find every source, but it appears that Bgsu98 does not even bother looking. I would support a topic ban from AFDs. GiantSnowman 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here and here is an example of four users expressing their concerns about BEFORE searches and their misunderstanding of notability policies. More recently, concerns were raised here and here, although bgsu deleted the latter from their talk page with the message
Stay off my talk page. You have some nerve using the term “good will” considering your appalling behavior.
JTtheOG (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- And here are More and more and more and more and more and more and more examples of nom ignoring the concept of GNG and/or entirely disregarding SIGCOV already present in the article. As Liz notes here, close to 100 articles were deleted through PROD before I was able to contest them. Many of these that I contested and were later kept in AfDs with clear GNG passes are present among the examples I've given. JTtheOG (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks - anything more recent than May 2024? GiantSnowman 22:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here is an example from two days ago where they nominated a skater who finished top 4 at the World Championships because they assumed the sources in the article were the only sources available on the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: @Black Kite: 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 more examples, all within a week of eachother and many with SIGCOV already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you could provide some examples of a) a number of nominations in a short period of time and b) several AFDs where the rationale is deeply flawed. GiantSnowman 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you go to 10 May 2024 here, you get exactly 50 nominations in 30 minutes. A good number of those were kept per AFDstats. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Great, thanks - see above, I think we need an AFD topic ban. GiantSnowman 22:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you go to 10 May 2024 here, you get exactly 50 nominations in 30 minutes. A good number of those were kept per AFDstats. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another example of ignoring SIGCOV already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- And here is an example of the nom wholly ignoring GNG and insisting on using deprecated NSPORTS guidelines after SIGCOV was added to the article. Dozens and dozens of more examples. JTtheOG (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a significant number of evidence-free aspersions you're casting, would you like to evidence them? Incidentally, mass-nominating articles isn't necessarily an issue; I have done it in the past but I still examined each article before nominating them in one batch. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- My 2 cents. In my experience, Bgsu clearly does not conduct BEFORE searches (and seems proud of it), ignores actual coverage of the subjects (even when present in the articles), mass nominates batches of articles (50 in 30 minutes is a hilarious example), consistently fails to adhere to AGF, quickly re-nominates articles when the result is not to their liking, inaccurately summarizes examples of SIGCOV when they are provided in discussions, and tops it off by clearing their XfD logs. JTtheOG (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, let's start with that I'm a frequent participant at ANI, and I no more "came here to defend" anyone than any other editor who's chimed in here. I dismissed those sources wholesale because I burned some time to look over each and every one of them (as did more than one editor), and found that not a single one of them provided the "significant coverage" in detail to the subjects that the GNG requires. As it happens, I have edited skating articles in the past -- you're not claiming to have truly gone through my whole twenty-year contribution history, are you?
So why am I doing this? Perhaps it's strange to you that anyone could act out of a dispassionate wish to uphold Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, instead of out of partisan motives, but you'll find that most ANI regulars do just that. Ravenswing 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please be careful with the WP:ASPERSIONS, Moscow Connection. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Ravenswing:, why are you trying to "repulse" my attemps to save a couple of articles at AfD? First, you came here to defend Bgsu98. And then, you came to the two nominations where I commented, only to wholesale dismiss all the sources I found.
- I've participated in a lot of these AfDs, I believe mostly !voting delete, and I've gotta say I am not happy to see it implied that AfD participants were blindly going along with Bgsu. I guarantee that I perform thorough searches on every single AfD I !vote it, especially these mass-noms with essentially no rationale. Bgsu's noms are, for better or worse, fairly accurate and generally result in the deletion of articles that should be deleted. However, I have seen several examples of incivility and assuming bad faith from this user (although I have experienced neither myself) and I agree that the sheer quantity of nominations does not promote a healthy level of community input. The individual noms are generally okay, but mass noms like this one I found today, tried participating in, and gave up on can be a little overwhelming. I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for. Toadspike 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did say a few days ago I wasn't going to engage in this discussion any further but since I keep getting notifications about it I figured I'd weigh in as the conversation seems to have gone in a totally different direction. As @Toadspike and others have pointed out I too am not happy that it is being implied that people who voted in these AFDs are blindly following @Bgsu98 without doing any independent research. I refuted this on the figure skating talk page when this all started and on this page. Also, as has been previously pointed out by other editors, this particular discussion began with @Moscow Connection basically not liking the rules on significant coverage and then coming to this forum to seek retribution against @Bgsu98. Now it seems that their improper use of this forum, ref bombing of articles and general complaining that they don't like something and how unfair it is in their opinion, may actually lead to them getting what they want. This sets a very poor precedent that if you don't like something on Misplaced Pages and you jump up and down and wail about it enough you can get your way. Yes @Bgsu98 probably nominates too many similar articles at one time but they have agreed to slow down now, and yes they have nominated articles for AFD that have then been kept because significant coverage was found, but they have also nominated a lot of articles which have not been found to have significant coverage and have subsequently been deleted following the due, consensus based procedure and closed as such by an admin. @Moscow Connection is already seeking to have articles which have been deleted following AFDs unilaterally reopened. If you now sanction @Bgsu98 we may as well just give Jimmy Wales a call and ask him to hand over Misplaced Pages to the whims and wants of @Moscow Connection Shrug02 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't asked anybody to give Misplaced Pages over to me. What do you mean by "unilaterally reopened"? If you are refering to me asking Star Mississippi to undelete the "Lilia Biktagirova" article, what's wrong with it? It was deleted without a proper Google search, and I have found some sources for her. Just look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova. At the very end, a user that goes by the name of Kvng, noticed:
No one in this discussion (including myself) has mentioned anything about searching for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG
, but that was all, no one did anything. You and another user seem to have claimed here that you do a proper search on every Bgsu98's nomination, but I don't see you on that AfD page.
You really sound like you think I'm doing something awful in my attempt to rescue an article. Come on, she's not someone terrible who wants to promote herself on Misplaced Pages or something. She's just a fairly famous figure skater. You don't need to defend Misplaced Pages from her. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - I've decided to save "Alexandra Ievleva" (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Ievleva) and I've already found a couple of dozen articles talking about her. Yes, maybe the others will say those are mostly interviews and the Women's Sport website is not good enough, but I have found lots and lots about her! I don't think you or Bgsu98 would be able to do that cause you don't read Russian and don't know how to search (I tried to add different additional key words, and every time I found something new). --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1 you don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what, 2 now you say I "don't know how to search" which is yet another unfounded suggestion that I don't make any effort before giving opinions on AFDs, 3 you don't know what searches were done on Lilia Biktagirova and neither do I, 4 I wasn't involved in that discussion and I try to focus more on adding to articles then deleting them, 5 my point was, and is, you don't like the rules so you have launched a campaign of complaining to try to get your way instead of going through the proper channels and seeking to get consensus to alter said rules. Frankly I'm tired of this and of you belittling everyone else as if you are the only person who knows what is right and are somehow able to read the minds and intentions of everyone else. Go ahead and, as you put it, "save" your Russian skaters. I genuinely hope you do and that the articles are filled with interesting and well-sourced information. That's the aim of Misplaced Pages to inform the population about things worth knowing. Shrug02 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "
You don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what
"
— What I do is called abductive reasoning. What you just did by claiming you can read Martian, I honestly don't know.
I've started this discussion because I saw the user's 45 nominations at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating and that scared me a lot. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- It's called ironic humour and, with everything going on in the world right now, if a Misplaced Pages AFD scared you a lot then you are obviously in the very fortunate position to have so few worries. Anyway I'm moving on to spend my time more productively. I sincerely wish you the best in your endeavours. Shrug02 (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "
- 1 you don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what, 2 now you say I "don't know how to search" which is yet another unfounded suggestion that I don't make any effort before giving opinions on AFDs, 3 you don't know what searches were done on Lilia Biktagirova and neither do I, 4 I wasn't involved in that discussion and I try to focus more on adding to articles then deleting them, 5 my point was, and is, you don't like the rules so you have launched a campaign of complaining to try to get your way instead of going through the proper channels and seeking to get consensus to alter said rules. Frankly I'm tired of this and of you belittling everyone else as if you are the only person who knows what is right and are somehow able to read the minds and intentions of everyone else. Go ahead and, as you put it, "save" your Russian skaters. I genuinely hope you do and that the articles are filled with interesting and well-sourced information. That's the aim of Misplaced Pages to inform the population about things worth knowing. Shrug02 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't asked anybody to give Misplaced Pages over to me. What do you mean by "unilaterally reopened"? If you are refering to me asking Star Mississippi to undelete the "Lilia Biktagirova" article, what's wrong with it? It was deleted without a proper Google search, and I have found some sources for her. Just look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova. At the very end, a user that goes by the name of Kvng, noticed:
- I appreciate your input and insight. As I told BeanieFan11 earlier, I promised to slow down on nominations, and in fact, I had decided that I wouldn't even entertain the idea of additional nominations until the ones already in the system work their way through.
I can also promise to strive to be more thorough in researching these potential nominations and provide more detailed rationales in the future. I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two! Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Sorry, Bgsu, I completely missed that you had committed to slowing down. I think that's a great idea that resolves the issue here. Just remember, when you get frustrated by other editors, do your best to stay polite – if you can't, simply step away from the keyboard for a moment. I don't want to see you get in trouble for one too many snarky comments. Toadspike 09:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- 20 nominations per day is 7300 per year. The limit should be more like 0. (And if it is decided to be 1 or something like that, Bgsu98 will have to demonstrate that he has searched for sources every time. I prefer 0, naturally.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- A limit of 0 is asinine, and I highly suggest you strike this comment. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, agreed - really not helping move away from the comments above the MC is here because they don't like AFD. GiantSnowman 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- A limit of 0 is asinine, and I highly suggest you strike this comment. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I do not know whether @Bgsu98 should be restricted from AfD as I haven't been able to go into the weeds on this, I disagree with
I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for.
@Toadspike. No editor should be nominating 20 articles per day. That's unsustainable for AfD participants, clerks or closers. We do not have the editor volume to assess that many nominations from one nominator. Star Mississippi 00:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- 20 per day is a lot, but given the numbers thrown around above (50 in 30 minutes) I figured it would be a massive improvement. But since Bgsu has committed to nominating far fewer articles with
Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two!
I suppose the whole discussion is moot. Toadspike 11:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- I don't think it's that easy. The question is who will check all the hundreds or thousands of his previous nominations. Definitely not me. (I've looked through several active ones, found some sources, commented here and there, and got very tired.)
As I have commented below, when problems were found with Sander.v.Ginkel's articles, he was told to go through all his articles and check them. (Actually, there was a user who volunteered to help, but that user was revealed to be Sander.v.Ginkel himself, cause no one in their right mind would have volunteered to check 40000 articles. I, personally, don't want to be a slave and don't want to check Bgsu98's past nominations, especially knowing how little effort he put into creating them and that I would have to spend years looking for sources.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- It's a volunteer project. Someone may choose to, as you did initially, or no one will. But unless they're salted, there's nothing prohibiting restoration to drafts if WP:SIRS can be found. We can fix going forward but can't always fix what happened before even when there's a collaborative effort. Star Mississippi 13:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it's that easy. The question is who will check all the hundreds or thousands of his previous nominations. Definitely not me. (I've looked through several active ones, found some sources, commented here and there, and got very tired.)
- 20 per day is a lot, but given the numbers thrown around above (50 in 30 minutes) I figured it would be a massive improvement. But since Bgsu has committed to nominating far fewer articles with
- I did say a few days ago I wasn't going to engage in this discussion any further but since I keep getting notifications about it I figured I'd weigh in as the conversation seems to have gone in a totally different direction. As @Toadspike and others have pointed out I too am not happy that it is being implied that people who voted in these AFDs are blindly following @Bgsu98 without doing any independent research. I refuted this on the figure skating talk page when this all started and on this page. Also, as has been previously pointed out by other editors, this particular discussion began with @Moscow Connection basically not liking the rules on significant coverage and then coming to this forum to seek retribution against @Bgsu98. Now it seems that their improper use of this forum, ref bombing of articles and general complaining that they don't like something and how unfair it is in their opinion, may actually lead to them getting what they want. This sets a very poor precedent that if you don't like something on Misplaced Pages and you jump up and down and wail about it enough you can get your way. Yes @Bgsu98 probably nominates too many similar articles at one time but they have agreed to slow down now, and yes they have nominated articles for AFD that have then been kept because significant coverage was found, but they have also nominated a lot of articles which have not been found to have significant coverage and have subsequently been deleted following the due, consensus based procedure and closed as such by an admin. @Moscow Connection is already seeking to have articles which have been deleted following AFDs unilaterally reopened. If you now sanction @Bgsu98 we may as well just give Jimmy Wales a call and ask him to hand over Misplaced Pages to the whims and wants of @Moscow Connection Shrug02 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Of note. User JTtheOG is canvassing apparent like-minded editors to this discussion, here and here. Zaathras (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are not like-minded actually. In fact, both had previously expressed they disagreed with my initial assertions, which I had not yet provided evidence for. I was notifying them of examples being provided here of previously unsubstantiated aspersions. JTtheOG (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- "As per previous discussions..." I love hearing that JTtheOG is having discussions about me with other users, but has never once attempted to communicate directly to me. (Snide comments in AFD's don't count as broaching conversation.) Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If even that's true, no none came. (No one of the whole two.) And Bgsu98 did the same by pinging his like-minded AfD colleague. (He pinged him immediately.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are not like-minded actually. In fact, both had previously expressed they disagreed with my initial assertions, which I had not yet provided evidence for. I was notifying them of examples being provided here of previously unsubstantiated aspersions. JTtheOG (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a fellow WP:FIGURE participant, and without having gone over the particular cases, I am normally a rather deletion-oriented editor but am an inclusionist for skating specifically as sources are not as online on this topic as usual, and often in foreign languages, so I am not usually in favor of deleting a skater's article unless we really do exhaust all possible sources of notability. I do request that @Bgsu98: convene a broader discussion over notability as I also do disagree with the current guidelines, but even without that a discussion is warranted. Even if a mass deletion is warranted, it should be handled in one mass AfD, not a gazillion separate ones.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I came across this randomly in my watchlist.. can I recommend everyone take a step back and focus on the issue at hand? Currently, WP:BEFORE states the following:
Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability: The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.
