| Revision as of 08:24, 10 November 2006 editMasamage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,788 edits →[]← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:22, 7 January 2025 edit undoBusterD (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,869 edits →The actual content that led to this dispute: stress | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}} | |||
| {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}} | |||
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| <!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --> | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| <!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. --> | |||
| |maxarchivesize =800K | |||
| <!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --> | |||
| |counter = 1175 | |||
| |algo = old(72h) | |||
| <!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-2 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive145--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | |||
| |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | |||
| ==]== | |||
| |headerlevel=2 | |||
| Personal attack only account. See also // ] 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{stack end}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{user5|StevenCrum}} uses his user page to publish his original research on the falsehood of the relativity theory and related subjects. Furthermore, he also posted his claims of falsehood on the talk pages of these articles. To top it off, he submitted ] for a GA review on the grounds that the math in that article was wrong, whereas it can be easily shown that his own theory is false. I've reminded him not to use his user page to campaign against relativity and related subjects per ], but that was dismissed by him. ] 17:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Someone to watch. He seems content to restrict his activities to talk pages for the time being, and despite some belligerance, doesn't seem to be causing too much trouble. I would encourage the GA people to speedily close the review of special relativity, as he opened it on invalid grounds. Actually, I see that it has already been archived – good! –] 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::For what its worth he put ] on GA review twice. The second time almost imediatly after the first was closed. I warned him about ] on his talk page. --] (]) 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :BTW, he now claims to have the cure for cancer. ] 03:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::He just posted an extremely long winded response which basically concludes with saying that we're all vandals intruding on his private space, and that he's going to ignore anything we say from now on. ] perhaps? -- ] <small>(])</small> 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've nominated it. It seems this user will not listen to reason. ] 16:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' <!-- from Template:Debate top--> | |||
| Homey's latest account seems to be blocked, and no one seems to be willing to unblock him. Due to topic drift (see below) I'm slapping the closed sign on this debate. OK? ] 05:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Homeontherange Again == | |||
| This posting, "Yes, but his deliberate attempts to stir up conflict on the talk page are far from benign, in fact like Homeontherange's previous edits, they reak of malice" is an unacceptable personal attack. While he certainly is a critic of Israeli policies and practices, saying that his edits "reek of malice" is malicious itself. Please reconsider the tone of your response. By the way, you are certainly correct regarding his identity, but he is currently in negotiations with Jimbo, SlimVirgin, and myself regarding the terms of his participation. He is not under any ban, other than his own voluntary restrictions at the present time. ] 13:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry but I don't think that my comment qualifies as a personal attack any more than you referring to it as malicious is. Notice that I said his actions reeked of malice, not his person.- ] | ] 20:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::A distinction without a difference. You cannot continue to attack him without suffering serious consequences. ] 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually there is a difference, and please do not threaten me, it is quite uncalled for. There is really nothing in the ] which states that I did anything that inappropriate. As I said before, if you could say that I made a personal attack then it would be much easier to say that you made one against me.- ] | ] 20:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''Copied from ]'' | |||
| As far as a lot of people are concerned Homey is under a community ban unless Jimbo says otherwise, and I find it difficult to disagree with them. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *(As far as the facts are concerned, Homey is not under a hard ban and never has been.) ] 02:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That was before he showed up with his disruptive Farnsworth sock, and his more recent disruptive edits. The facts are different now. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, as one of the cosigners of an RfAr against Homey, I'm concerned that it just sort of vanished without a trace after Homey appeared to have quit WP. This is just asking for system-gaming. Perhaps the RfAr needs to be reopened to deal with mutliple, disruptive socks. Would that settle the matter? <font color="green">]</font> 02:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it is agreed that he should use one account and not be disruptive. ] 03:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::May I ask, agreed by whom? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to get a handle on the situation. I don't want to make Homey's life any more difficult, but I also don't want multiple accounts contributing to the same article, which is the status quo, AFAIK. If there's been a behind-the-scenes decision and I'm being a bull in a china shop here, do please let me know via email. <font color="green">]</font> 03:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Since I blocked all Homey's accounts one time (in July I think) and said I considered him under a community ban, I think I made my feeling known. This was when he was sockpuppeting complaints about other users on AN/I, making comments on CU page using socks, and breaking 3RR with socks, among other things. I do not care if he edits with one account as long as he follows Misplaced Pages policy. I do not need or want to know the name of the account. He needs to be told to do this with a warning that not doing it will result in a permament ban for all accounts he ever makes until he goes through an arbcom case that reverses it. ] 04:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for that, Flo. I'm starting to feel, though, that whatever account he chooses will be obvious, since he continues to edit within the same set of articles. And it becomes like a game of musical chairs; which account will Homey finally settle on? And how will we know? I totally respect his desire to becomes anonymous again, but I think his desire to keep after the articles he was previously editing make this a hard goal to attain. Also, given his apparent, multiple violations of ], perhaps a formal community ban ''is'' in order now, assuming it hasn't already been done. Homey seems to react with... indifference... to the desires of the community. <font color="green">]</font> 04:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I would endorse such a ban. I suggesgt possibly moving this discussion to ANI or AN for community ratification. ] 05:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It might be worth noting that (i) the "sockpuppets" were not sockpuppets; they were alternate accounts, and were acknowledged as such at the time *by* HotR, (ii) no one, to my knowledge, has accused HotR of using sockpuppets to break the 3RR, (iii) the "AN/I" case against him was based on flimsy evidence, and there's no guarantee it would have passed, (iv) this entire situation has the appearance of a witch hunt. ] 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::CJ, the sockpuppets were not acknowledged as alternate accounts at the time, but only after a period of shenanigans and denials, then admissions, then claims that his computer had been hacked into, and so on. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, the HotR used the Barbamama handle to indicate that these were alternate accounts created in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. This was *during* the supposed sockpuppetry. ] 23:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There's no point in trying to rewrite history. He used around 20 known sockpuppets and only admitted them when caught, and even then sometimes not. He was explicitly asked when he was ], for example, which other accounts he had edited with, and he mentioned only ] with a period. No mention of Homeontherange. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm having a difficult time believing Homey's proposal is even being seriously entertained considering all the goodwill and time of the community he's wasted not once, but many times. Homey was disruptive in a truly major way; not only did he disrupt a range of articles with biased editing, 3RR violations and sockpuppets, but he disrupted his own RFAR with sockpuppeting and bizarre claims and maneuvers to discredit those who stood up to his shenanigans. Surely the project is not so desperate for editors that we're forced to take back those who repeatedly abused the community's trust to the degree that they were ejected? I mean, really, he was just here disrupting the same articles as before as an anon last week, on the 26th: I do not support granting Homey any role in the community. ] 05:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It may be worth noting that FeloniousMonk blocked HotR *twice* through questionable interpretations of the 3RR, when this entire situation was starting. I will repeat, this resembles a witch hunt. ] 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::FM blocked Homey for entirely normal interpretations of 3RR; you then turned up at the 3RR policy to try to have it changed, but your proposals were not accepted. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The 3RR policy underwent major changes from 2004 to 2006, based on a consensus on the policy talk page. Admins who did not follow discussions on that page were largely unaware of these changes, and more than a few were surprised to discover the policy was being applied so severely under the new rules. Each time that FM blocked HotR, it was for edits that were not prohibited under the 2004 policy (look it up if you don't believe me). In imposing his second block, FM described HotR as a "repeat offender" and imposed a 48 hour ban. Homey's crime? He corrected Zeq's spelling and grammar errors more than three times. FM did not give a warning before imposing this block, and was unresponsive when I suggested that it was needlessly harsh. I'll leave it for other readers to decide if his actions were fair. Btw, my specific proposal was not accepted, but the general enforcement of 3RR blocks has been more reasonable since the discussion took place. ] 23:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I really want us to move away from who-said-what, but on the other hand, I don't want this rewrite of history to continue. Homeontherange was '''very well aware''' of the 3RR rule and what it said before being blocked for it, because he was warned many, many, many times. Please stop making excuses and contribute to finding a resolution. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Slim, you are mistaken. I was actively involved in this matter, and I can assure you that HotR did not believe his corrections of Zeq's grammatically-challenged posts constituted 3RR violations (you might remember that he described the 3RR as having a "Zeq-sized hole, in that case", after being told of the rationale). In hindsight, the situation almost has the appearance of an ambush. ] 05:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed. The sockpuppetry in itself has been extremely disruptive. I'm going to have to agree with JoshuaZ here, we should move this to ] and propose a ban for exhausting the community's patience. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 05:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, please, I endorse the idea of discussing a community ban at ANI as well. - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 05:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Which is to say, I support the ban proposal itself as well. - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 06:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :At the ''very least'', Homey needs to be banned from articles he has previously disrupted and edit with one account only. The articles are already controversial and challenging enough for reasonable editors to try to hammer out without adding Homey's wearying, disruptive behavior to the equation. --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 06:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I concur with MPerel. And it's not enough to say that Homey "should edit with one account only." It needs to be clear what the consequences will be if he fails to stick to this radically ordinary concept. For the Israel-related articles in which he's been the most disruptive, I'd like him to be banned from Talk pages as well as from the actual article, and I'm not saying this lightly. I have never seen Homey indicate remorse for the frustration, wasted time, and pain that he his style of discussion has led to. ] 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The situation on ] was confrontational and it takes more than one person to make such a situation -- for example, earlier today Jayjg in the absence of Homeontherange was making very provocative statements towards another editor on its talk page, see , but luckily no one responded in kind and the situation was diffused. I notice also that there is a lack of an acknowledgment of Homeontherange's valuable contributions outside of that one article. MPerel's suggestion seems extremely reasonable since it takes into account what are Misplaced Pages's best interests. --] 17:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, user Kendrick7 was making very provocative, and arguably deliberately dishonest edits, for which he subsequently apologized, and this section is about Homey. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Assuming (for the sake of argument) that editor X is provocative, the answer is ''not'' to balance the equation by adding provocative editor Y. ] 18:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jayjg did nothing inappropriate in that situation, it was important to call the other editor on his inappropriate behavior, I fail to see how that constitutes "provactive behavior".- ] | ] 21:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That's likely because they were few and far between and in no way mitigate or out weigh the trouble he's caused the community. ] 17:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The previous comment is a smear, plain and simple. HotR was one of Misplaced Pages's leading contributors from 2003 to 2006. I can't help but think much of the current controversy has more to do with content disagreements than with concern for procedure. ] 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please stop denying the facts of what has happened and the degree of disruption that has been caused. You've been one of his defenders throughout, and indeed I believe it was you who first involved him in fighting at ]. Continuing to pretend there's no problem, or that the problem lies with others, doesn't move us toward a resolution. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would add a couple things. Homey appeared to be wikistalking Slim with some of his socks, going to pages he would otherwise have no interest in to challenge her edits in a pointless and provocative way.(This came to my attention when I got bogged down in an utterly pointless discussion about the meaning of the phrase ] with what later turned out to be a Homey sock.) I haven't made a study of it, but I will take it as read that Homey previously made good contributions. However, my understanding of policy and general WP culture is that editors are not given multiple free passes due to past contributions. (Maybe they should be, but they're not.) FWIW, I would put forth the proposal that Homey be allowed a specific account to edit with that he need only disclose to a few people, but that his use of that account be restricted to pages he has not edited before, pages that tend not to be controversial, and to avoid all editors with whom he has come in conflict. I think that's fair to everyone. <font color="green">]</font> 23:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No one, Slim, is "pretending there's no problem". Everyone, including HotR, has acknowledged that HotR made some errors of judgement in the course of these discussions. Fred has argued that there should be some form of sanction, and he may be correct. For the present, I strongly object to (i) the efforts to portray him as a compulsive wrecker, (ii) the dismissal of his past contributions, and (iii) the witch-hunt mentality that seems to be pervading this complaint. Most of the contributors to this discussion have a history of content disputes with HotR, or represent an antithetical POV -- I'm not certain that *any* neutral editors have agreed with the suggestion that he be placed under a community ban. ] 23:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You're defining anyone who supports a community ban as a non-neutral editor. Rather than going back and forth about what did and didn't happen, we should move toward finding a resolution. Can you say what you would regard as a reasonable compromise? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't think it's necessarily for me, or you, to determine such a compromise. Fred Bauder has indicated that private discussions have taken place; I don't see that there's any need to pre-empt them. | |||
| ::::::I'll pose this question directly to Mr. Bauder: do you think this is the proper place to work out a settlement? ] 06:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I should state, for the record, that I am strongly opposed to imposing a community ban. ] 23:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Referring to the issue just as some "errors of judgement" is an incredible understatement. Almost everyone that Homey interacted with besides you and perhaps a few other users left the encounter with a bad taste in their mouth. Homontherange has a tendency to get personal, kick people when their down, misuse whatever privledges he is given, not let go of past disputes, and so on and so on. To put it simply, Homeontherange was not a good editor, he contributed little besides strife and disharmony. I really do not think that wikipedia should give him another opportunity to abuse our trust.- ] | ] 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :He is not banned, nor is he under any editing restrictions other than those he has imposed on himself. I do not support a ban. I believe he is negotiating with Jimbo, SlimVirgin, and myself in good faith regarding what terms he should be editing under. It is clear that he should be using only one account and not disrupting articles. What I notice in this discussion is an emphasis on past behavior. If he edits, what are appropriate terms? ] 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| From my above post: ''I do not care if he edits with one account as long as he follows Misplaced Pages policy. I do not need or want to know the name of the account. He needs to be told to do this with a warning that not doing it will result in a permament ban for all accounts he ever makes until he goes through an arbcom case that reverses it. FloNight 04:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| This is a start. Any other suggestions for community sanctions? ] 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Thatcher131's suggestions=== | |||
| # Homey selects a new account and agrees to edit only from that account. | |||
| # The account need only be known by a subset of arbitrators and/or admins with whom Homey feels comfortable (gatekeepers). | |||
| # The account will be placed on standard probation. | |||
| # If Homey is detected (by editing characteristics) the person suspecting him will keep it to him/herself and not broadcast it, unless it is alleged that the account is editing disruptively. | |||
| # If it ''is'' alleged that the account is editing disruptively, the allegations will be referred to a mutually agreeable uninvolved admin for review. If the admin finds that the account is disruptive, and after consulting with the gatekeeper to confirm that the account ''is'' Homey, the admin can enforce probation (article bans and blocks for violating article bans). Reasonable efforts will be made to keep Homey's identity anonymous, but it should be understood that if he becomes disruptive and the probation is enforced, it will be hard to keep the secret indefinitely. | |||
| # Any new instances of sockpuppetry, block evasion, edits made by his housemates, etc., will result in a final community ban. | |||
| Does this work for anyone? ] 03:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thatcher, I would add that he should stay away from articles and talk pages he has previously disrupted. I also suggested by e-mail the possibility of a mentor and I found someone who agreed to consider it. However, standard probation would work too with or without the request that he stay away from certain pages. This was what Fred suggested over a week ago and it was a good idea. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::He might find a topical ban an unacceptable precondition. Of course, if he doesn't avoid his old haunts he won't be anonymous for long. My thinking is to leave it up to him as to how and what to edit—as long as probation is officially in place and can be enforced against specific topics that he disrupts, this will give him the chance to be good and give us the ability to enforce a topical ban if he can't be good. ] 03:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wikilawyering is a big problem so this needs to be as simple as possible to enforce. I think staying away from certain articles for a period of time is necessary otherwise I see problems. People are going to be watching and he will likely be detected. Not a good way to start, I think. ] 03:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That sounds like a good solution Thatcher131. It would be best for Homey's sake to stay away from the ] and ] for the time being because of the dynamic that has been established at those pages. Is there other pages that have been problematic? --] 03:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that there should be a timelimit for staying away from the articles. 6 months? 12 months? If he edits other articles without a problem than he should get a 2nd chance on these articles after a period of time. --] 03:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Arb probations often have a 6 month or 12 month expiry. And article bans are at the admin's discretion. If an uninvolved admin and a gatekeeper agree the new account should be banned from a topic per the probation, the period of time should be left up to them and depend on the seriousness of the violation. (I just banned 4 people from an article for 3 days as a wake-up call; the Kven user is indef banned from ]; its very situation-specific.) If you are thinking that Homey should be banned from certain topics as a precondition of return, then maybe 6 months, but that places a burden on the gatekeepers to continually be checking his contribs. I would argue instead for a return with no pre-determined topical bans but with a vigorously enforced probationary period. ] 03:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The problem is that many people are going to be checking the articles for him. He has rubbed too many editors the wrong way on these article. I see problems and Wikilawyering by him soon if he goes back to them right away. --] 04:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Homey should only be able to edit those articles if a neutral admin is willing to be close at hand when he does edit those articles because (1) he is ideologically opposed to the majority of the editors here pushing for a community ban, (2) because of the bad blood between parties, it is easy for them to view honest disagreements as malicious disruption and (3) he feels that he has been repeatedly treated poorly and marginalized by this group. It is the perfect situation for an explosion of tempers based on their current perceptions of each other even if everyone is acting in good faith in and of themselves. --] 04:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is why I suggested a mentor; whether we call that person mentor or gatekeeper, someone neutral to keen an eye on him, and someone he can ask for advice if he needs it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It could work. How about the term "conflict guru"? If Homey agrees (and I strongly recommend that he does) and the person we get involved is appropriate for that position then it would help the project effectively capture Homey's valuable contributions and at the same time significantly reduce tensions -- wins all around. --] 05:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There needs to be a clear understanding of the mentor (conflict guru's) role. Is this person an advocate? If so in what sense? Keeping Misplaced Pages free of disruption should always be our primary focus when dealing with problem users, not ensuring that an editor has the ability to edit. I think it is a good idea too. There is a cost involved in making this happen. We need to be careful that we are not spending too much time and energy for the benefit gained. ] 05:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The admin who has been approached, and who is willing to consider doing it, is someone trusted by all involved, I believe, including Homeontherange, and has prior experience of mentoring. My idea was that we should leave it more or less up to him how to handle things. My understanding is that his priority would be the interests of the project and not of any individual editor. | |||
| :::::::As for time and energy, this has been a major drain for about eight months now. We therefore need a solution that will work so it doesn't flare up again. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===SlimVirgin's modifications of Thatcher131's suggestions=== | |||
| Editing Thatcher's suggestions: | |||
| #Homey selects one account and agrees to edit only from that account, always logged in. | |||
| #The account need only be known by a subset of arbitrators/admins. | |||
| #The account will be placed on standard probation. | |||
| #A neutral admin will be asked to act as a mentor for Homey. The mentor will not be Homey's advocate, but will be allowed wide latitude in deciding how to conduct the relationship. | |||
| #Homey should stay away from articles and talk pages he has previously disrupted until the mentor agrees otherwise; a period of at least six months is recommended but the decision is the mentor's. | |||
| #If it is alleged that the account is editing disruptively, the allegations will be referred to the mentor for review in the first instance, or another admin if the mentor is not available. The mentor/admin can then enforce probation (article bans and blocks as appropriate). Reasonable efforts will be made to keep Homey's new identity anonymous so long as there is no disruption. | |||
| #His previous sockpuppet/alternate accounts will remain tagged as Homeontherange's but without directing to his new account. | |||
| #Any new instances of sockpuppetry, block evasion, edits made by his housemates, etc., will result in a final community ban. | |||
| #No wikilawyering regarding any of the above will be tolerated; when in doubt, all parties should use common sense. | |||
| Does that work for everyone? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to point out a few problems. There's no definition of "disruption", and I have reason to suspect that certain contributors will apply a very liberal definition of the term. I don't like the idea of referring to "another admin" in the mentor's absence, given that this might allow for a non-neutral party to oversee the matter. Also, no sockpuppetry was ever proven, and I can't see how *edits by his housemates* could result in the immediate imposition of a final community ban. This does not strike me as a fair settlement, by any standard. ] 05:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know how you can say no sockpuppetry was proven, given he admitted them only after being caught. Using multiple accounts in order to deceive, or in order to avoid public scrutiny of one's overall contributions, is a violation of WP:SOCK. The "edits by the housemates" part is reasonable; what we're saying to Homey is choose one account, stick to it, and protect it so that others don't get the password or find themselves able to edit because Homey didn't log out. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :], several of us are neutral admins working hard to resolve this without a RFAr. If the case goes to ArbCom I fear that Homey could get worse than the above. An one year ban from the site would not be out of the question. Especially if Homey started with his usual Wikilawyering and disputes on the arb case pages and oddly thought out emails to arb com. RFAr seem to bring the worst out in him. ] 06:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I thought we were discussing above the conditions under which he would be able to edit the contentious articles -- only with the involvement of the mentor. Thus I think that only one of these two conditions should be included: "A neutral admin will be asked to act as a mentor for Homey. The mentor will not be Homey's advocate, but will be allowed wide latitude in deciding how to conduct the relationship" or "Homey should stay away from articles and talk pages he has previously disrupted." As it currently is, I feel it is too restrictive -- I apologize for the misunderstanding, please review my comments and you'll see what I thought we were talking about. (I also do not see the point of 7, just indef the accounts -- it would avoid making this personal.) --] 05:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Both can work. He starts off being required not to edit articles he has previously disrupted. It's then up to the mentor whether and if so when to relax that condition. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::If we can explicitly amend the solution to allow a progression to the contentious articles on approval of the mentor as well as the indef blocking of the old accounts not include any categorization as HotR sockpuppets (because it should not be relevant going forward anyways if we have this agreement, and it sidesteps the contentious issue as to which ones actually were) then I find it a tough but fair solution if HotR displays patience and works within it. The choice of mentor is a difficult one. I would also appreciate Fred Bauder's thoughts on the matter. --] 06:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's no reason not to tag the HotR accounts as we always do with sockpuppets; if they don't point to his new account, he won't be affected, but they're important to keep so that others can view the pattern of contributions in order to recognize his editing in case he sockpuppets again. As for the mentor, someone has been suggested, but Homey hasn't responded. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay. Would it be possible to amend #5 to clearly allow a progression to the contentious articles with mentor approval and oversight if everything goes well? This suggestion isn't about saving face, but rather more substantive. --] 06:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've amended it, but let's not get overly detailed here. The point is that we hand the situation over to a mentor with a lot of common sense and editing experience, and we say "As far as the community is concerned, Homey is on probation; he is not to edit pages he's previously disrupted; and he's to edit with one account only. But please use your discretion regarding exactly how to handle things." And then we let it go. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for amending #5, its appreciated. It would be nice to get Fred Bauder's thoughts on this tomorrow. Also g'night! --] 06:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::SV, sounds good to me. More that once Homey has gotten editors and admins arguing with each about how to deal with him. I hope Homey will accept this so we can move on. Like you said, it has been a long time in coming. If he does not accept the mentor then a time limit for article ban is important. With a mentor it is less improtant to set one.] 06:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I question the need for general probation and excluding him from the talk pages of controversial articles. I do think he needs to perform appropriately on those talk pages before he begins editing the articles again. ] 14:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fred, your original suggestion was general probation, and I've not seen a better one since then. But either way, we need to proceed toward a decision. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Another sockpuppet=== | |||
| I've found evidence of another Homeontherange sockpuppet, {{user|Fullsome prison}}, used between May 8 and August 10. This shows clear breaches of ] (not an alternative account). It double-voted several times with Homeontherange. There was also an article Fullsome prison nominated for deletion, and which Homeontherange deleted and protected against recreation. | |||
| '''Evidence''': In August, Fullsome prison e-mailed several users asking them to vote in an ] AfD. One of those users posted the e-mail to his talk page. It is from Fullsome prison, and the e-mail address used by Fullsome prison is an e-mail address of Homeontherange's. A Google search for the address shows it being used by Homeontherange, using his real name. Because it uses his real name, I'm not going to post links here, but I'll e-mail them to a small number of admins or established editors so that others can view the evidence. (In addition, Folsom Prison Blues is an American country song, as is Homeontherange.) | |||
| Fullsome prison was created on May 8, before the Apartheid trouble started (Homeontherange created ] on May 29), so he can't claim he was "provoked" into creating it by the dispute on that page. This means he was running at least three accounts in May/June that were keeping the Apartheid issue stirred up — ], ], and ] — while he was still an admin. | |||
| ;Examples of the sockpuppetry | |||
| *On July 3, Fullsome prison nominated ] for deletion, then closed the vote as Homeontherange, deleted the article, and protected it against recreation. | |||
| *On May 29, Fullsome prison nominated ] for deletion, the same day that he had created it as Homeontherange. He did this because someone wanted to speedy delete it, so he used a sockpuppet to nominate it for deletion, then argued that it couldn't be speedied because of the AfD. After voting to delete it as Fullsome prison, Homey voted Strong keep as Homeontherange. | |||
| *In June, he double-voted keep as Homeontherange and Fullsome prison on the ] AfD. | |||
| *He doubled-voted on the ] AfD. | |||
| *He double-voted on the ] AfD. | |||
| *He evaded a 48-hour block for 3RR on June 22 as Sonofzion and as Fullsome prison. Homeontherange was blocked at 23:09. Sonofzion started editing at 01:22 June 23 as a new user and continued until 02:04 June 23. Fullsome prison started editing at 13:09 June 23, and editing the same pages Homey had been editing (e.g. ), after not having edited since June 5. He edited until 16:22 June 23. Sonofzion started editing again at 20:30 June 23. He edited until 22:47 but was blocked as a sockpuppet at 22:50 June 23. Fullsome prison started editing again at 23:08 June 23. | |||
| I left a note on Fullsome prison's talk page on August 10 asking that the account holder declare his other accounts, because it was obviously a sockpuppet. | |||
| He didn't respond and stopped using the account. | |||
| I'm offering this further evidence because Homey has so far claimed that his sockpuppets were only alternate accounts and that he didn't violate WP:SOCK, but this shows clear violations. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why was your original edit to this page where you added the above information deleted from the page history by Jayjg? Just confused me, that's all. --] 01:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Looked at the evidence sent by email and I concur that the evidence shows abusive sockpuppetry linking ] and ]. Fullsome prison uses an e-mail address previously used by Homeontherange (or rather, by him using his real name). --] 01:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I also looked at the evidence and concurr with FloNight's assessment. Same email address used previously. ] <small>] • ]</small> 01:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I verify this too based on email evidence. --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 02:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Also concur. Suggest that it be forwarded to the ArbCom. ] 02:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Homey has now indicated he will consider the mentoring suggestion, but frankly I'm very weary of the whole thing and I'm not sure I want to be involved in advocating mentoring. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, based on the evidence, it seems pretty obvious. This is of course contrary to what Homey claimed (that he wasn't sockpuppeting, etc. ). I also wanted to comment that I observed this whole conflict back in June, and was astonished how long it went on before it was finially brought to ArbCom. It seems to me that the disruption—and now the sockpuppets—definately means there needs to be something done. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 02:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree, the fact that this could go under the radar for so long, with Homey ignoring so many opportunities to come clean, makes me question whether the whole mentoring idea would even work. People also seem to forget that when Homey left a major arbcom case about him was about to begin, perhaps he knew a lot of this stuff was going to be revealed and he decided he could get out of any possible consequences by leaving wikipedia for a couple of months (well kinda leaving).- ] | ] 03:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Enough. I hereby propose a community ban on Homey. ] 03:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Support.- ] | ] 03:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wait. Fullsome Prison, who nominated ] (as it was then known) for deletion less than 24 hours after Homey created the article, was really Homey? How Machiavellian. I never understood how F.P. could go from nominating the article for deletion the first time and then campaigning against deletion the second time. The sock theory would explain it, though it's very bizarre. If this really was all the same person, he yanked so many peoples' chains and wasted so many peoples' time that I don't see how anyone could oppose a ban. ] 04:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::He nominated it knowing that at that moment the afd wouln't pass, he also knew that 2nd and 3rd nominations are generally less likely to pass.- ] | ] 04:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, I feel a bit foolish now. A ban's too good for him. I'd like to send him a bill for the hours I wasted in and around that stupid article. I'll never get that time back, so maybe at least I could get some compensation. It certainly would make for an interesting issue of law... international law, no less... ] 04:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I still have an email from Fullsome Prison, with an email address that according to Google belongs to Homey's real name. There is abundant evidence, which I can disclose upon request if there is still any doubt, that Fullsome Prison and Homey are the same person. See the Fullsome-Homey combination working together on this page to ensure that the discussion goes nowhere. The content of the Fullsome Prison email to me on June 23 was "Your poll questions are leading questions. I don't think I can answer them. Please eliminate your first three questions as the only purpose they seem to serve is to lead respondants to a particular conclusion - this isn't acceptable in polling. Thanks, Fullsome prison." I fully support the community ban. ] 06:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::He was actually working you over with '''three''' sockpuppets there; you might have forgotten that ] was his sockpuppet as well. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm just making a note here that I'm withdrawing from this situation for the time being. I've supplied evidence of sockpuppetry; I've taken part in good faith in the 10-day e-mail correspondence that Homey started; I've made various suggestions here and by e-mail; and I've put Homey in touch with an experienced neutral admin who's willing to consider being his mentor. It's up to others to decide how to proceed now, in part because I feel I've spent as much time on this as I'm willing to, and in part because other voices need to be heard. Thank you to everyone else who has tried to help sort this out. I hope we end up with a resolution soon. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I am requesting to see the e-mail evidence as well. I am already aware of his real name, so that should not be an issue. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::What you want is irrelevant, Kim. You've said you're leaving here for months; cut the cord already. You're not a participant on Misplaced Pages any more, except to stir up trouble. Go back to Citizendium, or continue to post on Misplaced Pages Review, as you see fit. Your input here is no longer required. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you for your response. I see the next phase has entered, I am now accused of posting at wikipedia review. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's not a new phase, and you ''are'' posting there; do you deny it? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::. So, I have posted at Misplaced Pages review. My opinion about them: The side sucks, Brandt is an idiot, and they have no clue about wikipedia. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::] please. ] 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Not sure the best place to hang this comment and in fact it may be irrelevant now if a ban is put in place for this specific user, but I'd like to note that I think that in the general case, there is a bit of confusion/conflict between the notion of a mentor that has wide latitude in how to deal with a mentoree and with the notion that the mentoree is anonymous or mostly anonymous. If the mentoree is anonymous, they may well get reported to AN/I for something that the mentor would otherwise be chartered to deal with and either the mentor is now at cross purposes with the developing consensus at AN/I (to throw the book or whatever), or the anonymity has to be abrogated to override that and let the mentor deal. Thoughts? ++]: ]/] 17:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Apology=== | |||
| I accept responsibilty for my past mistakes and have and do again apologize for them and I accept responsibility for the fullsome prison thing. These incidents are in the past and I ask that people look at the editing I've done in the past week. Almost 100 edits and only one of them was reverted on the basis of its content, a reversion I accepted. It's been an unfortunate few months and I apologize and accept responsibility but prior to that I was one of the most prolific editors on wikipedia and generally respected. I have been editing quite within policy lines since returning in the past week or so - the exception was a reversion due to the new BLP policy which I am now fully familiar with and complying with. I have accepted that I should only edit with one account and have been doing so. Several days ago I responded to SV's mentorship proposal (though not to her) by agreeing that Will could ban me from any article if, henceforth, my editing appeared tendentious, no questions asked and no appeal. This is similar to the provision ] was under when the ArbComm found him to be disruptive. The difference is it would apply to any article, not just those in a particular topic area. I was awaiting a response when this whole thing hit ANI. At Misplaced Pages we take sanctions to end a current problem, not to punish for past problems. Everything that has been brought up here is in the past and my current editing is far more inline with my editing practices prior to getting involved with New anti-Semitism in the spring which is where the problems, fuelled by the passions of the debate on Israel-Palestine, began and that is my responsibility alone and I accept it. ] 09:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I find that adequate. ] 13:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not surprised you do Fred, but I certainly don't find it adequate, nor do many others. Homey only admits what he is forced to admit, and then only after he's dragged everyone through days and days of denials, posts, e-mails, Machiavellian schemes, backchannel plotting, sockpuppet and IP edits, etc. Then he either says he's leaving, or "apologizes", and lays low for a couple of months, and hopes it will all blow over so he can return to his old patterns. He's still never admitted the Sonofzion sockpuppet, he's still never admitted using open proxies, and he still insists some of his sockpuppets were merely "alternate accounts". He still hasn't even admitted sockpuppeting as Fullsome prison; instead, he's just "accepted responsibility" for "the fullsome prison thing", while privately still insisting it was a roommate, or a friend, or something. If he had ''really'' come clean in his apology now and admitted '''everything''' it might have helped, but even now he's evading and dissembling. It's not acceptable any more; he could never possibly repay Misplaced Pages for the pain caused and time wasted. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It is hard to know what the best course of action is, but if everyone involved trusts ]'s judgment this may be a good solution. Although, I would strongly recommend that ] stay away from ] and ] for at least a couple months. To make that easier, I can offer to be a proxy for any pressing changes he has to either of these articles if that helps. --] 15:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::As one of his consistent allies and defenders, your offer is unsurprising, but not helpful. Homey should have made this offer 3 months ago, or even a week ago. That train has left the station. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am allowed to voice my opinion on the matter just as you are. It would be less provocative, from my perspective, to respond to the issue directly (apology in this case) rather than my comment on it. --] 17:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is no apology to respond to, is there? Just more blame shedding. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Still, you should respond to the issue rather than me, you'd have more traction. --] 18:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I already responded above to Fred. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Much as I love to believe people can change, I don't see it here. Homey offers to be banned from any article "by Will," and says it is similar to the provision Zeq was under. He knows as well as anyone that Zeq was under a provision to be banned by ''any admin.'' Then there's this: "At Misplaced Pages we take sanctions to end a current problem" - no, actually we take sanctions to prevent future problems, and he is failing to acknowlege that the community ban or probabation were proposed in good faith to prevent further harm to the community. ] 16:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I was sent one email (see above) asking if I would confirm Homey's sockpuppetry. That evidence all lies within the confines of Misplaced Pages. This is all anyone asked me to do is to confirm the evidence, but I took it upon myself to make a further quick search based on Homey's real name to see whether there might be any further concerns and was shocked at what came up. I feel strongly that a person's private life outside of Misplaced Pages is no one's business. However, when an editor is involved in violent activities, harrassment, and even arrests involving the same kinds of articles he edits I think it is Misplaced Pages's business. This is someone with an extreme agenda who has demonstrated publicly on various occasions that he will say or do anything, even violence for his cause(s). Quite frankly the man frightens me, I trust nothing he says, and I fear being targeted for even mentioning this. I don't understand why Misplaced Pages would go through such extraordinary measurers to allow such a person to edit. | |||
| :I note that there are several other Misplaced Pages editors involved with Homey on the outside, including some who have edited their own articles about themselves. Homey is not acting alone. There are many in his activist group or I should say groups involved with Homey at Misplaced Pages. Based on my discovery, I'm seriously considering whether I even wish to edit at Misplaced Pages any more, out of fear. I likely will at least steer clear of any article where Homey is. The people involved with this is so widespread I don't see how Misplaced Pages will even be able to deal with it. This is all I wish to say on the matter, just as a warning of what is involved here. Anyone else can easily find anything I discovered. --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 17:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just to be clear, I am not involved in any activists groups, nor am I involved in any groups with Homey except for Misplaced Pages. The articles I have written that do mention my work are clearly notable because of adoption of the technology by Pixar, ILM, Stanford and Berkeley. --] 17:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::My focus is Homey. And I wasn't referring to your article about your company (that seems up and up). The scope extends beyond the editors and articles involved with this situation. Homey is an extreme activist in many organizations. People he's been arrested and involved with have edited articles about themself (names not even mentioned yet) and Homey has edited their articles too and information on Misplaced Pages about his own arrest. That's for starters. --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 18:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is getting out of hand. May I suggest that the only way to deal with this is the arbitration case we've been dancing around? It seems clear that Fred and Jayjg will continue to disgree here, and it's going to be hard to arrive at community consensus over someone who has so many dedicated supporters and opponents. If Fred and Jayjg recuse based on their public advocacy of particular solutions, we'll still have 7 active arbitrators to decide the case. If the fear is that Homey will a case as a soapbox against other editors, that could be dealt with by a preliminary ruling establishing limits on the scope of the case. Without commenting on the substance of MPerel's allegations, there ''are'' precedents for using somone's real life activities to either ban them from certain articles or even (in one or two cases) the whole site. At this point I don't see how Homey's situation can possibly be resolved by amicable discussion. ] 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is a community banning, which pre-empts Arbitration. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It would be inappropriate to speculate what caused Homeontherange's editing behavior to become like this, but it seems to me that he has exhausted the community's good will. Jayjg's points are well-taken - there is a pattern of bad behavior, ducking out, laying low, then coming back in again. As reluctant as I am in principle about this thing, it is pretty apparent that this editor can not be trusted to play a constructive role and should be banned by the community. --] 18:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been on the sidelines through this, but the persistence of these complaints makes me think that what we're looking at is something other than an insult here, misuse there. It seems to me that the multiplicity of presence (the sockpuppets) is a symptom rather than the offense, that the harsh words are symptoms rather than offenses, that the offenses boil down to too much of a demand for attention and interaction. That makes this a time sink. If we are all continually arguing, negotiating, restraining, modifying, hunting, discovering, upbraiding, etc. just to keep our editors happy and editing, then that is the very definition of exhausting community patience. I would like to conclude otherwise, but I cannot. ] 18:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This editor should be banned. He is wasting everyone's time and interfering with the project. There is ample evidence of his wrongdoings. ] 19:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I concurr with Geogre. I would also say that following this debate, I am surprised at the silk-glove treatment extended to this user for no apparent reason, given the extent of the disruption caused. Other editors have been perma-banned for ''much less'' disruption than the one exhibited so far by this user. ] <small>] • ]</small> 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It should be noted that many people are trying to purposely not throw around counter accusations that will just inflame passions and lead to more unproductive battlefield behavior. Many of us are trying to move on -- I apologize if this leads some people's behavior to seem aberrant but its better than the alternative. --] 20:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree, I feel that it is getting to the point that some of Homeonetherange's defenders are themselves beginning to look disruptive by ignoring every single one of his infractions, while equating what is left with the actions of the editors who do not agree with them.- ] | ] 19:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This should have happened a long time ago. A lot of ink has been spilled over this person. He simply is not productive, repeatedly, and by now he really should know better. We need to put ban this user and move on. Endorse. - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 19:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I don't trust Homey one little bit and strongly support a permanent ban. ←] <sup>]</sup> 20:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I support community permaban or (at least 6 month block automatically reset with each sockpuppet found) and mentoring afterwords. ] 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Would you support sending it to ArbComm. I don't think there's any such thing as a community tempban with mentoring afterwards. That's something that would have to be decided by the ArbComm or agreed to voluntarily. ] 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::And one of these days, Lucy really is going to hold the football and let Charlie Brown kick it, right? ] 21:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That's the most vacuous non-apology I've seen here in a while. No direct acknowledgment of his extensive sock puppetry and recent disruption with anon IPs, but plenty of hedging. Again, Homey has earned nothing less than a community ban; he's wasted literally a half dozen previous chances to reform and community goodwill in turn causing way too much ill will and disruption. What makes anyone think he isn't pulling the community's chain yet one more time, how much time is the community willing to waste on one chronic malcontent? ] 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I support permaban. This has wasted more than enough time. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do as well, per Humus sapiens. This user has shown, over and over again, that he can't be trusted. ] ] 23:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think this fellow should be banned. The case is obvious. ''']''' (]) 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I Agree with those above supporting a permaban as he has shown time after time that he can't be trusted, has wasted enough time and caused too much disruption. --] | ] 23:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I also support a ban. And I agree with KC, this has wasted too much time already. ] (]) 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Unfortunately, the user has a long history of violating certain fundemental policies and guidelines. As much as I would like to naïevly ] and trust in the inherent desire of all editors to better wikipedia, I am afraid this editor does not fall into that category. Further, the issues raised by ] are very distrurbing. That each one of us has a point-of-view is obvious. The beauty of wikipedia is that there exists a (relatively) amicable and effective method to handle such a multiplicty of views (barring the odd edit war every now and then, which usually blow over after a few days anyway). Anyone who is going to abuse the trust of the community to further an agenda by engaging in what amounts to cyber violence, and from which there exists the true fear of out-of-wiki retaliation, is beyond the scope of editing here. I regretfully support a community ban as well. -- ] 01:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems to me that, once you remove the silly vandalism that occurs whenever Jr. High School computers are made available to anyone ("Jimmy rules DUDE"), sockpuppetry is Misplaced Pages's true Achilles Heel. For that reason alone I think we need to take as hard a stance against it as possible. It takes any problem and makes it exponentially worse. 20 sock puppets over an extended period of time - what possible kind of excuse could ''anyone'' have for that other than they (1) were willing to go out of their way to make life difficult for others and (2) giving the finger to the whole project? The above apology doesn't come close to making up for this. Ban. ] | ] 16:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Freakofnurture block, CJCurrie unblock=== | |||