So, I'd ask @Moscow Connection: to please consider whether their views on BEFORE are in line with what it actually says. I appreciate that MC states many of these nominated articles are for non-English speaking and in some cases non-Western world skaters, and so it may not be possible to find many of the potential sources in an English language Google search.But MC, can you identify any deletion nominations for which there were sources that could be found in any of the following: a normal Google search, or a Google Books search, or a Google News search, or a Google News archive search? If you can identify such, please provide the deletion discussion, and a link or other method of showing us how you came across the sources on one of those searches. If you can't, then it sounds like your argument is more for expanding WP:BEFORE to require non-English language searches for non-English subjects. I take no strong view on whether it would be a good idea - I think that BEFORE should certainly recommend more far reaching searches for subjects who may not be satisfied by a Google search.. but required? Not everyone knows how to use other search engines, and they may not even know what terms to use (or be able to type them easily). And that doesn't even begin to touch the big problem with Google - Google results (if you're logged in, at least), are significantly based on your search history, and if you use Google Chrome browser (on mobile or PC), or the Android OS, they are also based on your usage of those platforms (such as websites visited, apps used, etc). So it's entirely possible that MC searching Google may see a result on the first page or two that someone else searching Google would not have seen on the first couple pages at all.Regardless, that's an argument/discussion to be had on another page (likely WP:VPP). Since this all seems to be a misconstruing of BEFORE by MC, and assuming everyone involved tones down the rhetoric, I'd recommend this move towards a reminder to MC that BEFORE, as it stands now, does not require anything beyond a Google (and Google News and Google Books) to be searched, and until that changes, the mere fact sources exist on other search engines does not constitute a violation of BEFORE unless there is evidence they would've been found through those search means. And I recommend that MC (or anyone, really) starts a discussion at the appropriate place if they think changes to BEFORE are necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- I read this and tried to search some names from AfD on Google Books. A search for Nicole Nönnig's name definitely returns something non-trivial: ("Nicole Nönnig kehrte allerdings nach kurzer Pause zurück . Mit Matthias Bleyer bildete sie ein Paar , das 2003 sogar internationale Wettbewerbe bestritt . Die Schlittschuhe haben Nicole und Matthias inzwischen jedoch an den Nagel ..."). --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll leave this to others to discuss, but this is the type of "evidence" you would be expected to produce to show that the user did not comply with BEFORE. That said, one instance of mention in a book does not meet WP:GNG, so unless you can show that there are multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that would've been found on a BEFORE, then it still doesn't mean that the user did not do a valid BEFORE. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the book: . (I've tried and tried, but I don't know how to add "bks" to the Google Books search URL.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- A search for "李宣潼" on Google News returned this article: and a couple more. The one I linked looks very solid, it is a full-fledged biography. (The AfD discussion is here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Li Xuantong. As usual, the rationale is:
Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements.
) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - And one more article → about Li Xuantong and her partner Wang Xinkang (also nominated for deletion by Bgsu98). It's like a print magazine article + interview, looks "massive". --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another example: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kim Yu-jae.
A simple Google News search for "김유재 2009" returns a lot. I didn't look too far, but I found two lengthy articles about her and her twin sister on the first page (, ) and voted "keep".
(I would also note that there are already some AfD regulars present in that discussion. But no one has googled her name.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - OMG, Bgsu98 nominated her sister for deletion, too: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kim Yu-seong. He nominated her on January 1, and no one has commented since. (Okay, I'll vote now and save her.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You do realize there’s a difference between an article about a person and the person themselves? You’re not saving anyone here. You are a volunteer Misplaced Pages editor, not a volunteer firefighter. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HyperAccelerated: Did it sound strange or silly? Sure, I understand the difference. But people do say "article's notability" when it's actually "the notability of an article's subject". I thought that an article and its subject are interchangeable in colloquial wikispeech. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You do realize there’s a difference between an article about a person and the person themselves? You’re not saving anyone here. You are a volunteer Misplaced Pages editor, not a volunteer firefighter. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll leave this to others to discuss, but this is the type of "evidence" you would be expected to produce to show that the user did not comply with BEFORE. That said, one instance of mention in a book does not meet WP:GNG, so unless you can show that there are multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that would've been found on a BEFORE, then it still doesn't mean that the user did not do a valid BEFORE. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I read this and tried to search some names from AfD on Google Books. A search for Nicole Nönnig's name definitely returns something non-trivial: ("Nicole Nönnig kehrte allerdings nach kurzer Pause zurück . Mit Matthias Bleyer bildete sie ein Paar , das 2003 sogar internationale Wettbewerbe bestritt . Die Schlittschuhe haben Nicole und Matthias inzwischen jedoch an den Nagel ..."). --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know the entire thing is a bit of a long read, but I would like to note that Bgsu98's tendency to make XFDs without any regard for GNG/BASIC - even for those where GNG/BASIC is met (1, 2, 3) - dates back to May 2022. In fact, last year I issued a warning on their talk page (which they then deleted) that this issue was creating more work for editors, but this is still continuing as of late. There seems to be an IDHT issue with WP:NOTBURO. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, trying to defuse the situation more. @Bgsu98: It appears that MC has been able to provide at least two examples for which there are multiple examples of potentially significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. And another user has identified at least 3 other AfDs in which sources were quickly found by other users. Yes, some of them (such as MC's examples) were found by Google searching the non-Latin alphabet version of the subject's name, but nothing in BEFORE suggests that searching only the subject's Latin name is appropriate. And it appears that these sources are all found with a quick Google search of the subject's name in the non-Latin script. Can you explain why you did not find these sources, or why, if you did find these sources, you did not identify them at the AfD discussion and/or did not consider them sufficient for GNG? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think of the limitations on nominating articles that User:Bgsu98 already stated they were willing to adopt? It's higher up in this discussion. Liz 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I spent a good 30-45 minutes reading this discussion before I made my first comment attempting to defuse this. I do not think that a voluntary restriction is going to be a good thing here, unless it is given the enforceability that a consensus here can give. I initially was concerned that EC was making this report with a poor understanding of BEFORE. But given that EC (and another editor) has/have now provided multiple examples of Google searches that show, at least at first glance, one or more sources that meet GNG for their related articles, I think there is ample evidence that Bgsu98 is violating BEFORE. I don't particularly care why they're violating BEFORE, but I would support waiting for their explanation regardless.If Bgsu98 is unable to provide any legitimate explanation for the at least 3 cases that have been identified now as having clear sources in the searches required by BEFORE, I would support a restriction on nominating articles for deletion in any way (PROD or AfD, or otherwise) since they cannot be trusted to follow BEFORE before they do so.All of that said, I think this should be moved to a subsection - starting with EC and Miraclepine's reports of specific cases. I stepped in as what you may call an inclusionist, thinking I'd be in support of sanctions immediately, but this is a complicated situation, and to be blunt, everything above my comment seems to have led nowhere. At the same time, I support giving Bgsu98 a chance to respond explaining why their BEFORE search was sufficient, before any sanctions are issued. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've provided some 20 examples as well. JTtheOG (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say: "Not before Bgsu98 goes through all his previous nominations and his PRODs and searches for sources for them." He probably deleted (okay, "nominated") hundreds of pages, he did enough damage and now should work on fixing it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not too helpful right now, man. No one can be forced to do anything. JTtheOG (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't propose to force anyone. But I have just came across a Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request and remembered how he was told to go through all the articles he had created and check/fix them before creating more. We have a similar situation here, I think. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Articles that should not have been deleted have been kept by consensus at AfD. This is how AfD works. They are in the exact same state that they were before they were nominated, perhaps even better by WP: HEY. No “damage” has occurred. Additionally, if you think an article has been deleted when it shouldn’t, it is your responsibility to bring your concerns to DRV. This does not change just because you made a thread at ANI. You do not get to pick and choose which policies apply to whom. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bgsu has already agreed to limit their nominations to a couple a day. This is a far stricter constraint than what could have probably been reached by consensus. What more do you want? For reasons I don’t understand, your response to this is “the limit should be more like 0” without any grounding in policy. As I see it, Bgsu is plainly negotiating in good faith, while your behavior is bordering on bullying. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HyperAccelerated has hit the nail on the head. This discussion should have been tossed immediately or at least closed down well before now. The early responses were that this was a content dispute not appropriate for ANI then the OP kept going with rapid fire posts and a few editors who appear to have a pre-existing axe to grind with @Bgsu98 revved it up into what it has become. As a side note it will be very interesting to see how the outstanding AFDs are adjudicated and by whom. Shrug02 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't propose to force anyone. But I have just came across a Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request and remembered how he was told to go through all the articles he had created and check/fix them before creating more. We have a similar situation here, I think. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not too helpful right now, man. No one can be forced to do anything. JTtheOG (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I spent a good 30-45 minutes reading this discussion before I made my first comment attempting to defuse this. I do not think that a voluntary restriction is going to be a good thing here, unless it is given the enforceability that a consensus here can give. I initially was concerned that EC was making this report with a poor understanding of BEFORE. But given that EC (and another editor) has/have now provided multiple examples of Google searches that show, at least at first glance, one or more sources that meet GNG for their related articles, I think there is ample evidence that Bgsu98 is violating BEFORE. I don't particularly care why they're violating BEFORE, but I would support waiting for their explanation regardless.If Bgsu98 is unable to provide any legitimate explanation for the at least 3 cases that have been identified now as having clear sources in the searches required by BEFORE, I would support a restriction on nominating articles for deletion in any way (PROD or AfD, or otherwise) since they cannot be trusted to follow BEFORE before they do so.All of that said, I think this should be moved to a subsection - starting with EC and Miraclepine's reports of specific cases. I stepped in as what you may call an inclusionist, thinking I'd be in support of sanctions immediately, but this is a complicated situation, and to be blunt, everything above my comment seems to have led nowhere. At the same time, I support giving Bgsu98 a chance to respond explaining why their BEFORE search was sufficient, before any sanctions are issued. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think of the limitations on nominating articles that User:Bgsu98 already stated they were willing to adopt? It's higher up in this discussion. Liz 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose any sanctions to Bgsu98. I did a spot-check of some of the more contentious AfDs and, honestly, the keep !votes did not provide a compelling argument to keep in any of those cases. As I mentioned to Moscow Connection above, for example, they provided six links to one of the subjects - and every single link was in the sports.ru domain which is not independent and does not establish notability for a Russian athlete. It's very unfortunate that so many editors here have expressed either distain for or fear of the AfD process, which is integral to the quality of this project and which I would heartily encourage more editors to participate in. And I can assure those people with misconceptions that many AfDs conclude with an article being kept or with no consensus - which is a de-facto keep. The sum of all human knowledge is a lofty goal. But one philosophical point I would ask extreme inclusionists to consider is that there is a difference between knowledge and data. AfD is a process whereby we distinguish between knowledge and data according to criteria - imperfect criteria surely but criteria - which we agreed to as participants in this project. We shouldn't be punishing a person for efficiently doing a hard job just because it's one that has a side-effect of upsetting people. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- In case it was not already clear I too Oppose sanctions against @Bgsu98. They should be given the chance to prove they will stick to their pledge to slow down on AFD nominations. Also sanctioning them will set a precedent for others who are unhappy with AFD proceeses and outcomes to seek similar sanctions against other nominators and could well have the effect of putting many people off participating in the process for fear of retribution when in fact it would be better if more people took part. Shrug02 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whereas I support some kind of restriction on the number of AFDs they can start per day. GiantSnowman 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I offered up self-imposed restrictions above, including the caveat that there would be no further skating nominations until the ones currently in the system work their way through. According to my log, my last nomination was January 7th. As more contentious AFD's can sometimes take up to a month to process, that should allow for sufficient time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, your log is regularly cleared, including your most recent nomination. JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once an AFD is settled, I remove it. What's the problem? The log shows active AFD's only. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, your log is regularly cleared, including your most recent nomination. JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I offered up self-imposed restrictions above, including the caveat that there would be no further skating nominations until the ones currently in the system work their way through. According to my log, my last nomination was January 7th. As more contentious AFD's can sometimes take up to a month to process, that should allow for sufficient time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whereas I support some kind of restriction on the number of AFDs they can start per day. GiantSnowman 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- In case it was not already clear I too Oppose sanctions against @Bgsu98. They should be given the chance to prove they will stick to their pledge to slow down on AFD nominations. Also sanctioning them will set a precedent for others who are unhappy with AFD proceeses and outcomes to seek similar sanctions against other nominators and could well have the effect of putting many people off participating in the process for fear of retribution when in fact it would be better if more people took part. Shrug02 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- How about Bgsu98 just agrees to not nominate more than, I don't know, two articles per day (based on their comment
I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two!