| The test for a community ban has now ''formally'' failed as I have been blocked and unblocked. If someone wants to take this to ArbComm instead then proceed. I would hope though that people will be patient and wait to see how the probation that has been agreed to unfolds. {{Userlinks|Gehockteh leber}} 20:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :LOL! You don't get to make the rules here. Nice try, though. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nor do you, Jay. See below] 20:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| See for instance "I unblocked her because I don't at this time support a ban, and my understanding is that if Admins dispute a ban, then it's not a community ban. (those being ones where user are banned simply because no one else supports unblocking them)." | |||
| I understand some people are very upset and I'm sorry for having caused that. If someone wants to take this to ArbComm I certainly understand that but I would ask people first to look at my actual editing over the past week. I have tried very hard to abide by community rules and am committed to continuing to do so. I agreed to create an account rather than edit as an unlogged in IP as I had been doing previously. You can be quite certain that my edits will be scrutinized and that if I step out of line action will be taken. I just ask for some time to demonstrate that I can again be a positive asset to the community. ] 20:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Nice try again. You're "sorry" for "upsetting" people? Are you sorry for sockpuppeting, though? For lying to the community? Have you admitted that Fullsome prison was your sockpuppet? Have you admitted that Sonofzion was? Have you admitted using open proxies to evade detection of your sockpuppets? The answers are No, No, No, No, and No. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note that while Gehockteh Leber was asking us to notice the uncontroversial work he's done over the past week, he failed to mention his controversial contributions through an IP address (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/74.98.247.123) in the three days before the past week. He also did not mention that for most of the week he's been here, his favorite page has been protected anyway. ] 03:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, and this is the same day, and the same page, in which he says, "There is no clear and present danger that justifies a lynch mob." He's not directly calling us a lynch mob -- just making the kind of statement that implies the existence of a lynch mob has been confirmed, or that a lynch mob is known to be forming. This is how he behaves on a day when he's sorry for upsetting people. ] 07:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see how one admin can undo the will of the community by a simple unblock. But perhaps I'm naive. In any case, I don't think trying to wikilawyer your way out of this supports your apology above. You hope "that people will be patient"? What do you suppose people have been for the past few months as you've continued to edit? I'll express an opinion that may not shared by others who urge a community ban: I'll be sad to see you go. You have a strong POV, and you tend to push it, yes. But I think people who have strong POVs can be an asset to WP, as long as they play by the rules and remain clueful. But you've violated the rules. Again and again. And not allocuted to all that you've done, and offered a generic half-apology for what you have admitted to. I don't know what else to say. It's just depressing. <font color="green">]</font> 20:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I didn't "undo the will of the community". I undid the will of an administrator who believed "Gehockteh leber" was a sockpuppet. He isn't. "Gehockteh leber" is not under a community ban either. Why then is he banned? ] 23:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed. Freakofnurture hasn't even participated in this conversation, and Homey being unblocked by his personal friend CJCurrie matters not one whit. This looks all too much like the time that he used Fullsome prison to try to delete his Israeli apartheid article as a strawman, so that it would be all that much harder to delete afterwards. This process is proceeding, and it appears that there is very strong support for Homey's permanent banning. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jay, I hope you are not implying implying that I am acting as a strawman of Homey, as I would deeply resent such rumors being spread. In fact, I commented on this issue a couple of weeks ago, when I suggested that somebody pick up and resume the arbitration case that was rejected for based on the grossly naive assumption that Homey was no longer editing. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 22:33, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, I can see how you would take it that way, because my wording was bad, but I didn't intend that at all. I'm sure you acted in good faith, and for good reason; my point was that Homey and his friend CJCurrie jumped in and took advantage of this, CJCurrie to unblock, and then Homey to start wikilawyering yet again, claiming that now the entire community banning process had now "formally failed", as if the rules for this had actually been written up somewhere. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Actually I kinda figured that. But thank you for clarifying it for the peanut gallery's benefit. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 22:45, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : This "apology" is a joke. Home used subtle and manipulative sockpuppetry and has been continually disruptive the last few months. He has exausted any reasonable community patience. ] 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| IronDuke, it's not wikilawyering to point out what the test of a community ban has always been and to say that it's inappropriate to arbitrarily change the rules. | |||
| I am sorry about everything I've done wrong over the past few months and am very sad to have lost the respect of a lot of people and want to try to earn it back. I've misled people, I've played games, I basically went over the bend. I'm embarassed about it and want to make amends. ] 20:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Look, if there is a case here for banning then take it to ArbComm and put it to them. They can implement any interim restrictions they see fit pending a ruling, including a tempban. There is no clear and present danger that justifies a lynch mob. I have been editing civilly and within the rules and if people feel that the problems with my past conduct need to be addressed they can, and should, make a formal ArbComm request. Jimmy has known that I have been editing since I created the account and if he saw a need to ban me some time in the past few days he would have done so. Fred Bauder, an ArbComm member, has been involved in all the discussion and has followed ANI and has said that my apology and suggested course was acceptable. More serious cases than this have been sent to ArbComm rather than dealt with by community ban. Let the ArbComm do its job and judge the matter in a cool, dispassionate manner rather than have it decided by emotions and heat. ] 20:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *The desire for an ArbCom solution is puzzling and suggests that, by the time a full case went through, the ''user'' (not the account name) would have gone on. At the same time, a community block for this account name is going to be insufficient. The only advantage of an ArbCom hearing is that there might be a ruling against the ''editor'' under any name/IP/proxy. I do think that an ''unblocking'' admin owes the community the courtesy of explaining him or herself in the conversation here, as, if he had felt that way and expressed it, no one would have wasted a block, and we might be swayed by his reasoning, if any. ] 20:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm pretty sure the block was not an implementation of the community ban as per the block comment. I think we are misunderstanding that block and thus the significance of the following unblock. --] 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're right, and the misunderstanding is being deliberately promulgated. Homey is trying to position this as yet another "Get out of jail free" card. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It has ''never'' been the case that just because one person unblocks (and the person who unblocked is a friend of Homey) that there is no community will for a ban. | |||
| :The reason Homey wants an ArbCom case is that he wants to turn it into another circus. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::SlimVirgin, apart from the link I provided earlier, SimonP has also said that the test is whether an admin is willing to unblock. | |||
| ::In any case, I do not *want* an ArbComm case. I would prefer the probationary arrangement with Will or the mentorship arrangement you suggested as well as the voluntary recusal from several articles that I have alerady agreed to. Yesterday, despite the fullsome prison issue, you said: | |||
| :::"Fred, your original suggestion was general probation, and I've not seen a better one since then. But either way, we need to proceed toward a decision. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)" | |||
| ::Your suggestion above is quite different from a ban. ] 21:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not as if CJCurrie is a neutral, uninvolved party in unblocking Homey. He's been Homey's good buddy both on the project and off. I find his actions in unblocking a very close personal friend inappropriate, and I suggest to him that he not use his admin tools in matters relating to Homey again. ] 21:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've reinstated the block. The unblocking by CJCurrie clearly does not reflect any form of consensus and was highly suspect considering their close personal relationship. ] 21:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::No CJCurrie is not neutral. I support a community ban. No need to drag the community through more of this in another arbcom case. Here’s another taste of some Misplaced Pages violations. Homey and CJCurrie campaign for this Canadian political candidate ]. Marcell is one of the people arrested with Homey as a member of one of the violent activist groups Homey leads. He edits as Mista-X and edits his own article, as does Homey and CJCurrie in their support for their personal friend, a political candidate. I wonder what we’d do if George Bush’s campaign committee members (and George himself) were editing the George Bush article. This is a political machine intent on self-promoting propaganda we are dealing with (just one of Homey's activities), not just an opinionated POV editor wasting our time. --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 21:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sockpuppetry is extremely lame... particularly when it is used to gain an advantage in AfD's, RfA's, content disputes... etc. that said ] does say, "''Users may also be banned by community consensus — when a user exhausts the community's patience to the point of being blocked and none of the English Misplaced Pages's ~1000 admins will unblock.''". ] certainly qualifies as one of the 1000. There is no doubt that preventative action is called for here but I'll add my voice to those who are not calling for a ''community ban''. ''(]])'' 21:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You have a knack for the obvious and a handicap for the subtle. Yes, CJCurrie qualifies (at this present time) as a "one of 1000 admins", but do you really believe he qualifies as a neutral party? Hell, maybe CJCurrie be willing to unblock Homey until the ability to do so is pried from his cold, dead hands, but do we really want that? —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 22:56, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well apart from your somewhat personal attackish comments re: "handicap" I'll respond with the simple observation that you yourself Freakofnurture did not mention "community exhaustion" in note. I'm not going to Wikilawyer about the finer details of blocking/banning policy but given this instance of ]'s application of an unblock (particularly in light of your own block note) maybe an update on policy is in order? ''(]])'' 23:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you say you aren't going to wiki-lawyer, I'm going to hold you to that. As for policy updates, yes perhaps we need to codify what's supposed to happen when the "one in a thousand" admin is promptly told where to stick it (not in so many words of course). —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 23:09, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Three months ago Homey wormed his way out of his arbitration cases; doing his best to do so again now. In July or early August Thatcher131 brought the idea community ban here and all his accounts were blocked with broad consensus. Fred then unblocked Homey to participate on a arbitration case he filed against Jayjg and a few others. I for one am not going let him lead us down that path again. ] 21:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I think it was inappropriate for CJCurrie to unblock his personal friend. The more we discover about this whole affair, the slimier it looks. ←] <sup>]</sup> 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Those so far not supporting a permaban: ], ], ], ]. Who else? ''(]])'' 21:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not sure you can count Deodar as against a ban. Where has he recently said he opposes it? Not sure about Fred either. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::What I know about ] is that his editing habits have been geared heavily towards edits that further ]. From those calling for this community ban here there appears to be a rather significant preponderance of editors who tend to edit in a moreso pro-Israel fashion. That gives one cause for concern. That said however there is no excusing ]'s behavior of a "community exhausting" nature (particularly the sockpuppetry counter to ] policy). Given these realities is it really unreasonable to go forward with an ArbCom case? ''(]])'' 22:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Hmmm, I've never edited any of those articles. You need to recheck your assumptions, I think. ] 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::No, and neither have I. In fact, I'd say that the names we're seeing in this exchange tend to have no character in common at all. I'm sure that the people who have dealt with Israeli issues are fed up with Homeontherange, but it does not follow that their interests in Israel are why nor that anyone who is fed up is interested in Israeli topics. Further, if they were all, 100%, paid ] members, it wouldn't be germane, except that they would have encountered Homeontherange more frequently. A person's judgment is not impaired by editing on one topic or another (incl. editing on anti-semitic and anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist topics), although the less rational the point of view the more suspect the reason. ] 02:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Having dealt with his Farnsworth socks on a few occasions and looking through his history of game playing and general disruptive activity, I would support a permaban too. He does not seem to have the good of the project in mind and he seems unlikely to change. His responses here, such as his apologies, have been weak and seem to be trying to manipulate the process rather than any truthful meaning. Misplaced Pages would be better off without him.-]<sup>]</sup> 22:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Here is the August discussion referred to above. ] I forgot I was the first one to propose a ban but there it is in black and white. Apparently it was left with Fred unblocking him to participate in an Arbcom case that was ultimately rejected, and no final status was ever decided on. Sounds familiar. The only thing I know is that I'm not as smart as I was in August and I have no idea what to do, except that the current situation seems untenable by any definition. ] 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think that a community ban ''is'' in order. With the possible exception of CJCurrie, the options here appear to be arbitration or a community ban. The outcome of an arbitration case is pretty predictable - this sort of behaviour gets you a ban. Homey's past behaviour, coupled with his rather limited apology, do not bode well for future actions. I don't believe that community bans require unanimity, just overwhelming support. I believe that there is overwhelming support here, and those who oppose it seem opposed to the mechanism of the ban, rather than the eventuality of it. ] 22:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not the only opponent. Unless you're going to arbitrarily rewrite the rules for community bans, no such ban currently exists. ] 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The only reason I can see here to take this to ArbCom would be to investigate the role of CJCurrie in this... I sugggest that his unblock of this current sock was unjustified, and the block be reinstated and that be the end of that. If CJCurrie were to turn up and explain the unblock clearly and rationally, maybe let that go, as long as he doesn't reblock, but if not, consider blocking CJCurrie as well... Seriously, if this isn't "exhausted the communities patience", what is? ++]: ]/] 22:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It seems apparent from this thread that the "community" has failed to handle anything, whereas the arbitration committee long before assumed it would: | |||
| * <s>Accept; the evidence here is worrying enough that I think we ought to hear a case. ]·] 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)</s> With Homeontherange's desysopping request processed, (and now apparently indefinitely blocked) this issue is moot. ]·] 05:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Accept, likewise. ] (]:]) 02:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Recuse. - ] 14:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Reject given that Homey's left. We can always re-open if necessary. ] ] 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Reject for now ] 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| How many arbitrators would have rejected the case if they doubted Homey was already considered banned by the "community"? Two? One maybe? —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 22:40, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I believe that the CJCurrie unblock was with regards to a different matter, not the community ban proposal, see , and Jayjg agreed with my interpretation, see , although I could be wrong since no one has talked to CJCurrie or FreakOfNature. Let's not get too caught up in this for the time being. --] 22:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Well the unblock message was "not only is this not a sockpuppet, but no one has even alleged that it is a sockpuppet", which seems odd since the user had at that stage already revealed themself to be yet another incarnation of the user, and clearly in blocking the blocking admin had alleged just that. Couple CJCurrie's apparent friendship with the user, his which shows he has only ever made three unblocks, this one, one for ] (apparently trying to repair another admins attempt at unblocking) and one unblocking a block he instated himself a few minutes later (indef blocked an IP, unblocked then reblocked for 24 hours), then yes this unblocking does raise plenty of questions. --] 22:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed I looked at that myself. It appears that about 10% of Currie's blocking activity is directly related to emancipating Homey. Unacceptable. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 22:58, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, two of my twenty-two blocks/unblocks were related to HotR (even if one of them was only to correct a mechanical glitch). It must be a conspiracy. ] 23:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Conspiracy" would imply that multiple administrators are covertly working together to ensure that Homey is always able to edit. I've never implied this. Quite the opposite, administrator CJCurrie appears to be acting (a) overtly, and (b) alone. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 23:59, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Umm, actually no one has come close to implying a conspiracy, what we are alledging, is that you are inappropriately protecting a personal friend.- ] | ] 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, and I've responded to that accusation. I didn't simply disagree with the block; the block was absurd. ] 23:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think the only thing that is absurd is the fact that you continue to protect Homey, it seems obvious that you simply do not care of the rules that he has broken and the time he has wasted. With every justification you make, with every unblock you enact, your credibility on this matter and indeed your credibility as a wikipedia editor decreases.- ] | ] 23:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Your arguing a debatable point as explained a few times and making it very personal. Let's drop this. --] 23:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Back up a bit: the previous ArbCom case: I must say that I've seen that occur with other cases as well. I understand, with the crippling workload of ArbCom, why folks would prefer to let a case drop if it looks like the problem editor has left, but I've always been against it. It occurred in the Eternal Equinox case as well, as well as some others best not discussed. The point is that "I quit" has become a way for the cornered to get out of the pickle. I really think we need to follow through to at least determine that the behaviors that got to ArbCom were sanctionable or injunctive. ] 02:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Geogre, this case would be very bad. There is evidence that Misplaced Pages has been used to further the interests of a small extremist political group and its members; evidence of sustained and abusive sockpuppetry (not just multiple accounts) stretching back for a long time; a disturbing lack of honesty; evidence of abuse of admin tools; evidence of bizarre legal threats against Misplaced Pages editors on other websites and by e-mail; legal threats to the Foundation as a result of certain edits. Added up, it paints certain people in a very poor light. No good will come of shining a bright light on this, with all the posts cached by Google and making their way onto other websites, with real identities involved. It's time for cooler heads to prevail and think about long-term, real-life consequences. | |||
| ::The best the ArbCom would do for Homey is reduce his ban to one year, in my view, given the strength of the evidence. Therefore, let's say if he comes back after a year and wants to edit again, we can reconsider, and of course we would if he wanted to change. Indefinite doesn't necessarily mean infinite. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You understand, then, that what we'd have to do is propose the following: | |||
| :#Community ban on user:Homeontherange ''and all accounts and IP's employed by him'' for at least one year | |||
| :#Any administrator is allowed, if not actually required, to block on sight any likely Homeontherange account | |||
| :#Have any evidence of the use of open proxies or alternate accounts in the year trigger an automatic indefinite ban? | |||
| :The reason I say this is that, while I agree with community bans for cases like this, I feel like the "any account" segment was beyond the existing informal provision for community blocks. I.e. I thought we were going into some scary territory, either way. ] 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I just wanted to go on record as supporting a community ban in this case. (Not an admin, but a long-time user in good standing.) I know that my patience is certainly exhausted, and I haven't done anything but read about it. -]<sup>]</sup> 16:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===CJCurrie responds=== | |||
| #I unblocked "Gehockteh leber" because the block was obviously made as the result of a misunderstanding. The blocking admin was under the mistaken impression that "Gehockteh leber" was a Homeontherange sockpuppet. No one has seriously made this suggestion. | |||
| #I "unblocked" Homeontherange several months ago to correct a mechanical glitch. Someone else had attempted to unblock him, and there was a problem with the system that I tried to flush out. (I actually declined to unblock him earlier, to avoid the appearance of a conflict.) | |||
| #Anyone who has followed my contributions to these debates will know that I am extremely scrupulous about blocking and unblocking. (SlimVirgin should be able to verify this.) If there had been a credible rationale for "Gl"'s block, I would not have intervened '''even if I disagreed'''. There wasn't. | |||
| #"Gehockteh leber" is not under a community ban, and is not a sockpuppet. Why then is he blocked? | |||
| ::Add: Q. Would I have posted if my intent was to assist Gl in evading a community ban? A. Of course not. ] 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] 23:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :He was blocked for his long pattern of disruptive editing and abusive sockpuppetry. His actions are far below acceptable and warrant this block. ] 23:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, he was blocked because someone thought he was a sockpuppet. What ''you're'' suggesting is a community ban, which is not in effect. ] 23:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::A sockpuppet skirting a community ban then. ] 23:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Unlikely, since a community ban was never imposed. ] 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Bull. And if User:Gehockteh leber is not Homey, then why did he accept responsibility for Homey's misdeeds and offer an apology above? Your attempt at obfuscation here is transparent. ] 06:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You seem confused on a fundamental point. The fact that Gehockteh leber is HotR is acknowledged, and is not in dispute. Until yesterday's circus, though, no-one was arguing that he was community-banned. Gehockteh leber isn't a sockpuppet, it's a new account. The Homeontherange account is dormant. | |||
| ::::::I don't expect you'll respond to these points. ] 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :He is blocked because there's an overwhelming consensus that the person operating the account has exhausted the community's patience. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, he was blocked because someone thought he was a sockpuppet. What ''you're'' suggesting is a community ban, which is not in effect. ] 23:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::], I think you misunderstand how and why many community bans start. Often a single editor does the block and then other editor discuss and agree to leave it in place. There is not a set way this has to happen. --] 23:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's interesting if it's accurate. It's also irrelevant. "Gehockteh leber" was not blocked due to a "community ban". He was blocked because someone mistakenly believed he was a sockpuppet. ] 23:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Could you explain why you feel he's '''''not''''' a sockpuppet, and why you feel I'm under some sort of mistaken impression kthx. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 23:14, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::He supposidely was going to stick to one account and edit peacefully as some negotiations were ongoing as to future status with SV, Fred Bauder and others. That was the account. Thus in that sense, there was some understanding that this account was not a pure sockpuppet, sort of like a new main account. SV, Jayjg, Avraham, CJCurrie, Fred and others were aware it was HotR and were letting it go pending negotiations or otherwise. --] 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed. "Gehockteh leber" did not try to conceal his identity, and did not use any other accounts. The "Homeontherange" account has been dormant for months. This isn't sockpuppetry, it's a '''new account'''. {{unsigned|CJCurrie|23:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::::As a matter of interest, CJC, do you concede that Fullsome prison was a sockpuppet, or do you class that as another alternate account, along with his (at least) 20 others? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Homey would have likely been formally banned for some duration by the arbitration committee had the case not died in infancy, and he knew it. His main account was dormant, and it was assumed that he had left the project, which he obviously has not. In fact he has been editing all along under various identities, with the mighty expectation of a clean slate. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 23:49, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think you have too much invested in that "likely". ] 23:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As long as we're trading opinions, I think you have too much invested in Homey's freedom. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 00:13, Nov. 7, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So ... he's not a sockpuppet, and he's not under a community ban. Why then is he blocked? ] 23:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you are pressuring me to admit that I blocked Homey's sockpuppet for the sole purpose of exposing your loyalty to him (or, more bluntly, baiting you into unblocking him), you're giving me too much credit. Such sentiment was already self-evident. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 23:49, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What the hell are you talking about? I thought you misinterpreted the situation; I wasn't accusing you of some byzantine plot. ] 23:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Wow, your last few comments are the most brazen acts of wikilawyering that I've seen since a half-a-page ago when Homeonetherange's stated his interpretation of why he cannot be community banned at all .- ] | ] 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Do you have an argument, or are you just smearing? ] 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I am merely pointing out that there is little substance to your justifications above, like most of Homeontherange's recent posts here, they seem to be almost completely based on novel interpretations of wikipedia policy.- ] | ] 23:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Novel, like the belief that community bans don't have to be unanimous? ] 23:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There was and remains a community ban on Homey, and comments on this page attest to its broad support, despite your furious arm waving to the contrary. ] 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What impressionistic definition of "community ban" are you using? ] 23:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well I suppose he is not using one that says "If an editor is soley supported by a single personal friend, he is not allowed to be community banned".- ] | ] 23:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm not the only one who objects. If the rules still matter, he's not under a community ban. ] 00:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I object to the block but will limit my activity to posting whatever appeal he wished to file at Requests for arbitration. ] 23:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fred, I don't think you can be involved in any arbitration case or any appeal, not as an arbitrator, given your close involvement in this. The same applies to Jayjg of course. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It was Fred undoing a community block that got us here, so I very much hope no one will try to do that again, or we'll be back here in another few weeks. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't believe that Fred undid a community block. ] 21:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No doubt he'll ask to be unblocked again to do so:. I'd object to doing that one again as it's what brought us here now, and these being the results: ], ] ] 23:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Which you've just undeleted without due process. Charming. ] 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::An open question, why were they deleted in the first place? Because we really believed Homey had left the project? —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 00:04, Nov. 7, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Without "due process"? It is fairly common for things to be undeleted when applicable, on an administrator's own judgement. When someone wants data from a deleted page, they post on Requests for Undeletion, an admin reads the request, and says Yes, or No, with out any process at all. The pages were deleted because a user left, supposedly forever. Yet this same user is the topic of three sections on this page now, wasting yet '''''more''''' time, and all you can think of to criticise is that SV made the very relevent past of this user available? I certainly hope I am missing something significant here. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I respectfully suggest you pay more attention to details. I was criticizing FeloniousMonk, not SlimVirgin. ] 00:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There was an e-mail correspondence that lasted ten days during which a suggestion was made by a third party that Homey should leave permanently, and that if he did so, the sockpuppet category could be deleted as a courtesy. In an effort to show good faith, I deleted the category, but then Homey said he had not in fact agreed to leave. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Er ... I believe the page was only deleted (for the second time) a week and a half ago. Am I missing something here? ] 00:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't know what you "er" is supposed to mean or imply. I said: I deleted the cat as a courtesy based on my misunderstanding that he was volunteering to leave. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sorry; I was referring to the first category link, which was deleted by Fred. ] 00:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal=== | |||
| Given the close involvement of certain editors, I propose that Fred Bauder, Jayjg and CJCurrie, rescuse themselves from this discussion, and allow other non-involved admins to look at the evidence presented and decide if a community ban can be applied in this case. ] <small>] • ]</small> 00:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :A large percentage people in this thread have conflicts of interest in one way or another. If you want a formal process I would recommend just going ArbCom. --] 00:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *While I have no doubt certain contributors will assent to your suggestion, I see no reason to recuse myself from a discussion forum. ] 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Or we could actually open the aborted arbitration case. The evidence is there, with fresh material to be added. It may amount to World War Six when it's all said and done, but one would hope it puts an end to the wiki-lawyering and deliberately self-serving interpretations of policy that have plagued this discussion. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 00:19, Nov. 7, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Freakofnurture's suggestion here is '''very''' sensible. ''(]])'' 00:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :yes, Netcott, if any of you has the stomach and the stamina to push for re-opening that case, so be it, but what one can gather from this discussion is that there is overwhelming support for a perma-ban. ] <small>] • ]</small> 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes Jossi, there definitely is an appearance of a ''general'' consensus here. Despite my disagreeance with the ban I am definitely in accord with agreeing to what a general consensus arrives at. See my comment about that ]. ''(]])'' 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I won't be participating in any ArbCom unless something extremely exceptional happens. I'm done for the evening anyways. I think the matter has been talked to death anyways. --] 00:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I may be missing something here. Could someone explain how the community is expected to respond to a user that has 19 confirmed sockpuppet accounts (see ]) ? ] <small>] • ]</small> 00:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Usually it isn't that hard, the problem is that Homeontherange was an admin and had made a lot of valuable contributions besides the other stuff. It is a unique case in a few respects. --] 00:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :So, are we saying that if you are a useful contributor and an admin, you can have 19 sockpuppet accounts and continue editing wikipedia under a different user name? ] <small>] • ]</small> 00:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Arbitrators are expected to recuse from cases when they're too involved in the issues, not recuse themselves from the issues if they think a case might be on the way. --] 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Freak's suggestion amounts to more spilled ink. Please - we have spilled enough, as I said above. Nobody needs any more evidence here!! - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Spilled ink, yes. That's why I had suggested updating the old pages rather than starting new ones. How long do you think this could be put to rest before the cycle repeats. Do we want to leave the door open to new and more complex loopholes by which Homey ''might not actually be banned''? —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 01:14, Nov. 7, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Might I suggest that this circus-like atmosphere is entirely the wrong place for determining whether or not to ban someone? ] 01:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You might, but you were instrumental in bringing this particular circus to town. ] 02:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't agree. I had no involvement in starting up this AN/I. ] 05:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You've been directly involved in supporting the disruption and excusing the sockpuppetry. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I reject the premise of your accusations. Anyway, this is going nowhere. Again. ] 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You didn't start it, but you have edited it, by my count, 41 times. You took it upon yourself to do the unblock under circumstances that you knew would invite suspicion and controversy. Now, I am sure you thought that everything you have done was the right thing to do. But I hardly think you are in a position to complain about the "circus-like atmosphere." ] 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===ArbCom either way=== | |||
| I predict that this is going to be an ArbCom case either way. Either the insistence of an community ban is pushed through despite that the ArbCom themselves state: | |||
| :'']'' | |||
| and the disagreement of several admins on this ban (Fred Bauder, CJCurrie, me, see above for others), and it will result in an appeal, or it is not pushed through, so there is the need for a case to perma ban him. | |||
| As for the reference to earlier rejected cases, they all revolved around his behaviour as an Admin, not as a general user. What we have now is months old incidents that will be chewed out again. But I guess there is no other way because only a formal decision from either the ArbCom or Jimmy will resolve this continued battle. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 00:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sure you'd love that, Kim. This would be your fifth kick at that particular ArbCom can, wouldn't it? The term "vexatious litigant" springs to mind. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] <sup>]</sup> , Your statement is not accurate. The last RFAr case was one that Homey started and many users including myself added evidence of abusive sockpuppetry and disruptve editing. You defended him at the time if memory serves me correct. --] 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit conflict) Kim, as you know from discussion elsewhere, arbcom have also said in the ] that the community may ban "when there is consensus in favor of the block." They're not clear. Also, could you reply to Jay's question? I'm concerned that a person who has stated they are leaving WP, and possibly posting on WR, is still here as an admin. <font color="green">]</font> 01:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, stop it. If you are so concerned about KvdL, then I assume you are equally concerned about ] and ]? ...given this: . Lets move on. Regards, ] 02:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) (PS: If my memory serves me well; Slim also "left" before X-mas last year. She (obviously) changed her mind. So what? No big deal, IMHO. Again: lets move on. | |||
| ::::Your memory does not serve you right, Huldra, as is so often the case. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The main difference being that Kim's claims she has left are ''un''conditional, and she keeps re-iterating that she has left, over and over, for various and multiple reasons. She's said it as recently as today. The other difference being that she is trying out people on Misplaced Pages Review, which is really beyond the pale. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@Huldra: I am not at all concerned about Slim, or Flo. Neither of them claimed they were leaving. The diff you refer to merely points to (understandable) frustration that yet another troll was getting a second chance (who'd already had many). Some folks assumed Slim had left out of that frustration, but that didn't make it so. Kim has contributed little recently other than make other people unhappy. And her off-wikipedia activities regarding people who edit here, if they involve other editor's identities, are entirely unacceptable. I don't even know what "moving on" would mean in this context. <font color="green">]</font> 03:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm sorry Ironduke, but a history check seems to indicate you are wrong: over a matter involving someone named Blu Aardvark. I'm given to believe SV followed through on this, though she's deleted the content of her user page from that time so I can't be sure. I hate when people delete evidence after the fact :( ] 19:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Minor correction: I think that quote is from the ] ArbCom decision, not Tommstein. ] 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::D'oh! Thanks for the correction, NYB. <font color="green">]</font> 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Misplaced Pages works on consensus... although the blocking policy said if 1 of 1000 admins doesn't unblock (which as of now has been updated) it also has had "'''strong''' consensus" wording. If I'm not mistaken, the consensus here looks to be pretty strong. ''(]])'' 01:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *There is something to remember, folks: community exhaustion bans and ArbCom proceedings are not mutually exclusive, especially with a user who shifts identities and has a medusa head of accounts. In other words, a community blocked person can still post to talk pages, and we could make it possible to edit at the /Evidence pages, if necessary, but I do think there's some value, however slight, in getting consensus that this editor, not this account, be blocked at the first infraction. Months of nose tweaking isn't helping anyone. ] 01:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think they kind of are; a community ban pre-empts an Arbitration case; indeed, sometimes the Arbitration Committee practically begs the community to ban an editor, so that there doesn't have to be a case. See, for example, . ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, but I think the point being made at the outset of the thread is that if the community ban is put in place, ArbCom can be presented with a case (from the editor in question) appealing the ban, so while the initial case is preempted, the matter can ultimately come before the committee anyway. Of course, ArbCom then would have discretion whether to accept the case (e.g. User:Ackoz) or reject it and leave the ban in place (e.g. User:Bonaparte). ] 03:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Clearly an RFAR at this point would be worse than pointless, it would only add to the already notable disruption he's caused. Considering the ] ] of Homey's disruptive tendencies, does anyone doubt what the outcome would be? Furthermore, the last time Homey was unblocked to participate in an RFAR he artfully dodged the proceedings and then tried to connive the community that his very specific unblocking was actually a general unblocking and then proceeded to renew his disruption of the project, the repercussions of which are are still dealing with here right now. Had his original community ban been left in place we wouldn't be having this discussion again. The community ban has been restored and rightfully remains in place. ] 04:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Move to subpage=== | |||
| My ] was met with opposition (see ]). Seeing how this thread is close to half of the bd's size (110 of 250k), and that the discussion is ongoing and will only get larger, I think it'd be helpful. Who supports continuing this discussion on a subpage? ] 04:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :My concern is that people are coming here to look for it, and that in moving it, it won't be so easy to find in the archives. I think we should leave it here for the time being and re-assess if it gets much bigger. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Let's leave it on the main page for now, it seems to be an active topic. It's important to get the widest possible consensus on something like this, which means having it highly visible so as many people as possible can comment. Moving it to a sub-page will not provide any particular advantage, and will have the disadvantage of potentially removing it from public view. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Perhaps we should just move it to El_C's talk page. Actually the discussion seems to have died down somewhat. We get firestorms like this on a fairly regular basis it seems. Nothing to lose sleep over. A proactive approach to transplanting threads that really belong on some other forum would be helpful though. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 04:48, Nov. 7, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure what you mean; AN/I discussions should happen on the AN/I board, not on a user Talk: page. Or was that suggestion in jest? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fon, it needs to stay here so people can find it and then be archived. It wouldn't make sense to have it on a user subpage. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course it was in jest. Crikey. Misunderstandings like these sure do contribute to forum bloat though, I must admit. Sorry. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 04:56, Nov. 7, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, Fon. I'm suffering from a severe sense of humor failure today. I wonder why. :-) ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I think the key search word would be "Home, home on the range, where the deer and the antelope play. Where seldom is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day," which is (partially) in the header. ] 05:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't expect opposition to the move (not the first ANI move of the sort on my part), but oh well. ] 05:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, it would create archival irregularities: "143", "144", "145", "Homey", "146", "147", ... —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 05:11, Nov. 7, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::LOL! ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::AN/ANI subpages are not archived. ] 05:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What's the periodicity for Homey subpages, though? ] 07:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't get it :( - ] | ] 08:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nevermind, I'll put a redirect for now. --] 05:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I think.... Oh, never mind: everyone can guess what I think. :-) ] 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===This has gotten absurdly long=== | |||
| This has gotten absurdly long. I tried to get a handle on it, but I'm not willing to lose a night's sleep reading it all. Three remarks: | |||
| #It seems quite obvious from the above, even on a cursory reading, that ] was blocked on the assumption that he was a sockpuppet and that ] unblocked him because he felt that the assumption was wrong. I see no reason for recriminations on either side over that disagreement, which seems clearly to have been an honest one on both sides. If he is a sockpuppet, can't we go the usual route with usercheck etc. to verify that? Nothing with that account seems like an emergency; if there is something to be discussed about that account, can we please take that up on another thread, rather than in something that is beginning to approach the length of a 19th century Russian novel? | |||
| #Can someone try to summarize neutrally the ''recent'' issues about HotR's behavior (given that it seems even HotR agrees that there were problems with his past behavior)? | |||
| #I don't see how moving this thread to another page and placing a link to that page from where the discussion has so far taken place would make it any harder to find. - ] | ] 08:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Sorry can't agree with your point 1 at all, given that CJCurrie is fairly friendly with HoTR the fact that he didn't see it as a sockpuppet by using some wikilaweyering reasoning and unblocked is attrocious. As noted above CJCurrie does not regularly unblock users, he didn't stumble across this. as already noted many times there are 1000 other admins any of whom he could have contacted and asked to take a look, he didn't instead he went ahead and unblocked his friend. Similarly the unblock screen says "Remember, there was probably a good reason for the person to be blocked. Please discuss the block with the blocking sysop before unblocking." did this happen? To me this shows, at best, very poor judgement. --] 10:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* Well, I don't regularly unblock users, either, but I hope that on the rare occasions when I do, someone gives me more of a presumption of good faith than you are giving CJCurrie. - ] | ] 18:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jmabel, you asked for a summary. Briefly, Homey has been sockpuppeting with at least 20 accounts, and also using anon IPs, and has used them in various ways that were disruptive and time-consuming to deal with: for example, he used some of them to continue disputes with editors one of his other accounts was in conflict with. It's been going on for at least six months and people are fed up with it, and have recommended a community ban under the "exhausted the community's patience" provision of WP:BLOCK: at least 29 editors support it, 21 of them admins. The CJCurrie thing is a bit of a red herring: Homey was blocked, CJ unblocked him, he was reblocked. That's about the size of it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 10:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do we need a list of people who support this block? (gasp, a straw poll???). Add my name to the list in case there's a tally. Thanks for the precis, Slim... ++]: ]/] 11:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Slim, Jmabel asked for a list of ''recent'' issues involving HotR, given that he's acknowledged bad behaviour in the past. You responded by dragging up the old stuff, much of which is based on flawed assumptions. Can you identity any recent issues at all? (Btw, your precis of the blocks leaves out quite a bit.) ] 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, so... there was an ] against HotR. Before that could precede he requested to be de-sysoped and indef blocked because he was leaving. Then he used some IP addresses and self-identified accounts to refute statements made about him... saying that he would remain around to respond to the ArbCom case, but was otherwise gone. The ArbCom case was closed down largely on the grounds that it was moot (he was leaving). Then HotR changed his mind and 'came back'... using some of the IPs/accounts he had used when refuting comments related to the ArbCom case to edit and then other ''not'' identified accounts to resume normal editing. Some of these accounts then got into disputes on the same pages/topics that HotR had been involved in, the connection became obvious... and here we are. There is apparently also alot of 'off-Misplaced Pages' anmosity and accusations involved, charges of anti-semitism in various directions, et cetera. | |||
| :That about cover it? If so, there was never an ArbCom decision here and none of the subsequent actions (that I know of) on their own seem to be grounds for a community ban. Two accounts created by the same person getting into disputes on the same topic at different times doesn't seem like abuse of multiple accounts to me. So long as there was no co-ordinated activity or ban on the first account it isn't significantly different from continuing the same argument under a single account. That said, this seems to be a clearly contentious user and many of the issues cited in the ArbCom case above seem significant to me. I haven't been involved to know how 'patience exhausting' he has been, but judging by most of the reactions here he's been doing a good job in that department. That said, the behaviour of many of the respondents has also been less than stellar. An ArbCom decision would be nice, but failing that I don't see cause to oppose this 'banning' effort, but haven't really seen a case for actively 'supporting' it either. Seems mostly a content dispute between two groups of users being escalated to absurd heights and questionable behaviour all around. Also, the sudden 'redefinition' of 'community ban' to make what CJCurrie did 'improper' is disturbing. The standard has always been 'if even one admin objects'... one admin objected. Accusing him of malfeasance in such case is unjustified. If you don't like the standard you work to get it changed... but don't blame someone for following a well established and repeatedly stated precedent. The claims of, 'but he is biased', ring incredibly hollow given the ''obvious'' 'impartiality' of the blocking admins. :] --] 16:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You have missed some key points I think. The details of Homey's situation are very complex to explain. But there has been wide ranging use of abusive sockpuppets for 6 months. There have been uninvolved admins that looked at the situation like myself. The last arb case was one that Homey started last July/Aug. At that time there were strong charges of abusive sockpuppetry made and documented against him. I blocked at least 3 or 4 accounts myself and stated I would continue blocking them all as Thatcher131 proposed a community ban and there was broad community support. Homey had one account unblocked to participate in the RFAr that he started. Then he disappeared supposedly, and here we are now with more documented uses of sockpuppets after denials. An apology and promise, yet again. I support a commuinty ban and think a RFAr case would counterproductive because it will continue the disruption and give him another platform. ] 16:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, the standard has ''never'' been "if one admin objects"; why did you think it was? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I suspect it had something to do with the content of the ] page prior to an arbitrary change on 15 August. ] 21:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC) modified 23:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nothing in the policy prior to 15 August would suggest that as a standard. Are you confusing "consensus" with "unanimity"? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::"The Misplaced Pages community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. ''Some editors are so odious that not one of the administrators on Misplaced Pages would ever want to unblock them''." (emphasis added) ] 21:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, and some are that odious, and others are merely banned based on community consensus; the policy allowed for either condition. I see over 30 people (including about 2 dozen admins) supporting a ban here, and only one, you, not supporting it. That might have the record for the strongest consensus for a ban ever on Misplaced Pages. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You might want review your numbers again. I'm not the only one opposed to a ban. You may also wish to review the policy language a second time. ] 21:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. I think CBD's remarks probably do the best job of summarizing what seems relevant. - ] | ] 18:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Homeontherange; why should he be "community-banned"??? === | |||
| There is really no reason to ban {{userlinks|Homeontherange}} - he's one of our favourite contributors here at school, and all the students liked his antics.... one also thought he was, in his words, a "gem to Misplaced Pages"!! | |||
| Why you want to "community-ban", or ] him, is a mystery. Taking him to arbitration would be a ] court or a circus, so what's the point?? | |||
| Ive just sent a circular email round the class asking people to oppose this "community-ban", now, please let him edit. Ok, so we're all Brits, but hey?? | |||
| no reason to ban him; just like you did with {{userlinks|Jake Remington}}; a reformed character now. Allow Homeontherange to edit peacefully; he promises to edit uncontroversial articles now! (no, I'm not a meatpuppet, I just know he posted this on wikiquote!) | |||
| Well, that's all I have to say... --] 12:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| See ] for more info. --] 12:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I rather trollish post. If this is another Homeontherange sockpuppet then I too fully support a community ban (counter to my earlier lack of support). ''(]])'' 12:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The above new user seems to only have edited this page and the HotR user page - which was removing a sockpuppet notice. I would be willing to bet that this is another sock.-]<sup>]</sup> 13:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just community ban him already. This is a waste of our time, and unnecessarily long. ] 15:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So let's see now, right here in this little section it looks like we have 2 new Homey socks and/or not-so-secret admirers, "TheIFLKid" and "Homey4". While the idea of the supposedly-school-age "TheIFLKid" and his fellows "here at school" forming a Homeontherange Fan Club is amusing and entertaining, it hardly seems likely that someone with five edits to his name has spent all of them talking about another user. Or that such a new user knows what happened in an unrelated case involving another user. Or that such a new user is reading Wikiquote to find out what banned Misplaced Pages editors are saying. Need I go on? ] 16:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::6SJ7, it is entirely possible that someone supporting the idea of a community ban created a sockpuppet to look like it was ] and made these edits to in a sense help "clinch" the decision. CheckUser'd need to verify whether these are indeed socks of Homeontherange or not. ''(]])'' 16:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Anything's possible. I assume the appropriate persons will make the appropriate checks in the course of their duties. It is beyond doubt, however, that Homey has created numerous sock puppets, alternative accounts, whatever. As someone (I think it may have been Fred) said, when you do that, you invite suspicion that you did it "this" time, too, even if you actually didn't. ] 16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Seems to me, based on the above, that we have little to lose by saying that he is banned for now, but actively encouraging him to come to ArbCom to appeal that and work out explicit terms under which the ban can be lifted. And that it is made clear that ''any'' sockpuppet activity during the appeal will be strongly held against him. - ] | ] 18:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Given the past experience, the caveat should be that "any sockpuppet activity during the appeal will result in an immediate appeal dismissal". ] <small>] • ]</small> 01:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::What the hell are you people thinking?? Blocking {{userlinks|Homeontherange}} is stupid.... you should '''never''' block this dude. Well, our class is getting accounts on wikipedia and we are showing our support. --] 18:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, the above accounts HilRerbb, and TheIFLKid aren't Homeontherange sockpuppets, they're ''meatpuppets'' using Internet for Learning IP address computers, I can see all these student's Internet activity - I'm a computer technician at their school. | |||
| --] 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Both blocked. Stop the shit! -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===From ArmchairVexillologistDon: In my opinion "Homeontherange" has earned a lifetime ban=== | |||
| I, ArmchairVexillologistDon, in my opinion believe that "Homeontherange" has earned a community-wide lifetime ban. The damage that he single-handed inflicted on the Misplaced Pages community was extensive, and far-reaching. This ''"person"'' has single-handedly driven away '''countless newcomers'''. He does not deserve to be able to post on Misplaced Pages '''under any name'''. | |||
| ] 00:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *It should be noted that AVD has a long-standing petty grievance against HotR, relating to a discussion about flags from two years ago. Take his words with a <s>grain</s> silo of salt. ] 04:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello CJCurrie. I see you are still your ''"polite-self"'' eh. | |||
| :] 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Setting the record straight=== | |||
| ] 04:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)] | |||
| I want to set the record straight about some I made concerning you, specifically "Homey and CJCurrie campaign for this Canadian political candidate ]", further implying you edited the article on Rodden as part of that campaign. Let me qualify what I have said with the following. | |||
| That Homey and CJCurrie have personal connections through university is certain (whether they are close friends is unknown to me). That Homey and Marcell Rodden have personal connections through activist groups is certain. That Marcell Rodden edits his own page is certain as he even states himself (of course that is a separate issue irrelevant to anything associated with Homey). That CJCurrie and Marcell Rodden even know each other is *not* certain. '''That CJCurrie and Homey have violated Misplaced Pages policy by editing the Marcell Rodden page as part of some political machine is an unsubstantiated overstatement that I wish to retract.''' | |||
| The above allegation I made was a side issue I brought up in the context of a discussion about long-term disruption caused by Homey leading to a community ban. I think the merits of a community ban for Homey based on all the other evidence regarding exhausting the community's patience with months of disruption are solid enough. However, I do not like that I made smearing comments, so to Homey and CJCurrie I apologize for any allegations I made which appear to me now to be false. --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it would be wise nevertheless if CJCurrie would not edit the Marcell Rodden article again, and the same obviously goes for Rodden himself. Some of the edits CJC made to the article involved removing the name of at least one person that he knows in real life who was charged with a criminal offense. That's the kind of editing that ] specifically warns against. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, I was removing information that had been added to harrass someone. But you knew that. ] 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :More to the point, the name I removed was not actually mentioned in the source article. I said as much at the time. Look it up if you don't believe me. ] 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's no indication that the names were added to harass anyone, and no I didn't know it. Please don't tell me what I know. The point is that the information is accurate, you could have found a better source, and it involves a personal friend of yours. It would therefore be best if you would refrain from making that type of edit in future; if you feel something like that is wrong or irrelevant, you could ask an uninvolved editor to make the change. See ]. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, Slim, you're mistaken on the fundamental point. I '''did''' remove the name of someone I know/knew from the Marcell Rodden article, and I freely acknowledge having done so. I did this, however, on the grounds that his/her name did not appear in the source material which was used to justify the initial reference. (Have you actually reviewed the source material? The person's name is nowhere to be found). I said as much at the time, although I chose not to provide details. There's no prohibition against removing an unsourced accusation against someone I know/knew. COI does not apply. ] 06:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course, COI applies. You removed material that you knew to be true. The material amounted to criticism of a friend of yours. If COI doesn't apply to that, it applies to nothing. Your argument that it wasn't in the source material is irrelevant; you knew it was true and that it had been published by reliable sources. Therefore you could have found a better source. | |||
| ::::Whether the material was relevant or the names were added gratuitously is another matter, of course. All I'm saying is that it's better to let an uninvolved editor decide that kind of thing. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please step back from each other for a few hours. I know that you are admins and I am not, so I have no place to lecture you. However a third party view seems useful. ] gives wide latitude when information is unsourced, even though sources, as yet uncited, say it is true. From my point of view, that means that even though it would have been both easy and wiser for CJCurrie to find a third party editor to make the edits, CJC was still acting reasonably to skip that step and edit himself. In other words, '''''you are both right'''''. Hope that helps—if not pretend I said nothing. --] (or Hrothulf) (]) 11:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Its not as simple as you make it out to be, CJCurrie knew the information was actually true and that it would be relatively easy to add a different source, at the very least CJ could add a fact tag, instead s/he completely removed it. Not only is this indicative of a conflict of interest but it is also quite dishonest.- ] | ] 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There's no point in drafting a detailed response to this. Suffice to say that (i) Misplaced Pages's standard for inclusion is verifiability, not accuracy, (ii) my associate was not mentioned by name in the article, (iii) the material was both irrelevant and prejudicial to all concerned, including Mr. Rodden, (iv) I was fully within my rights to remove it, and (v) I have nothing to apologize for. ] 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages's standard for inclusion is verifi*ability*. Not "has it been verifi*ed*". If you know very well that something is true, then you also know very well it's verifiable. If you know something is verifiable, even if nobody has verified it yet at the moment, deleting it is inappropriate. ] 01:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Unless it's irrelevant and prejudicial to all concerned (see above). In any event, I wasn't involved in the situation and my direct knowledge of events was very limited. ] 02:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hello CJCurrie. Thank you very much for confirmng that you do have ''some direct knowledge'' of the real-life events regarding Homeontherange. This has helped to explain your dogged-defense of your friend (flying-in-the-face of the ''established transgressions on Misplaced Pages'' that your friend has grieviously commmited). | |||
| ::] 04:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Oh for heavens sake=== | |||
| For the sake of archiving this discussion, move this discussion to an appropriate venue instead of this noticeboard. This discussion is getting way too long and complicated for a consensus to occur right now. Take to RFC or RFAr instead of furthur clogging up this noticeboard. ''semper fi'' — ] 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Consensus occurred long ago. Now it's just bickering in the aftermath. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well bickering aftermath can take place on your talk pages rather than the Incidents noticeboard. ''semper fi'' — ] 04:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Due to topic drift I'm slapping the closed sign on this debate. OK? There are plenty of places to debate potential conflicts of interest; the bottom of a 144kb thread about another editor is one of the least optimal places. ] 05:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:Debate bottom --></div> | |||
| ==Improper full protection of ] by ]== | |||
| ] was over ]. ] reverted the page to his preferred version, and . This action is inconsistent with the letter and the intent of the ], which states that <blockquote>Admins should '''not''' protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection. Admin powers are not editor privileges — admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you. Not only is this the preferable method, it is also considered more ethical to do so as it helps reduce any perceived conflict of interest.</blockquote> ] 15:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The situation appears to be in hand now, thank you. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 05:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I was not "involved in an edit war". If you look at my edits, I did nothing but revert to the stable, rejected version. I did not "express opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection". I was actually criticized for ''not'' being involved in the content dispute. Please look at the page history. | |||
| The page is rejected. Netoholic's been banned for a year from editing the page in the past because of his disruptions revolving around it. Now that he's not banned from it, he's trying to resurrect it by changing one paragraph. The info he's trying to add is not policy/guideline material. It belongs on an informative page like ]. Changing the page a little bit does not suddenly validate its fundamental concept. | |||
| <blockquote>A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. '''Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction.'''</blockquote> | |||
| It would be nice if the unprotecting admin had consulted me first. — ] 07:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : You were involved in an edit war (reverting is an edit), and moreover, you've been a long-time participant on the talk page. You are -involved- in the page and should not have protected it. No amount of ] by talking about me, blockquoting pages, or complaining about other admins is going to change the fact that you should not have protected the page immediately after reverting to your preferred version. -- ] ] 10:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Ok. What should I have done instead? — ] 17:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: No really. What should I have done instead? Anyone? | |||
| :: The page and its fundamental concept have been ''thoroughly'' rejected, there is a strong consensus against the page (not just a lack of consensus ''for'' it; a strong consensus ''against'' it). Netoholic repeatedly revert wars in an attempt to remove the {{tl|rejected}} template, in spite of this consensus, and despite the fact that he's been banned from editing the page in the past for ]. | |||
| :: I may not have done the right thing here, and if I broke a rule, I apologize, but I'm not really sure what I should have done. What would a good admin do in this situation? ] Netoholic from the page for disruption? — ] 15:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Journalist's comment on Talk:Celine Dion == | |||
| ], an administrator, has made a threat towards another user here. . Is this acceptable behaviour for an admin? If so I'm quitting, if not what can be done? Many thanks for looking --] 18:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Not as much a threat as a warning. Telling someone they'll regret it if they turn a talk page into a battleground? I don't see that as much of a threat. Stick to the rules and no harm will come to you. Pretty simple, really. Perhaps it's ] but I don't think too much of it. --] (]) 18:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I disagree, I don't think that comments like that are at ''all'' acceptable. We're supposed to have ''civil frickin' discourse'' and it doesn't matter if that doesn't explicitly fall into ''Misplaced Pages:X policy'' perfectly. That is clearing threatening a user, vaguely or otherwise, and that is simply not an acceptable way of discussing a page. Were it not an admin saying that he probably already would've been blocked. I'm going to go leave a note on Journalist's page. ] ] 18:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: To clarify: I don't believe that Journalist is acting in bad faith, nor that this should become a big issue, but at the same time I can't hear comments like that condoned (which is what provoked my above comment). ] ] 18:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Journalist looks like he's threatening to use the Eternal Equinox ArbCom ruling against Velten. I don't know if it's considerate to give a fair warning when probation may be broken... ] 18:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Hmmm, I see (I had to look this up, so for the sake of reference, see ]). I still think that politeness is not sacrificable, and that it would have been hugely more appropriate to mention that and list it on ]. ] ] 18:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Looking at the 'threatened' user's edit history, it looks like the admin was simply referencing their past behaviour and warning them not to. Ok, it wasn't the best way to say it - but then again I may be missing something (as the 'you'll regret it' part is in quotes). Maybe Journalist should come here and comment on it? | |||
| ::::::Also, to Snoutwood, no user would have been block for a single, borderline uncivil comment, they may have been warned about it but that is all.-]<sup>]</sup> 19:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Eh, my point was more one of "I've seen new users blocked for saying things like that, so to say that this is perfectly O.K. for an admin is ridiculous." ] ] 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Can you provide some evidence to show that new users are blocked for a single uncivil comment without a warning? That is what I mean, the normal course of action is simply to warn a user - regardless of whether they are unregistered, new, an admin etc... So my comment is not that using 'incivility' (even though I don't think this is a case of that) is acceptable, but more that no user would be blocked for a single comment.-]<sup>]</sup> 19:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: I don't really want to go through two years worth of block logs to prove this point, and you can substitute ''block'' with ''warn'' and my point reads identically. I fully acknowledge that normally, if not always, users are warned for single offenses rather than blocked. ] ] 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The comment I made was a warning, not a threat. Velten has had a long history of disruptive behaviour including sock puppetry, blocks, legal threats, trolling, lying the list goes on. I know from very personal experience how the editor behaves. Even after going through that lengthy RFA (and threatening to leave Misplaced Pages 1 million times), she has engaged in another messy battle with an Admin and has been blocked. | |||
| In essence, yes, you guys are missing a lot of things, and in no way do I feel I was out of line in my comment. | |||
| PS:Guys, can we format our arguments properly so it's easier to read? ] (] • ]) 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : "Or you'll regret it" is clearly a threat, and the comment that you start off with, "all talk and no sources," reads as taunting. I honestly don't want to make this a big deal: I just got into it becuase I didn't want to enforce the impression that (what I percieve as) incivility is O.K. There's a lot of ways to say what you wanted to say without being that provocative, and at least at first perusal that appears to be one of the only comments you've made to this user on that page (which makes "all talk and no sources" sound even stranger). | |||
| : I don't disagree that Velten has been a problem (I am not familiar enough with this case to have any other opinion on that issue), and am fully prepared to agree that she may be a problem on the Celine Dion page. However, I think that you could be more civil. ] ] 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, first off, if you are adamant in believing that my comment was a threat, then there's no point in me commenting on the matter for it will do me no good. Secondly, a small note on my talk page about the issue would have been '''far''' more appropriate than coming here. What do you want me to do now? Apologise to Velten? I will not. As I said, you guys don't know the hell she has put me through. In any case, this discussion is over from my end. ] (] • ]) 20:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Continued on talk page. ] ] 20:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Velten has been engaging in vexatious editing several places and times. As a version of ], he has demonstrated previous tendencies toward picking at people and articles to get attention. If he is going back to his old behaviors, then the previous blocks can pick up from where they left off, IMO. He can be a serious time sink. ] 03:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The remedy in this case is probation, allowing Velten to be banned from articles he disrupts for a week at a time (a rather unusual limitation). Any (uninvolved) admin can apply the article ban (use {{tls|User article ban}} or post some diffs at ]. ] 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == {{userlinks|haham hanuka}} == | |||
| Propose community ban. ] was last straw for me. To the best of my knowledge (anecdotal), HH is already banned on he:wiki. - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 16:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Got a bit narky with ] on ] about an article he deleted. Then it seems that Haham tried to get the guideline everyone referred to in the AfD deleted? Excellent. --] (]) 16:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Actually I think it'd be better to send this to be dealt by ArbCom instead. - ] 16:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Agreed. --] (]) 16:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **W/ such an extensive , i also agree. -- ''] 17:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)'' <small>]</small> | |||
| ** I can't speak about his/her past history, but I don't see a violation of rules or guidelines recently. I would not endorse a ban. --] (]) 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***With that many block log entries... I think we can all agree he violated the rules numerous times. I really question whether or not recentness really matters... very few repeated rules violaters ever clean up their act and stop being a pain in the ass. Opinionated users remain opinionated, and this guy repeatedly goes around his blocks to continue his ranting. I think I'm gonna have to support an RFAr if one is put forth. ]] <span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid black;">☢</span> 18:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Considering I was the closing admin on that guideline MFD, I also support sending Haham hanuka to ArbCom. --''']]]''' 20:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Community patience has been worn out, but I do endorse taking this to Arbcom. ] 14:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Note that ] has been indefinitely blocked from the Hebrew Misplaced Pages. The protected user page reads: "haham hanuka is an ]... ] 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I would support a possible Arb, though I'd have to see the evidence to really see if it was possible. It's annoying how he comes along every few weeks to attempt to whitewash the Adolf Hitler article, then disappears with nary a word. However, the block log is poor evidence for a community ban, as he hasn't been blocked in four months. --] 16:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I support an Arbcom. He recently twice deleted part of the ] article (second time even using the edit summary ''rv trolling''! ) even though there was a consensus to keep that part. I did not have time, energy and interest in reporting him so no further action were taken. I want to enjoy myself more while I am here. He also keeps watering down articles on Hitler and the Holocaust. In general he pays no respect to community decisions and consensus. ] 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **By the way, the talk page of that article contains a lot of information about the user. ] 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| So, now that it seems that the consensus is to go to arbitration, who's going to officially file the request? ]<font color="green">]</font>] 04:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == {{User|MatthewFenton}} == | |||
| Per ] (which I personally think is a very well written and useful guideline), I tagged a couple of articles with the In-universe template. ] decided to revert these calling them "trolling". Regardless of whether I was correct or incorrect in adding these templates (I will note that the ] article doesn't even mention the name of the actor who plays the role), I don't don't believe it warrants calling me a "troll". I would appreciate it if someone would please remind him on the proper way to constructively deal with other. ] 17:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Your above message prooves you didnt actually read the articles.. also the time span in between edits looks suspicious and you are an anon and hence a quick conclusion leads to ].. if you had opend up a conversation though at these articles stating what you thought was "in-universe" it would of looked much better. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Read what it says at the top: This is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department or the place to go for dispute resolution. It doesn't take admin access to sort out a problem like this. --] <small>(])</small> 18:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Even if that was a bad-faith edit, nothing warrants that any other user to call that trolling. It can be contrued as a personal remark. Matthew, please ] while dealing with other editors and try to discuss issues with them and more seriously ]. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> <;;;;/span> 09:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ], vandalism and civility issues == | |||
| Some other editors and I have reverted this user for adding comments like to the current featured article. I reported him to ] but then the user insisted that it was a mistake and that he was only reverting vandalism. This is nonetheless very peculiar as he added the same line twice and some of the reverts were about reverting his own edits (i.e. capitalising "A" and then changing them to "a" and viceversa). | |||
| The user replied using explective language on his talk page and removing warnings. He seems to have quite a good grasp of wikipedia terminology to be a newbie (i.e. AGF). Recently, he has started to leave test warnings on my userpage to make a point. | |||
| At the same time, he has started to contribute to the article. However, he has a big civility problem indeed and seems completely unrepentant. I would appreciate if someone else can look into this. Regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :PS: I just found out he reported me for vandalism for removing his feeble warnings off my talk page. Unbelievable... ]<sup>]</sup> 22:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi! I added the edward line above by accident while reverting the removal of useful changes. After I got a little brathing space, I removed all vandalisms I accidently added . | |||
| : I never knew about his AIV until another editor told me about it after it was already done. | |||
| : I did not initially change "A"s to "a"s or vice versa. | |||
| : Yeah, I did, though I never attacked anyone personally. | |||
| : I did not remove any warnings except the ones Asterion added while vandalizing my discussion page. | |||
| : I am not a newbie, and never claimed I was. What is it with you guys to never get that right? | |||
| : I indeed left warnings on Asterion's user page because he removed discussion items. See ] for details. | |||
| : I started to contribute to the article before any of this hit the fan. --] | |||
| ::Quite obviously "my removal of content" was nothing but an edit conflict causing by editing through a ''diff. edits'' screen, therefore giving me no warning of you editing at the same time. I treat all users, newbies or not, with respect and expect likewise. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Oh, why didn't you say so earlier? I don't use diff.edits screen (or even know what that is), maybe you shouldn't if they destroy data. | |||
| ::: That got me laughing, thanks! A question: If someone puts a vandalism warning on your /Talk, do you always ignore that without even looking what's going on? --] | |||
| ::::I do recognise disruption to make a ] when I see it, in the same way I recognise uncivil comments towards me and other users. There is no need to make wikipedia an unpleasant place for anyone. Please be civil. Regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Then please share with us, as I cannot see WP:POINT in any way involved. | |||
| ::::: Your (collective) rv attempts were clumsy, Daniel5127 fingering of my /Talk was misplaced, and I don't see the problem with the last one. | |||
| ::::: You, on the other hand, have an axe to grind. Calm down and take a break. --] | |||
| :::::: Vandalism isnt a mistake you make, you either vandalise or you dont - theres no middle line.. <small>] (]{{·}} ]{{·}} <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span>{{·}} ])</small> 23:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: So I don't. --] | |||
| ::::::::''"I removed all vandalisms I accidently added"'' - yes, apparently you do. ] 23:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: (Ah great, bickering about words is just what we need.) I don't vandalized, I only accidently added text that should not have been added. Vandalism implies intent. --] | |||
| ::::::::::I merely pointed out what the comment was responding to (ie, the contradictory nature of your previous words, which appeared not to have been noticed by yourself) - I'm not one for bickering. I'm merely the sort of person that explains the misunderstood. ] 23:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please quit this bickering between the two of you. This is not the place for it. Incidentally, when you edit through page diffs, it's pretty difficult to botch up a vandalism revert unless there are multiple vandal edits and you fail to go all the way back. Even then, it isn't really botched as all you have to do is go to the correct old version of the page, and click edit to revert from there. Unfortunately, it doesn't give an indication of any edits submitted in the mean time, but it's easy enough to revert back and fix if you notice tha you've done it (and you should always check for it). I'm not even going to suggest dispute resolution as this particular dispute is quite trivial - all everybody needs to do is follow policy, and avoid making mountains out of molehills. ] 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :In particular I think both sides should admit they've made mistakes and get it over with. I saw this begin almost an hour ago and it's all pretty ridiculous. --] 23:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree. --] | |||
| :::Good to hear :) Lets hope that's the end of the matter. ] 23:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In almost a year doing RC patrols, I have never encountered a case of accidental vandalism, but I am willing to afford him the benefit of doubt. Sorry for wasting your time, folks. I should know my ] better. Good night, ]<sup>]</sup> 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :''Moved at Jayjg's suggestion from ]'' - ] | ] 23:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| We've got what I think is becoming a problem with {{User|Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez}}. Jimenez was a prominent early member of the ], and is one of the people keeping alive the flame of that organization. The Young Lords in their heyday were certainly notable, and—from everything I understand—Jimenez was a notable member of their leadership. However, he was not as uniquely notable as is suggested in his own recent edits. He has been doing a lot egotistical writing about himself that runs up against ], and from what I can tell he is not doing it all under this one account: {{user|207.241.132.148}}, {{user|207.241.134.232}} and {{user|Jose jimenez}} are clearly him (not just based on content but on idiosyncratic punctuation). | |||
| I've tried to warn him gently on his talk page, and to suggest what might be some more appropriate topics for him to write about, but it isn't getting any results. I don't want to get into a war with him, and I don't want to drive him away: this is a guy who doubtless could bring a lot to Misplaced Pages if someone can get through to him what this is actually about. | |||
| I reverted several of his edits once at ]; he has re-introduced roughly the same, anonymously. I would appreciate if a few more people get involved in this, because I don't want it to get personal. - ] | ] 02:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : It looks like in the roughly 24 hours since I wrote this, no one has touched the ] article. Again, I'm asking that someone else look in on this, because I don't want this to get personal between me and him. - ] | ] 01:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've protected the page on a version that will, ideally, deal with ] issues and hopefully bring him to the Talk: page. Please let me know if that helps, as I don't really know anything about this topic. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Assuming bad faith == | |||
| {{User|Timelist}} has been adding the following description to several articles relevant to journalistic fraud, "consistently conned, fooled, and duped the newspaper and its readers, over and over again, on many important news stories" (e.g., ], ], ], ], etc). I left a on Timelist's ] explaining to the relatively new user that these edits were POV and created an unencyclopedic tone through hyperbole. In response, Timelist blanked my comment on his/her talk page, said "Why are you trying to minimize the seriousness of journalistic fraud?" on , and, after I cautioned Timlist to adhere to ], wrote "" in an edit summary reverting my edits to an article. Aside from the POV and WP:NOT problems inherent in Timelist's edits, I found Timelist's post on my talk page and edit summary to be evidence of bad faith. Perhaps Timelist needs to be encouraged by others to adhere to WP:AGF? · '''<font color="#707070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 01:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please explain your objections to me in a coherent way before wasting the valuable time of administrators. I'm a reasonable person and am willing to listen to coherent arguments. I just prefer straight talk in encyclopedias, not ambiguous terms like "journalistic fraud" ] 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Timelist just implied that I have some sort of "" despite my pleas to assume good faith and explanation that, in my nearly two years of editing here, I have followed a consistent pattern of fighting POV and unencyclopedic language (which explains my dealings with Timelist, it's certainly not because of some "personal agenda" relating to journalistic fraud). I think this behavior reiterates the need for someone else to remind Timelist of AGF. I don't plan to discuss this situation with Timelist any further, for what its worth. · '''<font color="#707070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 01:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::All persons have agendas. How is this assuming bad faith? Let's not take up valuable time and space playing word games ] 03:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, saying that people have personal agendas is considered assuming bad faith. We are not here to impose our ideologies upon the encyclopedia; rather, we are here to build it as the most impartial possible. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 03:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've seen far too much edit warring and hostile edit summaries. If you continue in this way you could very well be blocked.--] 04:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == linkspammer with sockpuppet? == | |||
| ] seems to be an SPA account for a linkspammer. might be a sockpuppet judging by the content. --] <sup>]</sup> 08:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Wow, now that's what I call responsive. Thanks :) --] <sup>]</sup> 09:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] newspaper's report on the ] article == | |||
| On ]'s website, , it has falsely claimed that Misplaced Pages has banned users from editing the page - yet, it's still editable by ''anyone'', and it looks as if this report could be giving Misplaced Pages a bad image. I've already watchlisted the page; please do so, as vandalism seems to be becoming more frequent. --] 11:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] is semi protected. --] (]) 11:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Fairly customary when we're getting slashdotted, but these two are going to be lingering sores (except that The Sun's report makes the Borat article "in the news" and therefore eligible for the slashdotted template & s-protection), so we're just going to have to sit on top of them as if they were toddlers in traffic. ] 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages may be put into legal trouble {{User|65.0.101.151}} == | |||
| This user has placed personal information on Misplaced Pages without consent and should be permanently blocked. Misplaced Pages may be held liable for this user's actions. Please refer to the following: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sasha_Sokol&diff=85990352&oldid=85834424 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paulina_Rubio&diff=85989277&oldid=85923346 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Thal%C3%ADa&oldid=85989528 | |||
| History info should be cleaned up and the named "person's" info should be removed as there is no proof the named person created the links (spam). Misplaced Pages could be held liable for defamation. Please remember that IP numbers may be shared by multiple users. Please refer to {{User|65.0.101.151}} contributions page. | |||
| ] 11:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :May I ask you ]? All further correspondence should be directed to the ]. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 12:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I see absolutely nothing wrong with these reverts of your atrocious linkspam. —] 12:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree, he has done nothing wrong apparently, unless a specific diff is found... -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{User|65.0.101.151}} violated privacy issues, which can lead to legal action. ] 13:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : User's first edit... -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Dont post personal info on the web then. "To every action there is an equal but opposite reaction." <small>] (]{{·}} ]{{·}} <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span>{{·}} ])</small> 13:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Considering the IP adding the linkspam appears to have started the "flinging personal information about" thing (check out the history in the Sasha Sokol link above) - the complaint is rather curious, no. *headshake* Not to mention that 65.* seems to be doing a fine job of removing advertising links and material from a number of articles. ] <small>]</small> 16:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages’s double standards? == | |||
| I've noticed that for a 3RR report some users received 2 weeks block and others received nothing. | |||
| On articles related to Transnistria I've had to deal with edit warrior ] (a correspondent for ''Tiraspol Times'' - an on-line newspaper which supports Transnistrian regime and Russian expansionism), for whom I alone counted 6 different cases of 3RR violations, which I reported. He was never blocked. He was "warned" twice , ; once, the report was rejected because I did not indicate a "Previous version" ; I simply received no reply in the fourth case , and in the last two cases, which took place in 4th November, a Russian admin (not coincidentally Russian) protected the respective articles on which the 3RR had been violated but did not also block the guilty user , . | |||
| I am calling attention to this double standard (in fact to the lack of any standards) in which one user receives two weeks for violating the 3RR while another violates the rule six times without even being blocked once. It seems for me a pattern of 3RR violation with some admin's acceptance. I myself have violated the 3RR once some time ago because of said edit warrior (I also didn’t receive a block, I refrained myself from Misplaced Pages for 24 h after that violation).--] 12:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :. I believe that he will be making his comments shorty. Thank you. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 14:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Hi Nearly Headless, thanks for the chance to comment. Most, if not all, of the above is misleading, starting with the now-almost-daily disqualification from MariusM that I write for the Tiraspol Times (he uses that frequently on lots of pages against me as a way to imply that I have a conflict of interest.) I have merely a single unpaid guest comment once on the OpEd page, which is the section where Letters to the Editor go. My own nationality (I am from India) and that of ] (from Russia) is also wholly irrelevant to any technical evaluation of 3RR. MariusM himself has violated 3RR more than the single instance which he claims but it is not my style to report anyone, and I very rarely do so. Another admin, ], has commented on some of this and may want to give his thoughts on the current debacle. I personally feel that I am being wikistalked and continually reverted by ] and I have already discussed this problem with a third admin, ]. He has followed the problematic issue as well. I have not been wanting to take action yet, but I am concerned about the increasing hostility of this situation and will probably need to file an RfC if it escalates. - ] 14:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Mauco, if you claim that I violated 3RR more than once, please prove it. I have the same feeling as you, as being wikistalked. You were reverted not only by me, but by other users also. I mention that tommorow I will not be on the internet, but from aftertommorow I am ready to meet again with my friend Mauco and answer at all his concerns about me. I call him a friend as I talk with him more than with my wife - talk pages of Transnistria related articles in Misplaced Pages prove this :-) .--] 18:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Maurius, I believe that you should take this to ] as I believe that it is a serious matter. Regards, — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 13:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Annoying non-civility == | |||
| * {{vandal|Kaltenborn}} | |||
| * {{vandal|Randazzo56}} | |||
| * many AoL edits | |||
| There seems to be an AoL user who is frequently adding racist and non-encyclopedic information to articles, such as ] or ] (since deleted). If I had to guess, Randazzo56 is the "good cop" and speaks as if truly interested in improving Misplaced Pages but Kaltenborn is the ID he uses to write non-civil obscenties and other slams against users. From my talk page, it's clear that he frequently logs in/out and signs on via AoL proxies in order to have any overt vandalism cleaned up and attributed to an AoL IP. I didn't put the two accounts together until it just seems like Kaltenborn is interested in too many of the same articles as Randazzo56, such as ], ], ], ]. Finally, their edit style for talk pages is highly similar (Randazzo56: ; Kaltenborn: ). You'll notice the use of the 2-word phrase as a section title, followed by the rest of the sentence, and they both never sign the correct 4 tilde, leaving the date off. | |||
| Any suggestions on how to handle this one? He's become an annoyance and frequently acts as if I'm ruining his articles when I remove non-encyclopedic content (has ] issues). ] 15:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Did I get ignored? ] 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==SPUI.. again== | |||
| How ''does'' everyone feel about a community ban on SPUI? After two blocks for adding the SQUIDWARD edit summaries he stopped. But as soon as he returned, he was blocked for 31 hours for a 3RR violation. It's becoming very obvious that he is coming to Misplaced Pages to disrupt with every edit he makes and not to contribute positively. ''semper fi'' — ] 19:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : All prior warnings, notices, and recommendations that he stop become covered by an admin. Yes, you can revert so that it is visible, but when its been covered several times, recovering becomes an incredible hassle. Looking at his and his , it seems as if he does not want to constructively contribute to Misplaced Pages after "leaving." How many "second chances" must we give this destructive user? ] <small>(]) (])</small> 19:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. He's had too many chances. --] 19:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I wouldn't want to see SPUI community-banned. He's made a lot of good encyclopedic edits, and I think he's a good user. OK, so he had a moment of madness, but he's a decent editor, IMHO. --] 19:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::God let's end this already. Yes, he was a very prolific contributer, but I don't think he's here to be constructive anymore. Also, all my recent real-life experiences tell me that I would rather have someone who contributes less but doesn't cause any trouble, than someone like this. ]]] 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::His 3RR block is kind of odd. He reverted the featured article of the day 4 times by removing what he considered was unsourced original research, and then reported himself on the en-wiki mailing list. ] 19:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Categorizing his recent 3RR block as typical of any past disruption he may have been involved with is not fair, IMO. Even the best editors go into 3RR from time to time, and this specific instance involved enforcing the Misplaced Pages original research policy on the article that sat on the front page all day. Whether he's exhausted the community's patience, I have no real input on, although I think he does valuable work here. But let's not try to frame this specific instance from yesterday as part of anything greater than what it was. --] <small>]</small> 19:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(Edit conflict)...or as Thatcher said above. --] <small>]</small> 19:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Oppose community banning'''. SPUI deserves an RFC to start with anyway, not some AN/I discussion. ]''' <sup>]</sup>''' 19:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::We tried that. Others came and defended him, ignoring the evidence. ] --''']''' (] - ]) 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The current popular principle behind a community block is that if no admin will unlbock then the block was probably OK. That isn's going to hapen with SPUI.] 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' community ban. He is hardly contributing and not really a problem now. If he is indefblocked for something he has recently done, I will unblock him after a reasonable amount of time. ] ] 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Just because he's hardly contributing doesn't mean he hasn't been a problem. Ever since the beginning of October he has been a problem. Lets look at the facts shall we: | |||
| *October 12-13 he edits with SQUIDWARD summaries: | |||
| :He recieves a block: 03:41, 14 October 2006 Lar (Talk contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 15 minutes (Please stop SQUIDWARDing...) | |||
| *He returns October 23/24 to edit with the SQUIDWARD summaries again: | |||
| :Blocked again: 05:19, 24 October 2006 Konstable (Talk | contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 hours (again, please stop SQUIDWARDing) | |||
| *He returns on November 3-5 to edit V for Vendetta (film) and it's talk: | |||
| :Blocked again: 03:35, 5 November 2006 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Violation of 3RR) | |||
| Literally the only edit he hasn't been blocked for in the last month is blanking his talk page with an Image of a duck. ''semper fi'' — ] 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sad, isn't it? Apparently as long as you have some good contributions, you get to act however you want, and your admirers, defenders, whatever, will at best hand out a series of 24 hour (or less) blocks, and at worst, ignore the behavior completely. Can anyone explain why this has been allowed to continue? --] 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Because he's made 74,000 contributions. Of which 40,000 are probably controversial page moves which have been corrected by new | |||