) and we end the discussion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- @BeanieFan11 I second this proposal. Shrug02 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- We should definitely end it. I'm not an admin but that seems more than fair. JTtheOG (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Two a day is fine by me. GiantSnowman 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- We should definitely end it. I'm not an admin but that seems more than fair. JTtheOG (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there should be a requirement for him to show some sources he has found. (In every nomination. If there aren't any, then a link to a Google search query can suffice.)
Cause I've seen him lately on some figure skater articles in my watchlist, and I don't see him adding any references ever. It looks like his edits are purely technical. (As well as his nominations.) He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content, just updates scores and changes the table formatting. (And nominates for deletion.)
Does he ever search the net? That's the question. Has it happened even once that he wanted to delete an article and then found a source for it, added the source and went away? --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- Wow. Mister "I would also like to note that I am polite" is again denigrating others' work, as if adding scores and formatting tables to meet Misplaced Pages's MOS is unimportant. "He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content." Yep, very polite. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- And, as I've said, one should also search in the skater's native language. And for Russian figure skaters, Google doesn't work, you need Yandex. (And Yandex is not good as a search engine, some effort is needed to find anything. The major sports websites have profiles for everyone, you need to find the needed profile and go from there. It sounds too complicated, but that's how it is.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, he doesn't appear to know how to use the Internet Archive. The Matthias Bleyer article had a good reference, I found it in the archive. His nomination (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matthias Bleyer) doesn't mention the reference, like if it doesn't exist. Maybe he didn't even look at the references section. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What I mean is that he should be required to show some sources he has found and to explain why these sources do not suffice. (After all, if he nominates an article, then obviously he doesn't find the coverage sufficient.)
There's always something. (Almost always.) But since he nominates mostly skaters who have finished their careers, the number of potential sources (news articles) found on the internet shouldn't be big. There are usually just a few. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BeanieFan11 I second this proposal. Shrug02 (talk) 21:20, 10 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)
- I noticed the concerns raised regarding edits made both from my account and an IP address, and I’d like to clarify that this was neither intentional nor malicious. I simply forgot to log into my account while making those edits.
- I apologize if this caused any confusion. My sole intention was to improve content related to Ukrainian history, a topic I am deeply passionate about.
- Regarding the delayed response to your messages, I sincerely apologize. I hadn’t noticed the notifications until recently, as I was unfamiliar with how Misplaced Pages’s messaging system works. Now that I understand it better, I’ll ensure to respond more promptly in the future.
- I truly appreciate the valuable work you do to maintain the quality and reliability of Misplaced Pages. I will make sure to contribute responsibly and stay logged in during my future edits. Smm380 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Another not here IP
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2601:18C:8183:D410:1D8C:39C9:DCEE:1166 (talk · contribs) is altering another users posts to insert political commentary ] as well as making PA's, with a clear statement they do not intend to stop ], and edit warring over it as well. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Now past 3rr reinsertion of their alteration of another users post. So its now vandalism. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
As well as this tit for tat report ]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- IP blocked for edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Heritage Foundation planning to doxx editors
Closing to prevent a split discussion. The most central discussion about this is currently held at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. —Alalch E. 22:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See current discussion on Heritage Foundation talkpage. Various sources are beginning to report on this, see , . It seems they plan to “identify and target Misplaced Pages editors abusing their position by analyzing text patterns, usernames, and technical data through data breach analysis, fingerprinting, HUMINT, and technical targeting,” and “engage curated sock puppet accounts to reveal patterns and provoke reactions, information disclosure,” and “push specific topics to expose more identity-related details.” An IP user on the discussion page says "they intend to add malicious links (sources) that will set cookies, grab your IP, and get tracking going for your device. This has likely already started. Be careful, there are lots of ways to hide where a link goes." Photos of Japan (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there's a far more productive discussion going on at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. BusterD (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- A friendly reminder: It's always a good time to review the strength and age of account passwords, plus consider two-factor verification. The world is constantly changing... BusterD (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Isn't doxing a federal/punishable offense in ten states (more or less), including DC? If they grab the information of or out a minor, that can easily be taken on as a form of harassment and won't end well. EF 17:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- No doubt the Trump adminstration will make pursuing such cases a high priority. EEng 22:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm unsure why this isn't a WMF issue, due to potential legal and safeguarding issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The WMF has been made aware. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Truffle457
Editor blocked indefinitely. Liz 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Truffle457 (talk · contribs)
"Murad I the ruler of the Ottoman Turks seems to have been a blasphemous person"
I don't even know what to call this. This user has few edits but most are like this. Beshogur (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a new user with only a single level I notice on their page. I've issued a level II caution for using talk pages as a forum and added a welcome template. If this persists, stronger measures may be needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Beshogur, I'd advise talking with an editor, through words, not templates, before filing a complaint at ANI. That's a general recommendation unless there is active vandalism going on. Liz 22:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- His comments are disturbing tbh. Beshogur (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The user's response to Ad Orientem's warning demonstrates that they have no insight into their misconduct and are WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Indeffed per WP:CIR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, by having a conversation, you discerned that CIR applied. Some communication, I think, is better than silence at least when you are trying to make sense of an unclear situation. Liz 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
YZ357980, second complaint
I have again reverted YZ357980's insertion of an image of dubious copyright; change of Somali Armed Forces native-name to an incorrect format; and violation of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG at Somali Armed Forces - see ] which had another editor fix the incorrect file format. I believe this editor is WP:NOTHERE and not willing to communicate and I would request administrator attention to this matter. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, that image has been on Commons since 2015 and was made by a different user. That said, YZ357980 continues to make these borderline disruptive edits and has never posted on an article talk page or a user talk page. I've pblocked them from articlespace until communication improves, as it is not optional. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1. Thankyou!! Much appreciated!!
- 2. Yes I was aware of the status of those images, but I repeatedly told YZ357980 that it was of borderline copyright and WP had to follow US copyright law. I have managed to get the equivalent Iraqi ones deleted; I will go after the Somali ones to try to get them deleted.
- 3. Someone (an anon IP) posted on his talkapage as if replying, see . Please feel free to reconsider your actions should you wish, but I continue to believe YZ357980 is NOTHERE. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given this which is clearly YZ not logged in, the block has been changed to full indef. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
My reverted edit at List of Famicom Disk System games
At worst, this deserves a {{minnow}}. This is, at heart, a content dispute, and Talk:List of Famicom Disk System games is the place to discuss it. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi
I added {{clear}} to the top of table of List of Famicom Disk System games to make the table use the whole horizontal space. I did it according to other list of video games articles and reception section of some video games articles to help the table list look better or not reception table to conflict with references (double column references more specifically).
However @NakhlaMan: reverted my edit and with a rude language called it "UGLIER" and calls it waste of too much space.
With my edit, it adds just a small space to the top of list heading but the table could be read easier and uses the whole available space. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this is the right place for this. Yes, the user could have been much nicer on their opinion, but this is too much of an escalation, too fast. I would advise commenting on their talk page, or on the page talk page. Cheers, Heart 04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
- Yes, their edit summary was mildly rude, but this is not actionable, please open a discussion on the article's talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Edit War in Korean clans of foreign origin
Ger2024 blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User: Ger2024
Ger2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ger2024 has been Misplaced Pages:Edit warring and violated WP:3RR (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly WP:NPOV despite my direct requests asking them to not engage in an edit war and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
- This report belongs at WP:ANEW. Heart 05:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
- Who posted this complaint, they didn't leave a signature which, to me, shows a lack of experience. They also didn't leave any diffs so it's impossible to judge if there were indeed reverts. And as HeartGlow states, this is more suitable for ANEW which focuses on edit-warring. Liz 08:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unclear if genuine question or rhetorical, but in case it's the former, it seems to be User:Sunnyediting99. (They have over 1000 edits and have been editing since 2022, but it appears they may be used to using the Reply tool, which might explain why they didn't think to ~~~~ since replying in that manner does that automatically? I think? ...Not trying to excuse it so much as I'm trying to understand it.) - Purplewowies (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I was a bit sleep deprived when I made, I'll go to WP:ANEW.
- And yea im way too used to the reply tool, i think i make these posts like once perhaps every few months so i got a bit rusty on this. Thanks! Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unclear if genuine question or rhetorical, but in case it's the former, it seems to be User:Sunnyediting99. (They have over 1000 edits and have been editing since 2022, but it appears they may be used to using the Reply tool, which might explain why they didn't think to ~~~~ since replying in that manner does that automatically? I think? ...Not trying to excuse it so much as I'm trying to understand it.) - Purplewowies (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Subtle vandalism by 8.40.247.4
Excellent report results in a two-year block. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 8.40.247.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Since early 2020, User:8.40.247.4 has consistently and subtly made edits that:
- minimize achievements and contributions of black people in American society
- obscure or soften wording about right-wing and far-right leanings of conservative figures
- promote fringe, racist, or pseudo-scientific theories
The IP generally attempts to disguise the edits by lying about changes made in the edit summary. Here is a list of problem edits in chronological order:
| Date | Page | Issue |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 2020 | McComb, Mississippi (diff) |
|
| May 31, 2020 | John Derbyshire (diff) |
|
| Jul 21, 2020 | Richard Hayne (diff) |
|
| Jul 28, 2020 | Louie Gohmert (diff) |
|
| Sep 24, 2020 | Back-to-Africa movement (diff) |
|
| Jan 14, 2021 | Virginia Dare (diff) |
|
| Apr 28, 2021 | Bret Stephens (diff) |
|
| June 25, 2021 | John Gabriel Stedman (diff) |
|
| Oct 7, 2021 | Appalachian music (diff) |
|
| Nov 27, 2021 | Steve Sailer (diff) |
|
| Jan 26, 2022 | Mongoloid (diff) |
|
| Jul 6, 2022 | Indian Mills, New Jersey (diff) |
|
| Feb 20, 2023 | Myth of meritocracy (diff) |
|
| Mar 26, 2023 | Millford Plantation (diff) |
|
| Jun 17, 2023 | John Birch Society (diff) |
|
| Jan 9, 2025 | Robert Gould Shaw (diff) |
|
| Jan 9, 2025 | Virginia Dare (diff) |
|
The IP doesn't make enough edits at a time for vandalism warnings to rise to level 4, and thus has never been blocked (which is why I'm reporting this here and not at WP:AIV). These groups of edits are also spaced out over months, so a different user warns the IP each time (eight times so far!). The user, unfamiliar with the IP's editing history, treats the old warnings as "expired" and simply issues another level 1 or 2 warning.
I believe this IP should be banned for a while. Unfortunately, there are probably many more like this one that haven't been caught yet. --Iiii I I I (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I spot checked these and yeah this is bad. Using false and misleading edit summaries to remove in most cases sourced descriptions to slant articles. spryde | talk 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ. Blocked for two years, since it looks like the IP is stable. charlotte 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Iiii I I I (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this discussion is a good example of providing all the infomation needed to the admins to make the decision. If only everyone who complained here did the same. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Iiii I I I (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ. Blocked for two years, since it looks like the IP is stable. charlotte 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Egl7, anti-Armenian behaviour
Egl7 indef'd for being here to argue instead of building an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Egl7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Egl7 clearly has bone to pick with Armenia, including dancing on the fine line of Armenian genocide denial, not to mention severe WP:CIR issues. As a Russian admin admit perfectly put it when they indeffed Egl7; "Since the participant clearly came to Misplaced Pages to fight, I have blocked him indefinitely, because with such edits one cannot expect constructiveness from him."