| guidelines now.. :\ ''semper fi'' — ] 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Exactly, and we have no real method of knowing which contributions are constructive. The page moves did nothing but create mass controversy and led many editors to quit in disgust. It's even worse when one or two admins reverted his blocks because he was such a good editor. I'll repeat what ] spoke of during some controversy that SPUI created: "No one editor is indispensable to the project." If SPUI becomes a nuisance, then he should not be able to contribute in that manner; yes, he made good edits, but so have we, and the project continues forward. Whether or not we have SPUI is irrelevant; there will always be other editors to take his place, as clearly demonstrated today. After his "leave", we still have editors on road topics throughout all 50 states that do fine without SPUI. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe because we're here to contribute? On a more serious note, I don't see what exactly is bannable here. Prior to the V 3RR thing, he got blocked for using weird edit summaries on edits that either attempted to remove OR marginally-encyclopedic material or were RfA votes. His second block was for squidward edit summaries on two talk pages. How is this significantly more grounds for banning than using no summary at all? Are people ''that'' bothered to see "squidward" on the RC list twice in two days (in latter case)? I agree with Jeff on the description of the V incident. --] 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You need to review all of his to get a good idea of how much he's gotten away with... ] <small>(]) (])</small> 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::SQUIDWARD! is the name fast-pace vandal. The vandal generally gave the edit summary SQUIDWARD! as he was vandalizing. SPUI copyign that was inappropriate, whether he was vandalizing or not. ''semper fi'' — ] 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, it's because the case is not made at present. If the guy is reporting himself for 3RR, then it may be WP:POINT, but it's hardly serial disruption. Basically, we can't see how he's going to behave after the last block. He has built up a lot of animosity from some people, and they're very ready to get the gallows ready, but I don't see him currently earning the noose. I think it has to be an unrepentant pattern, and the only unrepenting problem was the edit summaries, and now he's repented. ] 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The 3RR may not be serial disruption. What would you call the remainder of his block log? And so what if he's repented? Maybe it's just me, but to see problem, repent, problem, repent, problem, repent, would seem to indicate we have a problem with more than just SPUI. Look, I make no assumptions that this will go anywhere; as I said, there are too many people willing to overlook too much. --] 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It was a serial disruption when SPUI was disrupting page after page with his own naming conventions. It's been done in the past, which should not be overlooked. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 01:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Absolutely: it should not be overlooked, and I wouldn't advocate turning the other way. The question isn't, I hope, all or nothing. I just didn't see anything going on since that nasty episode. If it does, I'll be on board with a community ban, but I think community bans should be when the other person isn't acting out of an interpretation of what's best for Misplaced Pages. When the other person is misinterpreting or being petulant about their views of policy and practice, ArbCom's deliberative process should be best. When a person is just exhausting everyone by insisting after a clearly settled issue or pride or a desire to play gotcha with someone or a desire to settle political scores (real life ones, like the nationalists and monomaniacs), then it's community patience. That's my view, anyway. ] 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Here's my take on the situation. Give him a block that will actually prevent him from disrupting (a few days or so). See how he acts then. If he socks during, or continues acting up after, then I think that should remove some doubt. --] 03:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah why not? A community ban for a few days? Or a week? --''']''' (] - ]) 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :A short block with the intention if we can bait a user into sockpuppeting is not something I could ever support. However, a permanent community ban for SPUI, who has committed many, many times more infractions and disruptions than plenty of other permabanned users, has ignored countless requests, decisions and judgements, and is bizarrely and inexplicably supported by some admins (is he nice to them on IRC?), and has driven good editors away from Misplaced Pages, is something I would get behind. This needs to go to ArbCom, and this needs to be resolved. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Oppose any community ban through ANI''. This better be taken through an RfC. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 12:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Note, it's been taken through RfC before... He's exhausted all of our patience, and its senseless to keep taking it to ANI, RfC, etc. if the outcome is going to be the same: status quo. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 14:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure what a short block would solve either. While I've given SPUI blocks in the past to try to get him to stop being disruptive, maybe those just don't work with him. On the other hand I DO think he adds value and would hate to see him permanently banned. Is there nothing else? No other way to reach him and get at whatever the root issue is? I guess I am more willing than some to keep trying with SPUI. But in the end Misplaced Pages is not... a lot of things, including a selfhelp org for those that don't want to change, or a babysitting service, or a group therapy session, or a twelve step program, among others. If there is no change possible then, so be it. One more chance maybe but, really, no more. (as an aside, I totally reject the notion Badlydrawnjeff advances above, that "even the best editors go into 3RR sometimes" I've never, ever, ever done that...) ++]: ]/] 12:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think I longer short block than before would accomplish something in the fact that it would actually prevent him from doing something, whereas the previous blocks of a few minutes/hours it has been suggested he may not have even noticed (I did not mean to 'draw out' sockpuppets as suggested above; I merely meant that a preventative block must actually prevent something to be effective). --] 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've had enough of this. He needs to be banned. '''Now'''. ANYONE who has the mentality that they can do whatever the hell want, like SPUI clearly does, should be blocked. --] <small>]</small> 12:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok... so when the huge edit war over road names he was involved with wound up with a decision he opposed being forced through in unusual circumstances despite a lack of true consensus (again, there were reasons this ''had'' to be done and as one of the people who backed it I am here criticizing ''myself'') the 'massively disruptive' reaction he had was to continue making valid contributions, but using the edit summary "SQUIDWARD". For this heinous crime he was blocked... twice. Then, when asked to stop using such summaries... he did! Dastardly. Instead, he went and explained that he was making changes to a new page to remove original research... some sort of theory about how the 'V' in 'V for Vendetta' was probably a reference to the roman numeral for five. That looks like original research to me. Removing it with explanatory edit summaries was therefor... proper. Edit warring when it was re-inserted was not, but seems hardly grounds for a community ban. It seems to me that SPUI is giving his detractors thin pretexts to demonstrate their bias and animosity towards him... and they are happily obliging. SPUI is not being a model Wikipedian, but as reactions to brow-beating and tossing consensus out the window go this isn't exactly the end of the world. --] 16:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree CBD. We shouldn't be simply community ban someone for a 3RR or for a few mild edit summaries, but when is enough, enough? His edits aren't as much as the problem as the attitude and straight-fowardness of his edits. It's not that his edits are ''wrong'', but he pushes the issue until his opposition either gives up or a third party gets involved or blocks him. Really how many things has he done that has gotten himself blocked over his time on Misplaced Pages. Just to name a few: | |||
| :::*Moving Highway articles ''a lot'' | |||
| :::*Move warring | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::*Copyright violations | |||
| :::*Testing Misplaced Pages's browser blocking code on ] | |||
| :::*per ArbCom decisions for putting pro-pedophile userboxes on his userpage | |||
| :::*Probation violations | |||
| :::*SQUIDWARD! edit summaries | |||
| ::Again, he may not be wrong, but the way he edits is disruptive and non-helpful. It's not a question anymore of how useful or correct he was a year ago or a few months ago as some people agrue. We have community banned '''former administrators''' before. SPUI has made several useful contributions before, no question, but so have other banned editors. How far do we push each ourselves with SPUI? How far before we say 'enough'? ''semper fi'' — ] 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You ask 'how far'. My standard is quite simple... 'has it reached the point where it seems clear this user will never be a positive contributor'? I look at 'squidward', a 3RR violation in pursuit of 'no original research', and ducks in a pram and see 'silly git'... not 'irrational monster beyond all hope of redemption'. Everything else you list up there is what, months old? And many of them seemed, to me, as much over-reactions and misrepresentations as the accusations of 'blatant vandalism' which accompanied his silly 'squidward' edit summaries (despite no vandalism actually being involved). To put it another way... SPUI made positive contributions, but put a silly 'squidward' edit summary on them. He was then ''falsely'' accused of vandalism and a community ban called for. His reaction? He issued no personal attacks, made no disruptive edits, and stopped using the silly edit summary. Where I come from that's called a phenomenal improvement in behaviour compared to the SPUI from months back you describe above. So where the indication that he is a bad bad man who will never do any good? --] 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I rephrase my question. It's been over one month since he has contributed without getting blocked. How long do we put up with his nonsense before he becomes a 'positive' contributor again? ''semper fi'' — ] 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your framing assumes that blocks for 'squidward' edit summaries were valid. I don't believe they were. 'How long without being blocked' isn't much of a standard when blocks are placed for things which represent no real 'damage' or 'disruption' to Misplaced Pages at all. To my way of thinking, SPUI has made exactly ONE block-worthy edit in that time period... his fourth revert on the 'V' original research. --] 19:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The only reason the blocks for the squidward edit summaries may not have been valid is because he was never warned about it. After sternly warned, yes, he stopped. But does that excuse him from copying the well-known vandal edit-summary? If I suddenly started using those edit summaries and continued after a block (and yes SPUI did), would that not be ]? ''semper fi'' — ] 22:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The other concern is that he has chased many users away from Misplaced Pages (names can be provided on request) directly or indirectly because of his actions. And made the highways area an unpleasant place to work. Also, SPUI has not made any uncontroversial mainspace edits in over two months (uncontroversial excluding SQUIDWARD or the 3RR). Not that that necessarily mounts to anything however.... --''']''' (] - ]) 03:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And in the realm of the truly bizzare...its either a sockpuppet or a fanboy . Though why be either, I haven't a clue. ] | ] 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also {{user|Bushcarrot}}. —]→] • 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Very well, then. Are we going to continue to argue or actually do something here? // ] (]) 04:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do we vote? Have a more formal discussion? There is no clear-cut answer here, unless we send this to ArbCom. --''']''' (] - ]) 04:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't see what the issue is here. It is really quite easy to not be disruptive. He has had more than 50 chances to do it over the course of a year and a half. —]→] • 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well then who will hit the block button if it is to be done? Discussing it and doing nothing else doesn't help. --''']''' (] - ]) 04:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It doesn't matter who will block him, because someone like CBD will come along and unblock him. Look at his block log; just a series of blocks and unblocks. I'm not going to be the one to start a wheel-war with people who look at his attitude and say, "Eh, it's not THAT bad. Why, 50% of his contributions are completely uncontroversial! What are you all complaining about?" Until someone like Jimbo puts his foot down, SPUI will continue to act like he does, half of you will continue waste your time to undo his shenanigans and argue for his permablock, and the other half will waste their time arguing why he should stay and unblocking any errant blocks. Don't you think all this wasted time could be spent better elsewhere? --] 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So what you're saying is...if someone's going to inappropriately wheel war...then we can't block appropriately. --] 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No, what I'm saying is I'm not going to waste my time blocking SPUI just to see someone unblock him. You can wheel war over him until the cows come home if you think it'll do some good. --] 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If someone wheel wars, it should be dealt with. In the meantime, that shouldn't prevent us from making legitimate blocks. It's like saying, "Why bother writing articles, they'll just be vandalized." --] 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::So our options at this point are to a) block or b) send this to RFC or ArbCom. Meanwhile, nothing is getting done. As I was involved in the ArbCom stuff it would be conflict of interest to block so in reality I can't. --''']''' (] - ]) 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As I said before, and will say again, to make the message clear... '''ban ban ban ban ban ban ban'''. --] <small>]</small> 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, but we might as well take it back to ArbCom. It should not be "300 strikes and you're out", and he's been blocked enough times to make anyone realize that he isn't going to do much of anything that's actually constructive. I'm not 100% sure ArbCom would be able to solve the problem, because they've dealt with him before, and he doesn't seem to have any respect for their decisions. It could still be worth trying, since ArbCom could just decide to indefblock/ban him. An ArbCom block/ban would be less likely to result in a wheel war. --''']]]''' 00:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think this matter can be handled without involving ArbCom. The terms are simple: I think we are all agreed that his behavior needs to improve, that he needs to make a serious & sincere effort at playing by the rules; the disagreement appears to be whether he can be convinced to improve or that he is beyond all hope & we have no choice other than to ban him from Misplaced Pages. As constructive as he might be (I haven't followed his edits, but for the sake of argument let's say he is), if SPUI -- or any Wikipedian -- is being disruptive to the point that he has received multiple blocks yet no one cares enough to intervene & save him from a permanent ban, then the community has made its decision & clearly wants him gone. So is there anyone who is working with SPUI offline from Misplaced Pages with the aim of improving his behavior & avoid having him banned from this project & losing his constructive contributions? If there is, I hope that would be enough to convince the "Ban SPUI" faction to have some patience & give him one more -- even if it is only his last -- chance. If there is not, & no one is willing to volunteer to help SPUI from being banned, then it's hard not to conclude that the proper solution is a Community Ban. All it would take is for one person to volunteer to work with him to keep him; otherwise, silence is consent & it's clear, despite what some may say, everyone wants him gone. -- ] 01:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am more than willing to assist SPUI in becoming a constructive editor here again as long as he doesn't continue with his extreme forms of silliness. As long as he is willing to be a positive contributor, we can always use another hand on Misplaced Pages. But this my only offer to help the guy, if he continues being disruptive, I'm not going to be as helpful the next go-around. ''semper fi'' — ] 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| SPUI can be banned by any administrator from any area he disrupts. If he does not comply with the ban he may be blocked. See ]. Any administrator may do this. ] 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You bring up a good point. We still have the option of banning rather than blocking. Banning being "you can't edit this article anymore because you've disrupted it." --''']''' (] - ]) 04:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think that CBD's summary of the cause of the current situation is very apt. The 'highways' situation became extremely unpleasant -- SPUI was basically at one point being told that not only would he be sanctioned for not abiding by a non-consensus decision, but that he'd be sanctioned for ''pointing out'' that it was a non-consensus decision. (Admittedly he was pointing it out rather frequently, but when a bare majority is repeatedly mischaracterised as a "consensus", a certain feeling of frustration is somewhat understandable.) There's been lots of nonsense and silliness from SPUI before (I've been on the end of a small portion of it myself), but this seems to me to be different. This is sheer surmise and speculation, take it for what it's worth, but it appears to me more that he essentially quit the project over that issue, but due to on-going wikidiction and/or wishing to express residual resentment, isn't quite able to go "cold turkey", and so is making periodic forays back. I'm not especially hopeful this will end well, and in the circumstances, I doubt that "area bans" will be at all useful (since if I'm correct, it'll just force him to find other ways to vent, which he'll rise to the challenge of). I'd urge the community not to take any far-reaching steps just at the moment, but if he doesn't knock it on the head immediately, I'd be in favour of a "medium length" block (a week to a month or two, say) to stop him digging himself in yet deeper in the meantime. ] 08:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I would have thought mentorship would be a solution, in a way. --] 11:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Motion to ban SPUI==== | |||
| I have made a motion to ban SPUI for a year at ] ] 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I support this. If I had to "learn" to behave myself then so should he have. He's had his 1,000 chances and now should cool his heels for a bit. ] ] ] <b>VIVA!</b> 04:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Afrika paprika == | |||
| Greetings. A user by the user-name of ] had made serious violations: edit-warring, POV and original research-pushing as well as numerous violations of the blocks he received by creating sockpuppets such as ] and various IP anon. He got blocked by ] after these mistakes. I am requesting here his unblocking, as I think that an ''indef block'' is '''far too harsh''' towards him. Note also that I am not a wiki-friend of his, nor that he asked me to have him unbanned, but practically, ]. Note our extensive argument at ]. Finally, ] received only a "''limitation to one account and one-year ban from Kosovo-related articles''" after ] about ] - and Hipi (by collective opinion) deserves a lot bigger punishment and should've received 40 community bans by now. I think we have to treat all equally, as this gives the picture of the traditional stereotype when regarding the Yugoslavs (a ] in this case), whereas the ] seems to be favored in a way, regardless of the fact that he's a young ] (and Afrika only a minor offender). And lastly, I am starting a movement to ''ban banns'' since I consider then highly unappropriate (with the exceptions of self-requested ones, useless/damaging bots or just thin-headed vandals). | |||
| :With heart, --] 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You say right on the bottom of Paprika's talk page that blocks are meant as punishment. It is specifically mentioned in our ] that blocks are not punitive but preventative (not to be used as "punishment") and that blocks can be used to ''prevent disruption''. Paprika appears to have caused nothing ''but'' disruption, from viewing the whole talk page. Thus, an indef block is not "too harsh", it serves its purpose to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. ]]] 20:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::But such an opinion itself is ]. I guarantee that I can affect Afrika paprika and make him/her into a productive member of our society. He '''may/will be''' useful to the project. I once again repeat, Hipi had caused so much disruption, that he deserves to stand by Willy's side. Likeways, ] is the '''Father of sockpuppetry''' (with a dozen of sockpuppets ''found & identified'', unknown how many more others are there). It is thus that it's too harsh. Anyways, an indef ban is simply/practicly a waste. Isn't a '''''timed''''' (at least one-year-or-similar-type) more appropriate? --] 22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruption, edit warring, and incivility == | |||
| {{User|Fix Bayonets!}}, who was indef blocked a few months ago for a legal threat but was let off the hook after convincing me and others that he was going to engage in thoughtful discourse, has, since being unblocked, engaged in numerous edit wars and is pushing POV in multiple articles (], ], ] et al). While Fix Bayonets' contributions provide adequate evidence for my description here, two examples from today are ] and ]. Note that aside from edit warring at George Allen, Fix Bayonets also has violated 3RR there (which Fix Bayonets has been warned about in the past). I don't know what else to do about Fix Bayonets other than report the behavior here for now. I will consider starting a user conduct Rfc if it is deemed appropriate, but I'm concerned that the edit warring and POV-pushing will continue in the meantime. In any event, one could say that Fix Bayonets got lucky to be unblocked at all after a legal threat. Fix Bayonets' behavior after the unblock are a violation of the trust placed in him by established editors. · '''<font color="#707070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Regarding the SCV article, the consensus was to remove "Lost Cause" material, as it belonged in "Lost Cause" article. Therefore, I and other editors agreed that Walter Williams quote would be treated in the same fashion. But all of the "Lost Cause" comment was not deleted. I assumed this was merely an oversight, as I assumed good-faith -- that is the reason I removed the remaining "Lost Cause" sentence. If ALL the parties concerned (SCV editors) would comment, that would be more appropriate than Jersyko's bad-faith ad hominem attacks. | |||
| ::And I add that other Administrators and editors have agreed with my assessment of the SCV article. So I am not some crazed "lone wolf" at Misplaced Pages. {'''Even Jeseyko admitted that the SCV artcile was not NPOV when I began editing it.'''(SCV talk -- j e r s y k o talk · 15:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC).} | |||
| ::Regarding the George Allen article, my edit was reverted 4 times, as indicated . You will notice that prior to the 4th revert by the other editor, I requested an RFC and had kindly requested no more reverts. --Fix Bayonets! 22:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::This discussion does not need to take place here, but rather at ]. In any event, Fix Bayonets!'s claim of "consensus" is simply false. The consensus is ], and it was to remove a ''description'' of what ] is in the article text, not to remove sourced criticism of the Sons of Confederate Veterans that just so happens to mention Lost Cause, as Fix Bayonets! did . Relevant diffs from George Allen from today: , , , , . · '''<font color="#707070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 22:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Jersyko is aware that his description of the consensus reached at article SCV is incorrect, as can be seen from the 1st paragraph . | |||
| And regarding the George Allen article, my 3RR request was valid: | |||
| * 1st revert: | |||
| * 2nd revert: | |||
| * 3rd revert: | |||
| * PER TALK PAGE, I (FIX BAYONETS!] THEN STARTED AN RFC, AND REQUESTED NO MORE RVs: | |||
| * 4th revert: | |||
| Time 3RR report made: 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)--] --] 22:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've actually a '''huge''' number of reverts to that article today, as have a number of other RC Patrollers. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Fix Bayonets! has now altered my comment on this very page with edit. · '''<font color="#707070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 22:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, Jersyko, I renamed the SCV Talk page subsection-in-question and then ''updated your link'' so that Administrators and RFC respondents can MORE QUICKLY SEE which exact issue we are talking about (i.e., the "Lost Cause and Williams quote")... though I believe that User:L0b0t had originally named that section... '''not you.''' As I did not alter any actual relevant text (i.e., your accusations) you had written, your last accusation is '''unfounded,''' '''as are the rest of your accusations.'''--] 23:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ahh, I see now. You , then changed my link here to point to the correct subsection. I would merely note that the change in the subsection title was misleading, as it made the conversation appear to be about something that it was not. · '''<font color="#707070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Jersyko, your continuing ad hominem attacks and shrill accusations are disruptive and in violation of Wiki policy. I had asked that you allow discussion to take place on the SCV talk page, and you have responded frantically with more unfounded accusations. Again, I had renamed the SCV Talk page subsection-in-question and then ''updated your link'' so that Administrators and RFC respondents can MORE QUICKLY SEE which exact issue we are talking about (i.e., the "Lost Cause and Williams quote"). I believe that neutral parties will clearly see that your attempt to "spin" and skew facts concerning the consensus reached are not appropriate. And again, I respectfully ask that you allow the ''OTHER SCV editors'' comment on the issue, instead of continuing ad hominem attacks against me.--] 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think ] is the disruptive one. Fix is just trying to prevent slander on Misplaced Pages, and jersyko is encouraging it.--] 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ahh. Ok then. I find it a little amusing that my contributions to Misplaced Pages are suddenly in question, and I'm beginning to think that arbitration is approaching, though I hope not. · '''<font color="#707070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · | |||
| It's more than a bit rich to see someone who was indef banned for making legal threats, who is a pov-pusher, 3rr violator argue that someone who points this out is "slanderous". ]'s pov-pushing and policy violations (detailed above) mean productive users must waste valuable time dealing with him, and not writing articles. I strongly ask that an admin look into this matter. --<font color="black">]</font> <font color="darkgreen" size="1">]</font> 00:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::In my defense, '''the below edit''' is a fine example of the type of problems I and others are trying to address at the SCV article: | |||
| {{Quotation|"''By definition, heritage groups selectively interpret the aspects of the past that conform to desired positive characteristic of a predetermined philosophy….heritage promotion is above all an exercise in pride, which often deemphasizes or conflicts with universally accepted historic fact. Most professionally trained historians criticize the Sons of Confederate Veterans, their tenacious engagement in the “Lost Cause” myth and their aggressive attempts to stifle or obstruct any historic discussion contrary to their ideological constructs.''”|name of editor isn't imp., the Issue is}} | |||
| ::Obviuosly, there are editors who take a very hostile stance against the SCV, and there are other editors who are happy to stand by and watch those types of edits be made and do nothing about it. I suggest to you, User:Zantastik, that such edits violate Jimbo Wales' vision for Misplaced Pages: | |||
| {{Quotation|"''...e don't act '''in Misplaced Pages''' as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral.''"|] 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)(Re: ''Wikipedians by politics;'' emph. in original)}} | |||
| ::And that is why I and other editors, including at least one Administrator, have observed that the article was not compliant with WP:NPOV. Therefore, with all due respect, I again ask that you cease ad hominem attacks and allow the concerned editors to comment on the "Lost Cause"/Williams quote issue on the SCV Talk page.--] 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::] appears to have engaged in POV pushing and unhelpful editing activity. -] 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Will Bebeck, you are one of the editors who have defended and guarded the POV edit I quoted above or others very much like it. Again, in my defense, other Administrators and editors have agreed with my assessment of the SCV article -- that it was a poorly written biased article in violation of WP:NPOV. And it is apparent from other comments that others agree with my understanding of the exact nature of the "lost Cause"/"Williams" consensus --] 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :A lot has happened since September 13th. The SCV article was almost completely rewritten, for one thing. I fail to see how any of this is relevant to continuous POV-pushing, edit warring, and today's 3RR violation on your part. · '''<font color="#707070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You have now heard from at least two editors who were parties to the consensus state that they disagree with your assessment (of that "consensus"). Instead of continuing shrill ad hominem attacks against me on this page and elsewhere, why don't you attempt to re-address the actual matter in dispute (SCV "Lost Cause" and Williams quote). If you want the Lost Cause material to stay, I and others editors had stated that it was only appropriate to include referenced rebuttal. If you don't want the Williams quote (the rebittal), it is only fair that the "Lost Cause" material be removed from the SCV article. '''Even if you refuse to negotiate here, levelling accusations is not the way to resolve the matter.''' We can take this matter to a fair and impartial group of Misplaced Pages mediators. And again, I have cross-referenceed other Wiki pages to this sub-section, so I am asking you politely for the third time to not re-name the SCV talk page subsection.--] 01:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bedford didn't say anything about the consensus, but rather accused me of supporting slander. Again, I'm not seeing the relevance of all of this to edit warring, POV-pushing, and today's 3RR violation on your part. · '''<font color="#707070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 01:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This has turned from a conduct complaint, which an ] will do, into a content dispute, which does not belong here. Please use ] unless you people need us to do anything. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 01:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I should have gone with my original thought and started a User conduct Rfc. I'm starting one now, thanks for the reply. · '''<font color="#707070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 02:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, I would also point out that it didn't turn into a content dispute until Fix Bayonets tried to turn it into one (successfully, I see), despite my efforts to focus the issue. · '''<font color="#707070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 02:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == IP-hopping vandalism of ] == | |||
| A self-proclaimed "army of editors" editing from a variety of IP addresses has descended on the ] article, which has duly been {{tl|vprotected}}. This "army" appears to be a single editor, as the IPs share a common writing style, and a common ISP, BT: specifically BT-CENTRAL-PLUS IP pools There was some warm-up vandalism on other articles, notably ], prior to this, with some generic admin-baiting . See for warnings given. Please keep a watching brief on this, in case this recurs, or morphs in other directions. -- ] 00:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Some sample IPs: | |||
| * {{IPvandal|81.153.125.112}} | |||
| * {{IPvandal|86.140.140.64}} | |||
| * {{IPvandal|86.138.21.45}} | |||
| * {{IPvandal|86.137.26.50}} | |||
| * {{IPvandal|86.147.110.228}} | |||
| * {{IPvandal|86.137.61.0}} | |||
| * {{IPvandal|81.129.56.101}} | |||
| * {{IPvandal|86.143.234.224}} | |||
| * {{IPvandal|81.154.35.120}} | |||
| -- ] 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Long-term POV pushing, sock-puppetry and other disruption == | |||
| I started a ] recently to find out if I alone in seeing a disruptive pattern to a user's edits. Well, I received a fair amount of support from well respected users. {{user|Devilmaycares}} has already been blocked from editing once and has been warned with nearly every template out there. | |||
| In the course of the RFC I was made aware of another editors suspicions that this user was a sock puppet of ]. With less then 300 edits under his belt he did seem to have a strange amount of knowledge of the ins/outs of wikipedia. So I investigated further. | |||
| My first step was to compare the edit histories of both accounts. One of the first things I noticed was that these two accounts never edited the same articles, except for ]. Seeing as both accounts edited similar types of articles that seemed very odd. | |||
| The next thing I looked at was what days of the week did they edit most often in the month of October. Well, they both seemed to favor the end of the week, but that might not mean anything. | |||
| The second to last thing I checked took a bit of extra effort. I found days where both accounts had edited on the same day and I noticed something interesting: A clear pattern of switching between accounts can be seen. If these were different people then it would stand to reason that the "editing sessions" would overlap, or be in very different time periods, right? The edit histories showed a something very suspicious. The account would switch off editing and often with 2-5 min in between. Not just once... a ton of times. See ] if you wish to confirm it for yourself. | |||
| Now, with renewed confidence I checked one last thing... block logs. I noticed something interesting... when Grazon was blocked Devilmaycares would suddenly start editing. This has happened three times. (Compare the to for those days.) | |||
| Based on all the above... I think this user has created "Devilsmaycares" as a single purpose account with the intent to disrupt wikipedia. I recommend a long-term block for the Grazon account and a indef-block for Devilmaycares account. ---] (]|]) 01:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''Cross posting to WP:LTA - I guess thats a better place for this'' ---] (]|]) 07:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Trolling by page move, was: Botched long Series of Redirects == | |||
| ] -> ''']''' A botched attempt at fixing the name, via move, has resulted in many redirects and the page not loading.] 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You seem to have moved the same page nine times. This is a Bad Thing.<sup>TM</sup> Anyways, have you decided on a final resting place for the page? Until then, we don't know what all the other pages should end up pointing to. ] 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't ever do that many moves ever again Lance. :\ And besides it's impossible to begin an article name with a lowercase letter. See ]. ''semper fi'' — ] 01:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : smells like trolling. Block {{vandal|Lancepickens}} and {{vandal|Levisimons}} please. ] 01:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, please. ''semper fi'' — ] 02:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Unreferenced gossip and violation of BLP policy == | |||
| ] is seemingly obsessed with the Bollywood actress ] and arrives once a day to add completely unreferenced gossip about her romantic life. No references; this is a living person; we must be careful. We revert him and he returns again to add the same gossip. I have posted on his talk page, asking him to stop posting gossip, and he never replies. He has never engaged in any discussion with any of the other editors. (He has added gossip to other actress articles, but he doesn't seem to be as persistent there.) | |||
| Do we have to just keep reverting him and hope that he'll give up and go away, or does the BLP policy allow for blocking a persistent gossip-poster? ] 02:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I warned again. I would certainly be willing to place a brief IP block (with account creation enabled to encourage him to register) if he keeps it up. ] 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You removed his stuff -- and some other stuff that maybe should be restored, but that's a side issue -- and he immediately replaced it. Minutes after you warned him and cleared out the article. I don't think he knows how to read messages on his talk page. Or how to read the discussion page for the article. ] 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Please leave him a ] to which page it is in question; in this case, I'm moving the prior discussions to my header so the IPuser can reference which page this criticism is lodged against. Cheers, ] <small>(]) (])</small> 02:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == MyWikiBiz active? == | |||
| I stumbled across this page (copy saved ] in case it disappears) which seems could imply that ] is actively editing using sockpuppets. Quick checks of a few of the articles appear to show significant edits by various user accounts over the last month or so, since being blocked by Jimbo on 5 October. I was unsure where to post this. — ] 06:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Here is not a bad place. The Oct 27 timestamps indicate that they're still up to something, but I looked at a few of the files and they are just copies of our articles (e.g. ] and ], which were written almost exclusively by AlisonW and Pschemp). '''''×'''''] 07:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::] can do anything he wants on ''his'' site. Anon wikipedians are allowed to edit wikipedia. Including adding GFDL NPOV encyclopedia articles. NPOV is the key here rather than assuming bad faith by anons. - (unless a pattern develops, and his past history is not encouraging ... ) ] 07:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::MWB has had some meatpuppets for a while who were willing to add GFDL articles up here. Socks are possible, but it probably isn't needed. *sigh* ---] (]|]) 07:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh I refused to unblock MWB in an email a few weeks ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's doin gsomething odd with artilces I've written. Two of those there are ones I've linked to from my userpage so goodness knows what he's getting at. Probably some weird revenge since I told him to go talk to Brad about it. ] | ] 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == {{user|81.117.200.37}} == | |||
| When will something be done to stop this abusive sockpuppeter, now confirmed at ]? ] 11:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :{{User|Z Lopez}}, newest incarnation, not yet blocked. ] 15:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not a sockpuppet. I strongly suggest you perform a checkuser before accusing me of such things. JBKramer is assuming bad faith, and vandalizing articles based on this. ] 15:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{User|T Gholson}} - back. ] 15:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Like {{User|Z Lopez}}, I recommend you run a Checkuser. ] 16:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{user|F Sandoval}} = pattern. ] 17:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What pattern? Please explain. ] 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :We are not stupid thank you very much. You have one chance to straighten up and join the community as a responsible editor. ] 18:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Tag removal == | |||
| ''Moved to ]'' ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == One CFD withdrawn needs closing, other CFDs apparent bad faith by ] == | |||
| I would like help to sort out a problem which has arisen at CFD. (I am an admin myself, but cannot act as an admin in this instance, because I am actively involved). | |||
| My editing focuses on ] in the ], and on their constituencies. After some category restructuring (see ]), I thought that some category renaming would be appropriate, and made a series of suggestions at ]. I made the suggestions there rather than launch straight into a CFD, because my experience of CFD is that it can easily become conflictual and unwieldy if the range of options for consideration has not been discussed beforehand. My aim was not to somehow stitch up the CFD, but rather to try to clarify the issues by considering them without a CFD deadline looming. (I have seen previous CFDs in this area closed with a referral back to category talk, so it seemed sensible to try that ''before'' CFD rather than after). | |||
| That proposal was made on 4 November 2006, and I drew its existence to the attention of some editors who I know to be active in the area. My intention was to let the discssion run for a week or two, to help maximise consusus, before proceeding to CFD. (At time of writing 4 replies, all supporting my proposals) | |||
| On November 5th, one of those categories was nominated for CFD (see ]) by ], who was evidently unaware of the discussion at category talk. This CFD was brought to my attention on 6th November (see ]), and it nominated only one of the categories, with a rename different to those discussed in category talk. (Smerus proposed renaming {{cl|Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies}} to {{cl|Members of the United Kingdom Parliament representing English constituencies}}; my proposal was a rename to {{cl|UK MPs for English constituencies}}). | |||
| At 10:04, I responded at ] by pointing out the earlier discusson, and asking the nominator to withdraw the proposal so that we coukd create a new CFD including both options. Smerus kindly agreed to this at 16:21 UTC, and I created the new CFD tonight (see ]). I would like to stress that I have no complaint at all against Smerus, who has been civil and helpful and sought to resolve problems to seek a consensus, and who actions all show good faith. | |||
| However, in the meantime, at 11:13, ] nominated the remaining categories, but proposed only the format offered by . When I returned, I accepted Smerus's offer to withdraw, and created the new CFD at ]. | |||
| However, user Jc37 objects to the withdrawal, and at 00:42, 7 November 2006 says he/she wants only Smerus's proposal to be considered; only if it fails, should the earlier proposal be considered. (see ] and ], 00:32, 7 November 2006). | |||
| This seems to be to be silly at best, and destuctive at worst: the nominator has agreed to a new CFD to consider both options. That CFD has been created. The best-considered discussion is surely likely to be reached when all relevant options are on the table, from the outset. | |||
| '''Requested action:''' please can an admin close ], since the nomination has been withdrawn in favour of a later CFD. | |||
| However, it didn't end there :( | |||
| Having been notified of the ], ] then listed the three other categories for renaming, ''without'' listing the proposal originally discussed: see ], ]. | |||
| In subsequent comments at ] and ], Jc37 has refused requests to withdraw these nominations and called for another admin to be involved. | |||
| Jc37 has stated repeatedly that he/she opposes the use of abbreviations in the category names, and whatever its merits that is an entirely legitimate objection. However, the way in which these nominations have been made appears to have been designed to prevent or hinder consideration of all the options, and subsequent unwillingness to resove the situation reinforces that view. | |||
| I ], but since Jc37 has insisted that it is preferable to run a CFD ''without'' including the earlier options, I can only conclude that the aim in the second batch of discussions was to bypass ongoing discussions about the names of these categories, by using the CFD process to trump attempts to explore the issue and seek consensus. JC37 refuses to continue discussion, and has suggested admin intervention (see ]). I would have prefrred to continue discussion, but that has apparently been refused. In other circumstances I would ], but since a CFD process is underway, disengagement is a poor option. | |||
| '''Requested action:''' please can an admin close the CFDs at ], ] as bad faith nominations, and ask all editors concerned to discuss the issues further at ] and to return to CFD with a set of proposals which relects ''all'' the options for which there is support. | |||
| I feel strongly that it would set a very bad precedent for these nominations to continue: if CFD can be used used as a mechanism to disrupt and bypass consensus-seeking discussions, then there ill be a clear disincentive to discuss category changes before moving to CFD. That will only make for more confrontational CFDs, poorer decision-making, and a much harder job for the admins who monitor and close CFDs. | |||
| While I await admin response, I will go ahead and make counter-proposals to these CFDs. However, even after making the counter-proposals, I would still prefer the CFDs to be closed. Some participants have already made their recommendations without | |||
| Thanks! --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 12:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a totally unacceptable request and I suggest it is made in bad faith simply because BrownHairedGirl is worried that she will lose the debate on ]. There has recently been strong interest in removing gender categories for politicians on ]. BrownHairGirl seems to feel that when the proper forum for discussing categories (guess why it is called "categories for discussion"?) is not getting the results she wants the proper procedures should be voided in favour of a forum where she feels more confident of getting her way. I suggest that she should be reprimanded for making false allegations of bad faith. ] 01:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Piccadilly, that is '''utter nonsense''', as would be abundantly clear to anyone who does some minimal reading. I have no objection to anyone nominating a category for deletion, and while I would query the usefulness of a CFD on the female MP categories when there was a previous unsuccesful proposal only three months ago. I have not objected in these CFDs to the nomination to delete the categories (I recommend against, but I have not objected to that aspect of the nomination). | |||
| :::BrownHairedGirl that is '''utter nonsense'''. You '''''have''''' objected to use use of cfd and are continuing to do so. ] 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you had bothered to read my complaint above before launching into a ], or botgered to to read the discussion at ], or to read my contributions to the CFDs, you will see that I am ''not'' calling for an abandonment of the CFD, simply for a CFD which does not try to exclude options on which a consensus had been developed at category talk. | |||
| :::Drawing attention to your bad faith actions and attempts to intimidate other users, which have since got worse with the deletion of my comments on cfd, is not a personal attack, it is a public duty. ] 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Piccadilly, your allegation was based on the assunption that I did not want a CD to trakr place. That is false, as you can see from reading the CFDs. Your new allegation of intimidation is thefefore just more nonsense. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did not try, and have not tried, to void one forum in favour of another: if you read what I wrote above, I said "My aim was not to somehow stitch up the CFD, but rather to try to clarify the issues by considering them without a CFD deadline looming. (I have seen previous CFDs in this area closed with a referral back to category talk, so it seemed sensible to try that ''before'' CFD rather than after)." | |||
| :::When you have tried to stitch up cfd, saying "My aim was not to somehow stitch up the CFD" does not make you innocent. Just the same as when one has robbed a bank saying, "My aim was not to rob the bank" does not make one innocent. ] 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For goodness sake, I have not tried to stich it up! How on earth is a stitch up to ask that all options be presented from the outset, and that an editot should not attempt to bounce an existing discussion by taking part of it and rushing off with a different CFD which excludes the option to have achieved coinsensus so far? --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::All I want is a CFD with a set of proposals which relects ''all'' the options for which there is identifiable support, rather one lodged. Do you oppose that? A discussion at category talk cannot make a decision, and it cannot replace CFD. However, it can help to clarify the issues, and to allow users to define which options are useful to bring to CFD. | |||
| :::The proposals you present are too complex. If one wanted to be cynical one might suggest that you are trying to make things so hard to follow that few people will have the time to choose any option other than nodding them through or ignoring the discussion. ] 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::These categories are complex: there are a bundle of related categories involved. Why do you want editors to vite without being aware of all the issues? --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know what your motive is, Piccadilly, but your comment here is is either gravely mistaken or thoroughly malicious. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 02:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You have been caught out misbehaving grievously. I came here solely to defend an innocent user with whom I have no connection who has been maligned by you. You need to read ] and ] and stop acting like you own Misplaced Pages's coverage of British MPs. ] 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have been following this discussion for some time and am AMAZED by the consistent patience, forbearance and industry of ]. - ] 17:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am amazed at the unscrupulous methods she is prepared to use to impose her will. She has had the gall to delete my comments on cfd, which is about as clear-cut as bad faith can get. ] 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What on earth is unscrupulous about asking for a CFD which includes ''from the outset'' all the options which editors want to discuss, in partiular those which had achieved support in a live discussion at category talk before th nomination was made? --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"All the options" is an interesting statement. It sounds like you feel that you won't be "heard". What was stopping you from joining in the CfD discussions, rather than rather petulently (I apologise, but I'm having a hard time seeing it any other way atm) disregarding the noms except to dismiss them as unwanted? The mere fact that after several hours "away from your computer", you '''''still''''' chose to not join in the discussion, and start your counter nomination (pointing out that the previous nom was on the 5th, my additional noms were on the 6th, and her counter noms was on the 7th). And I have to admit, I'm starting to find the continued use of "bad-faith nomination" a bit irksome, especially when I consider the circumstances of your attempt at a separate duplicate/subsequent/alternative nomination. Anyway, I'll continue my thoughts below. - ] 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Can someone tell me what needs to be done in three sentences or less? --] 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes! | |||
| *'''Requested action:''' please can an admin close ], since the nomination has been withdrawn in favour of a later CFD. | |||
| *'''Requested action:''' please can an admin close the CFDs at ], ] as bad faith nominations, and ask all editors concerned to discuss the issues further at ] and to return to CFD with a set of proposals which relects ''all'' the options for which there is support. | |||
| :Hope this helps. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's that "bad-faith nomination" comment again. I even split the nomination at the request of another user. I feel I've been amenable, helpful and communicative. So I feel such an ''attack'' is unwarranted. - ] 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==General response== | |||
| Well, wow. This is apparently what I get for being away from Misplaced Pages for a couple days? | |||
| I'm rather stunned at BrownHairedGirl's accusations, I suppose I shouldn't be, but I am nonetheless. | |||
| I think the easiest way to respond would be to show a "timeline", and go from there. | |||
| First, take a moment and read: ]. (I'll be referring to it, but for space reasons, am deciding to not repaste it all here. If diffs are still requested, I suppose I can build a list.) I pasted her initial post from my talk page, and my response, to her talk page. | |||
| *Her post time: 10:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *My response: 10:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Her response: 10:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *My next response resulted in an edit conflict with Mai Oui!, whose response was at: 10:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ; while mine was at: 11:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *And then I responded to Mai Oui's comment at: 11:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Notice the immediacy of the discussion to that point. After that point, no responses whatsoever. I offered to list the rest of the nominations (since "someone else" had already listed a couple of categories that apparently she had made a plan for). I did so, and finished the nominations, though, as I mentioned, I didn't agree with the ] abbreviation, and noted the already existing nominations used "representing" rather than for or from, and so I nominated the rest based on the previsous nom's precedent. | |||
| :(interjection) But you didn't menton that the discussion at catehory talk was entirely in suppot of the abbbgreviations, and you didn't mention the abbreviations as an option, and you didn't include a link to the discussions at category talk. Basically, you were pointed to an existing discussion n a naming structure, saw that there was agreement for a particular format, and instead of exploring whay that structure was preferred, decided that you liked a different one, so set out to bypass the existing discussin by making a CFD which excluded the opotion prefered by other editors. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::(continued interjection) And you didn't mention that the discussion consisted of you and one or two other people. The concern by Mai Oui! was length of the name, and I never saw a support of ] as accurate. So I think a concern about ] is a valid concern. While ] suggests that such abbreviations are fine in article text (though ] is not one of those listed), ] says rather clearly that abbreviations should not be used in names. See also the even more specific ]. In order to cite ], one needs a reason, and name length is not a valid reason from what I have read. All that aside, What I also did was link to all relevant discussions in my nominations. There was full transparency to my actions. (Continuing on below.) - ] 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::First: there were four contributors to that discussion, not "one or two". | |||