- Egl7 never tries to take responsibility for their actions, instead being upset and obsessing over that I didn't revert a random IP that added "Armenian" under "common languages" in an infobox almost two years ago , mentioning that 7 (!) times
- According to Egl7, having three things (out of 25) about Armenia on my userpage - being part of the WikiProject Armenia, being interested in the history of Greater Armenia, and opposing the denial of the Armenian genocide, means I support "Armenia's actions" , whatever that means. They never explained it despite being asked to, which leads me to the next thing.
- Here is this incredibly bizarre rant by Egl7 for me having stuff about Armenia on my userpage and not Azerbaijan, accusing me of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment and whatnot;
- Egl7 does not understand when someone is not interested in engaging in WP:FORUM whataboutism, instead resorting to WP:HARASS, first on my talk page , then an article talk page , then their own talk page . This random question about the Khojaly massacre appeared after I asked them if they denied the Armenian Genocide since they considered me having a userpage about it part of "supporting Armenia's actions". According to this well sourced Wiki section , the term "genocide" is a "fabrication" for the Khojaly massacre, which is "used to counter the narrative of the Armenian genocide."
- Dancing on the fine line of Armenian genocide denial, if not denying it
- Despite being blocked on the Russian Misplaced Pages for it, their first action here was trying the very same thing they were indeffed for ; changing "Nakhichevan" (Armenian spelling) to "Nakhichivan" (Azerbaijani spelling)
- I truly tried to have WP:GF despite their disruptive conduct and previous block, but this user is simply WP:NOTHERE. There also seems to be severe WP:CIR at hand, as they struggle understanding a lot of what I say, including even reading WP:RS, which I had to ask them to read 5 (!) times before I gave up. As seen in our long discussion , they also to struggle understand basic sentences/words, such as the difference between "official" and "common".
I'm not going to respond to Egl7 here unless an admin wants me to. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
HistoryofIran, anti-Azerbaijani behaviour
WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@HistoryofIran clearly has bone to pick with Azerbaijan, including reverting my good-faith work which includes correction of arrangement of the "Today is part of" infobox following the country, in which, at present, the largest part of the territory of the Nakhchivan Khanate is located. @HistoryofIran is reverting back changes, saying that my https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nakhichevan_Khanate&diff=prev&oldid=1268162595 edit is not an improvement without any real reason and without offering any argument. Also they are stating that there is a restriction according to Misplaced Pages:GS/AA, while ignoring edits of other users. I asked them many times to open a discussion so both sides could offer different proposals which in turn would lead to a consensus. In response all my requests were ignored. Also they have been accusing me of having conflicts with other users and countries while I have never noted or mentioned any and they have been impolite to me all the time, while i have never been impolite or rude to them. I want to say that I am blocked on ru.wikipedia, again, because of no real reason(They are vandalizing and projecting their actions onto me) and now i'm even worried that en.wikipedia will do the same to me.
They are also dancing on the fine line of denying Khojaly massacre, if not denying it.
Thank You. Egl7 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Boomerang this is a clearly retaliatory filing. I think Egl7 is WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Boomerang obvious retaliatory filling. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a non-EC editor, you should not be discussing Armenia/Azerbaijan issues at all except for making specific, constructive edit requests on the relevant talk pages. Once you received notice about the restriction, none of your related edits were in good faith, and all may be reverted without being considered edit warring. And quite frankly, the diffs that HistoryofIran has presented about your behavior don't look great. Your behavior on Russian Misplaced Pages doesn't affect your rights on English Misplaced Pages, but since you brought it up, I have to agree that you were there and now here more to fight than to edit a collaborative encyclopedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CoffeeCrumbs tell me, please, if there is a restriction why are everybody's edits are ignored except mine? You are not doing justice. Egl7 (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because the restriction is specific to people who do not have extended confirmed status. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- i know that i'm being picky and can sound like a snitch, don't get me wrong, but, at least, i'm editing from an account while other users are editing from random IPs. How is it possible for a random IP to have an extended confirmed status? Egl7 (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The person you created this obviously retaliatory report against is not an IP and does have EC status. The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not taking about @HistoryofIran here. Look up the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nakhichevan_Khanate&action=history. You can see that there are IPs, edits of which were ignored even if those edits have been done after the restriction had been set. This is what makes it unfair. By this logic my edits should've been ignored too. Egl7 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- No IP has edited the page in question in nearly a year. You are complaining about a non-issue. signed, Rosguill 16:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The restriction has been set much earlier than a year. Egl7 (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right, but at ANI we deal with
urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
The IP edits here are old news. Further, having now reviewed the page's last 5 years of history...out of 7 IP edits made, 5 were reverted almost immediately, 1 is arguably not covered by GS/AA (Special:Diff/1203058517), leaving exactly 1 edit that probably should have been reverted but wasn't (Special:Diff/1177447457, which added "Armenian language"). You'll notice upon minimal investigation, however, that HistoryofIran's most embattled edits to this page were to remove "Armenian language" from the article in July of 2023; it's rather disingenuous to accuse them of all people of turning a blind eye here. signed, Rosguill 16:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- This does not refute what I said above. Egl7 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are actually 2 or more of them. I guess it's his duty to support both sides and remove or add information which is or is not necessary. Egl7 (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're trying to say here at this point, but it also doesn't matter. HoI raised multiple valid concerns regarding the quality of your editing in an area that per our community guidelines, you should be intentionally avoiding. In response, you filed a retaliatory report and are now arguing technicalities that are tangential to the substance of HoI's initial report. The fact that you are arguing such trivial, irrelevant points is evidence against you in these proceedings. Your best course of action is to follow Simonm223's advice above. Failure to take that advice at this point is almost certain to end with you blocked. signed, Rosguill 16:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right, but at ANI we deal with
- The restriction has been set much earlier than a year. Egl7 (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- No IP has edited the page in question in nearly a year. You are complaining about a non-issue. signed, Rosguill 16:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident? Egl7 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not taking about @HistoryofIran here. Look up the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nakhichevan_Khanate&action=history. You can see that there are IPs, edits of which were ignored even if those edits have been done after the restriction had been set. This is what makes it unfair. By this logic my edits should've been ignored too. Egl7 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not. However, someone making an inappropriate edit without being caught does not make your inappropriate edits into appropriate ones. There have been many successful bank robberies in history, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to rob the bank next to my grocery store. You need to start focusing on how you conduct yourself, not on how others do, because right now, you appear to be headed towards a block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand you. But i want to note that no matter how successful are the robberies, a lengthy criminal investigation will be launched. In addition, i want to say that i wasn't aware of those edits before I did mine. Egl7 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You did receive a warning on your talk page. Your conduct issues are not limited to violating ECP. You would be wise to heed the advice given in this thread from Simonm223 and Rosguill. The community does not have much patience for nationalist editing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident? Egl7 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:GS/AA,
The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed
. That includes complaints about other editors. Which you should know already, as you have been repeatedly warned about GS/AA and should have read that page carefully. signed, Rosguill 16:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- So Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident, which in my case is "HistoryofIran, anti-Azerbaijani behaviour"? I am asking this because you said that "The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward". And still, what you said in this comment does not refute what I said above. Egl7 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:GS/AA,
- Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident? Egl7 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You did receive a warning on your talk page. Your conduct issues are not limited to violating ECP. You would be wise to heed the advice given in this thread from Simonm223 and Rosguill. The community does not have much patience for nationalist editing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand you. But i want to note that no matter how successful are the robberies, a lengthy criminal investigation will be launched. In addition, i want to say that i wasn't aware of those edits before I did mine. Egl7 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The person you created this obviously retaliatory report against is not an IP and does have EC status. The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- i know that i'm being picky and can sound like a snitch, don't get me wrong, but, at least, i'm editing from an account while other users are editing from random IPs. How is it possible for a random IP to have an extended confirmed status? Egl7 (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lists of everyone that has been sanctioned for GS/AA violations, or CT/AA violations more broadly, can be found at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Armenia_and_Azerbaijan#Individual_sanctions and further at WP:AELOG under each year's Armenia-Azerbaijan (CT/A-A) section. Note that this only lists people who repeatedly ignored warnings and got blocked for it, simple reverts are not logged. I would encourage you to avoid getting your own username added to that list. signed, Rosguill 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because the restriction is specific to people who do not have extended confirmed status. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CoffeeCrumbs tell me, please, if there is a restriction why are everybody's edits are ignored except mine? You are not doing justice. Egl7 (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- All I see is Egl7 doubling down. I have already tried to tell them that there was nothing wrong with the IP edit they are fixiated on, and that it doesn’t excuse their unconstructice edits regardless. The fact that they were caught red handed in genocide denial and anti-Armenian conduct and then fruitlessly attempts to make me appear as the same with Azerbaijanis by copy-pasting part of my report and replace “Armenian” with “Azerbaijani” says a lot about this user. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HistoryofIran "There was nothing wrong"
- As @Rosguill said 1 is arguably not covered by GS/AA (Special:Diff/1203058517), leaving exactly 1 edit that probably should have been reverted but wasn't (Special:Diff/1177447457, which added "Armenian language").
- As I understand you were aware or now are aware of those edits done by those IPs what tells me that you admit that you ignored or are ignoring the edits that have been done after the restriction has been set and now you are still stating that there was or is nothing wrong with those IPs' edits. Egl7 (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- And we're done here. If you can read my comments here close enough to try to use them to make tendentious arguments at HoI, you should be able to understand that I already told you this is not even slightly appropriate. signed, Rosguill 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I endorse this block. Cullen328 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- And we're done here. If you can read my comments here close enough to try to use them to make tendentious arguments at HoI, you should be able to understand that I already told you this is not even slightly appropriate. signed, Rosguill 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Yemen meh's unreferenced edits
I'm reporting @Yemen meh: for unreferenced edits. They've been told many times in the past to post references, and looking at their contributions page, they have done so many unreferenced edits in the last few days. Hotwiki (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, just few days ago - this happened. Hotwiki (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
IP hopper repeatedly adding unsourced and incorrect information to UK Rail articles
Discussion moved from WP:AIV to avoid cluttering up that noticeboard with discussion.
There is a user at the 27.55.xxx.xxx range that is repeatedly adding unsourced and invalid information to UK rail articles. The primary problem is the addition of a Maximum Speed to steam locomotives - steam locomotives in the UK did not really have a formal maximum speed, so this parameter is not used in these circumstances. As the user is hopping between IPs, it's proving nearly impossible to leave adequate warnings on talk pages, and as noted at AIV a rangeblock would affect a large number of innocent good faith users. Is there a way forward here, or is it a case of whack-a-mole?
Diffs:
- 27.55.93.62 (talk · contribs) -
- 27.55.83.83 (talk · contribs) - &
- 27.55.79.100 (talk · contribs) -
- 27.55.70.101 (talk · contribs) - , &
- 27.55.68.32 (talk · contribs) - .
Cheers, Danners430 (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seems the only answer is to continue playing w-a-m until our Thai friend gets bored. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've created an edit filter, Special:AbuseFilter/1335, to detect IPs in that range editing articles that contain {{infobox locomotive}}. I've set it just to log for the moment; let's see what it catches. — The Anome (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 78.135.166.12
78.135.166.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning & hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4 (addition of content not in pre-existing source, Pixar not mentioned), 5. Waxworker (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Persistent violation of established consensus on McLaren Driver Development Programme
OP has flounced. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
McLaren Driver Development Programme is one of many motorsport-related articles that includes sections listing which racing championships drivers have won. Historically, these sections have only included season-long racing series championships, not simply the winners of notable races. However, Thfeeder, MSport1005, and Road Atlanta Turn 5 have persistently tried to list winning the Macau Grand Prix as a "title." I have addressed this and explained the consensus multiple times, and repeatedly asked for them to return to the page to the consensus and start a discussion about changing that consensus, but all have refused and have insisted persisted with continually reverting the page. MSport1005 specifically has engaged in edit warring and personal attacks as well. All I am asking is that the page be reverted to consensus, without the one single race included as if it is a season-long championship, and then we can discuss why or why not to add it. All have refused. I don't think this ever needed to be escalated to the admins but literally everyone else involved has refused to have a simple discussion about this. I really don't understand their behavior. Personally I believe this change would significantly impact dozens of articles and would require larger discussions at the WikiProject level, but again, it does not seem like others are willing to have this discussion. Lazer-kitty (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: the relevant talk page discussion can be found here. No "personal attacks" were exchanged. Instead, Road Atlanta Turn 5 and I have tried to urge the user above to seek consensus peacefully instead of making threats and imposing their views. The user cites an "informal consensus" but has been unable to prove its existence.
- MSport1005 (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Lazer-kitty, this looks like a content dispute. The steps for resolving such disputes are listed at WP:DR. I think you would find it very difficult to pursue this dispute here, but first you would need diffs showing bad conduct by others, and your conduct would also be looked at. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Phil Bridger I mean, scroll up. The guy literally just attacked me and accused me of making threats and trying to impose my views, both of which are false. It was absolutely just a content dispute until they started behaving that way. Lazer-kitty (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lazer-kitty, your second comment at Talk:McLaren Driver Development Programme#Macau was
First off, apologize immediately for your insults above. These are completely uncalled for.