| :::OK, you had a concern about abbreviations. But did first you looked at the wrong guidelines: those guidelines are about naming articles, but what we are discussing here is categories. The relevant one guideline is ], which depreactes abbreviations, but also says "Avoid names that are too long or too short. Short, simple names are preferred for categories" | |||
| :::Did you raise that concern in the discussion? No. You ignored the discussion and the long history behind it which coukd have been shown if you had asked, and went straight to CFD. | |||
| :::And you didn't link o the discussion. You linked to the talk page, rather than to the discussion. (It's a long talk page, and readers are unlikely to raed through all of it to find he relevant bit) --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And now we begin with a question of what's "true" in accusatory statements. sigh. | |||
| ::::Please take a moment and go look at the links. First, I ''did'' link to the discussion , not to your talk page. Second, when I did link to your talk page, I actually linked to exactly where the discussion was on your talk page (through the use of "#") See my comments at]. - ] 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Not only didn't I receive a response about them, but I didn't receive a response ''at all'', for quite some time. | |||
| :(interjection) Indeed. Because I was not a my computer, as you see from . --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I noted above, your first action, after 11+ hours of being away from your computer, rather than continue the discussion on your talk page, which above you've stated was where you feel that the current consensus was, instead was to immediately start a CfD draft in your sandbox , then to comment to others that you were drafting such a proposal, and then to propose it. If you were acting in such good faith, I would have presumed that you might have at least done as I did, and commented on your talk page about it. That you didn't, and that you ''rushed'' to pursue your counter nomination... Well, considering how loudly you've called my nominations "bad-faith noms", I wonder if actually your counter nomination was such a one. - ] 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::JC37, the nominator of that CFD had already kindly agreed to withdraw in favour of a new joint nomination. The longer I let that new nomination, the more likely it was that more people would spend time to a CD that was going. That's why the new CFD hads to be the first step. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The way that reads to me is that you felt that you had to rush your counter nomination because you felt that the people commenting at the existing CfDs needed the guidance of your new CfD? I would presume that's what comments in an existing CfD are for, which, again, you were welcome to do. FYI, as far as I can tell, you just stated that your nomination was a POV nomination. - ] 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Indeed, it was not until after BrownHairedGirl had nominated a separate set of nominations on the following day, and my subsequent responses to them, that she said anything at all. | |||
| :(interjection) Jc37, that's a neatly incomplete summary, isn't it? | |||
| :If you read ], you'll see that | |||
| :*The nomination was made by Smerus at 20:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* At 10:04, 6 November 2006 , I posted to opoose the nomination and note an earlier discussion, and asked the nominator to withdraw | |||
| :* At 10:20, 6 November 2006, I added a further comment, noting the need to include the other categs, and the support for a "shorter consistent naming structure" (the nomination would increase the length of already over-long category names). | |||
| : I then posted a message to each of the contributors to the CFD, pointing out the existence of an ongoing discussion at category talk. | |||
| :* Jc37 replied, noting that while the agreement at category talk was for shorter names, Jc37 disagreed. I replied, noting the need for consistency; | |||
| :*Shortly afterwrds, I left my computer for the day (last contrib 11:01), and did not return until to wkipedia until late in the evening: see . | |||
| ::*I saw that there was more discussion on my talk, but finding nothing from Smerus, my first priority was to go to the CFD to see if Smerus had agreed to withdraw the CFD. He had, so I created the new CFD and thanked him. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::* So what you're saying is that you were uninterested in any other discussion except the hope that someone had withdrawn their nomination so that you could go forth with yours, and ignored entirely that not all nominations had been withdrawn? Wow. Also, AFAIK, once nominated, the nominator can attempt to withdraw the nomination, but the CfD remains open until an uninvolved admin decides that there is consensus to close. (For example, if the nominator had suggested rename, and the commentors all said delete, and the nominator attempts to withdraw the nom to avoid deletion, the closing admin has the discernment to note that, and choose to close or leave open based on that.) I don't believe that Smerus's nomination was clear-cut at that point, and so closing as a withdraw would seem to me to be pre-mature. (And an excuse to post the counter nomination.)- ] 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No. I'm saying that it is in the right of a nominator to withdraw their nomination, and that had been done. Your addition of subsequent categories didn't alter that. -] <sup>] • (])</sup> 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: You continue to try to cast a pe-existing proposal as a counter-nomination, and to steadfastly oppose any attempt to discuss it. Wjy this insistence on jumping in on a existing discission, rushing the ategories concerbed to CFD, and then ejecting efforts to having the original categories propsal discussed too? | |||
| ::::I have not any point suggested that your noninatons should not be duscussed, simply that you should place them alongside the other options. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The only one "rushing" was you. I actually was discussing with you and Mai Oui, and nominated the cats out of that discussion. I don't see that you did so as well. - ] 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::How on earth was I rsuhing? You nominated {{cl|British female MPs}}, {{cl|Current British MPs}} etc, without posting anything to the discussion at category talk, ithout aiting to hear why the shorter anmes were favoured, and you even nominated one category for a new title which would clearly be factually wrong. :( --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 04:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| At that point, I started to try to discuss with her, but after seeing the situation, I decided that the best idea would be to suggest that a non-involved admin sort it all out. | |||
| Since then, I've not been on Misplaced Pages (for unrelated ''RL'' reasons). And apparently she's attempted to "clarify" / "modify" the previous nominations. I am still not certain why she has such a problem with allowing the nominations as listed, and suggesting her changes once they were finished, if she feels so stongly about it. | |||
| Anyway, At this point, I'm not going to presume what to think about this. What I'd like to see is the original nominations be "un-modified", and run their course, and the "duplicate" nomination re-listed once they are done. However, this is now a mess, since several people have already voted in the duplicate nomination, and with her "modifications", the existing noms would seem to be a mess now as well. | |||
| I wish whoever deals with this a lot of luck and discernment : ) - ] 10:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Note: As far as I can tell, all the categories in question were tagged either by the original nomination, or by me. I don't believe that BrownHairedGirl updated any of the tags for her duplicate/subsequent nomination. - ] 10:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, I think the easiest thing to do would be close ALL of the nominations right now as duplicates of each other, and the two of you can get together and nominate them again, without any other nominations getting in the way and confusing me. Would either of you have a problem with that? --] 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Kbdank71, that's fine by me, as long as there is some discussion first to ensure that the nominations start off by all offering the various options for which there is obviously some support, and that they include the relevant sub-categories (I'm not sure that any of the existing nominations are complete). I suggest that rather than discuss it in user space, that the discussions should take place at ]. I hope that's acceptable to everyone. | |||
| :I should stress that I'm not suggesting any sort of stitch-up or attempt to exclude anything beforehand, just a bit of work to ensure that participants in a CFD are presented with some clear and concise options so that the CFD discussion is less likely to get confused by more options being added in ''after'' it has started. I know that folks are entitled to add options, but a bit of preparation should help to reduce the need for that. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::oops! by "some discussion first" I meant discussions before renomination. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Considering that's exactly what she wants, and has apparently striven for through her disruptive counter-nomination, I am sure you can imagine that I am hesitant to agree to that. I would not oppose the current noms all being re-listed adjacent (but not combined) with BHG's counter nomination (something that has been done previously with similar/related nominations), with BrownHairedGirl's unhelpful modifications of the previous noms removed as "confusing" (As Kbdank called them) except that her nominations, as duplicate, were not "complete", since they weren't tagged (simply because previous nominations were already underway). So I would think that her counter nomination should be removed, since it was not tagged. The thing is, nominations are "timed". And while this discussion continues, time is counting down. No matter what happens, I think it would be fair to list them for an additional day or two, due to BHG's intervention. I'd like to hear Kbdank's further opinion on all of this, and once the discussion is done, I have ''no problem'' deferring to his judgement. - ] 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sigh. Jc37, you were pointed to existing discussion, saw the propsals being discussed there, and had some probems with them (as you are entitled tob do: that's why they were being duscussed!). Did you contribute or express your concerns? No, you went immediately to a nomination of something very different. It's a real pity that you didn't discuss your concerns before making a nomination, but since your proposals postdate theose at category talk, and since yours arose directly out of the category talk proposals, you can hardly call the earlier ones counter-proposals. | |||
| ::::That's unfortunate, but to ask that the earlier proposals which you ignored should be removed is simply a stitch-up. If you ideas are good, why not let them be tested alongside those the earlier proposals which you decided not to discuss? --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"Did you contribute or express your concerns? No, you went immediately to a nomination of something very different. " - That's an outright misrepresentation of the truth (I will refrain from calling it an outright lie, for civility reasons). As your talk page rather clearly shows. - ] 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::jc37, if you extract part of a sentence and quote it out of context, it's easy to cast it as a a misrepresentation. You did indeed respond on my talk page. But what I refered to into the comment you selectively quoted from was that you did clearly read the discussion ''at category talk'', but did not participate there, where you could have explained to other editors why you disagreed with them; nor did you wait for a response from me before making your nominations. You simply decided that you wanted a different proposal, and went ahead and nominated yours, and now you object to any other propoisal being on the table at the same time. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Please do not take any action''' I am having massive problems with BrownHairedGirl's conduct on another discussion, where once again she is interfering with the normal course of discussion and making things incredibly complicated. I can see no justification to give her what she wants, and doing so will just encourage her to disrupt more discussions in the future. ] 22:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **And I am having massive problems there too, Nomony. I have never before seen a noninator set to remove all the keep votes from a CFD by sploitting them off to another CFD. Nice try, though. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *As I've noted, I'm becoming rather troubled by BrownHairedGirl's actions, which I feel have been rather disruptive in CfD in several places. But those aside, here's the simplest procedural point: Her nominations aren't tagged, and cannot be tagged, because there are existing nominations underway. If the tags of existing discussions were removed, I would presume that that would be even more of a disruption. So based on that, I suggest that the non-tagged nom be closed, or at the very least relisted once the others have completed, per existing CfD process. - ] 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **That's all a red herring, because as you know, they ''can't'' be separately tagged. The available procedures in such cases are either to withdraw the nominations in favour of a new CFD which will need new tags (which you rejected), or to make a counter-proposal in an existing CFD, which I did (and which doesn't need new tags). It's one thing to try to pre-empt an existing discussion by pre-emptively launching an alternative CFD, but it's a bit rich to then try to block the original proposal from being considered as an alternative. Running two CFDs in parallel on the same issue is an obvious no-no: both could pass, in which case we'd have a conflict. Running them back-to-back makes litte sense either, because them we could have two renames in rapid succession. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Block review: Sheiknazim2 == | |||
| Being a totally green (less-than-24-hour) admin, I'd like to place one of my first blocks for review here. {{user|Sheiknazim2}}, a new user, raised a few red flags this morning by creating a blatantly cut-and-paste religious screed about a sufi teacher he is evidently associated with, ], removing speedy tags from it, uploading unlicensed images for it in multiple copies, and then linkspamming to the Sufi sect's website. I gave a few warnings, to which he seemed responsive, but when I saw him resuming the insertion of his links just now I blocked for 8 hours. Now, on second sight, I notice that the articles he was ''now'' inserting the links in just conceivable might qualify as legitimate, because the articles actually deal with this sort of Sufi sect and have lists of such organisation external links. If you feel these latest insertions were legitimate, please feel free to unblock. ] ] 12:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Walled garden / spammers == | |||
| Im deleting this page because did not even discuss the copying of this article into here, and also that Misplaced Pages does not start to look like a LINK FARM and also because it says on top of this page that''' This page is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department''' anyhow how do I know is not one of ]'s sockpuppets anyways,,,,,,,,lol ] 14:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not anybody's sockpuppet. I was ''trying'' to do you a favor by copying your comments somewhere where somebody might actually notice and respond to them, instead of on an where further discussion is not supposed to take place. ] 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks Dan T, I know you were trying to help and dont get me wrong I do appreciate it I wasent really after any discussion because it was only a response on the written record (accusation) Dan, ;) ] 15:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages User Guidelines in one place == | |||
| Im just wondering if its possible to have all the information that a new user in Misplaced Pages could access in one place or page instead in multiple places at the moment, this way it would speed up the information uptake which is enormous, ] 13:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] - and remember that policies supercede guidelines. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::A better introduction for new users (I think -- it was good for me!) is ], it outlines our policies in a nutshell. If the Five Pillars doesn't answer a new user's questions about Misplaced Pages rules enough, I have to wonder if they intend to engage in ]; the details of the policies only become important to people engaging in borderline behavior (or, as is their real purpose, to those monitoring borderline behavior). ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks Mangojuice, ] 14:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =={{User|JBKramer}}== | |||
| User has been repeatedly accusing me of Sockpuppetry/block evading, without the evidence of a CheckUser. I have requested that he perform a CheckUser request against myself, {(User|Z Lopez}} and {{User|81.117.200.37}}. He has refused, and is constantly wikistalking me and reverting any edit I perform. Please assist. ] 16:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :{{user|T Gholson}} is transparently a sockpuppet of blocked {{User|81.117.200.37}}. ] 16:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::According to your contribution history, you can be a sock of {{User|Stirling Newberry}} and other various users. Please prove your point with a CheckUser. ] 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I note that T Gholson's talk page is empty, indicating that you've never tried to discuss this with him. --] 17:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: What is there, exactly, to discuss? As an IP address he was blocked for continuously harasssing me. He has returned after resetting his modem, or finding an open proxy or internet cafe to continue such harassment. Review the editing history of the IP address, and that of the series of new account just created. Is this user going to get yet ANOTHER strike before they are out? ] 17:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't have time to review his entire editting history, but I'll believe you if you provide diffs showing objectionable behavior. Also, why not do a checkuser? It can only help. --] 17:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: His editing history is extremely short. It begins with , and procedes to the same on me that his old IP address started. His edits are almost uniquely to the pages the IP address edit warred over, (and some random article he has only recently edited to dupe some into believing he's here to do more than troll). This is EXACTLY the same pattern of behavior as the multiply blocked IP editor. ] 17:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| User is also reverting warnings on his talk page. ] 16:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm convinced based on contributions. See ] to start with; {{user|Z Lopez}}, {{user|T Gholson}}, and {{user|F Sandoval}} look like the same guy. Clearly a single purpose editor making specific edits to inflation and deflation related topics and now with a beef against JBKramer. You can update the checkuser request if you want but at some point the '''if it quacks like a duck''' clause of ] has to come into play. ] 18:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've offered to unblock if he admits the previous sockpuppettry and will stick to one account and start following policies like NPOV and not using misleading edit summaries. There's no long term harm in giving him a chance to join the community the right way. One second chance is all he gets though. ] 18:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Peeking back over at this, it looks like it's in pretty good hands. Thanks for your patience, JBKramer; I'm still learning the best way to go about these dicussions, and your responses to me are all very fair. In the future, when I'm about to get offline I won't precede it by involving myself half-bakedly in disputes. ^^; --] 07:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =={{User|Anarcho-capitalism}} (third time) & {{User|Vision Thing}}== | |||
| Following inaction by admins ( and ), Anarcho-capitalism is double teaming with his ally Vision Thing to push their POV on the ] article. They are insisting on representing the factual statement that most anarchists reject anarcho-capitalism (borne out by the first line of the Capitalism section "Most anarchist traditions not only seek rejection of the state, but also of capitalism,") as Peter Marshall's opinion , and . Enough is enough. ] 17:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems to be a content dispute. As such, the Administrators' Noticeboard doesn't have a mandate to act here.--] 18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please read the preceding complaints ( and ). This is far more than a simple content dispute, this is consistent POV-pushing - which . ] 19:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Use ], please. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 21:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm sorry, but, according to ], I, ] and ] have all properly requested administrator intervention in relation to ] as outlined in point 5, yet nothing. It's not a ''dispute'', it's a disruptive editor who "Is tendentious", "Rejects community input" and has successfully "drive away productive contributors" (including myself for a period) and his main (remaining with the banning of thewolfstar and Hogeye and their socks) ally. ] 22:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And as such, it should be taken to ] which is part of ].-]<sup>]</sup> 23:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You and your anti-capitalist allies should gang up against me in an organized attack to try to get me blocked from Misplaced Pages. But, I must warn you without evidence you probably won't be successful. So far none of your claims have been substantiated. And there is no way to substantiate them because they're false.] | |||
| ==User:Super Grand Am== | |||
| Vandalizing a few pages. Created ], for example. I reverted a few, but I'm not sure about some others, . - ] 18:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Allied war crimes during World War II == | |||
| Not sure where to post this because it is not vandalism or a direct breach of the 3R rule. So for the moment I am posting it here until advised that there is a better place. | |||
| On 1 November 2006, ] was asked after a numer of times of doing so | |||
| :* (cur) (last) 09:40, 8 October 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv if you continue you will be reported to an adminstrator) | |||
| :* (cur) (last) 08:41, 11 October 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv) | |||
| :* (cur) (last) 10:46, 12 October 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv) | |||
| :* (cur) (last) 18:59, 12 October 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv) | |||
| :* (cur) (last) 20:29, 13 October 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv) | |||
| :* (cur) (last) 09:08, 15 October 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv) | |||
| :* (cur) (last) 10:34, 17 October 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv I won't talk about the same things again) | |||
| :* (cur) (last) 14:27, 1 November 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv) | |||
| not to use rvv when reverting good faith edits by other users, see ]: | |||
| :Mitsos regarding you use of rvv (reverting vandalism) in the "edit summary" of the article which shows up history of the article. Please see ] | |||
| ::''Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism'' | |||
| :and also ] | |||
| ::''Note that reverts in edit wars in which one side describes the other side's edits as vandalism are generally not only contentious reverts, but are also ]. Blocking can be expected in such cases.'' | |||
| After accepting this the first time I pointed it out to him/her "''Ok, ok... Mitsos 17:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)"'' (s)he choose to do the same thing again today, see ''''. Please could an admainistrator block user:Mitos as this is a clear violtion of the warning in the ] "''Note that reverts in edit wars in which one side describes the other side's edits as vandalism are generally not only contentious reverts, but are also ]. Blocking can be expected in such cases.''" --] 18:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Briefsism/The Cult of Briefsism == | |||
| Why is this page protected from being recreated?? It ain't no hoax, it's a ] and it's real!! Why it is locked i don't know... but it's real, I can say! It's nothing to do with Stephen Colbert (his only link with it is that he is a follower of it!). | |||
| Please, admins, undelete this page... it's worth it! --] 18:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :]. ] 18:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This didn't fly on Deletion Review, and it won't fly here I'd imagine.--] 19:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==] request== | |||
| I have not done anything wrong, I just do not feel the need to have this account anymore, I don't have as reliable sources as I thought....Is there anyway my account can just be deleted? Or does it have to be blocked? Either way, I do not want it wanymore. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :'''Comment''' G4gamer33 requested a namechange after this post, so no further action from AN/I may be necessary. ] 18:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Flame war at ] == | |||
| For the past few days, there has been a discussion at ] about the alleged pov nature of the article. This is now rapidly descending into a flame war, with personal attacks such as "You are a pathetic individual." The two users in the flame war are {{user|THOTH}} and {{user|Xargoth}}. According to the latter, my "prejudice and biased moderation is obvious in this matter." Because of that, and since I was involved in the discussion before it erupted, I don't think it's right for me to do anything. I would appreciate it if another admin kept an eye on the discussion. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 18:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've dropped a reminder not to discuss other editors, their possible nationalities, and their possible motives for editing. --] 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Hardly a newbie... == | |||
| Just in case this rings a bell with anyone, {{user|Super Grand Am}} created and propagated scatological references then, when blocked, created {{user|Grande Am}} to do the same, them attempted to create such usernames as {{user|Grander Am}}, {{user|Superior Grand Am}}, {{user|Fast Grand Am}}, {{user|Grand Am on Wheels!}}, {{user|Grand Am the Milkman}}, demonstrating both a persistence and a knowledge of serious issues. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Did you disable account creation when you blocked these accounts? ]<font color="green">]</font>] 21:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::But of course... so, what does that tell you? :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 21:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps a CheckUser request to find the underlying IP(s) could be appropriate here... ]<font color="green">]</font>] 21:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Reminds me of {{user|Nintendude}}. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 00:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 00:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Block request for legal threats: ] == | |||
| I'm requesting another admin to look at {{user|Fakir005}} recent comments left on both my talk page and her/his own, especially , , . I feel a block for legal threats is warranted, but someone else do review/execute since I'm involved. Thanks. --] (]) 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :He hasn't been warned yet, so I dropped him a {{t1|threat4}}. See how it goes from here - any more, and block away. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 20:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::yes, I had given him a {{tl|threat2}} here , yet he continued (ie, ). --] (]) 20:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hmmm... still, now he's on his absolute final warning (level 4, see ]), so any more threats and he wll have no excuses. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' | |||
| The best thing to do when someone posts a legal threat is to block them, which is what I have done. I left a note for him on his talk page as to how he can proceed.--] 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And . He's still posting loud, novel-length rambles, and even mocking the block. I think this is a sign that his talk page needs to be locked sooner or later. ] 20:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given the last, just blank/protect the page, and move on. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 21:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::But who's going to do that? I can't, because I'm just an ordinary user. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 22:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| FYI: Fakir005 reappeared as {{user|Bimzalazim}} (a play on my user name) and engaged in the same disruptive activities. I've blocked and labeled as sock. I have since received an e-mail from this user continuing to berate and accuse me of being a sock/conspirator of ], along with a "demand that you unblock mty computer wiith IP Address of 65.88.66.155 immediately and restore my contribution immediately" (sic). I have no intention to unblock, but will forward the e-mail to anyone who wants to review the situation. --] (]) 20:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I got a similar email though as far as I can see, I had nothing to do with this situation or any of the articles involved. I responded to the email indicating that the reasons this user was blocked were different from the reasons the user was claiming, and noting that only the blocking admin is meant to undo blocks. --] 00:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| I've tried to keep this brief, but that doesn't work. Hopefully it's to the point. | |||
| This user conducted a merge of two articles on Sunday: which was fair enough. It was contested by myself, ], ], and also my nemesis, ]. You can see ] for the discussion. Our civil attempts to explain why we thought the article should not be merged with ("as I look into the sky - I see no large letters up there"), , and no real attempt to respond why. I was happy to accept this was all in good faith, and as one editor to another, to please stop the merging whilst and keep the status quo, on the talk page. At 22:11 "all editors are equal" as if I was somehow abused power or even made any threats. He claims to be at the time. , which added paragraphs of text from . This is not something that can be done accidentally. ] reverted the merge again at 23:05, he reverts back with the edit comment He is question as to what this means and | |||
| At some point when adding <nowiki><ref></nowiki> ref tags, he manages to fail to . Easily done, I know I have. , that there is a "syntax error", which is causing most of the article not to display. | |||
| At 23:49 and , he accuses a "clever programmer" of "vandalised this article - so it ends at the begining of the "Wigan Town" section", and claims that "you know you are". I . I then correct the error for him, and get accused of , whatever that is supposed to mean in this context. He is describes this entire process as "wikilawyering", a term usually reserved for discussing ''procedural'' issues, when i have noted i'm only only after discussing substantive content issues. After being asked several times, he still will not actually participate in the talk page discussion about the merge, choosing instead to and . | |||
| I discovered yesterday morning about the copyvio, and quickly discover in his edit history. He doesn't treat this copyvio at all seriously, claiming that it wouldn't have been a problem if the . He also in this edits insults the writing I had done on the article on Monday, expanding it out from a stub to a reasonably big article, and adding many many references. , even though the article at that point had 18 footnoted references: far more, ignoring duplicate references, than when he had . | |||
| Today he has been mainly removing the image ] from places. See ] for fun. Whilst at the same time being concerned about non-fair use of a logo ''on an article about that logo'', and refuses to disclose other copyright violations he has made. He claims somehow it is possible to copy and paste text from a website into Misplaced Pages (changing the grammar as appropriate sometimes) ''without intent''! Although I have not done an extensive search through his history, also appear to violate copyright (but are at least generally cited to where they are stolen from) and , which I have since put in copyright problems. | |||
| It is clearly difficult to get through to this user. He has ignored polite requests and derides our attempts to discuss issues as "wikilawyering", and calls us a "cabal", . I wonder what other administrators might think are appropriate courses of actions. I am particularly concerned about his unrepetant record of copyright violations. ] - ] 19:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have appropriately responded to his continued blatant and clearly intentional copyright violations with an indefinite block. The wikilawyering and trolling is just extra. Anyone seriously disagree? - ] 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Look at . What do you think? ]<font color="green">]</font>] 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Obviously an error in judgment there. What a lovely person we've blocked. (/sarcasm) Nice shot, Mr. Gerard. ] <small>]</small> 23:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Sockpuppetry on ]? == | |||
| Could someone take a look-see at {{user|Theoschela}}, {{User|Aburesz}}, {{User|Pverity5}} and {{User|Bob8080}}? They have that sockpuppet vibe to them. Thanks! - ] 21:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : You might want to report this at ], where someone will be able to check to see if it's the same user based on their IP address, or some such thing ]] 22:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Don't forget to read the green part at the top of ] before compiling a request. Cheers, '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 22:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Playing politics in pro wrestling == | |||
| I wish to report a vandal with two IP's from the same provider (likely the same person) who is playing petty politics with the order of Australian promotions on the ] page. I have now reverted this vandal twice. The IP addresses are; | |||
| 219.90.230.143 & 219.90.187.203 | |||
| What he has done is (for purely promotional reasons) moved EPW to the top of the list. I have put the list in a non political order, with the largest fed with the most members (PWA) first, and EPW second with the single feds in an accepted state by state order. The first edit put EPW ahead of PWA. The second edit was more obvious, putting EPW on top and shoving PWA further down the list. | |||
| I don't wish to see Misplaced Pages caught up in petty local politics. Adelaide (where the ISP is located) is a hotbed for this sort of behaviour and the sooner it's nipped in the bud the better. It's just possible that this vandal may know me and may be looking to upset me but I have no proof of this as yet. I do know a couple of Adam Internet users who are recognised troublemakers. | |||
| This should be watched IMHO. It is my view that the current order is politically correct and should be retained as such. If needed we may have to go to a consensus on the matter. ] 22:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a pretty ] edit war to me. Instead of trying to be politically correct with which promotion is bigger, just list it in alphabetical order and move along. ''semper fi'' — ] 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::As it stands right now, yes it may be a bit lame. But if it isn't nipped in the bud now it could escalate rather seriously. Better to be safe than sorry. | |||
| ::On putting it in alphabetical order - I don't know about you, but in my view that would make it look ugly. Given the multi member status of both PWA and EPW. That's why I put them first to start with (along with the size thing), so that all the single feds are grouped together. ] 22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, would you rather risk making the list a little "ugly" or continue to escalate a silly problem? I wouldn't choose the latter. ''semper fi'' — ] 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think I'd be escalating it by keeping the order that's there now. The escalation would be from this IP who hasn't got the courage to create an account - if he or she is that stupid to revert the change for a third time. ] 00:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually - strike that. The alphabetical order doesn't look as bad as I thought it would so I changed it to that. I don't think it will stop this vandal, but I could be wrong. Time will tell. ] 00:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Beware of threatened new attack from Krystiandl == | |||
| ] has made contact with the WMF office and is threatening further mischief. Please do not hestitate to shut down any such activity.--] 22:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == {{IPvandal|75.2.250.145}} == | |||
| From : | |||
| Reported on : | |||
| :''"{{IPvandal|75.2.250.145}} - User is stalking my talk page; leaving harrassing comments and demanding an apology for something that I did not actually do to them. When I remove their comments, they leave more. I have warned them on their talk page, but the user removed those warnings; in addition to other warnings from other editors. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 21:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I regarding their actions and received this follow-up from the original plaintiff: | |||
| :I have no idea why they were targeting me, and *not* the person who actually accused them of being a sock. Before that, I was legitimately trying to hear their side of a content dispute (in ]). | |||
| :Now, looking at their other edits, they are in a constant state of POV pushing and vandalism. See: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and numerous others. I don't want to get involved in this, as they have already targeted me; could you look into this? Thanks! <font color="silver">-</font><font color="silver">-</font> '''] <sup>]</sup><sup><font color="silver">|</font></sup><sup>]</sup>''' <font color="silver">-</font><font color="silver">-</font> 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I forgot to add that the user has been accused of being ], a recently indefinitely blocked user. There's definitely a similar pattern to their edits and comments. <font color="silver">-</font><font color="silver">-</font> '''] <sup>]</sup><sup><font color="silver">|</font></sup><sup>]</sup>''' <font color="silver">-</font><font color="silver">-</font> 23:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have also received notice that my adding this notice ?!? ] 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: is pretty extreme...I'll warn him about the legal threat. --] 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| That extreme edit is just a common belief held by many Progressives. I didn't make it up. ] 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't the place to post people's beliefs in such a manner. --] 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I understand. I am sorry. ] 23:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Misplaced Pages vandal control== | |||
| Can someone naturally ''nicer'' than me keep an eye ]? The guy has been adding templates for a new organisation he started. He means well, but a kind bit of guidance is required and I don't feel I'm the man to do it. Thanks. --] 23:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Nor am I, I'd probably be a bit too biting right now. I just removed a couple templates. They should all probably be userfied, or wiped. -- ] <small>(])</small> 23:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, great. ]. It looks like a Wikiproject, but made to look more official. Does this ''have'' to go through MfD? -- ] <small>(])</small> 23:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was tempted to just delete the whole lot and give him a warning. Then I thought, maybe someone else can do it nicer without ] him. Any takers? --] 00:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| all he's done is Sandbox, two other edits, and this? Hrm. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Assuming good faith, I've left him a note about why this project is not a good idea, along with a welcome message. We'll see what happens next. His Vandalism Control Program pages are now all listed at MfD, anyway. ] 01:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks a lot Brad. I think he is closing it down now. --] 02:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == I need the following modifications to monobook.js == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| I'm not sure it's the right page, but I need the help of someone with admin rights. | |||
| I'm currently rewriting ] the (much better) way I did it for ''']''' | |||
| This new system creates one supbage for each translation process (like ]) ; those subpages can be inclueded and looks like this : | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Translation/Ash Ketchum}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Translation/Piano Sonata No. 32 (Beethoven)}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Translation/French Resistance}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Translation/Battle of Heraclea}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Translation/Linux}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Translation/Cap de Formentor}} | |||
| Ok, the deal is that when a wikipedian wants to make a traduction request, she should be able to click on ] and to see it initialized to the following text (with no extra newline at the end) : | |||
| <pre>{{subst:Translation/Initialization|{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|~~~~| | |||
| <!-- | <!-- | ||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| Follow the instructions below to propose a translation. | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | |||
| WARNING: Do not erase! | |||
| == Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from ] == | |||
| --> | |||
| ], a known transphobic editor from pt.wiki, is after his actions led me to leave that wiki permanently. He has also harassed me on Wikimedia Commons. I don't know what to do anymore. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace. This is severely impacting my mental health. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You don't seem to have notified the other editor. This is mandatory and this section may be closed if you fail to do so. Use <nowiki>{{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> on that user's talk page. Additionally, you don't seem to have provided specific diffs demonstrating harassment. Please do so. --] (]) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::On pt.wiki, DarwIn proposed the deletion of articles I created about transgender topics ( and ), using transphobic arguments, including misgendering and questioning the validity of transgender children. After translating these articles to en.wiki, he is , again focusing on his personal transphobic beliefs - as it shows, he doesn't even know how DYK works. He insisted multiple times trying to include his transphobic comment on that page and has just edited it again. On Commons, for extra context, DarwIn unilaterally deleted images related to these articles, despite being clearly involved in the dispute. | |||
| 1. Indicate the original language of the article here (for example: de fr ja es it pt...) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| |two-letter language code| | |||
| :::We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --] (]) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes. However, context is important. This is harassment that began on pt.wiki, has spread to Commons, and is now here. The history has been provided, but, sure, I can provide the diffs instead. He has unilaterally and , despite this being not how DYK works. This is because he really doesn't know, as he only sporadically edits here and only came back to harass me. is explicitly transphobic and doesn't focus on the article itself at all. After his comment was reverted by me, saying that I shouldn't call it transphobia, despite it being transphobia. After being reverted again, . I asked him to , but . | |||
| 2. Type the name of the original article here (for example: Liberté) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| |Original name here| | |||
| :Looks like yet another cross-wiki troll by this user. Already , the account is now promoting their POV here, including spreading lies, hideous slurs and baseless accusations against me like "known transphobic", after two of their creations were taken to community evaluation at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for lacking notability. The user is also a known sockpuppeter, at the Portuguese Wikipédia. In any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this case in yet another project apart from the strictly needed, so do as you please.] ] 13:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have been blocked on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 3. Please briefly explain why this article is worth translating | |||
| :::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) | |||
| |reason here| | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| 4. Please leave a comment if you wish to do so | |||
| |comment here| | |||
| | 5. You're done! You may now save this page. | |||
| }}</pre> | |||
| Unless you have a better idea, I request an administrator to add the content of ''']''' to ] (like it was done in ]) | |||
| Thanks, ] 00:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You don't need any javascript to do this, if I'm reading it correctly. Instead you can use the "localurl" or "fullurl" magic words and the preload function, like so: | |||
| <pre> | |||
| <nowiki>]</nowiki> | |||
| </pre> | |||
| :Which should give a link to ] and automatically fill the edit box with the contents of whatever template you specify. Then all you need to do is make sure that any substs in the template are wrapped in <noinclude><includeonly></noinclude> and you're set. I can help you with this if you need it. This option would be greatly preferable to modifying the Monobook.js, which is of course loaded on every page view (when using the monobook skin) and should be kept free from bloat. --] (]) 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Accusations of libel== | |||
| ] is persisting in accusing editors and third parties of ] against his ], despite being warned by multiple users that it may be interpreted as a legal threat. The discussion in question is at ]. I am not sure if claims like "So-and-so is libelling (third party)" constitutes a legal threat per ], but this editor is being quite tendentious and I would appreciate if an admin could look into the matter. Cheers, ] 00:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sure, I'll take a look. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] already did. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Removal of prods without reason == | |||
| ] has been removing prods from hundreds of articles and giving no explanation, and making other changes that appears to be vandalism, I started reverting a few, and he just reverts back, I don;t have time for an edit war. He has had a number of previous warnings reagrding this. I reported him at ] - but removing prods may not be considered vandalism. If I'm right there is a lot of change to be reverted ASAP. --] 01:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Kappa does this quite often. Once a PROD is contested, you take it straight to AfD. ] 01:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You cannot be serious, that's hundreds of articles that would have to be done. Why is that not vandalsim and why is he not banned? --] 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Because there's nothing wrong with removing prod tags? --] <small>]</small> 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Vandalism"? Yikes. It's only vandalism if it's made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. It's not at all clear that removing Prods is done with that intention, even if it's done repeatedly and without explanation. A contested Prod is a contested Prod, and goes to AfD or it stays. They're not made to be put back after removal. If you don't know why Kappa removed a Prod in a particular case, ''asking'' would be better than reverting. -]<sup>(])</sup> 01:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It would really be nice if he (and anyone else) would give a coherent reason when de-prodding. Unless the nomination was truly bad... I've seen ones where the rational is just "notability" or "nn". But in a lot of these he's de-prodding for rather technical reasons but giving no explanation, that just leads to confusion. --] 01:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Explanations are good; communication is good. Has somebody asked Kappa why he's doing what he's doing? What's a "technical" reason for de-prodding? -]<sup>(])</sup> 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well one example of a technical de-prodding was removing it from an article that had been listed as not being in English for 14 days, for some reason the page says they have to go to AfD to be deleted, not PROD, presumably Kappa was de-prodding for that technicality. --] 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe if it makes an assertion of notability ... could be a technicality, anyway. --] 02:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Any user is entitled to remove prod tags if they don't think the article should be deleted, ''for whatever reason'', and doing so is certainly not vandalism. However it would be simple to give a reason in the edit summary, even if the reason is simply disagreeing with the opinion of the original tagger, and Kappa ought to do so, if only to avoid further confusion. | |||
| Also note that revert warring over prod tags leaves you open to ]. --] (]) 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. While an unexplained deprodding can make me pull my hair out, it doesn't matter. A deprod counts as an objection to an uncontested deletion. That's been there since prod was created. ] <small>(])</small> 02:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's the lack of edit summaries that is the main issue here. ] says : ''Remove the {{tl|dated prod}} tag from the article, '''noting this in the edit summary'''.'' and there are several warnings regarding summaries in ]. I've had many prods removed by other editors - but always got an explanation in the summary. (BTW, none of the prods in this matter were put there by me) --] 02:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| See ]. I know it can be grating, but thems the apples. Maybe we should have this conversation over there, but as it stands now, you will likely only find admins and experienced users that are sympathetic, but still support Kappa and anyone else's right to remove prods w/o a reason. ] <small>(])</small> 02:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If Kappa is the one removing hundreds of tags, I think it should be him creating these AFD's not us. If he has a reason to believe it is notable, then fine. But why does he get off by just removing the things and not even having to deal with the after effects of a hundred AFD's? ''semper fi'' — ] 02:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Removing a prod is simply taking down the ] to allow a discussion about the article. No one need state a reason for removal, since "don't delete this without a debate" is obvious in the act of removal. Whether the editor wants to state an opinion, or simply wants a debate to take place is up to the individual editor. If in the process, he doesn't want the article deleted, then he simply doesn't bring it to AfD. Prod is a shortcut to deletion. Sometimes you get to take it, other times you're stuck taking the long way around. Deprodding should be enough to convince the prodder to have a second ] look and occasionally find their reasoning was off. ]] 04:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't do "technical" deprods. ] was a legit stub in English with some extra Spanish which I thought the folks at PNT might like to see. ] 04:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::One more thing: nobody said that the debate prompted by deprodding has to take place on AfD, it could also be handled on article or user talk pages first. If consensus isn't found there, then AfD is still an option. ]] 04:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It seems like this is good material for an RFC, about how, when, and why to deprod; I think there's some reasonable displeasure with how Kappa goes about doing something unusual, which is somewhat overlapping with the usual someone-disagrees-with-me-argh displeasure. Can we take this to ] or an RFC page or something instead of ANI now? - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 04:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *One of the suspected potential problems with was ''"that a single user can simply "veto" all proposed deletions without giving a reason or improving anything. Of course, that would be ]. If this proves to be a problem, we will likely create some rule to prevent it"''. | |||
| *Now I would like to see some statistics on this before jumping to a conclusion, but ''if'' Kappa is deprodding lots of articles ''and'' those articles have a strong tendency of being deleted on AFD, ''then'' Kappa is creating lots of extra work for other people for no good reason, and he should stop that. Anyone who is experienced with AFD should have a feeling which kinds of articles tend to be uncontroversial deletes, and should respect that consensus ''even if'' personally disagreeing with it. ] 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have started the ]. ] 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *A simple count shows that of Kappa's last 1000 edits to article space, 298 were deprods, or about 29%. This spans roughly the last two months. A quick glance over the deprods seems to indicate that nearly none of them made any changes to the article text; someone with a bot can make a more careful analysis if they want. | |||
| *As corollary to what I said above, if Kappa is not deprodding all that many articles and/or those articles don't tend to get deleted on AFD, there wouldn't be much of a problem (and indeed, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem here). Judged by his talk page, certain users are nevertheless unhappy with Kappa's conduct; perhaps mediation may alleviate this. ] 15:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == {{User|Cjwright79}} == | |||
| I am not sure if this is the right place to report this, but this user has been adding some rather questionable edits which seem in violation of ], especially in light of his recent ] and ]. From his : | |||
| * - Redirected ] to ] | |||
| * - Redirected ] to ] (see the bottom of ]) | |||
| * - Reliable Source (see ]) | |||
| EDIT: Additional edits: | |||
| * - Created and redirected ] to ] | |||
| * - Created and redirected ] to ] | |||
| * - Edited ] to prove a point. | |||
| * - Another ] violation | |||
| * - Vandalized ] page | |||
| * - Created ] to redirect to ] | |||
| ] 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And this entire thread is questionable. And if you look at his talk page (and those of editors who have been calling him on his crap), he's said 'sorry, I understand better now and I won't do it again' about a dozen times in half as many days. Personally, I think he's a reincarnation of ]. But whoever he is, he's clearly a troll, taking the (long, slow) piss out of well-meaning editors. And what's with all his edits? He's edited his own talk page about 100 times in less than a week (half of which he was blocked for), and a couple of articles another 100 or so times. ] 03:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Hi, it's me. Do you have any questions? I've been autoblocked once now, and I'd prefer to avoid such a thing in the future. I may or may not be ], I'm sure you'll be able to judge for yourselves. ] 04:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm sure we will. Why did you create ] exactly? I reverted some of your nonsense, and deleted that one, and when you e-mailed me yesterday asking to be unblocked I looked at your contribs and thought -- troll. Are you here to help us build an encyclopedia, or for ]? ] ] 04:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'm not sure it needs to be an either/or choice. That said, I am definitely in support of improving Misplaced Pages. However, sometimes one can only do that by challenging the existing Establishment. You may wish to read ]. ] | |||
| ::::::: You mean this bit? : "The motivation of a vandal ranges, but their purpose is the same; to get attention. " Regards, ] 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Well, I'm certainly getting it now. ] | |||
| :::::::: Chris had vandalized ] (see above list) in hopes of making a point. I have since reverted his vandalism. ] 05:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: And you're going to want to read ] REAL soon. --] 05:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Seems pretty ] to me. Sorry. ] 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Anyway -- I'm sensing a lot of hate here. I'm gonna go cool off outside. Cheers ] | |||
| :And, despite being extremely prolific over the past year, this editor was completely silent during the time Courtney was editing, and made few or no edits on the days that USC Cheerleader was editing. ] 05:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is him too <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span>. Shawcable, Surrey, BC, CA. Do we know where the Courtney troll was from? Note that there is some clear vandalism in this history (example ) | |||
| ::And Chris, it's not hate your sensing, it's that trolling wastes our time, ''and yours''. I can see from some of your edits that you are knowledgeable about a lot of things and are capable of being a good editor. Some of us aren't kids any more, and we'd much rather be writing articles than cleaning up after mischievous kids. Thanks, ] ] 05:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::And, the IP edits started just hours after Courtney was blocked. ] 05:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit conflict) The user has already been blocked twice in the past week. Once by myself, another on his IP address (). The insults have been fun , and I put up an ANI thread five days ago , though it garnered only one reply. Considering the IP block, this is essentially his ''third chance'' in the last week and it looks like he's for some reason already burned it. I'd suggest a longer block. -- ] <small>(])</small> 05:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I gave him a last warning on his talk page. Shortly afterwards, he made . I request that he be blocked by an administrator. I'm getting tired of tracking down and reverting his edits. ] 06:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've given him an ''indefinite'' block. I'm tired of this nonsense. -- ] <small>(])</small> 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think that was definitely the right thing to do. --] 07:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good riddance. -- ] 07:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Not so fast, pardners. ]. ] 17:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::. ] nailed him, thankfully. I knew that wasn't that last we'd see of him, and wouldn't be surprised if he continues (though more subtly). -- ] <small>(])</small> 19:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, well he's got a lot of pit stops before he gets to ''subtle''. ;-) ] 19:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::According to ], "this is the third new account I've created over the past week". {{user|Cjwright79}} & {{user|ChrisWright1979}}...What's the other one? -- ] 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Could just be the classic, "Release four pigs in the school and number them 1,2,3, and 5" prank. --] 19:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It looks like {{user|ChrisWright79}} & {{user|ChrisW}} are other socks of this user... -- ] 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think this might be another one: {{User|Bradleybittinger}} (check out the vandalism then quick reversion, and also the weird note to UtherSRG). ] 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Even if it isn't this same user, Bradleybittinger's edits have been all vandalism (may have been involved in the creation of ]) and may warrant a block if the user (or his sock) continues... -- ] 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As I dealt the block, anyone else want to deal with the ]? -- ] <small>(])</small> 21:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, has anyone gone through the contributions made under {{user|Cjwright79}}? I tried going through some of them the other day, but I'm afraid I don't have the patience to sort through the few legitimate edits he made and the vandalism/trolling... ] 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've gone through a bunch of them, but not all; like you I ran out of patience. I'll have another look. ] ] 01:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Chris just emailed me and told me the names of (supposedly all) his accounts: | |||
| ::*cjwright79 {{user|cjwright79}} | |||
| ::*ChrisWright79 {{user|ChrisWright79}} | |||
| ::*ChrisWright1979 {{user|ChrisWright1979}} | |||
| ::*Lordofring {{user|Lordofring}} | |||
| ::*MegaManEx {{user|MegaManEx}} | |||
| :And he had some lovely things to say to me too. Oh boy! My first abusive email thru WP!! I'm so excited! ] 01:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::He emailed me, too, very politely asking me to unblock him. He says that he wants to come back to Misplaced Pages and work for "consensus and sanity." I told him I'm not an admin, and that we get a lot of people who "reform" and then continue to wreak havoc. However, I also said that if he's really serious about becoming a positive influence, perhaps he should request arbitration and have some limits put on him. I think following those limits for a while would be excellent proof of good intentions, but I pointed out that I can't promise anything even if he does that. Extreme humility would be required, and a lot of you are so tired with dealing with this mess that it may not be a possibility. It's a thought, anyway. --] 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not an admin either, but I respectfully submit that he's a pathological liar and a chronic manipulative unrepentant incorrigible troll. This is what he sent to me (I know it's bad netiquette to post private email, but I didn't ask to be contacted privately, so I don't feel a need to keep it private): | |||
| ::::Lawful Good? What a sham. It's also a shame that I have to live in the same country as you. | |||
| ::::I suggest you remove your head from your ass and kindly resolve the matter of my being banned in a sensible and just manner. I see that virtually every administrator of Misplaced Pages is corrupt and intellectually lazy. You see the rules as being able to be molded into whatever you want them to be. Of course, this works perfectly. Except I'm sick of this bullshit. | |||
| ::::Regardless, I have no interest in continuing this silly escapade. | |||
| ::::The individual who said that I was taking the 'long, slow piss' out of everyone is quite right. I'm sending you fine folk this message: your sham reign is over. I will not go away. Your illegitimate and entirely evil ways will not be ignored. I haven't attempted to talk to Jimbo yet, but that's definitely becoming an option. | |||
| :::His MO is that he trolls and trolls until people get fed up, then he makes nice and sucks up and acts repentant until he gets unblocked. Then he starts trolling again. I'm not bugged by his communication, but I am absolutely convinced that this editor has no intention of reforming. He's just yanking our chains. ] 04:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I got an email as well — apparently {{ipvandal|70.70.200.149}}, which I put a 24-hour block on last week for trolling and vandalism, was him, and he's taken the opportunity to blame me on some of his ]. His email asking me to unblock him was polite, but had an air of insincerity about it (he said that based on my user page I appeared to be "a sane and godly fellow", an odd phrasing to say the least). I told him that I saw no reason to unblock him — his vandal/troll edits far outnumber any positive contributions to the encyclopedia. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've had five so far. The final one was the only rude one, the others were polite pleas for unblocking. Not falling for that again. -- ] <small>(])</small> 04:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Boy did I waste my breath on his talk page trying to help him out. His next message he STILL wouldn't promise NEVER to troll again (which was my recommendation to him). Seems like he thinks he has some sort of right to troll. Anyone want to get in touch with his ISP about this? He needs to be sent a strong message that he's the one that's done the wrong thing, and if he's abusing admins here there's not much point unblocking him. If his ISP gets onto him he just might get the message. ] 05:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I really don't think that Shaw's Acceptable Use Policy covers internet trolling. -- ] <small>(])</small> 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I was thinking about the emails on top of the trolling. Falls under harassment doesn't it? ] 07:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well I doubt contacting his ISP would help unless he sent a death threat through those e-mails. If he continues to abuse the "e-mail this user" option, is there a way to block him from using that feature? ] 09:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Three abusive emails today, two with the subject heading "Fucker!". Lovely. One of them ended with the rather baffling sentiment, "Have fun in Penn. State, you penitent bitch." Unfortunately, vocabulary confusion isn't sufficient cause to complain to his ISP... —] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Weird. I got another one, but it still wasn't rude. All it did was thank me for being "sane" and inform me that, just for my info, the word 'vandal' might be considered highly racist to some people. :) --] 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| A suggestion to all who are getting these emails. If you haven't done so already, make them bounce if you can. You can program Outlook Express to bounce emails you don't want. I don't know about others. If you have access to your email like I have (a domain host including email servers) you can program them to bounce this sort of thing. If this user persists with different email addys, that's spamming and that CAN be reported to an ISP. Even if they are using providers like Hotmail for example. ] 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Okay, my latest one has a general message: "Please relay to the group at the Incidents desk that I give up, and will simply wait this one out. If they want to keep me blocked me for a year, five years, ten years, fifty years; so be it. It's not the end of the world, and besides which, chances are good that I actually do need to suffer the consequences of my behaviour for a while." So, I guess that's that? --] 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Gregory Kohs (aka MyWikiBiz/Thekohser) attempting to run for ArbCom == | |||
| It appears that Gregory Kohs (aka MyWikiBiz) is attempting to run for arbcom, based on the argument that he had over 1000 edits under several accounts. He is also harassing people who delete his statements, including me and Centrx. I've noticed that he edits from various IPs in the 72.94.*.* range, which leads me to think that a range block might be necessary. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 04:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems that the pages that need to be monitored at this moment are ] and ]. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 04:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I could be totally wrong here, but if one of his accounts is subject to a ban by Jimbo doesn't that make him inelligable by default. - ]|] 11:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* Any attempt to run for ArbCom by this user is blatant trolling. There is absolutely no prospect whatsoever of their passing, even if they were not permabanned and below the edit count limit. I vote we deny recognition and just nuke any further attempts. <b>]</b> 11:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*sounds sensible. "AGF" doesn't mean "prance around ad libitum". ] <small>]</small> 11:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*A block for disruption may be in order as well... ++]: ]/] 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Centrx blocked him as an abusive sock hours before you woke up. Which, is the proper course of action seeing that it is an abusive sock of a banned user. ] | ] 14:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It might be worth semiprotecting the candidate statement page, which only the candidates and election officials should be editing anyway. ] 14:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 74.129.234.170 == | |||
| This user really needs monitoring. When he was reverted by Crossmr, he added insults to Crossmr's userpage. When I reverted and warned him, he did the same to my userpage as well. Can someone watch over him and, if necessary, block him? ]<font color="green">]</font>] 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ] has uploaded this image 3 times after it has been deleted 4 times for G10. | |||
| A big X through a national flag should not be tolerated | |||
| ] | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| Please take action --] 07:31, 8 November 2006 (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) | |||
| I believe it may help too, if Darwin will promise to avoid interacting on main space with Skyshifter. ] (]) 17:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I have deleted the page, and protected it so that it can't be uploaded again. Thanks. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you! ]]]</span> 09:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway.] ] 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==article ]== | |||
| :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) | |||
| {{article|Jim Clark}} is undergoing a low level revert war initiated by {{user5|Pflanzgarten}}. At RFI we were recommended to report this ongoing incident here at AN/I. | |||
| ::@] 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) | |||
| * by an indef blocked sock is similar to by Pflanzgarten. shows that sock BT44 is reverting version of the article that is very similar to the old version favoured by Pflanzgarten. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| * demonstrates that it is a single purpose account | |||
| ::::@] yes, that's correct. ] ] 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * The date on demonstrates that it was a sleeper account | |||
| * 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) | |||
| * All known socks/impersonators have been dealt with at ] (see ]) or ]. | |||
| *:which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? ] ] 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Is there a way to retain the Wikiway and lift protection on ] while preventing the disruptive edits?''' Perhaps an IP range block or adding ] to watchlists of many more volunteers? --] (or Hrothulf) (]) 10:09, 8 November 2006 (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) | |||
| == Nonsense bios redux - checkuser needed? == | |||
| ;Clarification | |||
| I just noticed some extremely interesting history behind the articles mentioned in ]. An admin may want to review the deleted histories of ], ] (]), ] and ] (]) to determine if there is a case for checkuser. This was ] on ANI in July; see also ]. ] 10:28, 8 November 2006 (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=== | |||
| * The user that created the articles abovementioned except Brad Noland has been blocked already. Unless it has any use for existing ArbCom case, Checkuser would probably reject/tell you it's fishing. - ] 11:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I offered DarwIn an off ramp above and their response was to reiterate their views on a highly controversial subject and their responses to concerns about their interactions with Skyshifter have been entirely unsatisfactory. This looks a like a pretty clear case of IDHT revolving around their strong disagreement with one of our guidelines. Frankly, I came very close to just blocking them after their response to my suggestion. This discussion has already dragged on long enough. For purposes of clarity, nobody is required to agree with all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. And yes, gender is a highly controversial subject. I have my own disagreements with parts of MOS:GENDERID. But as the old saying goes, themz the rules until they aint. Editors are free to disagree with community P&G, but are not free to ignore or flout them. It's time to settle this. | |||
| '''Proposed''' DarwIn is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to ] broadly construed and is subject to a one way IBan with user Skyshifter, also broadly construed. -] (]) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Possibly spurious RfC opened regarding Sarah Ewart by Methodology/Ottawaman == | |||
| *'''Support''' -] (]) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| See ] in which possible socks (]) {{user|Ottawaman}} and {{user|Methodology}} protest against actions taken by {{admin|Sarah Ewart}}, one of our most upstanding admins. | |||
| *: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) | |||
| This is an FYI only, really, as if the checkuser comes out as people think it will, the RfC wasn't certified and can be speedy closed. But that's not to say that ] might not be welcomed (perhaps at the "Outside view by pschemp" might be where to hang it.) ++]: ]/] 11:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's actually a fair point. -] (]) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent ] impulse. ] (]) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] 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) | |||
| :What a joke. What a farce, actually. If I didn't have selfpreservation in mind (I don't like these types of trolling sockpuppets - I don't think anyone does, for that matter...), I'd close it right now as a bad faith RfC. Sarah is one of our best, and trolls like this only achieve ]. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 11:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.] (]) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. ] (]) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--] (]) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. ] (]) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago , is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. ]] 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. ] (]) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. ]] 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::OK boomer. ] (]) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Well, you certainly put me in my place with that one. ]] 21:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I understand. Speaking up for the witch is a sign I too might be a witch. I'll try to be more careful in future.] (]) 20:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Misgendering BLPs is disruptive. A Johnny Cash related username is not. Suggest the IP ] - while we may disagree with Boynamedsue regarding their interpretation here they have done nothing wrong. ] (]) 21:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::No. It's stopping a disruptive editor from continuing to edit disruptively. ] (]) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}} NQP is an essay. Essentially it's an op-ed piece. It does not carry any force in the realm of ], and the views expressed there are controversial. (See the essay's talk page.). IMO words with some variation on "phobe/phobic" &c. are being routinely weaponized by people on one side of hot button cultural/political debates as part of an effort to demonize those on the other side of these debates. As such, I am inclined to view the use of such terms as a specie of WP:NPA. -] (]) 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::fair enough, i'll remove my vote for TBAN. | |||
| :::sidenote, I have no qualms with labeling a behavior as queerphobia. I don't think calling out discrimination or disruptive attitudes is inherently a vio of NPA. ] (]) 16:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::... I am indecisive.. I'll add weak support for TBAN, I still think the topic area should not have folks who are disruptive like this. ] (]) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Pervasively misgendering a child based on the belief that a child cannot express a desire to transition is a form of transphobic behavior. If it was a similar comment made about a BLP on the basis of religion or skin colour ''there would be no mention of WP:NPA''. Misplaced Pages is generally good about handling racism. It is a perpetual stain upon the reputation of Misplaced Pages that it's culture ''continues'' to worry more about the feelings of people who take transphobic actions than of the victims of the same. ] (]) 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Oppose''' as unnecessary given the commitments already given. ]] 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|1=Let's not. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC). <small>Edited to include edit conflict comment. ] (]) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}} | |||
| ::::I am assuming you haven't spent much time in places ] where religious belief and persons of faith are not infrequently and quite openly subject to ridicule. Racism is a subject upon which society has happily come to more or less full agreement. Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other. I shall refrain from further comment out of deference to WP:FORUM. -] (]) 21:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Fringe ideas get ridiculed at FTN regardless of whether or not they are religious... That so many fringe views are also religious is more a result of the supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual being inherently fringe than any problem with FTN. Religion which is rational and explainable isn't religion any more after all. ] (]) 21:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you for affirming my point. -] (]) 21:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Your point was that "Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other." Right? Like for example the ] or is that not the side you were thinking of? ] (]) 22:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No. I was thinking of people who regularly insult and ridicule religious belief and those who hold to it. Something which based on your comment, does not seem to be a source of concern to you. That said, this discussion is veering deep into WP:FORUM territory and I am going to move on. Have a good day. -] (]) 22:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't think I've ever seen any of those people suggest that trans people are demons, or did you mean demonize in a way other than literally saying that the other side is demonic/satan's minions? Becuase that would be highly ironic... ] (]) 22:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I am reaching the uncomfortable conclusion that you are attempting to be deliberately offensive. And for the record, you are succeeding. Good day. -] (]) 22:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::You weren't aware that a cornerstone of the gender controversy was religious conservatives resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other? Because that is well documented in reliable sources. I don't think you're the one who is supposed to be offended here, you're the one saying what appear to be extremely offensive things and are being asked to clarify what you meant. ] (]) 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{ec}} I think a significant point here is that while we may tolerate some degree of forumish and offensive comment about gender or race or religions from editors when they are restricted to largely abstract comment or even when they reference other editors, it's far more of a problem when the editors make offensive accusations about living persons especially when these are completely unrelated to any discussion about how to cover something (noting that the editor continued to make the comment even after they had noted how the English wikipedia treats issues). So for example, if someone says a specific religious figure is delusion or lying in relation to how we treat their testimony that might barely be acceptable. When someone just comes out and says it repeatedly for no reason, that's far more of a problem. Especially if the figure is someone barely notable and not notable (as was the case here for one of the individuals each). ] (]) 22:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| {{hat|1=This ''is'' affairs of other wikis. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *'''Comment''' This is definitely not the ideal place to discuss the subject since the whole problem originated with pt.wiki, but since the editor came here asking for help (for the right reasons or not), I will draw attention to the case of the admin accused of transphobia. This is not the first time that DarwIn has been singled out due to his comments on the subject (he has already given several examples of this here), but there is an where the editor has already been criticized for making such comments. There, they were also celebrating Skyshifter's ban (DarwIn commented something like "as a man he was 100%, after transitioning he became unbearable" to refer to her). As much as they try not to link the group to the project, to use this chat you need to associate your Misplaced Pages credentials, so I am concerned that pt.wiki admins could be seen spreading speeches against minorities in an official space of the project, since Misplaced Pages is the target of attacks for investing in equity and diversity. In addition to this comment, the admin was also extremely rude and crude towards a ]. | |||
| :Again, this is not the ideal place to comment on these issues, but I suggest that the case be submitted to Wikimedia if any intervention or something more incisive is necessary. The local community can accuse me of anything for writing these words, but I am concerned about the escalation of editorial harassment within that space. | |||
| :: I've just been across - even a cursory glance at the contributions of {{user|Methodology}} tell you pretty much everything you need to know. Quack quack it's a . It's a shame we don't have a quicker process to deal with such nonsense rather than the endless games we all get dragged into. --] 11:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :PS: The editor was mocking this discussion in the Telegram group while I was writing this. ] (]) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is a quicker process, ]. I'm going to delete the RFC and indef block Methodology as an obvious abusive sockpuppet. With 10+ admins endorsing the idea that this is a sockpuppet, there is no point in continuing. ] 12:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Came back after a month with no edits for this? It's quite clear Jardel is taking something personal with DarwIn here. Or he doesn't have anything to do at the moment. And he didn't have such great writing and narrative in his mother tongue, now is writing perfect, well written English. That gets stranger considering he's partially blocked in ptwiki for some beefing with other editors (] in portuguese)... Quite strange, to say the least. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::And yes, by "quite strange" I am talking about maybe ]. Nobody comes after a month without edits (that was preeceded by some other months before some 5-ish edits), to make an "accusation" based on unfounded arguments, especially after being blocked precisely for beefing and attacking other members of the community in his homewiki. Such a hypocrisy, a user banned for beefing accusating another user of attacks and using the word "transphobia" so vaguely. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I expected, the group participants started making accusations against me (that's why Eduardo G. appeared in this discussion) and wanted to insinuate that Skyshifter is writing this text, perhaps wanting to provoke some kind of retaliation later. First, I appreciate the compliments on my writing, which was 100% done by Google Translate; I think Google's engineering is to be congratulated. Second, I'm only here on this page because I noticed the links to this discussion in the Telegram group itself and decided to contribute with what I've been reading for a long time with great disgust. I didn't need to bring much, Darwin himself made a point of making abject comments in this discussion, but if you want, I can bring some screenshots of what they were talking about in the group. Third, I did go 1 month without editing here because my focus is not on en.wiki but on pt.wiki, where I make regular edits. I find it strange that you entered this discussion without refuting any of the arguments above, thinking that bringing up my tarnished "reputation" changes everything that was written by me or in the group. I believe it must be embarrassing to participate in a group where they are celebrating the sanctions that Skyshifter will suffer (thinking that place is a "private club") while at the same time you from the "public side" to the same editor, simulating virtue. In any case, my goal here is only to reinforce that there is indeed materiality in what Skyshifter said with more evidence and once again I recommend that the discussion be evaluated by the Wikimedia team knowing that attitudes that demonstrate prejudice against minorities go against the project's investments in equity, diversity and equality. ] (]) 03:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I will not pursue any retaliation. I'm just stating what I know of this case, and I even supported Sky when the edits were being made. People are celebrating because all of this discussion was brought to even another wiki by her. But I understand you might've written this text, and will not take the subject further. If anybody needs anything, please read the message below. Cheers. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So, I don't disagree with your argument about the sanctions she's passing on the other project, unfortunately. As for "not pursue any retaliation", I don't think that's what you mean by the phrase "4 successful DBs in a row is not for everyone." directed at me. ] (]) 04:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] You're wrong, twice. First, it wasn't me saying that. It was NCC-1701, and my user in TG is Edu. And at no point did I agree with NCC's messages. And secondly, the "four DBs in a row" wasn't in anyway directed at you. It was directed to Bageense, who opened 4 block discussions in the last 2 or 3 days and all of them were successfull. You are distorting the messages to condone your erroneous narrative. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 04:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well, if I am "distorting messages" to "tolerate" my narrative, anyone who wants to evaluate can join the group and read the messages posted there or see the pt.wiki discussion against the Projeto Mais Teoria da História na Wiki and talk to its ] to see what their opinion is on the matter. I may not be a perfect person, but what I see with great displeasure (coming from those who are "in charge of the gears") is not positive for the project. ] (]) 04:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Joining the group the community would then have no doubts about your intents and distortion of facts. You didn't deny the two things I said above — you know I'm right, you can't bend the facts this much. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 04:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''As a ptwiki user''' that know what's happening but talked to both sides of the discussion throughout it: This whole discussion started as a beef between Skyshifter and DarwIn. Skyshifter didn't accept some changes DarwIn made to an article "of her" (quotes because articles doesn't have owners. I respect her pronouns), and when discussing with DarwIn, called the whole Portuguese Misplaced Pages project a sewage ()/], thus being banned and the ban being endorsed on the ] <small>(in portuguese)</small>. The discussion was based on the references for the article, was solved in the ptwiki with an outburst from Sky, and that was it. | |||
| ::::Support. Please keep an eye on the ] page, admins - , to readd the Sarah RFC (in three different places!) – ]] 13:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also support, let's go duck-hunting. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well done Thatcher 131! That was some awesome support there guys, I appreciate it. --] 14:34, 8 November 2006 (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. | |||
| Thankyou everyone for your wonderful support...to say it is appreciated would be a massive understatement. ] (]) 23:17, 8 November 2006 (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) | |||
| :Perfect example of DefendEachOther and can't think of many folk more worthy, Sarah. Support deletion, support indef block. ++]: ]/] 23:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Good call! -- ] 05:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thirded. I saw this in passing a couple of days ago and was hoping that people with more time would do the right thing to it. It seemed to have been completely without reasonable justification or criticism. Keep up the good work, Sarah. ] 03:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| JardelW is a user who was banned from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages due to his detestable behavior. This individual used the same Telegram group that he is now criticizing. The editor was banned from this group due to his behavior, in which he called respected users of the community . And DarwIn is one of the administrators of the group where he is banned, so you can already imagine why he is here. Now, once again he is trying to destabilize the community by defending an editor who called the entire project a sewer and made unproven accusations against an administrator. At this point, the account is practically banned and the article that caused the discord has its deletion or merge defended by several editors. By coming here, JardelW and Skyshifter are, in a way, stating that the entire community is prejudiced. Yet another offense enters the list as proof of Jardel's destabilizing behavior. Furthermore, this user to carry out the same destabilization by contesting on meta the banning of IPs, a consensual decision among hundreds of editors. And when he was still blocked, in an attempt to intervene in the Misplaced Pages domain, where he is banned, simply because he did not agree with the deletion of an article. And this without presenting any evidence. It is clear that Jardel's objective here is to take revenge on the community, and he will be punished for it. ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == IP talk page warnings == | |||
| :It is pretty clear thay the intents of Jardel here are disruptive. Your comment hopefully leaves no doubt to the community. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 04:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As I said above, I am not a perfect person. I may have used foul language to address some editors in a moment of anger, but I felt vulnerable and hurt by editors I held in high regard, and I apologize for what I wrote in the past. Likewise, I do not think it is right that a social channel that is reported as "linked to Misplaced Pages" is being used as a bar where people can say whatever they want, especially when it comes to prejudiced comments against minorities. At no time did I label all of them, only one of them demonstrated that she was doing so. If I happen to receive any sanction for this discussion, and knowing that bringing issues from pt.wiki here is not ideal, I will receive it for doing the right thing, because I want something to change for the better in a project that I have dedicated so much time to contributing to. I may be prevented from editing on Misplaced Pages, but if what I bring here helps to change something, I will be happy. ] (]) 05:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| :] - this is your second edit ever, and your account was just created today - how did you get to this ANI post? ] ] 05:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I saw a discussion in the group and created the account to not appear as an IP. ] (]) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] The objective of the channel is to be a more relaxed place. And it's not official, . Angry moment? Are you sorry? After your block, you attacked editors on a social network, as attested by a CheckUser: . And there are no prejudiced comments. That's a lie. Where are the links? And how much time have you devoted to the project when all you do is attack others? Enough of this nonsense. I ask that an administrator evaluate the conduct of this account. ] (]) 05:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't realize the discussion was closed. Sorry. ] (]) 05:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Supporting both IBAN and TBAN'''. Someone who actively believes in misgendering should not be allowed into this area when they have already demonstrably made another editor uncomfortable. The snarky reply to GiantSnowman does not convince me they would respond well if another editor brought up a similar concern in the future.--] ] 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Can't we give this child and her mother some privacy? What is it about gender issues, as opposed to other medical or developmental issues, that seems to give everyone a right to comment? Let's just report what reliable sources say and leave it at that. ] (]) 18:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.] (]) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. ] (]) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.] (]) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::talkpages def are covered by BLP as per the policy page.and the policy gives wide latitude about what the subject may have redacted if they object to info, even if they had previously or somehow otherwise placed that info in public domain. | |||
| :::::concerns about privacy have to weigh against dueness but arguing the book gives dueness to try to be internet sleuths and discover and identify a child is probs not gonna pass the smell test.] (]) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Misplaced Pages, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.] (]) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. ] (]) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Children cannot consent, their parents can. ] ]<sup>]</sup> 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I would totally agree, but that is irrelevant here, nothing Darwin did was related to revealing the child's identity. He criticised the mother in strong terms on talkpages and this is what the BLP argument comes down to.--] (]) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? ] (]) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--] (]) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Ask yourself whether Misplaced Pages would even entertain this discourse if the identity was anything other than a trans one. The answer is a flat no. Darwin's interpretation of the mother's interpretation of her daughter's identity is inappropriate for the project, is disruptive and is openly antagonistic toward trans editors. I think nothing more can be gained from endlessly debating whether we should pretend there is a carve-out to BLP requirements for children within oppressed minorities. ] (]) 17:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''', no comment on IBAN. . ] ]<sup>]</sup> 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Editors in this topic area can and often do disagree on the underlying issues, which often helpfully ensures that all such material on Misplaced Pages follows our policies and guidelines. However, the responses to Ad Orientem's request and various replies above shows that the proposed remedies would be appropriate given the BLP issues in play here.-- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose any sanctions''' I’m sorry if I’m interfering in something I’m not involved with, but I’ve been watching this discussion and I think it’s needlessly toxic. What I’m seeing is a misunderstanding of some inappropriate ] on a hot-button issue sparking a dispute that turned into “DarwIn is a transphobic bully” which I don’t think is true. I think the two main parties should simply avoid each other voluntarily and the situation will quickly de-escalate. ] (]) 05:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support TBAN''', indifferent to IBAN. Having followed this topic for a few days, it's convinced me that a topic ban for both GENSEX and BLP is entirely appropriate in this instance. My initial scepticism passed after reading responses from the editor and realising that the understanding of BLP policy appears to be even more incomplete than I originally thought. The deceleration from the editor to avoid such topics voluntarily is irrelevant, as combined with the lack of understanding over the concept of broadly construed, commitments have already been made and broken within this discussion alone. So respectfully, I believe this ] type editing, whether it is attempting to ] or simply ] discussions, is nonetheless disruptive and uncivil at times. ] (]) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Dronebogus. I'd say "we're better than this" if I believed it. ] (]) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' ''Skyshifter'', if anything, is harassing Darwin in this instance. Darwin has agreed to an IBAN, never mind that he's expressed desires to descelate what has become the longest thread on AN or ANI as of writing. ''']]''' 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' This is a pretty explicit case of POV harassment. Their replies to the topic likewise do not give me faith they will adhere to a self imposed limitation. Darwin claimed to have agreed to step away before the ANI was created, but the edit history shows that Darwin continued editing the page up until an hour before Skyshifter created the ANI. Thus, there should be an actionable sanction. I fail to understand how it is Skyshifter doing the harassment at all as Cubby suggests. Darwin even called skyshifter a troglydite () to boot. ] (]) 15:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh my fucking god. This whole thread is nuts. I wish I could pardon my french but this is CRAZY. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Never in a million years would’ve I expected myself to be responding to a thread like this but I mean here I am. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Although Skywing’s concerns of harassment are valid especially if he’s being tracked across Misplaced Pages’s website, as far as I know, there are no guidelines that state someone can be punished for actions on another Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :'''I support''' the notion of Darwin being topic banned from gender related articles (especially trans ones), for the simple fact that his conflict of interest with transphobia has clearly caused a disruption to the Misplaced Pages community. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :'''I oppose''' with the IP-ban because if anything this '''SHOULD’VE''' ended a week ago when Darwin voluntarily said he would not edit those pages as well as avoid any interaction with Skywing. | |||
| :<br> ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. ] (]) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I understand, I meant that. Apologies. I misunderstood what it stood for. I would prefer if the IBAN was two way instead of one-way. Seems hardly fair in my honest opinion when both I suppose are equally responsible and to share the blame. This is a messy situation so putting the blame on one when both are equally responsible seems hardly fair. But that's my two cents. | |||
| :::NOTE: I don't condone homophobia or queerphobia or whatever the term is (I'm not really informed enough in this situation to know what Misplaced Pages calls it so I'm adding both just in case) so please don't take it as me defending either side as that is NOT my intent. | |||
| :::Cheers, <br> ] (]) 01:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This reply reminded me of the essay ]. ] (]) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Lol. It is accurate. That literally is what it is I suppose lol. ] (]) 01:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any sanctions against Darwin per Dronebogus. I wish we were better than this, but like TBUA, I don't actually believe that we are. ] (]) 20:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both TBAN and IBAN. Their behaviour at DYK might have been mitigated if they had taken responsibility here instead of doubling down. A TBAN and IBAN will reduce disruption. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at ] accusing me of coming to their talk page to "{{tq|further troll me with this nonsense warning}}". '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' both. I'm baffled that some people above are saying "well, they agreed to stop voluntarily" - did they not read the massive post Darwin made above? It amounts to an extended "I'm sorry that you were offended." Trusting that someone will avoid the same mistakes in the future on their own requires that they understand and admit to those mistakes, which is obviously not the case here; how can we trust that an editor will abide by a self-imposed restriction when they won't even meaningfully acknowledge the errors that made that restriction necessary? Therefore, sanctions are necessary. --] (]) 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === ] taking matters from another Misplaced Pages to seek revenge. === | |||
| {{vandal|74.93.44.78}} engaged in a spree of attacks on the 3rd Nov. ''5 days'' later the IP becomes active again but his only edit is to blank his talk page. The point is raised in IRC that he's broken some 'policy' and should have known he may only archive warnings (ridiculous!). I plead with ] not to take any action unless the IP returns to vandalism. It could be a different user - and ] applies. Despite that Editor at large replaces the warnings and adds a big nasty threatening template. (didn't somone nuke those things?). I ask him to stop, it and revert his template. But without further ado, I am reverted by ]. I'm no going to editwar on this, so I'm bringing it here. | |||
| {{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. | |||
| It is one thing replacing warnings on the page of an active vandal, but, after 5 days and no further vandalism, we need to uphold ] and also consider that it may be an innocent user on the same IP. We get confused innocents on OTRS all the time asking about nasty warnings. I made these points on IRC but was told that the IP broken policy and it needed enforced. Let's have a discussion here.--]<sup>g</sup> 12:05, 8 November 2006 (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. | |||
| :Doc, the thing is that it makes it easier for editors using anti-vandal RC tools, who are warning editors on the fly. Some editors may not have the time or inclination or knowledge to check the history of the talk page for warnings, and this may create misconceptions for punitive action. If you weigh in the pros and cons, while removal of warnings may create some problems, keeping them there will facilitate transparency, and easily let people know about past activities of the user without going into the history/contribs. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you! ]]]</span> 12:15, 8 November 2006 (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. | |||
| ::If you stumble across a blank but created IP usertalk page, then check its history before warning or blocking. If you've not time to do that - then I respectfully suggest that you haven't time to do RCP properly. Don't invent policies and then enforce them with nasty warnings because that is convenient for RC people.--]<sup>g</sup> 12:22, 8 November 2006 (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. | |||
| :::Now really, if the IP wants to edit constructively, he will get an account for himself, and doesn't really look that threatening to constitute ]. Archiving pages only means more trouble for blocking administrators, so this should not be supported in any form. Any such policy on archiving pages / removing warnings would only cause more process problems. I have welcomed the user, by the way. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 12:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::" ... if the IP wants to edit constructively, he will get an account for himself ... ". Absolutely ;''not'';. There is no Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that forces users to acquire an account. IP users should not be dealt with any differently to registered users. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am not creating a new policy here. As I have said above, it is my job to make it easier for users to work here. Kindly do not accuse me of ], or of making up "nasty warnings", without rationale. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you! ]]]</span> 12:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes, someone nuked those things, but they're presently on DRV. The question is whether making the job slightly easier for recent change patrol warrants being incivil to newbies and revert warring to keep old warning templates on their talk page. I'm not accusing anyone in particular of either of this, but it has happened. Since blocks are not supposed to be punitive, neither should warnings supposed to be (semi-) permanent black marks. The idea that you may only 'archive' your talk page in a certain way would be instruction creep. ] 12:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Shreshth, Doc did not accuse you of biting newbies. He suggested that you should bear ] in mind before leaping to punish an IP user when the IP address was used five days earlier for vandalism. I don't know if you're aware of this, but IP addresses are not necessarily static. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Shreshth91, forget what is 'easy' for you for a moment and focus on what you are ''doing'' here. User gets a warning. They read it and remove it because they don't like it. You then restore the warning. You've just edit warred. To re-insert something you know the user doesn't want to see. On ''their'' talk page. I'm sorry, but I can't see the benefits of 'easy' in not having to click on a 'history' link outweighing the 'bad' of actions which serve to greatly annoy users. Even when this is used 'correctly' (as opposed to all the times 'User A' puts a questionable or outright false warning on the page of 'User B' and then harasses them to keep it there) it is a net negative. --] 12:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, okay - I get it. Let's not make a big deal of a samll thing. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you! ]]]</span> 12:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|Eduardo_Gottert}} You need to provide evidence when opening an ANI thread, not on request. ] (]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| For reference, ] the AN discussion, and ] the DRV. --] (]) 13:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::'@] The evidences are above. I said if you need any '''further''' evidence, you may ask. All of the necessary evidence are on the request. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Where's the evidence? What we know is that DarwIn came here despite little involvement and made a highly offensive statement that can reasonably be characterised as transphobic. While I don't feel Sky Shifter should have described it so, better to let others decide, it was entirely reasonable for Sky Shifter to call for action against DarwIn for it. What is your evidence that they did it for revenge instead of for the fact that after a disagreement with DarwIn in a different wiki, DarwIn suddenly appeared in this wiki, one they themselves agree they barely edit, to make a highly offensive statement that Sky Shifter reasonably felt was transphobic. After doing so, they then appeared on ANI to make similar highly offensive statements were they made offensive accusations against living based on their own opinion. ] (]) 06:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Honestly, the argument is pretty clear above. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you agree you're wrong then please withdraw this ANI. ] (]) 06:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I did not agree in any place that I am wrong. I just stated that the evidence is pretty clear above, with all the block discussions and diffs needed for understanding the problem. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Your statement was very unclear. You said "the argument" which I interpreted to mean my argument. If you're still claiming your argument is clear, then please explain how it can be when part of your argument is it was unfair for Sky Shifter to go around saying "transphobia" when many of us agree that even if it was unnecessary, it was not unsupported given the comments DarwIn was making do seem to be transphobic. ] (]) 06:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::As we were talking about my evidence, I think saying "the argument" clearly refer to me. And as to the reason for the opening of this ANI, it's because the revenge seeking of Skyshifter. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I wouldn't say it doesn't considering as I said, one of the reasons your argument was flawed, but you didn't address that in any way. Nothing you've said above or since has explained why you're claiming Sky Shifter using the word "transphobic" is evidence for "revenge" when it's a reasonable characterisation of what DarwIn said. ] (]) 06:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{ec}} I would add it's very unclear what you thinking you're adding that wasn't already considered above. In the above thread a 1 way iban on DarwIn seems to be getting serious consideration. A two way iban seems to have been rejected based on the assessment that whatever the wrongs with Sky Shifter's approach, it wasn't serious enough to warrant an iban. The fact that Sky Shifter was in a dispute with DarwIn on other wikis, and DarwIn was involved in their blocked is likewise not a secret, part of it was stated by Sky Shifter when opening the thread and the rest was stated by DarwIn. The sock allegation likewise. So what do you think you're adding to the discussion that wasn't already considered and seemingly rejected by the community above? ] (]) 06:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It is time for a ]. You already said all of that above. You seem to have been canvassed here from a discussion outside of this wiki. Go back there and let them know cross wiki harassment will get you blocked here. ] (]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I added more evidence and context. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You simply cast aspersions as part of a cross wiki harassment campaign against someone over transgender related issues. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 06:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your statement doesn't even make sense. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We can add ] to the reasons you are blocked then. ] (]) 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Am I? And where am I in violation of ]? <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I used plain English and you said you couldn't comprehend it. ] (]) 06:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I thought it was pretty well determined in that prior ANI thread that DarwIn's edits and statements absolutely were transphobic and bigoted. ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ::The 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) | |||