There were no insults and such a rapid escalation of aggression is inexplicable. Forced apologies are worthless. Then, you described this routine and mundane content dispute as "vandalism" even though you presented no evidence of deliberate intent toobstruct or defeat the project's purpose
, which is required for a valid accusation of vandalism. It looks to me like you are being far too aggressive here, and so I recommend that you adopt a more collaborative attitude. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- Yes, that comment was in response to
I kindly urge you to cut down your condescending tone and edit warring, or external measures could be taken.
You don't consider that insulting? I do. I was not being condescending, I sincerely tried my best to be polite, nor was I edit warring. Literally all I want to do is be collaborative and they all refuse. I have asked for collaboration numerous times! Lazer-kitty (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- No, that's not an insult. You're talking down to other editors, which can feel condescending to them. I strongly urge you to dial it back and engage in creating a new, solid consensus around this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that comment was in response to
- Lazer-kitty, your second comment at Talk:McLaren Driver Development Programme#Macau was
- Phil Bridger I mean, scroll up. The guy literally just attacked me and accused me of making threats and trying to impose my views, both of which are false. It was absolutely just a content dispute until they started behaving that way. Lazer-kitty (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reading through the talk page is pretty bizarre - Lazer-kitty is insisting their opinion is consenus against 3 editors who disagree with them. I know nothing about motorsport but to me this is evidence that consensus is against LK, not with them as they claim. I think this earns a trout for opening this filing, the misunderstanding of the concept of consensus, and for battleground behaviour - but there's nothing here that needs admin attention. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone involved for bullying off me this platform. Never in my life did I expect that 20 years of editing would end with being gaslit by multiple admins and editors. Really appreciate your efforts in killing this encyclopedia. My only hope is that one day someone forks Misplaced Pages into a new encyclopedia with competent oversight, i.e. people who can see through obvious trolling and bad faith actions, and who don't rely on aggressive tone policing to make their judgements. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) The filer appears to have vanished and retired. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- As multiple people have pointed out, you are seriously overreacting. Your behaviour is completely disproportionate to the content dispute you are involved in. You only have yourself to look at there. If this is how you react to people disagreeing with you, you are the one with a serious problem. Tvx1 20:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Engage01: ad hominem personal attacks and one against many
Engage01 (talk · contribs) has been arguing to include an incredibly lengthy quote in Palisades Fire (2025). Upon my removal of the quote and suggestion to bring it to the talk page, they've begun a large-scale argument that me and most other editors that disagree with the addition of the quote as lacking competence, not understanding quality, or one-word "wrong" replies. Consensus is clearly against them but instead of coming up with actual policy-based reasons for every other editor !voting in the poll they set up (all in favor of not having the quote) they've chose to accuse us of not understanding policy or not seeing that the individual in question is important in the matter enough to deserve a long quote. They haven't been around for long, and have gotten multiple warnings for personal attack-type language in the conversation. I've been asked by them to "remove myself from the conversation" and they suggested I was "learning while you edit" while not understanding WP:DUE. I don't have time to add any diffs (all the comments are still live) except for Special:Diff/1268631697, them blanking their talk page, and here a few minutes later, where they keep their argument at "I can't understand how editors can misapply "undue weight."". This could be a severe case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU with the blanking. I'm hoping whoever sees this can at least get them to cut out their personal attacks. Cheers. Departure– (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I thought I removed the quote first, but it was removed again by Departure. Nevertheless this user has made personal attacks on my User talk page as well. I posted two warnings here and here on their talk page but Engage01 just blanked them very quickly. I wish to WP:DROPTHESTICK but this user started a new section on my talk page (linked above) to argue about "undue weight" which is something I don't recall mentioning at all in this situation.
- I remember now. I moved the quote from the body of the article to inside the citation but I had a feeling that it was only a gradual stage before it would be fully removed by WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you for bringing this to the ANI. Kire1975 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've pblocked them for one week from the article and its talk page for disruptive editing, personal attacks, incivility, and bludgeoning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The method of engagement at that talk page is really poor. I've closed the section now that the editor has been p-blocked, no need to continue to sink time into it. Daniel (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know they're partially blocked from that page, but I went through their edit history and I found (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) different diffs of them adding the quote in question into the article (at least 7 of which were after it had been removed), and I think that constitutes edit warring. They never got notice for violating 3RR but they very clearly did. Maybe the block from the Palisades Fire should be extended or expanded? I've seen worse sanctions for less disruption. Departure– (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The method of engagement at that talk page is really poor. I've closed the section now that the editor has been p-blocked, no need to continue to sink time into it. Daniel (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Problems with Pipera
Pipera blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Pipera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I've listed some illustrative diffs below along with explanations where needed. I've tried to be concise but it's difficult at times to explain the issues. There are more problems I've got documented, but I tried to not overwhelm this filing.
I'm concerned that Pipera does not understand what wikipedia is for and what we do - their continual references to the fact that they are a descendant of the article subjects and that they know through their own research that historians or scholars are wrong, is a big problem and they have not taken explanations of what we do here (as opposed to a genealogical research site) on board. Their continual sourcing problems - removing sources, adding unsourced information, arguing that sites like WikiTree are reliable, arguing that they know better than the reliable sources, and, worst, the changing of sourced information to say something different than what the source actually says - all these are big red-flag issues. Explanations of how they have issues have been met with either no-engagement with the points raised or walls of text. I also have WP:CIR concerns as they seem unable to edit without formatting, grammar, and other issues.
As for a solution, I'm open to suggestions. A topic ban from medieval biographies would probably solve the current problem, but I'm not sure that will not just move the problem elsewhere. If someone would volunteer to mentor Pipera, that might work, but I've exhausted my good faith already in the last month, and it would need to be someone with a lot of patience, and I'm not sure the CIR issues won't just show up somewhere else.
- In a series of edits from 24 to 26 Dec 2024 at Ralph Basset Pipera changes sourced information to have it say something that the source does not quite say, adds information that is unrelated to the subject of the article, along with grammar issues. I pointed out the problems with these edits on the talk page here which got a series of replies that repeated parts of the article and frankly, I'm not sure what they meant to convey with it.
- In a series of edits on 31 Dec 2024 at Henry I of England, Pipera removes sources from sourced information, adds unsourced information, and generally mucks up the text and formatting. After being reverted by an editor and re-adding their edits, they post a long digression on the talk page. I documented the problems with their edits on the talk page, but they were never addressed.
- 2 Jan 2025 At William the Conqueror, Pipera adds a citation needed tag to an already cited sentence, one cited to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
- On 4 Jan 2025 at Enguerrand II, Count of Ponthieu, Pipera changes Enguerrand's offspring from a daughter to a daughter and son, removing the sourced statement that Enguerrand had no male offspring, and changing his brother and successor Guy into a son instead. This is done while keeping the three sources that previously supported Guy as a brother, not a son. One of the attached sources is Musset p. 104, which can be accessed at the Internet Archive it says "Guy I of Ponthieu is a well-known figure who inherited the county after the death in battle of his brother, Enguerrand II, in 1053" See talk page where a discussion about another source that supports Enguerrand as having no male offspring is dismissed as "There are a number of updated versions the work" but without substantiating such a claim.
- In a series of edits on 6 Jan 2025 at Sibyl of Falaise Pipera copies an earlier section of the article into a new place without removing it at the older location so that now the article repeats the section starting "Katherine Keats-Rohan argues instead...". This series of edits also adds unsourced information and removes sourced information. I reverted the edits with the statement "remove repetition and restore sources to information" but was re-reverted with the edit summary "Undid revision 1267745167 by Ealdgyth (talk) sorry this is my family tree and I know what was placed here is correct". There are further edits to this article here and then a discussion on the talk page about what they said was a "will" of William de Falaise actually turns out to be a charter. I pointed this out on the talk page, and that got a flurry of replies on the talk page just don't make any sense to me. Maybe they are upset that some historians might think Sibyl was illegitimate? They keep saying things like "They state Sybil of Falaise might have been yet another b######d." which took me a bit to realize that they were censoring "bastard". Note that the article still in places calls this charter a "will" and says that "In the charter of William de Falaise, he bequeaths everything to his wife Geva." However, Pipera at Talk:Sibyl of Falaise#Marriage and Issue claims to translate the charter and their translation says nothing about William bequeathing everything to his wife - it's a standard gift-charter giving some property to a church, with his wife mentioned as also giving the property along with William. This raises serious issues about Pipera's ability to read and understand sources and use them appropriately.
- In a series of edits ending on 6 Jan 2025 Pipera adds unsourced information as well as a long series of genealogical descents to an article about a 12th-century nobleman, much of the information is not really related to the subject of the article.
- On 7 Jan 2025 at Richard de Courcy Pipera changes sourced information without updating the source, removing the "probably" from "probably was the son", and making it a categorical statement that Richard was the son of Robert de Courcy.
- 7 Jan 2025 at William de Courcy (died c. 1114) Pipera removes sources from information and adds unsourced information. I reverted with an edit summary of "Restore sources to information, no need for this heading, and we do not need a list here" but was re-reverted with the edit summary "with all due respect we have this everywhere in Misplaced Pages, further it adds clarity to the entry. In my opinion. Further, added the name of Williams wife Avice to the entry BTW she is the daughter of the Earl of Skipton her mother is Cecily de Rumily they are my 23rd Great Grandparents". I then attempted to discuss at the talk page here but this has been ignored.
- 9/10 Jan 2025 at Talk:Sibyl of Falaise - I reply here to a comment of theirs. Pipera reverts it with an edit summary of "Do not delete my tak page responses", but I did not delete any of their responses, I merely replied. Two edits later, they delete a whole section they had started, including the replies that I had made to them, pointing out problems, violating WP:REDACT.
- I've tried to avoid bringing this here, but I've reached the point where I cannot keep dealing with Pipera (talk · contribs). They continue to add unsourced and unrelated information to articles, refuse to take on formatting advice, continue to assert that they know better than the reliable sources in articles, and continue to post walls of text on talk pages that do not help with collaborative editing.
- I've listed some illustrative diffs below along with explanations where needed. I've tried to be concise but it's difficult at times to explain the issues. There are more problems I've got documented, but I tried to not overwhelm this filing.
- I'm concerned that Pipera does not understand what wikipedia is for and what we do - their continual references to the fact that they are a descendant of the article subjects and that they know through their own research that historians or scholars are wrong, is a big problem and they have not taken explanations of what we do here (as opposed to a genealogical research site) on board. Their continual sourcing problems - removing sources, adding unsourced information, arguing that sites like WikiTree are reliable, arguing that they know better than the reliable sources, and, worst, the changing of sourced information to say something different than what the source actually says - all these are big red-flag issues. Explanations of how they have issues have been met with either no-engagement with the points raised or walls of text. I also have WP:CIR concerns as they seem unable to edit without formatting, grammar, and other issues.
- As for a solution, I'm open to suggestions. A topic ban from medieval biographies would probably solve the current problem, but I'm not sure that will not just move the problem elsewhere. If someone would volunteer to mentor Pipera, that might work, but I've exhausted my good faith already in the last month, and it would need to be someone with a lot of patience, and I'm not sure the CIR issues won't just show up somewhere else.
- In a series of edits from 24 to 26 Dec 2024 at Ralph Basset Pipera changes sourced information to have it say something that the source does not quite say, adds information that is unrelated to the subject of the article, along with grammar issues. I pointed out the problems with these edits on the talk page here which got a series of replies that repeated parts of the article and frankly, I'm not sure what they meant to convey with it.
- That ha been reolved,
- In a series of edits on 31 Dec 2024 at Henry I of England, Pipera removes sources from sourced information, adds unsourced information, and generally mucks up the text and formatting. After being reverted by an editor and re-adding their edits, they post a long digression on the talk page. I documented the problems with their edits on the talk page, but they were never addressed.
- The page dealing with his children has yet to be resolved.
- 2 Jan 2025 At William the Conqueror, Pipera adds a citation needed tag to an already cited sentence, one cited to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
- That has been resolved.
- On 4 Jan 2025 at Enguerrand II, Count of Ponthieu, Pipera changes Enguerrand's offspring from a daughter to a daughter and son, removing the sourced statement that Enguerrand had no male offspring, and changing his brother and successor Guy into a son instead. This is done while keeping the three sources that previously supported Guy as a brother, not a son. One of the attached sources is Musset p. 104, which can be accessed at the Internet Archive it says "Guy I of Ponthieu is a well-known figure who inherited the county after the death in battle of his brother, Enguerrand II, in 1053" See talk page where a discussion about another source that supports Enguerrand as having no male offspring is dismissed as "There are a number of updated versions the work" but without substantiating such a claim.