| Has repeatedly removed non-harassing comments from their Talk page without discussion and without addressing the behavior in question, such as breaking infobox syntax over personal stylistic concerns, adding future information to articles before events have actually occurred, adding false information to articles, removing user comments from their talk, and adding information without proper citation. Since the anon refuses to leave warnings on his talk page unless threatened, other editors do not escalate their warnings as necessary. Was warned to stop the behavior or a report questioning the behavior would be filed--user promptly deleted it. Here are the most recent diffs: | |||
| ::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) | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| Maybe I'm being harsh, but seems like a long pattern of uncivil behavior by the same user here to try to keep a "clean" image. - ] 14:33, 8 November 2006 (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) | |||
| == Banned users asking trolling questions at ArbCom elections == | |||
| *: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}} | |||
| See , where an IP - which to be a banned user - repeatedly asks a question that can be seen as trolling. Same user has targetted other noms too. IIRC, banned users are not allowed to edit at all. Why should we, if we do, make an exception now? – ]] 15:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| :For further info, see Avraham's candidacy. This IP is a troll from the war that broke out over ]. – ]] 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The protection of the page after only two reverts was inappropiate, though. - ]<small><sup>23:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)</sup></small> | |||
| :::I saw more than two, there were some added earlier and reverted (around Nov 6 or Nov 7). ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Regardless, it doesn't quite match the stated ], does it? - ]<small><sup>00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)</sup></small> | |||
| == ] reported by ] == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{atop|result=John40332 has been blocked sitewide. ] (]) 01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Why the f*** do people think this is a hoax?? are you mad??? --] 15:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{moved from|]|2=] (]) 14:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :This is not the place to ask for undeleting an article. The correct place is ]. ] 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{vandal|John40332}} – On {{No redirect|:Psycho (1960 film)}} ({{diff|Psycho (1960 film)|1266578685|1265765039|diff}}): account is being used only for promotional purposes; account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. User's recent edits have been dedicated almost invariably to inserting links in classical music-related articles to an obscure sheet music site. Behavior appeared to be ] and ]. Personal attempts to curb this behavior or reach a compromise were rejected by user. ] resulted in ], despite three other editors informing user that their edits appeared to be spam or some kind of advocacy. ] (]) 08:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like our new user created ] with the infamous briefs picture. Block {{userlinks|Cotnress}} please. ] 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Not a bot and not spamming, you just keep ] me repeatedly, I cited sources to the publisher of the books in question. You appear to suffer from ] and act like I need your consent to edit the articles you feel that belong to you. You also know I'm not a compromised account, you spam ] on your reverts but you're mostly bullying other editors into submission. | |||
| :You've been asked to stop disrupting editing https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:CurryTime7-24#January_2025 , and continue to harass any edits that touch "your" articles. | |||
| :You also keep saying I add citation to obscure music sites, just because you don't know something doesn't make it obscure. Additionally, you are the only person raising this as an issue because you're extremely controlling of the articles, you don't own Misplaced Pages and hopefully some other editor or admin can remind you of that. ] (]) 09:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you claiming that SheetMusicX is a reliable source for these articles? If so then someone (it may be me but I don't guarantee it) should take it to ]. I note that several editors have queried this, not just CurryTime7-24. John40332 is clearly not a spambot or compromised account, so please avoid over-egging the pudding. ] (]) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is reliable and listed with other , it's the homepage of the Canadian music publishing house Edition Zeza, their books are part of the , shows their books in libraries around the world etc, I shouldn't even have to dig this far because 1 editor decided he ] Misplaced Pages. The links I had included provided relevant information about the articles I was editing (orchestration, dates, duration etc). Cited information from a publisher of said work, which is exactly what ] suggests doing. ] (]) 18:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The editor's history does seem suspicious. From 2014 to 2023 they made a total of 24 edits to article space, almost all of which were to ] and ]. Then after more than a year of no edits, in the last 5 weeks they have made 38 edits to article space, of which all except three added a reference to sheetmusicx.com. This is a commercial site that sells sheet music. As far as I can see, every reference added was a link to a page that sells a particular piece of sheet music. This certainly seems like ]. ] (]) 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So is the problem that I'm actively contributing now, or that the cited sources aren't good enough? You guys are grasping at straws at this point.] added links to commercial sites , such as to Fidelio Music (to which he appears to be an affiliate) and yet no one raises a flag. Even when I added a source without removing his, he removed mine to keep only his link to Fidelio Music. ] (]) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is no "you guys" here. You have exactly the same status, as a volunteer editor, as I do. I have no idea who CurryTime7-24 is, or whether that editor is an affiliate. I just know about reliable sources and that we should not be linking to ''any'' commercial site, except possibly to the original publisher of a work. ] (]) 19:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *] has compiled a page, ] of edits with links to this website. This list was not created by CurryTime7-24 but by a bot looking for instances of conflict-of-interests. All of the problems you are concerned about, John40332, would not exist if you would just stop posting links to this website. If you would agree to stop referring to sheetmusicx.com, you wouldn't be "hounded" or be defending yourself and we could close this complaint. Can you agree to that editing restriction? And, if you can't, then why are you insisting on linking to this particular website? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Because it's a valid source according to: | |||
| *:] - "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources" | |||
| *:] - The publisher of the work (and not only the first ever publisher, any reputable publisher of a work) | |||
| *:] - "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form." | |||
| Interestingly, "someone" (and I'm not saying it's CurryTime7-24) came to my talk page yesterday to write , I can only think of 1 person who is hounding me this much though, but that doesn't seem to be taken seriously. ] (]) 07:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :That's not "interesting", that's despicable; as is your insinuation. As for sheetmusicx as as source: for what? That they published some work? Why is that noteworthy? -- ] (]) 08:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a source for information about the work. Yes it's despicable, and as I said, no one takes it seriously, I'm not insinuating anything, admins can look into the IP themselves. ] (]) 08:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::So, you would prefer that this dispute continue on, which could lead to sanctions for you, rather than simply stop using this website as a reference? To me, when I see that kind of behavior, it's typically a sign of a paid editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There's no dispute, it's a reliable source and ] makes a fuss about it because of his ] syndrome and potential ] with his affiliation with Fidelio Music. | |||
| ::::Why are you against a source that complies with ] ? ] (]) 09:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Because your use of that source is pretty clearly intended as promotional. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's hard to understand how you can say "there's no dispute" when there is quite obviously a dispute; six editors in this thread alone have questioned your use of that source. You have invoked ] to claim that the website is an acceptable source, but I'm not sure you have understood what that guideline says about commercial sites; they are allowed as references '''only''' to verify simple facts such as titles and running times. You have not used sheetmusicx.com for such purposes; you have used it to tell the reader where they can purchase sheet music (], ], ], ], ], etc). ] (]) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I used it to add relevant information that didn't exist on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ::::::When I added "Psycho A Narrative for String Orchestra" that exists since 1968 and never mentioned on Misplaced Pages, but CurryTime decided to harass me there too. | |||
| ::::::When I added the orchestration for Tambourin Chinois , which CurryTime decided to remove too. | |||
| ::::::I used information by the publisher to confirm facts, as per ], if commercial sources are not allowed to verify contributions, then why is everyone so quiet about CurryTime's affiliation to Fidelio Music links ? So far these comments are a good example of ], first I was accused of spamming, then of being a bot, then that my account was compromised, then that the source used wasn't reliable, if you run out of ideas try my religion or ethnicity. ] (]) 08:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, you added the bit about Psycho - which included the link ''with the same phrasing as on the other edits'' where it was obvious "buy this music here". Your edits are either promotional or are indistinguishable from being promotional. That is why they are being removed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You have repeatedly said that CurryTime7-24 is an affiliate of Fidelio. Can you show us your evidence of that? ] (]) 18:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Here he removed my source to add Fidelio Music | |||
| ::::::Here again to make sure only Fidelio Music exists | |||
| ::::::And obviously here, deleting what I added to include Fidelio Music exclusively | |||
| ::::::Here he completely deleted everything I added about the piece as part of his ] ] (]) 19:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That may be evidence of something, good or bad, but it's certainly not evidence that that editor is an affiliate. But, anyway, the action that hould have been taken a few days ago has now been taken, so we can stop talking now. ] (]) 20:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be nice if an admin would compare the IP address 181.215.89.116 that told me to on my Talk Page, to existing users, now that would be fun to find out who is so against my edits, because so far the only action was a suspension. ] (]) 08:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::In any case the most obvious guess is: some unrelated troll who saw your name on this board. —] (]) 22:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It appears that there is consensus here and at ] against linking to Sheet Music X. Is it possible for an admin to propose a resolution here? —] (]) 17:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The only consensus is your ] syndrome, the sources linked are reliable and fit for purpose. People have questioned my use of the source, not the reliability of it. | |||
| :And {{userlinks|Bexy3-2}} as well - both trolling DRV . ] 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You created this complaint stating that I'm a spammer, a bot or a compromised account, has that consensus been reached too ? ] (]) 18:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, {{u|John40332}}, you are wrong about the lack of consensus, and there is ''clear'' consensus against you linking to that commercial sheet music sales site. So, either you agree to stop doing so, or you get subjected to formal sanctions. Which will it be? ] (]) 18:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::So CurryTime can throw random accusations until something sticks? ] (]) 18:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK, then. {{u|John40332}} is indefinitely blocked from article space. The editor is free to make well-referenced, formal ] on article talk pages. The editor is warned that continuing to attempt to add links to Sheet Music X may lead to a sitewide block. The editor is advised to read the ]. ] (]) 19:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I made well referenced edits directly from a reputable publisher. Enjoy the power trip. ] (]) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please refrain from ] which violate policy. ] (]) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Let me quote Misplaced Pages's page for Power Trip "(...) someone in a position of greater power uses that power unjustifiably against a lower-ranking person, typically just for display of dominance.", since you showed up just to block me when I haven't even edited anything else until this incident was cleared. I didn't spam, I'm not a bot, my account isn't compromised, I referenced a reputable publisher that due to CurryTime's ] and ] made him start this issue. ] (]) 19:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Put that shovel down before you are indef blocked completely. '''increase indef block to all namespaces''' for battleground mentality. ] (]) 19:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}The block is now sitewide. ] (]) 19:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::Both of the above are indefblocked. Also, ] promoted himself to admin this morning by adding the admin template to his user page and adding himself to the admin list, and is now indefblocked as well. Based on the IPs, all the Nobby vandals appear to be the same person. I suggest a ] approach if any more get created, in accordance with ]. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 15:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bexy3-2 was blocked for 6 months, not indefinitely. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 15:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being undeleted. How many more times will this be re-created under new titles. I'm not going to mention them, lest ] coming into play. --] 16:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I also indefblocked an impersonator account of ] (who was the blocking admin of cotnress). ] 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Historian5328 == | |||
| == ] breaching probation, breaking article ban, edit warring again == | |||
| *{{userlinks|Historian5328}} | |||
| I have been dealing with persistent additions of unreferenced numbers to ], ], etc for some time. Rolling them back - they're never supported by sources that validate the data, or the sources are distorted. | |||
| In the last couple of days a new user, ] has also started showing this behaviour. But in this edit he's entering fantasy territory, saying the ] are equipped with the ], which has never been exported beyond the ]. I would request that any interested administrator consider this account for blocking. Kind regards and Happy New Year, ] ] 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] was blocked for 3RR (see ], and subsequently banned for a week from editing the article: | |||
| :Editor clearly has some serious ] issues, given this ] stuff, and using...let's say ''non-reliable sources'' elsewhere, without responding to any of the notices on their talk page. I've pblocked them from articlespace so they can come here and explain themselves. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just noting that the editor's username is ], not ] and they were informed of this discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::In the same regard, I would kindly request that any interested administrators review ], who has been warned over and over and over again about adding unsourced and completely made up material (Somali Navy for example, consisting of 3,500 personnel..) ] ] 03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I see you corrected their username in this report after I mentioned the mistake. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Liz, the original vandal and very problematic editor, who should be blocked immediately, was YZ357980. With all due regard to Historian5328, they display very similar behaviour, which immediately created a warning flag in my mind. ] ] 21:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I’m relatively new to Misplaced Pages editing and only recently discovered that there is even a talk page. Regarding the active personnel for the Somali Armed Forces, I listed approx 20,000–30,000 (2024) and included a citation, which I believe does not warrant being blocked. I’m a beginner in Misplaced Pages editing, have no malicious intent, and do not believe I should be blocked. Moreover, I read from a Somalia media source that the Somali government had acquired A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, believing the source to be authentic up until I discovered I was blocked. This was a mistake on my part, as I am new and inexperienced (2 days.) The individual who requested me to blocked must have had bad experiences which I’m not responsible for. I am requesting to be unblocked. ] (]) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Discussion continued on user's talk page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| A reminder that the arbitration committee has designated the Horn of Africa a contentious topic, so don’t be afraid to lay down a CT advisory template for either user. ] (]) 08:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Both done - thanks for the reminder. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I've removed the pblock on Historian5328 as it appears what was happening was 'new user unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's policies on reliable sourcing', but best to keep an eye on their edits. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and removal of sourced information == | |||
| :"In accordance with the ], you are hereby banned from editing ] and all pages which ] to it for the period of one week." --] 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = no action at this time | |||
| | result = Participants reminded to attempt communicating with other editors before reporting their behaviour to ANI. ] (]) 21:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The notice of the ban has now been removed by Fys from his talk page (see ]), and he is back making the same disputed changes to the articles from which he is banned: see ] | |||
| }} | |||
| This seems to be an ongoing issue. | |||
| The disputed changes were being discussed at ], where Fys has just blamed everyone else for blocking him. (see ): "A useful step to resolving the dispute might have been to unblock me earlier. A useful step to not making the dispute worse might have been to realise that I never broke the 3RR in the first place. A useful step to never having the dispute in the first place might have been to read what I wrote in this edit nearly a month ago." | |||
| {{Userlinks|Vofa}} has lots of warnings about disruptive editing in their user page and a block. | |||
| Plase can someone take action to stop these disputed changes being made unilaterally? | |||
| Most recent example of removal of sourced information: | |||
| Thanks! --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 15:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I checked the source and the information is there on page 7. | |||
| :He hasn't edited that article, or a redirect to it, that I can see. Can you provide a diff? ] - ] 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Previous examples include: . Also see: ] ] (]) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, my mistake: he did ''not'' edit the redirects. Fys's edits have been to articles which link to that one, by editing the constituency names in those articles to point to the one he wants to split: see, for example , , , | |||
| :Just to clarify, I just noticed that there is indeed an unsourced paragraph. | |||
| ::Whilst formally keeping within the terms of the article ban, the purpose of these edits is to remove direct links, replacing hem instead with links to a redirect. I can see no purpose in this other than as preparation for a split. Fys has refused to continue the discussion on the merits of that split. (see ). | |||
| :The reason for removal of sourced information would then be "removed text not relevant to Chagatai Khanate and Golden Horde in introduction". However the source does mention {{tq|The first of the changes leading to the formation of the Turco-Mongolian tradition ...}} and then gives Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate as examples. I don't see any ] or ] issues. | |||
| :I am concerned about removal of sourced information that does not seem to have a rationale based on ] ] (]) 16:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi there. The matter seems to be resolved. I did remove an unsourced paragraph and general claims not relevant to the introduction. I do not see a problem with it. You seem to have linked three edits I made. In the first edit, I had to revert because I accidentally chose the minor edit option. In the second edit, I have restored the previous version, but without a minor sign. I did not remove any sources (based on what I remember) I hope to see through my edits and understand what I did or did not do wrong. Please, avoid making an ANI in bad faith. ] (]) 03:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You removed source information. The part that starts with {{tq|The ruling Mongol elites ...}} | |||
| :::{{ping|asilvering}} from the editor's talk page, you seem to be a mentor. Removing sources or sourced material without explanation, or with insufficient explanation or rationale, such as "Polished language" , is an ongoing concern with Vofa. ] (]) 15:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Im not sure why I’m being stalked, but the edits you’re showing as examples of myself removing sources are more than two months old. I’ve stopped removing sources. ] (]) 19:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|asilvering}} This issue is still continuing ] (]) 15:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And you previously spoke to Vofa about this where...? -- ] (]) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|asilvering}}, I hadn't talked about removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale. | |||
| :::::I did talk about this however . See: ] | |||
| :::::I don't seek or expect a permanent block over this. But as a mentor and an administrator, maybe you can comment on removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale. ] (]) 19:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@], that's a ''threat'', not an explanation. If you have a content dispute with an editor, which is what this appears to be, you need to be able to talk it out with them on the article's Talk page. @], please be careful to make sure your edit summaries explain what you're doing. I see that there ''was'' an unsourced statement in the link Bogazicili just supplied, so I presume that's what you meant by "unsourced". But the other statement you removed ''did'' have a source. It's ok to split your edits up into multiple edits if you need to do that to explain them properly, but you could also just give an edit summary like "removed unsourced; also, removed statement " that addresses both changes. -- ] (]) 23:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{u|Asilvering}}, I would not characterize this as a "content dispute". I was not involved in most of those articles. I got concerned after seeing edits market as minor removing sources or sourced material without any or proper explanation. That is not a content dispute, that is an editor conduct dispute. ] (]) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What Vofa does at articles related to Turko-Mongolian history is not a content dispute but vandalism. It took me a lot of time to manually revert the hoax years and figures he added in ] article to decrease their population and he also removed sourced basic info from the lede of the ] which I had to restore. These are just some of few sneaky vandalism examples that I caught among the pages I patrol by Vofa. If you see his talk page, he has been warned a lot of times by many other editors for such mischief. ] (]) 07:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@], Vofa hasn't edited the Turkmens article since before they were blocked. That is obviously not an ongoing issue. As for ], I ''also'' see no discussion of those edits. If you have a problem with how someone is editing, you need to communicate with them. -- ] (]) 08:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{u|Asilvering}}, my concerns were removal of sourced information or sources without proper rationale or explanation. Do you think that was communicated enough to Vofa in this topic, or do we need further communication? I'm asking in case Vofa continues this type of behavior. Hopefully that won't be the case. ] (]) 08:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Im going to repeat this again; | |||
| ::::::::::I have not removed any sources since I was warned about it. | |||
| ::::::::::I do not see an issue with my recent editing. | |||
| ::::::::::You should communicate with me on any issues that you have with me. ] (]) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{u|Vofa}}, do you see any issues with this edit: ] (]) 11:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Are you implying if I see an issue with this edit of mine or with your removal of said edit? ] (]) 15:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::{{u|Vofa}}, the former. I am asking if you see any issues yourself with your own linked edit. ] (]) 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I do not see an issue with the linked edit of mine. ] (]) 19:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Indeed, really the issue was Bogazicili's, and it has now been solved in the usual way (by restoring only the sourced content). Apologies, @], for misreading it earlier. -- ] (]) 19:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::{{u|Asilvering}}, I disagree. I did miss the unsourced paragraph. However, removal of sourced content has been an ongoing issue with Vofa. They should not have removed sourced content to begin with. | |||
| :::::::::::::::There was also a previous discussion in ANI: | |||
| :::::::::::::::] | |||
| :::::::::::::::{{u|Asilvering}}, again, is the threshold of communication met if removing sourced content by Vofa persists in the future? ] (]) 19:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Basically, I'm not trying to get Vofa blocked, but they should be more careful in future when they remove sources or sourced content. They should have a reasonable rationale based in ], and they should explain that rationale properly. ] (]) 19:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Indeed they should. And you should not restore unsourced content once it has been removed. -- ] (]) 20:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::{{u|asilvering}}, the difference is I already acknowledged it multiple times. Is that not obvious? ] (]) 21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::@], I'm going to close this report. No administrative action is required here at this time. You should make a habit of communicating on the article talk page when you get into a conflict with another editor, but you should ''always'' try to communicate with other editors before coming to ANI about their behaviour. This should be your last resort. If you make an earnest effort to communicate and are ignored, by all means report here. If there is edit-warring or obvious vandalism involved, please take that to the relevant noticeboard. -- ] (]) 21:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Thank you. ] (]) 11:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This member often vandalises, in an article about ] he wrote huge numbers without backing them up with sources and tried to prove it was true. This is rabid vandalism. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@], vandalism has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages; an edit being unsourced does not mean it was vandalism. Do not cast aspersions on other editors in this way. @], you are edit-warring on ]. You need to stop doing that immediately. -- ] (]) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I have not edited Oirats. I have stopped edit warring. ] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ==Incivility and ABF in contentious topics== | |||
| ::These edits seem to me to be a form of wikilawyering: keeping with the strict terms of the ban, but not the spirit of it. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 15:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*'''Comment''' Could another admin perhaps comment on this? Is it acceptable in this sort of situation for the banned user to do preparatory work for the article split which led to the ban being imposed? As above, that series of edits seems to me to be either ] or ], but maybe an admin who has considered this sort of thing before could clarify? Thanks. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 15:56, 8 November 2006 (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: | |||
| :::(edit conflict) Looks like he hasn't edited that article yet, but on my talk page. The article ban notice and I invite any administrator to block this user in case he removes it again. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills. | |||
| ::::"Spurious" is it? Do you really want me to point to the edits and emails where you made personal attacks on me? ]. “] ] ]”. 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883 | |||
| :::::What a load of baloney! May I remind you that it was you who spammed my inbox with unblock demands? Provide the diffs for you shalt find none. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 15:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| WP:NPA | |||
| :::::: — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 15:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324 | |||
| :I have blocked Fys for twenty-four hours for disruptive incivility and personal attacks. Comments and suggestions invited. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Frankly I think this situation sucks and Brownhairedgirl is not entirely free from responsibility. Fys' recent edits ''are'' related to the issue for which he was article-banned; the issue of naming/merging/splitting ] and ]. However, I'm not sure why changing the name in the MP's article is wrong. It seems common sense to me that in an article about an MP, his constituency should be called whatever it was ''at the time the MP served'', even if the name was later changed, and irrespective of what the Misplaced Pages article is currently called—that's one reason we have redirects. (For example, ] is listed as a congressman for New York's 29th, 33rd and 31st congressional districts, even though all those districts are now obsolete and their territory is part of the 27th.) | |||
| ::The issue for which Fys was originally blocked and article-banned was over how to deal with a district that either was renamed or altered so significantly that is should have a separate article. Listing MP's in their proper contemporaneous districts does not seem like a problem to me and Brownhairedgirl should not have reverted them (unless they were incorrect contemporaneous names). | |||
| ::I suppose if he apologized to Nick and calmed down, the civility block could be lifted early. I would not lift the article ban, but I would caution Brownhairedgirl not to revert Fys on other articles unless he makes factually incorrect edits. Listing MP's according to their contemporaneous districts is not necessarily a precursor to another edit war over the district's article. ] 16:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Profanity | |||
| :::Sure; observe that mistakes were made, shake hands all around. If there is no reason to think there will be any more disruption, there is not need for the block. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966 | |||
| ::::Hi Thatcher 131, I think that you may have misunderstood the situation. Maybe it would be clearer, if I highlighted the changes in of Fys's edit to ]: | |||
| ::::;old link: | |||
| ::::*<nowiki>]</nowiki><br />(looks like this: ]) | |||
| ::::;Fys's replacement | |||
| ::::*<nowiki>] | |||
| </nowiki><br />(looks like this: ]) | |||
| ::::As you will see, in each case the name of the constituency is displayed as "St George, Hanover Square" (Fys removed an '''s'' suffix, not sure if that was correct). | |||
| ::::The substance of the dispute is that Fys claims that Westminster St George's is so significantly changed from St George, Hanover Square that it should not be in the same article; no other editor agrees, but all have agreed that Fys might be right and have sked Fys for more evidence. In the meantime, the consenus is to treat the 1918 change as a renaming rather than a new constituency, and therefore to keep the two constituencies in one article. | |||
| ::::The current effect of Fys' edits was to repkace a link to an article with a link to a redirect. What was the purpose of that, if not as precursor to a split? The constituency name was displayed correctly before and after. | |||
| ::::I will as you ask desist from reverting further such changes, but it does seem to me to contrary to good practice to replace a direct piped link with a redirect. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 16:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor | |||
| :::::OK, I see what he did, and your description is correct. I would hesitate to label it as intentional disruption; perhaps he plans to provide the necessary sources for his version and is getting ready. In the short run I would leave them alone per assuming good faith. ] 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877 | |||
| ::::::There were originally two articles, but BrownHairedGirl merged them. Rather than characterising Fys as wanting to split the article into two, I think it would be more accurate to say that he wants to revert the merge. | |||
| ::::::In my view, two constituencies with different names and different boundaries are ''prima facie'' different constituencies, and should be considered so unless there is a compelling case to believe otherwise. One could make such a compelling case by going to the library and having a look at the ], but (as usual on Misplaced Pages it would seem) people on both sides of the dispute would rather argue than do research. | |||
| ::::::] 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Unicivil | |||
| I don't have any problem if ] is unblocked, provided that he ceases with his disruptive acts. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 13:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027 | |||
| == User:Shuppiluliuma being abusive, combative, not making good faith edits, etc == | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441 | |||
| ] has been doing numerous things, including reverting over and over, removing city names that have been discussed already, and making threats/offensive attacks such as "(do we have to kill you greeks one by one?)" in an , marking major changes as minor, and after I warned him with the 3rr template, "Well, I don't care. You people have Crusader mentality. But don't worry: Within a few centuries, we'll be back in Vienna (Never mind Greece)... So sweet dreams with the Greek names of Turkish cities." He is clearly out of control. --] 15:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Now he's adding nonsense to ] --] 16:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::His unilateral re-kindling of the Greek-Turkish placenames ]ness is certainly not helpful, and much of it is "editing against consensus". I've already reverted him myself on one or two and consider myself sort of involved, otherwise I'd come myself and keep a ''very'' strict watch over editwarring on those articles. ] ] 16:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Contact on user page attempted | |||
| Just happened to see this. One of his is extremely worrying: "do we have to kill you greeks one by one?" Death threats are really ''not'' acceptable. ] 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Based on that I blocked him for 31 hours. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, to be fair, in the context of <s>]</s> <s>]</s> <s>]ian</s> ] rhetorics I doubt any of his addressees would have been likely to take that one even remotely at face value, but sure, if nothing else we must take it as a sign of a deeply unconstructive attitude to this editing dispute. ] ] 16:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795 | |||
| ==Another reminder about reversions== | |||
| This has been mentioned before, but I'd like to remind everyone to be careful when reverting edits to make sure something beforehand isn't missed. When I reverted on 31 May, I missed (by the same editor; I did not know at the time that popups reversions and rollback are not identical), and this person's Commission Junction link has been active for over five months! Thanks to {{user|Poetxpress}} for finally today... :( <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 16:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, further to that, I posted a warning on the AIV talk page re a phenomenon I've seen recently, with tag team vandalism between a registered and anon user; often, the anon vandalism will be rolled back to the last registered edit, which is also vandalism. ] 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent | |||
| == Vandalism == | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557] (]) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| There is a lot of vandalism on the ] page. Please take it out. | |||
| :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) | |||
| Thanx. | |||
| ::Would I be the person to provide you with that {{tq|further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions}}? I did think that it would be more than a ], since that's for {{tq|one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior}} and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern ]. ] (]) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. ''Hob should know better'', and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to ]. But I would ''caution you'' about ] and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your , , and it seems like you're having a problem handling a ] and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith. | |||
| :Furthermore it does appear that you might be ] because your attempts at ] for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. , , , , , , and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding ] and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards ]. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. ] ] 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address ''unique issues'' as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. ({{tq|All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution.}} ]) Thank you for your time and input. | |||
| ::] (]) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hope the editors who read this will notice the ABF here: {{tq|trying to report other editors in bad faith}}. ] (]) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{OD}} | |||
| @]: Jay brought something to my attention with . It looks like there is ] (ChatGPT) text about "COVID-19 Natural Immunity" copied and pasted on there. What in the cheeseballs?? What made you think {{!tq|hmm, let's prompt ShatGPT to churn out 700 words about this random out-of-pocket topic, and I'm gonna post this on my Misplaced Pages user page for no reason!}} I'm confused. This specific revision also ] about IP editors, and here's the rich part: just as you copy-pasted text from ChatGPT about COVID to your user page, you go on to write a section that addresses use of AI. {{tq|Quoting from an AI chat bot without attribution is plaigiarism.}} I'm just confused with what you are doing here. So I'd like to ask you, ], what in the sam hill is going on here? If there is a reasonable explanation for this goofiness, I suggest you produce one, '''not from a prompt entered into ChatGPT''', in your own words. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It is an old version of their user page, and it is not plagiarism to quote from a chat bot even without attribution, so we must assume that you are attempt to detract from the OP's complaint. The issue at hand is an experienced editor who joins talk page discussions without understanding the topic at hand (which they admit in one instance ), and are frequently use derogatory language and tone towards other editors. This behavior does not seem like a new thing for them and they clearly know how to skirt the edge of what would be considered a personal attack by an admin, so this merits a formal warning. ] (]) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ''']<span style="background:#008">] ]</span>''' 18:37, 8 November 2006 (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) | |||
| :Assuming that you're referring to , it's already been removed. ] ] 18:49, 8 November 2006 (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) | |||
| ::Geez, that IP's been prolific. --] 19:32, 8 November 2006 (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) | |||
| == User:Deuterium == | |||
| :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) | |||
| ], an editor who was extremely combative and rude, and managed to get himself blocked quite a number of times in his brief editing career, has returned as ]. His return became obvious when he began edit-warring over the exact same issues as before, and trolling the exact same editors he previously targetted. This is his second sockpuppet (his first was ]). Eventually he was caught, and, as with the previous sock, I blocked this one under this clause of ]: | |||
| :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) | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ::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) | |||
| Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.</blockquote> | |||
| He then claimed he had lost the password to his original account, and wanted to be unblocked because he now "admitted" he was Deuterium. Well, actually, he demanded to be unblocked, many times, along with various other abusive statements. I offered to try to get him mailed a new password, but he insisted it had to be the new account, not the old one. | |||
| 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) | |||
| At this point, I'm thinking that not much good can come from this editor, and that a ban might be in order. What do others think? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure that a ban is in order. In the interest of full disclosure, I tangled with ] myself when he was kept posting my user name on his user page and so I may not be the most neutral party to be making suggestions about his fate. How many blocks does he have in total? I ask because I think a "community ban" is something that should not be applied lightly. ''(]])'' 21:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::He was blocked twice in April, soon after he started editing. He then disappeared, returning in late July. He was then blocked 3 times in August. He did not edit after August. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Given that an offer to restore his account has been made we don't need to think about banning. If he accepts that option then it will become relevant. Until then, block all socks on sight per the above clause. ] 21:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well, he's mostly making demands IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS on his Talk: page, insisting he did nothing wrong, and calling me a liar. I'm feeling very unmotivated about helping him at this point. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Note that Hob edited the talk page after re-adding this content; he should have self reverted if he missed this discussion prior. ] (]) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| Hopiakuta has been blocked by ], who claimed he did some vandalism. I looked at Hopiakuta's contributions and he didn't vandalize anything. He requested to be unblocked, and i think he's getting a bit angry for this treatment. The difference is . Another editor reverted Centrx actions, proving that Hopiakuta didn't vandalize. ] ] 22:28, 8 November 2006 (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) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| *: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) | |||
| '''THIS IS THE 4th TIME ] HAS UPLOADED THIS HATE IMAGE AFTER IT HAS BEEN DELETED 5 TIMES! A BLACK X THROUGH A NATIONAL FLAG SHOULD NEVER BE TOLERATED!''' PLEASE TAKE ACTION | |||
| *::Never said they weren't. Just noting that they clearly received the notice and chose not to respond here, which is a response in and of itself. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| --] 22:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Wish Hob Gadling would not act like a profane teenager on talk page discussions and that they'd treat people without the smartass-y-ness and contempt. If they are so committed to being pissy towards other users while being shut-off in their own la-la-land, maybe they need a block until they're willing to face the music. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It's gone. Next time, please do not use all capital letters when typing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Or bold your entire statement...or demand that action be taken...--] 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It should be noted that Lardlegwarmers, after only truly starting editing two months ago, has been actively pushing ] misinformation, particularly on Covid related pages. They have actively been making claims that the scientific community is trying to cover things up, such as ], and has been using poor quality sources to try and claim that major published scientific papers on the topic are false, such as ]. This entire thread just sounds like an attempt to silence another editor who has been actively dealing with fringe POV-pushers across numerous articles, such as those linked by Lardlegwarmers above. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This user's obnoxious nature made me worry what else he was up to. It turns out he's only got about a dozen edits, including . Anyone else smell a sock? --] 19:31, 9 November 2006 (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) | |||
| == Move war at Beit Hanoun-related article == | |||
| :*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) | |||
| The article ] is only eleven hours young, but has already been moved eight times, back and forth from ] to ]. The result of this is that the article is ], while the corresponding talk page is ]. I've issued a on the article's talk page: Whoever moves the article again before consensus has been reached on the talk page, will be blocked for 24 hours. However, it's night over here in Europe, so I'm asking for the assistance of other admins to make sure that this move war stops. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 23:33, 8 November 2006 (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) | |||
| :'''Request for input''': I've blocked {{user5|Burgas00}} for 24 hours per the above warning. I have deliberately not moved the page back, so that others wouldn't have the opportunity to drag me into the dispute and claim I am involved (I've seen too much of that lately). {{user|Humus sapiens}} now says on the article's talk page that "by not reverting the title back to NPOV, we are rewarding such behavior." So should the article be moved back, or not? ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 22:11, 9 November 2006 (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) | |||
| ::'''comment''':why don't you block him(Runed Chozo)? you said ''Whoever moves the page again before consensus has been reached, will be blocked for 24 hours. Anyone. Even if you move it back to the current title. ] ] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 23:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)'' --''']'''<sub>]</sub> 02:36, 10 November 2006 (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've move-protected the article until a consensus can be reached; this article shouldn't be a block-trap for editors. By the way, it appears that Runed Chozo has indeed been blocked for 24 hours. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:39, 10 November 2006 (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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :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) | |||
| Much as I feel its a last resort sprotecting articles linked of the main page, like Saddam's article earlier this week Rumsfelds has gone totally off the chart. In the previous 3 hours its had over '''250 edits - and AT LEAST 20 vandalism reverts''' - and that was just glacing up the history page quickly. | |||
| ::It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of ''this specific'' pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. ] (]) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::What you are describing is a different idea: ]. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus. {{tq|the World Health Organization is recommending in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe is required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. ]}} {{tq|The fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs.}}(]) ] (]) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. ] (]) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Beyond what @] said, ''for all parties'', it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil ]. ] ] 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Indeed. ] (]) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If Hob Gadling wants to "deal with" new editors who threaten Misplaced Pages, it should ''not'' be through aggression and insulting them openly, but through quality sources and discussion. Editors who sympathize with "fringe" ideas might be more cooperative if they didn't have to defend themselves against offensive comments in response to their suggestions. ] (]) 07:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::If this "old grievance" about the FTN exemption to CIVIL really has been thoroughly hashed out, could someone link the discussion from ] or something? Being up front about it would save time here at ANI, plus it's always heartbreaking to watch as earnest new editors learn about this the hard way. - ] (]) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. ] (]) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am in the diffs. | |||
| :::::I would still like a pointer to the discussion of why FTN regulars get an exemption from CIVIL, I honestly think that should be better understood. - ] (]) 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. ] (]) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above: {{tq|Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic.}}] ] (]) 07:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Extended discussion}} | |||
| :::::How ironic that you would call out canvass, when you haven't contributed to this discussion previously, nor have you contributed to any prior notice board. See ], also please see ] if you logged out just to make {{tq|problematic edits}} here.... ] ] 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times, what are you talking about? IPs are only assigned for a few hours to weeks at a time usually. ] (]) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@]: Okay let me say it another way... | |||
| :::::::* never in this history of this subject has an IP editor contributed. | |||
| :::::::* since January 1, ALL of the IP's who have contributed to ANI aside from your are blocked or had their contribution reverted. | |||
| :::::::* in the last 50,000 edits to this notice board, not a single anon has commented more than 34 times and that user was in Romania, whereas your IP shows US/Mobile, and they are currently blocked. Followed up an IPv6 with 30 edits, last participated in ANI back in May. Followed by a handful from the UK and other countries. The first one who is US based that was mobile has less than 12 edits, not hundreds. | |||
| :::::::* when you choose to edit anonymously (which is your privilege) you accept the reality that people will question your constructiveness because of a lack of established history. | |||
| :::::::But beyond all of that, aren't you simply deflecting from the question brought up? Perhaps @] has been lurking anonymously. As they have logged at least 31 edits to ANI alone . ] ] 05:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There's a lot of strawmen there to knock down if I cared to derail this conversation, but I'm curious what question you think I'm deflecting? Your assumptions of bad faith are expected, but disappointing. ] (]) 06:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What I claim you are deflecting KETTLE: Somehow you feel like you can call out someone who hasn’t contributed previously as canvassed, which is a ''serious allegation'', yet that is exactly what your user account history appears reflect. When challenged, you claimed to have edited hundreds of time, which was rebutted with facts, you resorted to allegations. Interestingly they very closely mirror only one other person who liberally throws around terms like strawman and bad faith. And really only one person at ANI has ever held this view so strongly they would plainly say bad faith was “expected” from me . If your not that person, then my query is how did you get involved in this conversation, and when exactly do you proffer that you last edited on here as an IP constructively? ''However, '''if''' you are indeed that person, let me warn you, such activity is considered sock puppetry.'' (Of course editing while accidentally logged out is a human mistake. But persisting and pretending otherwise, is not.) ] ] 07:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Don't know what this thread is about, but point 2 and 3 seem wrong - none of my IPs have been blocked, and I am an anon that has, in the to this board I made 38 of them (all edits by IPs starting with 2804:F14), let alone in the last 50 thousand edits. | |||
| ::::::::Maybe I'm misunderstanding your claims. – ] (]) (]) 06:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I think my detail for you was accidentally edited out. You would be an IPv6 from a different country, so unless this IP user is claiming they have rotating IPs hourly because they’re using an international VPN connecting via various countries, I find their claim that they just stumbled upon this conversation dubious at best. ] ] 06:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Also in case you were not aware, while mobile IP addresses can and do change, they still remain with that mobile carrier. So while your ip address will change, who all of those addresses are registered to will not. What I mean is that will your current IP goes back to a US based cell network, you’re not going to get a new IP address that is registered in Japan or even one in the US that is through a completely different network (a few technical exceptions exist, but they’re nevertheless evident). Same with home internet as well. And of course, most work addresses are persistent. All that to say, a claim of “my ip address changes” does not mean that a persona cannot reasonably determine if you’ve contributed to ANI from the a network. ] ] 07:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::When did I say I stumbled upon this thread? Provide the diff. You are putting words in my mouth and casting aspersions. I said my IP changes as a response to you saying I was a new editor. You are creating an elaborate narrative and getting strangely defensive. ] (]) 07:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I will gladly provide the answe after you answer the two questions I have previously asked to you. First was about KETTLE, and the second asked you to substantiate your claim of {{tq|I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times}} by providing your last contrustive ip edit to this notice board. ] ] 07:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Please read ]. I'm not going to link all of my comments across IPs here for you. If you really believe I was canvassed, you need some diffs, or maybe you should strike your aspersions. ] (]) 07:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::All I can do is laugh at your replies. More KETTLE behavior. You claim don’t have to proof anything per SATISFY, yet in the same breath you demand such of others. More ad hominem, deflection. Zero actual replies. ] ] 08:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::What are you talking about? I asked one question, got one answer and it was done. It was you who started a long thread full of bad faith assumptions and no diffs. Provide diffs, or kindly stop bludgeoning. ] (]) 08:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| So, FYI, its sprotected. :) ] 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == User lobbying fringe subculture off-site for fringe subculture and suspicions of ]ry == | |||
| == ] -> Disruption, impersonation. == | |||
| {{atop|1=It's said that ] - well, ANI is ''also'' not a place to bring fishing expeditions. If you have evidence of ''recent'' misconduct by an editor, then by all means bring it. But if you just {{tqq| more would come to light}}, expect a {{tl|trout}}ing. I'm closing this as unactionable with a fish for the OP, and a caution to in the future compile evidence ''before'' coming to ANI. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Over at ] and the very questionable ], both extremely ] topics strongly linked to for example ], myself and a few other users find ourselves having to respond to a lot of accounts that either openly or less than openly state that they're members of the article's subject subculture and that, like the subculture's founders, have a strong distaste for experts ( from one such fairly new account, {{ping|KanyeWestDropout}}). | |||
| One of these editors, {{user|Paleface Jack}}, has been caught lobbying off site (). The user has also likely done so elsewhere that hasn't come to light. This user's efforts appear to have led to a variety of ]s popping up to ] any and all changes they disagree with, an effort to shape the articles to the subculture's preference. | |||
| ] is likely evading a one week block imposed on him for personal attacks. He's doing it by causing mild distruptions (like this ) while ] ]. I suppose he's just trolling, so I'm reporting it here for admin attention. ] 23:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Again, it's important to emphasize that not only has Paleface Jack been caught red-handed here but he has likely also lobbied elsewhere, leading to long-term problems for these and associated articles. | |||
| :I've opened a report on this at ] as the user is using socks in an abusive manner to harass and impersonate me and circumvent his one week block. --]<sup>(])</sup> 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| As some users here know, I edit a lot on fringe topics and have all but single-handedly written our coverage on topics like ], utilizing nothing but the highest quality possible sources. Along the way, I've endured relentless insults and less-than-pleasant anonymous messages. I've been a personal target for users like Paleface Jack and co for years. | |||
| == ] Vandalism at page ] == | |||
| As is far too typical in our ] spaces, any action by myself and others introducing ] on these articles is responded to with endless talk page lawyering and complaints from these cryptozoology-associated or -aligned editors, who fill talk pages with page after page of insult-ladden chatter about anything that doesn't fit their preferred messaging. This not infrequently includes insults toward non-adherents abiding by ] and ] (as an example, recently one of the users decided to refer to me as a "", for example). This pattern has been going on for years and is a clear indication of long-term ] and I've frankly put up wth it for far too long. | |||
| At the history page for ], it can be seen that the user ] has vandalized the page thrice already on 9 November 2006 0737h, 8 November 2006 1023h, and 8 November 2006 1020h, which was quickly reverted by ] and myself. In the talk page, it has been suggested also that ] be locked for edits due to the vast number of occurences it has been heavily vandalized. -] 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Done. Next time please use ] (shortcut: ]). ←] <sup>]</sup> 05:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This is an all too common pattern that many editors who edit in new religious movement, pseudoscience, or fringe spaces will recognize as an unfortunate reality of editing in these spaces on the site. | |||
| == Account compromised? == | |||
| I recommend that Paleface Jack be topic banned for off-site lobbying for meatpuppets, if nothing else, as well as likely associated accounts per ]. ] (]) 05:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I suspect that ]'s account has been compromised. I've never encountered this user before, but Eixo appears to be a productive editor (he/she even has barnstars and has contributed to featured articles). However, Eixo has vandalized ] several times today., , , , . I think a block needs to be put in place until this can be sorted out, because the vandalism hasn't stopped despite warnings. · '''<font color="#707070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] blocked him. --''']]]''' 00:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#FFE0E8" | |||
| | style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#FFB3B3;text-align:center;font-size:14pt" | ] | |||
| | style="font-size:8pt;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em" | This user is ''']'''. | |||
| |} | |||
| Hmm... very interesting. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 05:27, Nov. 9, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I could easily see valued contributers becoming vandals when they're drunk. ]]] 05:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem is that that userbox was added on . ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 10:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you're misinterpreting what I said. I don't have any disdain for Loxton and Prothero, all I said was that cryptozoologists have historically discussed a large number of "cryptids" which is something you could see from reading cryptozoologist papers ans books. I've previously cited Loxton/Prothero on cryptozoological wikipedia pages ] (]) 06:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == More problems on ] == | |||
| ::This user's actual comment in response to my mention of Prothero & Loxton, a dreaded ]: "Learning about cryptozoologists by reading secondhand sources is a poor way to find out what cryptozoologists have actually done historically" (). Funny how a spotlight on ANI can change an editor's tune. ] (]) 07:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thaf didnt change my tune at all! I mentioned that I personally liked that book before you posted this ] (]) 14:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The incident Bloodoffox is referring to happened years ago when I did not know that was even a rule. It was a mistake I have not repeated, nor have I violated any rules since that incident. | |||
| IP making legal threats and claiming copyright infringement . ] 02:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That being said, Bloodoffox has a history of antagonizing other users associated with the topic. I am not aware of any of the other occasions where he has been harassed by users, so I sympathize. There are bad editors on this site that do that behavior or make edits that are, in kinder words, sloppy. Fringe topics are constrained as they are to avoid pandering or making it a massive advocation for them and should remain within the neutral guidelines that are enforced on fringe topics. | |||
| ==Harrassment of users and talk page vandalism== | |||
| Not sure if this should go to the vandalism page or the PA page so I'm putting it here for the notice of admins.A user ] has been rather disruptive on ] with communally loaded statements, some of which he he copy-pasted from a hate-site. He was reprimanded for copyvio and vandalism by other users but he persisted nonetheless with harrassment of ]. ] 03:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, the topics do need a lot of work, and its hard to find the few good editors that know what they are doing with fringe topics. I myself follow the topic out of interest, not advocacy, and I rarely edit on it mainly cause of a backlog of other projects. I don't pop on to cause trouble as Bloodoffox loves to accuse me of, among the many personal attacks he has made against me. I have had no such incidents since my mistake way back in the day and I have not made any since then. The sole reason I commented in the discussion was because I could see it was rapidly devolving into an antagonistic nature, and though my words could have been put differently, I always wrote that we "needed to find common ground". It has become a point of frustration with this, because of personal attacks on my character and what I have contributed to this site. I am not a disruptor by any means and Bloodoffox has keep making accusations or belittling comments in regards to me and other users who disagree with him. His aggressive and belittling behavior has a huge role in antagonizing other users and it does need to stop. I might be frustrated, but I cannot see how this does any good with moving projects and topics forwards. Banning me from the topic is unnecessary and overkill. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| == Borderline personal attacks by GoodCop == | |||
| :If the only example of off-wiki canvasing is a single blog post from seven years ago, I'm not seeing any case for sanctions. - ] (]) 07:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is the only clear incident I've encountered. However, there's good reason to suspect that there's more. Note also that although the user is happy to apologize about it when called on it here, the user also never deleted the off-site lobbying on the cryptozoology wiki. ] (]) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can see a case for a {{tl|trout}} for the OP, at the very least. (Trout-erang?) - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry, Bloodofox, if this has been a contentious area to edit in (there are many such areas on the project) but we can't sanction editors based on suspicions, we require evidence of misconduct and if it is off-wiki behavior, it might be more appropriate to send it to ARBCOM. You have provided a narrative statement of how difficult it is to edit in this field but with few diffs illustrating conflict and other editors have providing competing narratives. This isn't your first trip to ANI so you know what is required here for an admin to take action. And if you do provide some more evidence, I encourage you to provide RECENT evidence (like from the past 3 years), not diffs or statements from when an editor was new and unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies and practices. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::While the editor and his off-site post was from 2018 (yet somehow claims to not know it was not OK to canvas for meatpuppets off-site), I figured this might be the case and hoped more would come to light about what's going on off-site (I expect more will, in which case I'll return). ] (]) 08:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I have said before, I am not used to conflict on the site and naively did that. If you look back at that whole debate, I did reply saying I was not aware that it was bad. If you look at my history of edits, I rarely (if ever) participate in conflict. I prefer to edit like everyone else on here in a constructive and beneficial manner, so all those accusations strike a nerve with me as they are both untrue and slander. As I have said previously, bloodoffox has a history of provoking conflict by aggressive behavior towards other editors, even when those editors are in the wrong they should not be treated with the level of disdain and contempt. Slandering myself or others either based on an isolated and admitted mistake, then constantly bringing it up as "proof" of his claims that I am an instigator of any sort of conflict he has with others is behavior that only inspires destructive conflicts or edits. I have, in the past, reached out to bloodoffox to apologize and also offer assistance with other projects thinking that would mend any sort of anger and hate. This recent incident has proved me wrong and I am sad to see that it has come to this. I never wanted any conflict, just a healthy way of moving forwards to tackle fascinating and notable topics. | |||
| :::: | |||
| ::::I will admit that it is frustratingly difficult to make edits on fringe topics, I am one of those people that tried to edit some but got frustrated by the overly tight restrictions on the subject (not that I was leaning to one side as some claim I do), which is why I rarely edit on the topic and only do so when I see that there is reliable information benefiting and fitting of the standards set by Misplaced Pages. I love information, and even fringe topics have enough within Misplaced Pages's confines to exist on the site and be a fascinating read for people. I truly hope you read this bloodoffox and realize I never meant you ill or advocate for people harassing you, I want this platform to explore information correctly and efficiently, even if we do not agree with the topic. That is pretty much all that should be said on this matter and hopefully it gets resolved. ] (]) 17:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Taboo of archaeologists == | |||
| Had I chanced across {{user|GoodCop}} in any other way, I would have long since given them a warning about avoiding commenting on editors and borderline violations of ] (like ). As it is, I only know about them and their editing habits because they voiced a bizarre opposition in my RfA and I tried to figure out where we'd crossed paths. (I still can't figure that one out.) Out of concerns of conflict of interest and inexperience, so close to my RfA, I'm going to ask that someone else review this user's edits. — ] ] 06:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivetop|This is fundamentally a content dispute, I see nothing admin-actionable here. ] (]) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| This is about {{diff2|1267245598}} by {{u|Jahuah}}. They claim that an unprovenanced archaeological object is authentic. Bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss unprovenanced objects in public. It's a taboo of their profession. So, no bona fide archaeologist can give the lie to the authenticity of that object without losing their job. Since if they mention that object in public they get sacked. ] (]) 06:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Lol, reporting on me? ] (]) 06:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :He seems to have a tendancy to see any disagreement with his own POV as a personal attack and/or vandalism. And he seems to have more than a few fringe beliefs. I didn't see anything that justifies admin intervention, at the moment. Regards, ] 07:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Give me an actual reason why the specific seal in question is not authentic? How about that? Quote me an actual scholar who does? If not, then your words mean jack. ] (]) 06:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::According to ], the claim that such object is authentic is unfalsifiable. Since it is taboo to discuss such object in public. So only biased hacks could affirm it is authentic or inauthentic without losing their jobs. ] (]) 06:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I was just about to report him. I removed a couple of what appeared to be highly POV comments from the ] article, and he reverted my edit calling it "POV vandalism". I reverted it back putting the reasons in my edit summary, then he reverted my edits again accusing me of "POV vandalism" once more, libeling "neutral-fact restorers", and violating Misplaced Pages policy. - ] 07:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you think it’s inauthentic? Or not? Please do not be wasting my time here. ] (]) 06:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It think that claim is utterly unfalsifiable, so it cannot amount to ]. See for details {{YouTube|FYgqnlQXWjA|The Shapira Strips: What Are They and Are They Forgeries?}} by Dr. Robert R. Cargill. ] (]) 06:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ok. Thanks for actually giving me an answer at least. ] (]) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What exactly are you asking admins to do there? This looks to me like a content dispute. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Who, me? I’m not asking anything. I just wanted to show how a seal dated by a scholar to the 8th century is indeed an 8th century BC Israelite seal of Hoshea. | |||
| ::::::The guy up there has a problem with that and now apparently I’m on the naughty list. ] (]) 07:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{re|The Bushranger}} I have explained them at length why this is utterly problematic, previously. I had expected that they will behave. Misbehaving is a behavioral problem. ] (]) 07:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think I know how to behave, thank you very much. I’m not a petulant manchild. ] (]) 07:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::See ] and ]. ] (]) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Lol, I refuted you there. All you did was attack Dr. Mykytiuk and call into question his scholarship. ] (]) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Besides, what does this have to do with the Hoshea seal? ] (]) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't expect any of you to take my word for it, that why I had ] https://web.archive.org/web/20241209232716/https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/the-problem-with-unprovenanced-objects/ Suffices to say that unprovenanced objects are ethically and juridically fishy. ] (]) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::So no comment on my refutation of your petulant behavior? ] (]) 07:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Who’s “any of you” by the way? I’m one guy. ] (]) 07:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::You're (only you, not The Bushranger) promoting a claim that is unfalsifiable, unethical, and maybe even juridically problematic. ] (]) 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Ooo, that’s a new one. ] (]) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Nope, if you had read carefully what I told you in 2024, there is nothing new about my claim. ] (]) 07:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good. You guys represent scholarship only when it suits your ideology. ] (]) 07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::It's not about my ideology. It is about: bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss such claims in public. So no bona fide archaeologist could affirm that that object is authentic or inauthentic, because the next day they will have to flip burgers at Target. ] (]) 07:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Fine whatever, I apologize. ] (]) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Demands to prove a negative are a nonsensical and puerile debating tactic. The editor must cite evidence that the item is considered authentic, or refrain from stating so in WP's voice. Simple as that. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 07:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Is the editor referring to me? ] (]) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:If so, here you go. Lawrence J. Mykytiuk, Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E. (Boston: Brill, 2004), 58., https://www.academia.edu/62900860/Iconography_on_Hebrew_Seals_and_Bullae_Identifying_Biblical_Persons_and_the_Apparent_Paradox_of_Egyptian_Solar_Symbols_ABSTRACT_ ] (]) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Since bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss it, you win by default? ] (]) 07:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Elmidae, were you referring to me? ] (]) 07:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Bona fide archaeologists will lose their jobs for merely mentioning Mykytiuk's claim. ] (]) 07:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I was talking to Elmidae. ] (]) 07:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Yes, they were talking to you. Also both of you take a chill pill for a minute, please - this disucssion is already approaching ] levels of length from the back-and-forth above. Tgeorgescu, you don't have to ] esepecially when it's in response to other editors. Jahuah, {{tqq|i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good.}} is not an attitude conducive to cooperative editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Fine, fine, I apologize. I’m just angry that my contributions to Misplaced Pages get deleted. I just wanna leave some edits and then I’ll leave this site for good. I promise. ] (]) 08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I also want to make sure my contributions are kept before I leave. ] (]) 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:This editor appears to be edit warring across multiple pages to assert historical uncertainties as fact based on unconfirmed and speculative research from biblical archaeology blogs and the like. ] (]) 07:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Oh look, BAR society is no longer reputable because some Misplaced Pages mod said so. ] (]) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::By the way, who am I edit warring with? That’s news to me. ] (]) 07:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::We don't have "mods" on Misplaced Pages. But you have only been editing for a month so it shouldn't be expected that you would know much about how Misplaced Pages works. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Hmph. I guess I’ll go then. Sorry for the trouble I caused. ] (]) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::], I wasn't asking you to leave the project, just pointing out that you are a newer editor. Misplaced Pages is chockful of rules and guidelines and it's not realistic to expect new editors to be familiar with them all. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::No, no. It’s ok. It’s clear that I have caused more problems here than solved. I just hope my contributions will stay, or at least be kept until new data comes. I’ll be out of your hairs soon. ] (]) 10:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{blockquote|it's an unprovenanced object and likely a forgery it was not found in a licensed archaeological excavation it does not possess a credible chain of custody this is very much too good to be true but since people of faith want to believe it and since it's not against the law to use your free speech to make false claims like this forgers will make forgeries and antiquities dealers will put them up for sale and try to make as much money as they can but these kind of forgeries pollute legitimate biblical archaeology and it is why so many scholars myself included do not publish critical reviews of unproven objects once you give them credence their value is increased even if you put a little asterisk by them and designate them as unprovenanced and merely teach the controversy you are still giving them scholarly recognition and debate that the forger and the antiquities dealer so desperately crave publishing unprovenanced objects leads to looting and to forgeries it's that simple|Dr. Robert R. Cargill, transcript}} | |||
| Quoted by ] (]) 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], this is becoming a detailed content dispute which means it probably should be closed as off-topic for this noticeboard. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *For the record, tg's hysterical talk about disgraced archeologists flipping burgers at Target is nonsense. There is vigorous controversy about unprovenanced objects, but no one's losing their job for breaking some alleged taboo. ]] 06:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == HoraceAndTheSpiders == | |||
| ::I agree with your summary of the situation. His comments are wrong and his behaviour is inappropriate, but you should still try talking to him first, on his talk page. Give him a chance, even if you think he won't take it. Regards, ] 07:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Attention gotten and message received. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|HoraceAndTheSpiders}} | |||
| Could someone briefly block ] to get their attention, or come up with better way to get them to read their talk page/comply with the ] restrictions. Thanks. ] (]) 11:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * {{done}}. I've left a note on their talkpage that they will almost certainly be unblocked if they promise to keep away from ARBPIA until they are extended-confirmed. ] 11:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks ] (]) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{u|Sean.hoyland}} The editor has submitted a suitable unblock request, so I have unblocked. Please let me know if they stray into ARBPIA again. Thanks, ] 12:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == TTTEMLPBrony and continued addition of unsourced/crufty material, zero communication == | |||
| ::::: I'm sorry, I was wrong when I advised you to talk to GoodCop, but not because it was the wrong thing to do but because it was the right thing for exactly one person to do, either you or me, but not both of us. Live and learn. ] 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. Now CU-blocked. ] (]) 15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{user|TTTEMLPBrony}} has been active since late April 2024. They have a history of adding of unsourced and sometimes controversial material. They have been messaged and warned plenty of times, including by {{u|FlightTime}}, {{u|Doniago}} and {{u|LindsayH}}, but to no avail. Better yet, they haven't responded once on their own talk page.] is required and they do not seem to be willing or able to work with others. I've issued them a warning earlier this week, but looking at their talk page, I see they've been issued stern warnings plenty of times. And despite messages about adding sources, in late December 2024 they created ], which is barely referenced. ]. ] 12:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :They may be unaware of their talkpage, even though 8 months seems a long time for that. I have blocked indefinitely, with an informative message and a link to their talkpage in the log. Unfortunately that's sometimes the only way to get the attention of a non-responsive user. ] | ] 15:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| ::They know about talk pages, {{U|Bishonen}}, because they have used one at least once; i checked when i first tried to communicate with them to no avail. That being said, i think this is a good use of a block, showing we are serious when we say communication is necessary ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 17:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Indefinitely blocked after only 5-hours, without the user even editing during that period? For a first offence? After only warnings of the lowest level? I'm no sure why ] even created this request, as there'd been zero editing of the page in question since his talk-page warning 3 days earlier! Much of the edits seem to be merely content disputes. I don't see much repition after notification. And we don't even have rules about providing sources. There was no imminent risk of damage here, and I don't think the conditions laid out in ] have been met. And ] most certainly hasn't been met. This is an appallingly awful block ]. Can I that you reduce it to a week or less just to get attention. I'd suggest a day, but the editor is so infrequent, that they may not not notice. Though given they are moderating their behaviour based on what is posted in their talk page, even a block is barely justified. ] (]) 00:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I disagree. When an editor refuses to communicate, it's not uncommon for an admin to block until the editor responds. Even the block notice tells them {{tq|Please respond below this post and start communicating, and you may be unblocked.}} Sometimes it's a case where inexperienced editors simply don't realize that they have a talk page or that people are leaving them messages. This block gently brings it to their attention. ] ] 00:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I see nothing in policy for an indefinite. And an indefinite block is absolutely not "gently". It's the kind of heavy-handed authoritarianism that drives the people we need away. There seemed to be edits that were a real attempt to improve Misplaced Pages. And there seemed to be changes in behaviour that were guided by the comments on the talk page. And there hadn't even been any further edits of concern since the previous warning - days ago. Sure, for Misplaced Pages warriors who frequent ANI, a block is just something you deal with; but I don't think that's how many people would see it. ] (]) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Indef is "until you address the issue", not forever. ] ] 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I believe we are all aware of that. The issue is that doing so, at this stage, is completely outside of our policy, and that doing so for a minor case like this is completely outside of policy. We can't just make start doing things a different way because the admin feels like it. Our policy says that "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy". The threat was neither significant (or even very recent) or a major breach of policy. I note that the user in question was only given 5 hours to respond, but after 4 hours, we'd still had no response from ], perhaps she should also have been blocked for not noticing the discussion (yeah, that's irony, not a proposal). ] (]) 06:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *TTTEMLPBrony has now responded, stating that "I have not realized that accounts have talkpages", so apparently my block worked as intended. Unfortunately, they go on to say that ], and also that they ''allowed'' the brother to use the account. Blithely they claim that "I have already dealt with him" - uh, "already"? Anyway, whether or not I believe them about the brother (I can't say I do), the account is clearly compromised, and must stay blocked. With some hesitation, I've turned the block into a softblock, so that they may create a new account, and have explained that they must absolutely not share it with anybody. I have notified the stewards in case they want to globally lock. ] | ] 03:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| **Just because, ], it worked, doesn't mean that you are allowed to just make up your own rules. (but yeah, sounds fishy ... on the other hand, it's probably a child). Please follow protocol, or hand over your keys. Thanks. ] (]) 06:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***], please be more polite on these noticeboards. The block Bishonen placed was perfectly fine and it's the kind of thing admins have been doing for years. Nothing in policy forbids it, and I believe {{U|The Bushranger}}'s response is along the same lines. Besides, the editor's edit were, and I'm trying to stay polite myself, not good, as their talk page full of warnings indicates: no edit summaries, no responses, no communication, no knowledge of sourcing and sourcing requirements. Finally, I don't know how young that editor might be, but I do know that they are four years older than when {{U|Ponyo}} blocked them. ] (]) 15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Jypian gaming extended confirmed == | |||
| ::: <nowiki><sarcasm>This user is clearly on the verge of being a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia. If only he had a few more strikes before people gave up on him.</sarcasm></nowiki> ] 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = Sock blocked | |||
| | result = I've run out of sock puns, sorry. — ] ] 17:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)<br> | |||
| ::::: There is a process we should go through before we escalate. Sometimes things can be resolved through talking. And sometimes the attempt to talk makes the full situation clearer for those that we escalate to. Regards, ] 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| Sock blocked. ]] | |||
| }} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Jypian}} | |||
| On ], the user is making pointless edits after having been here for exactly thirty days. Clearly gaming extended confirmed. ] ] ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 12:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I been making real edits since I created my account please take your time to check and I’m sorry for purposely pointless edits for extended confirmed on Day 30. I’m a real and genuine user I just wanted early access to work and edit on important stuff] (]) 13:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm being attacked by him as well. He seems unaware of ]. --] 19:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::For what reason are you doing this? ] (]) 13:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The thing is, articles that only extended confirmed users can edit are like that for a reason. What kinds of {{tq|important stuff}} were you planning on working on? ] ] ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 13:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Donald Trump Hotel Accident ] (]) 13:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Considering you've admitted you've gaming the system you need to voluntary agree to refrain from editing anything that requires EC until you've made 500 real edits. The permission will be removed if you don't follow this. I'd also suggest stay away from the Donald Trump hotel article until you've gotten at least a few thousand edits under your belt since being so desperate to edit an article is usually a sign once you do start editing you'll get into trouble. ] (]) 14:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have revoked their extended-confirmed permission. They may re-request it from ] after making 500 legitimate edits. —] (] • ]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Im going to edit Donald Trump hotel accident, whatever you want it or not😡 ] (]) 14:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you create alternative accounts to try and bypass your primary account's restrictions, you will end up being banned. ]] 14:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's unnecessary to threaten or to evade restrictions; you can propose edits via ]. If they are nonsense, though, expect to be blocked as well. ] (]) 14:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Blocked'''. Blocked as a sock by {{u|NinjaRobotPirate}}. ] | ] 15:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| *:That makes sense. ] (]) 15:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thanks for the action NinjaRobotPirate. ] ] ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 15:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *<small>As an aside, is it possible to take away the EC permission before it is achieved or otherwise prevent it being automatically gained? I said what I said above because I incorrectly thought they hadn't yet achieved EC. Given this I thought either an admin would need to watch out for them (unless there's an admin bot which can do this) or they could voluntary refrain from using their EC and this wouldn't be necessary. But I checked after and realised I was wrong about them not gaining EC and I'm wondering if I could be wrong about the removal of EC before it's automatically gained. ] (]) 16:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *:I think it's possible to prevent an account from obtaining EC by granting and immediately revoking it. That apparently stops the account from getting it automatically because it has obtained EC before. ] (]) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Interesting, thanks. Useful to know for the future. ] (]) 17:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Footballnerd2007 == | |||
| ::::: Hi Ronz, yes, GoodCop doesn't understand NPA. But in an odd sort of way, he's not trying to attack us. He's actually trying to defend himself from threats that only he can see. Regards, ] 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = This is going nowhere fast. Whether or not {{u|Footballnerd2007}} is using an LLM to respond to conversations, they've promised to stay out of other editors' userspace drafts, been notified they shouldn't start RfAs for other editors without speaking to them, and said that they would be more careful with moves. (On that note, I can't warn Footballnerd2007 to not close RM discussions, but I'd highly recommend they avoid doing so until they become more acquainted with community norms.) ] (]/]) 22:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| I need a second pair of eyes on {{user|Footballnerd2007}} please - apparently a new editor, but they have been closing RM discussions - including one where they introduced a typo, see ] which I have fixed - and they have also been messing around moving my user space pages (see ]) and they have also created ]. None of this is the action of a new editor and my Spidey senses are tingling. ]] 19:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Does the warning they have at the top of their talk page and their characteristic response qualify as "unresponsive" to the community? They seem to have attempted to armour themselves against any disagreement at all. — ] ] 19:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Incidentally, I would think a 24 hour block would be warranted for calling Ben a psychopath in that diff. Does anyone think it would be improper if I did so? — ] ] 19:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see an urgent or intractable issue here. Unless/until stronger evidence comes up, I'm going to ] that they're trying to help and suggest ]. ] (]) 19:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: See the thread below. I blocked for 24h, personally I think that's lenient under the circumstances and if anyone wants to extend it they should do so. I also left a note on his Talk noting ] and ]. <b>]</b> 19:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd like to clarify a point in your message. The statement "and they have also been messing around moving my user space pages (see ])" should be corrected. I have only moved one page, not multiple pages. Please adjust the wording to reflect this accurately. ] • ] ⚽ 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::A response like that is not helping with my suspicions and concerns. ]] 20:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What exactly am I being accused of? ] • ] ⚽ 20:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are either an extremely over enthusiastic new editor making mistakes - in which case you need to slow down a lot, and listen ASAP - or you are a sock trying to be clever. ]] 20:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The former is rather accurate. ] • ] ⚽ 20:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{u|GiantSnowman}}, if you have evidence, then the appropriate forum is ]. If you don't, then you're liable to get hit with a boomerang for ]/], even if you end up happening to be correct. ] (]) 21:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And what would my boomerang punishment be? ]] 21:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::How do I go about making a complaint against him for violating ]/]? ] • ] ⚽ 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Response''' | |||
| Hello GiantSnowman, | |||
| ::::: Thanks for that. I hope against hope that it helps. Life is bigger than Misplaced Pages. Regards, ] 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for raising these concerns. I'd like to address the points you mentioned: | |||
| ::::Yep, I'm still getting used to the way multiple sections sometimes crop up here for the same subject. RTFP for me... — ] ] 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 1. '''Botched Page Moves:''' Regarding the page moves, I made an attempt to improve the accuracy and consistency of article titles based on my understanding of the situation. I acknowledge that there was a typo introduced, which I appreciate being pointed out, and I have since corrected it. I’ll be more careful in the future to ensure that such errors do not occur. | |||
| ::::: Don't be too harsh on yourself. If I read correctly, JzG posted 4 minutes after you did. I think you've handled the whole situation well. Regards, ] 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 2. '''Messing with User Space Draft:''' I apologise for any disruption caused to your user space draft. My intention was never to interfere with your content. I recognise that user space is personal, and I will be mindful to avoid making any uninvited changes moving forward. | |||
| ==High-speed page blanker== | |||
| Sorry to bring this up here, but {{vandal|Danfifepsu}} has been mass page blanking for a number of days now. The person was blocked yesterday for 24 hours and as soon as the block expired resumed the same behavior. I have reported this to ] over 20 minutes ago but no one is watching that page at the moment. 07:37, 9 November 2006 | |||
| :Alkivar blocked him indef. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 3. '''Creation of an RFA for Cyberdog958''': As for the RFA for Cyberdog958, I stand by my decision to create it. I believed that Cyberdog958 hads demonstrated the necessary qualities for adminship and could be a positive asset to the community. There was no ill intent behind my actions. The RFA was made based on a genuine belief that they were qualified, and I will continue to support nominations that I feel are appropriate based on the contributions and behavior I observe. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. I strive to make constructive contributions and act in good faith, and I appreciate your understanding. | |||
| Could an admin look at this talk page. I've reverted the addition made today, but I think it should be rolled back. ] ] 09:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] • ] ⚽ 20:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Gone. ] - ] 17:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :RFA - why didn't you discuss with the editor first? ]] 20:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Nation Based Vandalism == | |||
| ::I wasn't aware there was a requirement to do so. I did notify them! ] • ] ⚽ 20:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Before'' you made the RFA??? No. ]] 20:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I wasn’t pinged about this ANI, but I found it through the RFA message on my talk page. I guess I appreciate the thought, if it was coming from a sincere place, but I would have declined the nomination if I was asked. I’ve never come across this user or interacted with them in any way until now so I’m not sure why they picked me. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Footballnerd2007, given that Cyberdog958 has confirmed that they have never interacted with you, please confirm how you found them to nominate them for RFA? | |||
| ::Similarly, how did you this afternoon, as I similarly have never heard of or interacted with you before today? ]] 21:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Footballnerd2007}} thank you for trying to help out, and I'm sorry that GiantSnowman has chosen to escalate this in the way that he has. Page moves can be tricky, and you might want to sit back and watch the process for a while before participating in it yourself. Regarding RFA, it's a serious decision that people usually mull over for years before they finally agree to submit their names, so it's going to be more than a little jarring to have someone else do it on one's behalf. With the user space, it seems you understand the issue so there's no need to retread that. Going forward, I suggest taking things slow and asking for help whenever you think about entering a new area. I've been doing this for a few years now, and I still reach out to someone with experience in the area if I think I want to try something new! ] (]) 21:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Footballnerd2007}}, the response that you made at 20:08 has formatting that I have only seen before from AI, never from a human editor. Was it made with an LLM? If so please talk to us in your own words. ] (]) 21:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I have the feeling that a lot of this editor's comments are AI produced. ]] 21:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I refer you to ]. ] • ] ⚽ 21:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for that link - I see therefore that other users have raised concerns with you only yesterday about your RM/discussion closes, and yet you have continued to make poor closes today. Why is that? Why therefore should we trust you when you say you won't do it again, given you have done it again? ]] 21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yesterday I didn't say I wouldn't do it again, today I have, albeit reluctantly, changed my position for the sake of keeping the peace. ] • ] ⚽ 21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why did you continue to make the same questionable edits that other editors have previously queried with you? Unless you are deliberately trying to be disruptive? ]] 21:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Transparently LLM output. ] (]) 21:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yet they deny using Chat GPT. So either it's ''not'' LLM (and multiple users have raised these suspicions, which I share) and just very odd language, or they are a liar. Which is it? ]] 21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::What unsubjctive hard evidence do you have to support that allegation? ] • ] ⚽ 21:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I pulled 11 random AI detectors from Google. Of them, seven give a 100% AI rating. One gives 50% and the 3 others give 0%. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The final 3 are 100% accurate. ] • ] ⚽ 21:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And the 7 others? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have no explanation. ] • ] ⚽ 21:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Because there is none - it's absolutely AI generated, you don't need a detector for that. While not against policy, it's heavily frowned upon, as it's not ''your'' words but the LLM's. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And given that you have ''repeatedly'' denied use LLM, you are a liar and cannot be trusted. ]] 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have repeatedly denied using ''ChatGPT'' because I didn't, that's not a lie and you have no evidence to suggest to the contrary. ] • ] ⚽ 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::But you have been using a LLM of some kind, yes? ]] 21:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::No comment. ] • ] ⚽ 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::We'll take that as a 'yes' then - and that you therefore have not been truthful. The tiny modicum of AGF I had has now fully disappeared. ]] 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So you're accusing me of lying now? As I have said before, I didn't use ChatGPT. ] • ] ⚽ 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, I am accusing you of lying. ]] 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That's a serious allegation, what evidence do you have that I use ChatGPT? ] • ] ⚽ 21:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: is Exhibit A. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{ec}}I'm pretty sure there's LLMs that aren't ChatGPT. But if you're saying "I didn't use a LLM/AI generator at all", then that is . - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::And if you're trying to be clever by saying "I use LLM but not ChatGPT", your comments here have been disingenuous and misleading. You are digging yourself a hole. ]] 21:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I never made any comment about LLMs in general. ] • ] ⚽ 21:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Please answer this direct question - have you used LLM? If so, why didn't you own up to that when asked? ]] 21:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively. ] • ] ⚽ 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::🤦♂️ ] (]) 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::{{ec}}So that's "yes" then, got it. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::] applies (even if only an essay). ]] 22:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::You're not helping your case right now. Even if you're getting dogpiled (''especially'' if you're getting dogpiled) you need to speak clearly and directly. You'll gain far more goodwill by saying you're using an LLM and agreeing to stop. ] (]) 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Thebiguglyalien, do you now understand why my red flags were flagging earlier? There is something off about this editor. ]] 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I don't disagree with your analysis. I disagree with the way you approached it. ] (]) 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::A fair criticism. ]] 22:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I'm sure you've had to deal with this sort of thing far more than I have, so I get that. My philosophy is just that I'd rather give dozens of "cases" that extra chance if it means salvaging one well-meaning productive editor. ] (]) 22:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Which is what I usually try and do, but the alarm bells just really rang here, and I simply wanted a second pair of eyes on the contribs to tell me "yes it's fishy" or "no you're thinking too much". I did not envision this discussion! ]] 22:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Again, that's conjecture. I just choose my words very carefully. ] • ] ⚽ 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Stop choosing your words carefully. I'm trying to give you a chance that isn't often afforded to new editors here, and you're trying to ], which is also against the rules. ] (]) 22:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::{{ec}}Here's the deal - either you used AI, or you {{tqq| my words very carefully}} in a way that is how AI distinctively chooses them. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here's 4 more AI detectors. Two give 100%, one says 11% (literally the last two sentences), and the other gives 50%. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Which AI detectors are you using? ] • ] ⚽ 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == possible hoaxes == | |||
| Hi, user ] is systematically searching and changing Turkish related articles with wrong and unsourced informations. WikiArticles are not improving because of his/her wrongly editings. He/She is searching 'turk' or "turkic" words in an article and deleting or deforming sentence or changing with 'persian' word in a baseless way. And he generally makes this secretly. He/She is making these changes with 'minor edits'.<br/> | |||
| A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. | |||
| By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.<br/> | |||
| However, Tajik's systematically minor editings hardly affects of articles. And he/she always uses this illegal method. Please have a look at his/her contributions;<br|> | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ferdowsi&diff=78165928&oldid=78165559<br|> | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Category:Ghaznavid_Empire&action=history<br|> | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hephthalite&action=history (Almost all of the minor editings by Tajik)<br|> | |||
| Actually, these are the ones that i could see. Please look at Contr. ;http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Tajik<br|> | |||
| Secondly, if he/she is frustrated in editing he/she is inviting to article other wikipedians. What can be the evidence for teamworking else. He/she is not