- In regard to this matter see: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Adelaide_of_Normandy#Comtes_de_Montreuil which no one has replied to.,
- In a series of edits on 6 Jan 2025 at Sibyl of Falaise Pipera copies an earlier section of the article into a new place without removing it at the older location so that now the article repeats the section starting "Katherine Keats-Rohan argues instead...". This series of edits also adds unsourced information and removes sourced information. I reverted the edits with the statement "remove repetition and restore sources to information" but was re-reverted with the edit summary "Undid revision 1267745167 by Ealdgyth (talk) sorry this is my family tree and I know what was placed here is correct". There are further edits to this article here and then a discussion on the talk page about what they said was a "will" of William de Falaise actually turns out to be a charter. I pointed this out on the talk page, and that got a flurry of replies on the talk page just don't make any sense to me. Maybe they are upset that some historians might think Sibyl was illegitimate? They keep saying things like "They state Sybil of Falaise might have been yet another b######d." which took me a bit to realize that they were censoring "bastard". Note that the article still in places calls this charter a "will" and says that "In the charter of William de Falaise, he bequeaths everything to his wife Geva." However, Pipera at Talk:Sibyl of Falaise#Marriage and Issue claims to translate the charter and their translation says nothing about William bequeathing everything to his wife - it's a standard gift-charter giving some property to a church, with his wife mentioned as also giving the property along with William. This raises serious issues about Pipera's ability to read and understand sources and use them appropriately.
- See: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sibyl_of_Falaise#Vague_history_of_Sybil_being_the_Niece_of_Henry_I_of_England. And https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sibyl_of_Falaise#Article_Concerns!
- In a series of edits ending on 6 Jan 2025 Pipera adds unsourced information as well as a long series of genealogical descents to an article about a 12th-century nobleman, much of the information is not really related to the subject of the article.
- On 7 Jan 2025 at Richard de Courcy Pipera changes sourced information without updating the source, removing the "probably" from "probably was the son", and making it a categorical statement that Richard was the son of Robert de Courcy.
- Richard was the son of Robert de Courcy, and his mother was named Herleva de Bernieres. His father was Balderic 'the Teuton' and an unnamed granddaughter of Geoffrey, Count of Eu . He was one of nine children bound by this relationship.
- He actually is his son.
- 7 Jan 2025 at William de Courcy (died c. 1114) Pipera removes sources from information and adds unsourced information. I reverted with an edit summary of "Restore sources to information, no need for this heading, and we do not need a list here" but was re-reverted with the edit summary "with all due respect we have this everywhere in Misplaced Pages, further it adds clarity to the entry. In my opinion. Further, added the name of Williams wife Avice to the entry BTW she is the daughter of the Earl of Skipton her mother is Cecily de Rumily they are my 23rd Great Grandparents". I then attempted to discuss at the talk page here but this has been ignored.
- 21:25, 7 January 2025 Pipera talk contribs 5,529 bytes +76 Undid revision 1268026529 by Ealdgyth (talk) with all due respect we have this everywhere in Misplaced Pages, further it adds clarity to the entry. In my opinion. Further, added the name of Williams wife Avice to the entry BTW she is the daughter of the Earl of Skipton her mother is Cecily de Rumily they are my 23rd Great Grandparents. undo Tag: Undo
- 9/10 Jan 2025 at Talk:Sibyl of Falaise - I reply here to a comment of theirs. Pipera reverts it with an edit summary of "Do not delete my tak page responses", but I did not delete any of their responses, I merely replied. Two edits later, they delete a whole section they had started, including the replies that I had made to them, pointing out problems, violating WP:REDACT.
- Proceedings by Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Publication date 1919
- https://archive.org/details/proceedings65some/page/8/mode/1up?q=Sibyl+
- * Eyton, in his Domesday Studies, styles this " an old legend (we can call it no more) of the Welsh Marches We cannot imagine how Henry I. could have such a niece as this Sibil ; nor can we say how Sibil de Falaise was related to William de Falaise, or why she or her descendants should have succeeded to any of his estates." Pipera (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support block
topic banpossibly per nom. I've been watching the complete palaver that is William Martin, 1st Baron Martin—"his daughter Joan of which I am a descendant"!—with askance. Their talk page comments are near incomprehensible, and malformed and they seem to delight in... misunderstanding. Repeatedly. If as Ealdgyth suggests, the TB proves insufficient, the this can be revisited, but in the meantime, it's worth a shot.I had an edit-confliuct posting this, due to Pipera posting above. And incidentally proving the actual point. The reply is bizarre; they seem to have duplicated wholesale Ealdgyth's original post. They are completely incapable of communicating in a manner that is not disruptive. SerialNumber54129 21:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changing my suggestion to a full block; their replies demonstrate they either don't understand what Misplaced Pages is for, and are unwilling to learn, or simply don't care. Either way, NOTHERE applies in spades. SerialNumber54129 21:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Talk:Henry I of England - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Henry_I_of_England Henry I of England
- In regard to this matter, I was restoring an earlier version of the article. listing the children legitimate, illegitimate and mistress to the children section of the article. it was not my work it was the work of others that came here circa 2006 -7 that placed this here, and it was removed.
- I added:
- Baldwin, Stewart (2002). The Henry Project: The Ancestors of King Henry II of England. The American Society of Genealogists.
- I was told that this was an unreliable source when the work is on the American Society of Genealogists website, Baldwin is a writer of historic books. He is a valid source of information, further his work in the reference section shows some of the sources that are in the Misplaced Pages articles.
- I was told that WikiTree is a user generate source, Misplaced Pages is also a user generated source.
- Additionally, I was told that Alison Weir was not acceptable in the article.
- == Using these within a Misplaced Pages Article ==
- Broken up into:
- There is no rule here stating that these cannot be used within any part of a Misplaced Pages entry.
- You also removed Alison Weir as a reference, explain to me why she was removed? Pipera (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regards Pipera (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Finally, other genealogical sites like WikiTree have attempted to place the children of Henry I in the right place and manner, in other incidents globally people are now adding Henry I as the father of Sybil de Falaise based on the article here at Misplaced Pages. She is not the niece of Henry I whichever way this is stated, in relation to William Martin https://en.wikipedia.org/William_Martin,_1st_Baron_Martin#References this has been resolved, and yet on my talk page I went into great detail about the usage of the tag in two other Misplaced Pages articles.
- Also, I am academically qualified to read source materials like:
- Robert of Torigni or Torigny (French: Robert de Torigni; c. 1110–1186), also known as Robert of the Mont (Latin: Robertus de Monte; French: Robert de Monte; also Robertus de Monte Sancti Michaelis, in reference to the abbey of Mont Saint-Michel), was a Norman monk, prior, and abbot. He is most remembered for his chronicles detailing English history of his era.
- https://entities.oclc.org/worldcat/entity/E39PBJxhgfHcDqQdqcGCG7gh73.html and Normannorum Ducum, Orderic Vitalis and William of Jumièges read their works and apply them to any historic context as I have in other genealogical sites as well as read Parish Registers in the 1500's and apply this to research.
- Pipera (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please block this person now, any admin who sees this. I have lost count of the number of Misplaced Pages policies which they are intent on ignoring, and if swift action isn't taken this discission will be longer than the rest of this page put together. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. --Kansas Bear 21:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because I came to Misplaced Pages to extend articles, add new information, rolled back and not one academic response. I have been given personal opinions of which I have taken on board. I have not gone into iny article with the intent to add incorrect information to the articles. I have been adding here since 2001, and decided to come into these articles to expand them. That is my intention to do so. In the case of Henry I of England I was adding to the Family and children section and added additional links I have not entered any other part of the article.
- In the case of Sybil of Falaise there is no way she can be Henry I of England nice as the records of his brothers and sisters state so. I have raised these concerns in the talk page, see Talk:Sibyl of Falaise - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sibyl_of_Falaise as I see it. Pipera (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please block this person now, any admin who sees this. I have lost count of the number of Misplaced Pages policies which they are intent on ignoring, and if swift action isn't taken this discission will be longer than the rest of this page put together. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They have been blocked. GiantSnowman 22:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I got here late. Thanks to Ealdgyth for bringing this issue here, and to all who participated. After an initial attempt at dealing with Pipera's disruptions and chaotic editing/communication pattern, I must admit I soon walked away. Thanks those with more patience than I for trying longer. Eric 22:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks to Ealdgyth for the thread. I participated sufficiently to see this was real problem, but didn't act decisively. BusterD (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
An IP who gave me a fake 4im warning
There was a IP address (177.76.41.247) who
- Called me blind in an edit summary after i reverted his edit
- trouted me and gave me a 4im warning
I think this is the appropriate place to take this report.
Thanks, Tenebre_Rosso_Sangue, ULTRAKILLing Vandals! Call for Medic! My Stats! 22:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, a 4im warning was certainly an overreaction and the edit summary could have been nicer, but your revert was obviously wrong. The IP has since self-reverted the warning. No admin action is needed here, but you should read IP edits more carefully before reverting them, and consider changing your distasteful signature. Spicy (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Distasteful? What do you mean? it is simply a videogame refrence to Ultrakill.
- And i did admit fault for the bad edit (and for my unnecessarily silly first response).
- Thanks, Tenebre_Rosso_Sangue, ULTRAKILLing Vandals! Call for Medic! My Stats! 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- However, @Spicy I was gonna change it due to me changing my username soon. So, in the meantime, i will change it. Tenebre_Rosso_Sangue, ULTRAKILLing Vandals! Call for Medic! My Stats! 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be great i you could remove all of the extraneous phrases and change it so that it is just your username and a link to your User talk page. Liz 00:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fail to see the need to jump all over Tenebre over their signature. There are a number of other editors and admins who have similarly goofy signatures and jumping down one editor's throat seems petty. Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be great i you could remove all of the extraneous phrases and change it so that it is just your username and a link to your User talk page. Liz 00:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- However, @Spicy I was gonna change it due to me changing my username soon. So, in the meantime, i will change it. Tenebre_Rosso_Sangue, ULTRAKILLing Vandals! Call for Medic! My Stats! 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Community block appeal by Drbogdan
Drbogdan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has asked for a review of their community block enacted as a result of a discussion here six months ago. Just FYI for context the original title of the section on their talk pages was "Request to restore editing per WP:STANDARD OFFER as suggested" and several users involved in the previous discussion were pinged, and a block review began there before I shut that down and informed them it needed to be done here, so there's going to be some volume of comments right away, in addition to the lengthy text of the request itself. Beeblebrox 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
CLOSING ANI CONCLUSIONS - MY (overdue perhaps) REPLIES Somewhat new to all of this (been busy in other wiki-areas over the years - see below), but seems it's been over 6 months since the start of my indev block (start date = July 6, 2024) - perhaps WP:STANDARD OFFER may now apply I would think - and hopefully, WP:AGF and WP:NPA (direct and/or indirect) apply here as well of course. Thanks. ::::I closed this quickly a few minutes ago since the latest comments have been fairly plain personal attacks, rather than discussing the substance of the complaint and appropriate action. It took me a while to organize my thoughts and copyedit myself - there's a lot to unpack here.
Thank you for your comments and conclusions. As before, I've been very busy recently with mostly real-world activities (but also with some earlier online activities - 1+2+3 and others) . Sorry for my delay in not responding earlier of course. Hopefully, my presentation here is appropriate and entirely ok (I'm really new to this wiki-area). ::::Here we have a science expert mass-adding content based on low-quality popular science churnalism to our science articles, expecting that other editors will review it and determine whether to improve or remove it, and a complaint from the editors who have been cleaning up after them supposedly for many years. This discussion can be summed up with a quote from the competence is required essay: "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up." We excuse this behaviour from very new editors who don't yet understand that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia with standards for inclusion and not a collection of links. The community expects an editor with 90,000 edits to understand what content should be in an article and what constitutes a reliable source, especially for an editor who is also a subject matter expert.
Mostly untrue claims. Certainly none intentional. As before, claims have been exaggerated (also noted by others Here and elsewhere) and/or interpretable (with no or few supporting diffs) (along with selection bias - ie, selected 10 or so articles out of hundreds of edited articles?) (source). Such claims, perhaps to seem more credible than they really may be, seem to have been presented under cover of apparent WP:POLICIES of one sort or another. In addition, the importance of WP:IAR, in some relevant instances, have been downplayed and/or dismissed outright. For one example of possible related contention, the very long-time (many years) List of rocks on Mars article, originally a very enriched (helpful/useful) version (seemingly at least), and justified by WP:IAR, is Here, but is currently (without discussion or WP: CONSENSUS) changed to a less helpful/useful article instead. Seems like WP:MOS rules may overrule WP:IAR? Seems so at the moment in this instance. At least until there's a better resolution of the issue through further discussion and WP:CONSENSUS I would think. In any case, lessons learned here of course. ::::Drbogdan's replies to deserved criticism in this thread have been dismissive of the problem at best, if not signalling that they believe their academic credentials excuse them from needing to improve. The community has historically rejected this approach, and rejects it here. Since Drbogdan seems not to understand that they are making a mess and seems uninterested in learning how not to continue making messes, the community's consensus is that Drbogdan is blocked indefinitely.
Not true. Never said or thought this. Ever. Not my way of thinking. I've always tried to be open to improvement. Seems the better road generally. After all, nobody's perfect. Everyone could benefit from improvement of one sort or another I would think. My academic (and related) credentials have been presented only to describe my qualifications to edit Misplaced Pages, which, I currently understand, may be ok. Please let me know if otherwise of course. Nonetheless, my current UserPage is Here. (My earlier UserPage, if interested, is Here). ::-- ::
::Separately from this close, I also *must say* that their habit - eccentric, maybe? - of hacking together *long run-on strings of comments* - interspersed - as they are - with *forced pause* breaks and sprinkled with self-aggrandizing - and off-topic, yes - links to their *achievements* makes it - as others have said here - quite frustrating to converse with them. All the worse that the vast majority of their comments of this sort do not substantively reply to the comments they are left in response to.
Not ever true in my edits of mainspace articles. May be somewhat true on some talk-pages only. In any case, lessons learned here as well. Any specific rules broken in my editing have been entirely unintentional. As far as I currently know, all edits that may have been of some issue earlier have been completely corrected some time ago. I currently know of no real rules broken that may not be a matter of unsettled opinion. If otherwise, please specify rules that may have been an issue (and related diffs of course), and suggested ways that I may further improve my related edits going forward. I expect to adjust accordingly (and appropriately) as needed at the first opportunity of course. Thanks. ::::I'm also going to leave links here to Misplaced Pages:Expert editors, Misplaced Pages:Relationships with academic editors, and Misplaced Pages:Expert retention. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 8:18 am, 6 July 2024, Saturday (6 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−8) Thanks again for all your comments and conclusions. I should note that I have numerous Wiki-contributions/edits, including Misplaced Pages (98,481 edits+306 articles+70 tiemplates+30 userboxes+2,494 images+and more); as well as many Wiki-contributions/edits to WikiCommons; WikiData; WikiQuotes; WikiSimple; WikiSpecies; Wiktionary; other Wikis and other related Wiki programs. ADD: Drbogdan (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (WP:BEBOLD) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Misplaced Pages are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "WP:BEBOLD" and "WP:IAR", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Misplaced Pages, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Misplaced Pages as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "fact-checking" on some online websites. Re any apparent copyvio: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way. Incidentally, I entirely agree that my earlier user page needs a version trimmed down to the very basics, and without any material whatsoover that may possibly be understood as promotional. I have no problem doing that of course. Seems I may have been too WP:BEBOLD with that (and related presentations, including those involving references and the like). In any case, thank you for reviewing my request here. I hope my replies (noted above) help in some way to restore my en-Misplaced Pages editing. Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Prior talk page discussion
| prior discussion copied from User talk:Drbogdan. Beeblebrox 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
|
Strong oppose: DrBogdan has never acknowledged their destructive editing tendencies or willingness to be overly promotional in weighting their contributions to wikipedia, a trait was has continued well into their CBAN with promotional-ish replies here (diff) and his edits to his userspace largely being to maintain promotional links. He continues above in lionizing the volume of his edit history without regard for quality and linking, inexplicably, his facebook, livejournal, and wordpress pages. I and other editors have spent a lot of time since their ban cleaning up the daily updates and image galleries added persistently to articles. Since his ban, I did more cleaning at Commons and this resulted in the deletion of 78 promotional images and selfies not contributing to the project. In this process I learned that Drbogdan has had a history of uploading images with copyright issues, as well. The meat of it, though, has been how he absolutely ruined entire science articles that have required complete rewrites to bring up to standard. I have maintained a list of this process since it’s very time consuming. So far I’ve had to rewrite (with help from others in places) Curiosity (Rover),List of rocks on Mars, Ingenuity (helicopter), Jezero (crater), Animal track, Bright spots on Ceres, and Aromatum Chaos, in addition to the cleanup done before his CBAN. All of these were victims of indiscriminate image galleries added to articles and daily updates on mission status. If we look at one I still haven’t gotten to, like Mount Sharp, it’s still an absolute mess of images smeared all over it. The intent of this list isn't to be any kind of gravedancing, but rather Drbogdan's major contributions have been so consistently low-quality that it's necessary to manually review every single article he's been heavily involved in to remove indiscriminate galleries. Drbogdan’s defence here and in the past has been a mix of the Shaggy defense and blaming my “persistence” at the ANI, despite my initial arguments at ANI being opposed to a ban. I think it’s pretty clear at this point that Drbogdan is motivated to edit, but unwilling to acknowledge any of the shortcomings in their editing process and I don’t actually see a planet in which their presence here is a positive given the timbre of this unban request. Especially considering it was so obviously going to be posted bang-on the six month mark. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (WP:BEBOLD) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Misplaced Pages are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "WP:BEBOLD" and "WP:IAR", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Misplaced Pages, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Misplaced Pages as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "fact-checking" on some online websites. Re any apparent copyvio: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way. Drbogdan (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
|
- Shouldn't this be on WP:AN, not WP:ANI? also, this is weird. This section, and this section only, has a pause between typing the "]]" at the end of links when I hit it fast. Not other sections on the page, and not the edit summary box either... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tech issue appears to start after the "Separately from this close" quote above. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I put the discussion here because this is where the block was decided. Seems like it should go back to the same place?
- I've had a really long couple of days but if there are still technical problems here tomorrow I'll look into it. Beeblebrox 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think unblock requests usually go on AN, but that's fair. And as a further note, the "delay" between the "]]" typing gets longer the further I go down the page when editing that section. Editing just this subsection, it's just fine, so there's something in that quote or just below it that is making Firefox go pear-shaped. It's very weird. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tech issue appears to start after the "Separately from this close" quote above. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Further Discussion of Community block appeal by Drbogdan
Any replies from Drbogdan to further comments here may be copied over. Beeblebrox 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not sure what that stream of consciousness is trying to say but it goes nowhere near addressing the issues resulting in the ban. DeCausa (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not seeing anything in the Wall of text that shows the editor understands why they were banned and how their behaviour needs to change. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I see nothing here that suggests Drbogdan understands the problem and is willing to take positive steps to avoid it. Rather the opposite. XOR'easter (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock request does not address the reason for their ban. And the content of the request just goes to show why the ban should be continued and why they are not of benefit to the community and are just wasting other editor's time. Canterbury Tail talk 01:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose fails to address the reason the ban was given, nor give any adequate assurances that the behavior that resulted in the ban will not be an issue going forward.Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: The standard offer requires that banned users promise to avoid engaging in the behaviors that led to their ban. I do not see any such promise in this unblock request, so this appeal should be struck down. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. The unblock request provides neither adequate specifics to convince me that the previous ban was improperly applied, nor any apology nor promise to do better regarding the behavior that led to the ban. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - The unblock request largely shows the same issues they were blocked for - self promo (links to facebook, wordpress and livejournal), not taking on community advice (all responses are "nuh-uh, not true"), and difficulties communicating (formatting is a mess and responses are only tangentially related to what they are quoting). Their defense is mainly "I never did anything that bad", not the required acknowledgement of the problem and indication of improval. In the unblock request they specificly use this version of the List of rocks on Mars article as an example of a good contribution - which has
The name Jazzy, for example, was taken from a girl named Jazzy who grew up in Grand Junction, Colorado, USA. Her father worked for NASA and contributed to the findings and naming of the rocks.
unsourced in the second paragraph. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Unconstructive editing by Wolverine X-eye
I am posting this here because, among other concerns of continued disruptive editing, I believe that this user's actions are impacting the quality and integrity of the GAN process. I’ve looked at this for long enough and tried to aid where possible, but it seems that @Wolverine XI is unwilling to change their behaviour on this website, hence why I saw fit to bring this here.
They have passed several articles through GAN over the past few months that exhibit many edits in a short period (numbering into the hundreds), often paired with unexplained removal of information. These absurdly high edit counts clog up page histories and are not exclusive to their GAN targets either, as can be seen in this three-month-old discussion on the user’s talk page from back when I first noticed this ‘unusual editing style’. Some examples from around this time follow below, although I should add that this editing pattern has not changed:
Wolverine has been asked multiple times to try and reduce their edit counts so that page histories remain useable, and despite saying they will, have refused to take any actual action in this regard. One can see this pattern repeated over and over on their contributions page.
Sadly, high edit counts with minimal change are the least of the issues present here. Most recently, Wolverine passed Fennec Fox, but after closing and reopening the GAN himself in the middle of an active (and not strictly positive) review by another user. A new review was started by another user within a few days, and while they did acknowledge the existence of the second review, nothing was done about its improper closing and only a few sentences were added to the article between the two reviews (which can be found here and here respectively)
In many places where editors don’t immediately agree with Wolverine, he turns to insults, personal attacks and otherwise inappropriate comments. A non-exhaustive list of examples follows below:
- Under ‘Your talk page’, accusing another editor of inappropriately handling a discussion with a minor (the other user was, in fact, not a minor). Example 1
- Fennec fox GAN Example 1, Example 2
- List of pholidotans merge proposal Example 1, Example 2
- Narwhal talk page Example 1
- Own talk page Example 1
The user has also shown an unwillingness to put effort into article improvement when requested in the review processes, and an unwillingness to put effort into finishing reviews they start. Again, a non-exhaustive list of examples can be found below.
- Own talk page, starting and then not finishing two GA reviews (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wolverine_X-eye/Archive_2#Inactivity_during_reviews) and drive-by nomination of the World War I article, a bit of a while back when compared to other examples in this case (6 months). https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wolverine_X-eye/Archive_2#Drive-by_nomination
- After being advised to do a thorough check on all the citations in the narwhal page (see the closing comments on review four, Wolverine opened a peer review for the article four days later stating that they ‘need to know where the article's source-to-text integrity is at’, indicating a fundamental lack of knowledge about the state of the article that he had, at this point, attempted to promote to FA four times in five months. In this same review, he also tried to get others to do a source review for him or make a peer review spot-check count in place of a spot-check at the next FAC.
I hope that a satisfactory conclusion can be reached, and thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Morrison Man (talk • contribs) 00:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't plan on getting involved in this, except to say that my October comment that you linked to is a follow up. The original is from June and can be found higher up on that archive page at User talk:Wolverine X-eye/Archive 2#GA nomination of Charles De Geer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, The Morrison Man, let me address this promptly. So your first paragraph talks about the high number of edits I make to GAN pages. Well, I don't necessarily see that as a problem because you're the only editor who has made complaints about this, and if I may, I'm by no means the only editor who exhibits such behavior, so it's not at all clear to me why you're targeting me on this. Now regarding the 3 articles you listed, those were the articles that you brought to my attention in that discussion, and since then I've not repeated the behavior. The Fennec Fox incident is not an issue IMO. The editor in the first GAN clearly stated that they think the article was not up to GA-standards and that I should re-nominate it. Seeing that they were new to GAN and that they happened to be inactive at the time, I decided to help them close the nomination as that was their intention, but they didn't seem to know how to follow through with that. In Example 1, I read the whole discussion and it was pretty clear the editor was a minor. Sure, the talk page owner happened to talk to two people, one a minor, the other not, but they clearly spent more time with the minor talking about irrelevant stuff that aren't wiki-related. The editor even admits that they were in fact talking to a minor. The Fennec fox GAN examples are not personal attacks. They're just criticism. There's a difference. About Pholidota: I got a bit heated after Elmidae insulted and made hostile comments towards me. Yeah, that was a pretty contentious discussion overall. The Narwhal talk page link is not a personal attack or a insult, rather it's simply telling the IP to leave me alone as they were annoying me with those pings. I wanted to be as blunt as possible. The last link is just me explaining to a new editor why I reverted their edit. I said I didn't want to have the conversation again because if you look through the archives, you'll see that we had that exact discussion, but with a different article, before. I didn't think it was gonna happen again, and I sure didn't want it to happen for a third time, so I let the user know. Your last part talks about me not putting effort in my nominations and reviews. Well, I'm not the only editor who struggles to finish reviews, and I'll admit that sometimes I bite off a little more than I can chew. I did finish one of those reviews though. I would also state that I've made over 30 reviews, and out of those 30, I failed to complete maybe six of them. World War I was a drive-by nom, I'll admit, didn't realize that at the time, but that's the only case where I've unwittingly made a drive-by nom, so...We reach the end of your comment, and regarding your remarks about the FAC situation, well all I can say is that I needed insurance before I made another nomination, as the last two noms failed for sourcing issues. I was not confident about my scanning of the article's sourcing, so I needed a source review to see if the sourcing issues were still evident. I did scan a large portion of the article's sourcing but I just needed that extra insurance. Yep, that should be it. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fennec fox edits are absolutey casting aspersions.
Is this all about the message I left on your friend's talk page? You don't do much reviewing and judging by this review you also don't seem to be an experienced reviewer. This review has been unfair and your judgment on multiple aspects are off by a long shot
is WP:ASPERSIONS. AlsoI decided to help them close the nomination as that was their intention, but they didn't seem to know how to follow through with that.
- you do not close your own GANs. If you start it, you do not close it. Full stop.The Narwhal talk page link is not a personal attack or a insult
- no, sorry, it is indeed a personal attack. WP:CIVIL is one of the Five Pillars, it is not optional and you seem to spend a lot of time tap-dancing on or over the line of it. I suggest you reconsider your approach in many areas to maintain a civil, collaborative environment. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- @The Bushranger: I made that comment based on a comment they made here. I also took into consideration the fact that they reviewed my GAN as their very first review less than 24 hours (if I'm not mistaken) after nomination. And so I'd say that's my evidence for the comment. I apologize if this is not enough. Regarding the Narwhal bit, I didn't intend to make the comment a personal aattack. I intended to make it clear to the IP that I didn't want them to annoy me with those pings. I could have handled the situation better, I agree. But what I found annoying was that they attacked me on the basis of a YouTube video that discusses how I wrongfully reverted the creator's edit, only to later realize my mistake, rectifying it accordingly. Nevertheless, I will definitely take your words above into consideration. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fennec fox edits are absolutey casting aspersions.
- Hi, The Morrison Man, let me address this promptly. So your first paragraph talks about the high number of edits I make to GAN pages. Well, I don't necessarily see that as a problem because you're the only editor who has made complaints about this, and if I may, I'm by no means the only editor who exhibits such behavior, so it's not at all clear to me why you're targeting me on this. Now regarding the 3 articles you listed, those were the articles that you brought to my attention in that discussion, and since then I've not repeated the behavior. The Fennec Fox incident is not an issue IMO. The editor in the first GAN clearly stated that they think the article was not up to GA-standards and that I should re-nominate it. Seeing that they were new to GAN and that they happened to be inactive at the time, I decided to help them close the nomination as that was their intention, but they didn't seem to know how to follow through with that. In Example 1, I read the whole discussion and it was pretty clear the editor was a minor. Sure, the talk page owner happened to talk to two people, one a minor, the other not, but they clearly spent more time with the minor talking about irrelevant stuff that aren't wiki-related. The editor even admits that they were in fact talking to a minor. The Fennec fox GAN examples are not personal attacks. They're just criticism. There's a difference. About Pholidota: I got a bit heated after Elmidae insulted and made hostile comments towards me. Yeah, that was a pretty contentious discussion overall. The Narwhal talk page link is not a personal attack or a insult, rather it's simply telling the IP to leave me alone as they were annoying me with those pings. I wanted to be as blunt as possible. The last link is just me explaining to a new editor why I reverted their edit. I said I didn't want to have the conversation again because if you look through the archives, you'll see that we had that exact discussion, but with a different article, before. I didn't think it was gonna happen again, and I sure didn't want it to happen for a third time, so I let the user know. Your last part talks about me not putting effort in my nominations and reviews. Well, I'm not the only editor who struggles to finish reviews, and I'll admit that sometimes I bite off a little more than I can chew. I did finish one of those reviews though. I would also state that I've made over 30 reviews, and out of those 30, I failed to complete maybe six of them. World War I was a drive-by nom, I'll admit, didn't realize that at the time, but that's the only case where I've unwittingly made a drive-by nom, so...We reach the end of your comment, and regarding your remarks about the FAC situation, well all I can say is that I needed insurance before I made another nomination, as the last two noms failed for sourcing issues. I was not confident about my scanning of the article's sourcing, so I needed a source review to see if the sourcing issues were still evident. I did scan a large portion of the article's sourcing but I just needed that extra insurance. Yep, that should be it. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
KirillMarasin promoting medical treatments and "conversion therapy"
KirillMarasin (talk · contribs)
I think we have two related problems with KirillMarasin. First up, he promotes and seeks to legitimise the pseudo-medical practice of "conversion therapy" (diff1, diff2, diff3 Yes, that really is a medical claim being sourced to Reddit!) and secondly he adds medical claims to other articles which are either unreferenced or which are improperly referenced to sites selling supplements (diff5, diff6, diff7 and diff8). Attempts by multiple editors to warn him have been unavailing and I read this as both a personal attack and a highly offensive suggestion that I practice "conversion therapy" on myself. Beyond that, this is a clear and sustained case of WP:POV and WP:IDHT. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if my edits are not high-quality, the article on conversion therapy has a lot of gaslighting, saying time and time again there are no treatments, when the opposite is true. KirillMarasin (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not according to science baaed RS which is all that matters from Misplaced Pages's PoV Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is RS? KirillMarasin (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good question! You were supposed to know that in order to edit Misplaced Pages. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is RS? KirillMarasin (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not only are your edits not of high-quality, at least two of your sources are garbage, and you're edit warring at that article as well. You need to step away from that article. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why would you even consider 4Chan to be a legitimate source for anything, let alone a science/medicine-based topic? That, in of itself, is a major issue. King Lobclaw (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not according to science baaed RS which is all that matters from Misplaced Pages's PoV Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just looking at the three conversion therapy edits mentioned by DanielRigal, this one makes a medical claim without citing any sources at all and this one cites reddit and 4chan for medical claims. Finally, this one cites a paper in the Journal of Neurosurgery for the claim that
some methods of conversion therapy were working
. The paper in question in fact says thatwhile Heath claimed that the patient had a full recovery and engaged exclusively in heterosexual activities, other sources argued that the patient continued to have homosexual relationships
. Any of these diffs on their own would be totally unacceptable. Additionally, a glance at Special:History/Conversion therapy shows that KirillMarasin not only added these claims once, but reinstated them after their removal was adequately explained. e.g. here they add the "some methods of conversion therapy were working" claim, here the addition is reverted with the edit summary explaining that the source does not support the addition, here KirillMarasin reinserts the text with the edit summaryIt doesn't need deleting, I'll try to edit it to better reflect the article.
When somebody reverts an edit because it contradicts the cited source, you need to fix that error before reinstating it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would a WP:TOPICBAN on WP:GENSEX prevent further inappropriate editing? Note this is a question, I'm not familiar with WP:GENSEX and it may very well not have any bearing or may be the wrong approach here. --Yamla (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there's a CIR issue as well. The slipping of sources from 4chan into a contentious topic seems either like overt trolling or a serious lack of understanding of sources.King Lobclaw (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd still like to WP:AGF, even though I'm beginning to have my doubts. I think this is a CIR issue first and foremost, with a mixture of POV-pushing and lack of understanding of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Since they are here, and reading this page, and haven't edited since they started following this conversation, I think @KirillMarasin: should read those policies first, before they attempt to edit again. If they continue with their current editing pattern, though, a WP:TOPICBAN would be entirely appropriate. — The Anome (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not all of the problem edits have been WP:GENSEX; the ones listed by the OP aa diffs 5 through 8 are on sexual health matters not under that GENSEX guideline. A more general medical topic ban, widely construed, may be more appropriate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there's a CIR issue as well. The slipping of sources from 4chan into a contentious topic seems either like overt trolling or a serious lack of understanding of sources.King Lobclaw (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
KirillMarasin (talk · contribs) has been here for more than a decade. It's hard to believe that suddenly, he doesn't know that 4Chan isn't a usable source - and in a topic like this, too. Signs are pointing to NOTHERE. King Lobclaw (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
History of disruptive COI editing
I didn't wanted to go through this, but I'm done being patient. There appears to be a long history of disruptive COI editing by Armandogoa on his father's article Carlos Alvares Ferreira. He usually edits this page after every few months or so, and seems to add unreferenced content as per his latest edit done on the page here . I had many of his edits reverted myself.
I also did place a COI warning on his talk page over a year ago . But he seems to not understand it this way. His father is an active politician, and considering our WP:BLP policies, I think this editor should be blocked to prevent any other controversial or peacock material added in the future. Rejoy(talk) 07:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive Sumeshmeo
Sumeshmeo has got 5 warnings together from December 2024 till now, to stop changing content without a reliable source but continues to do so ignoring and being non-responsive to warnings. Sumeshmeo got 3 same warnings in 2023. I do not think that Sumeshmeo is here to improve Misplaced Pages pages. RangersRus (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- In future, it helps if you provide diffs when making a report so people are better able to assess it. Having looked at Sumesheo's contribs, here is a recent egregious example where not only do they change the text of the article, they also change the title of the source cited so it appears to support that claim (and break the url in the process). In fact as far as I can tell, every single edit they have made so far this month is to increase the claimed gross takings of a film, without ever providing a source or explanation, in most cases explicitly contradicting the existing cited source. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Uncivil behavior
@Jasper Deng: has been continually bludgeoning a conversation about a page rename, casting unsupported aspersions, acting uncivilly, and biting newcomers (me).
Teahouse
During a lively discussion about a page rename, it occurred to me that I might be able to improve this encyclopedia by starting a conversations that could POTENTIALLY lead to future guidance or policy regarding how to name natural disaster articles. So I went to the teahouse to ask how I can start a conversation about that.
They followed me to the teahouse and:
- Bludgeoned me
- casted aspersions
it is frowned upon to post about an ongoing decision making discussion elsewhere (unless it is to raise serious misconduct concerns) as it could be considered WP:CANVASSING, particularly when the incipient consensus is leaning against your position
You'll note that my post in the teahouse was asking how to start a conversation about potential future policy improvements, not at all about the ongoing conversation. And even if it were, the practice is quite common on noticeboards, why would it be any different in the teahouse such that it would be WP:CANVASSING?
In the process they said Don't overthink this
to me.
To which I replied Please do not patronize me by suggesting I am overthinking this, and please don't WP:BLUDGEON me by responding to every comment I've made to someone else regarding this.
- They then willfully disrespected me by again saying in part
I'm afraid you are overthinking it
- tried to intimidate me because of their number of edits and made continued, unsupported, exaggerated claims of misconduct against me
Don't cast the WP:ASPERSION of "willful disrespect".
Talk page
Back on the talk page, they:
- Once again bludgeoned the process by replying to my vote
- Accused me of moving the goalposts
- Bludgeoned another editor as well
- Collapsed their bludgeoning with a close note that they agree (with themself?) that their comments were
more than necessary after taking a second look
Just recently I noticed they continued to reply to others' votes that went against their POV
So I warned them to stop bludgeoning on their talk page
Rather than replying, they deleted it from their talk page. In the edit note, they:
- Again tried to intimidate me because of their status as an experienced editor
As someone who is still rather inexperienced you should not be attempting to warn experienced editors like me.
- Cast aspersions and threatened me with a block
Your comment here is grossly uncivil and if you ever comment like this again you will be the one considered for a block.
They then left a message on my talk page:
- Casting aspersions and threatening me with a block again
Posting that WP:SHOUTING on my talk page is grossly uncivil and unwarranted and will get you blocked the next time you do that.
- And again attempted to intimidate me because of their status as an experienced editor
But you are in absolutely no position to attempt to enjoin me from further participation in that process. You do not understand the policies and guidelines you're trying to warn me about; don't pretend that you do (especially with respect to WP:OWN).
- And again, cast more unsupported aspersions in an uncivil manner
Coming to my talk page unprompted and without the other user's involvement is crossing the line to you harassing me. Cut it out.
This has been an upsetting experience for me. Perhaps I am too sensitive to edit on wikipedia.Delectopierre (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- After leaving making this post, I noticed @Jasper Deng also left a comment about me, casting even more aspersions in a thread I started on @Cullen328's talk page that had absolutely nothing to do with @Jasper Deng:
This user needs mentorship as they are flying too close to the sun. The comment I just removed from my talk page and the one I left them at User talk:Delectopierre#Stop suggests that I am not the most effective one to convey that to them. My participation in the RM isn't that unusual and I consider their comments highly condescending and, now, aggressive to the point that I will want to see them blocked if they do it again.
Delectopierre (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- Both users are right: Jasper Deng when they say, "I am not the most effective one to convey that to them", and Delectopierre when saying, "Perhaps I am too sensitive". Phil Bridger (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- My impression, based on this brouhaha: you are easily offended, but at the same time keen to tell off others. Bad combination. While Jasper Deng dislikes being harrangued on his talk page, but at the same time tacks unrelated complaints about you onto conversations not involving him. Bad combination. From the unassailable heights of my own moral perfection, I suggest you both simmer down and get back to editing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Review of an article deletion
The correct venue for this is WP:DRV. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I will like to request a review on the deletion of the article on Prisca Abah Theirson (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Category: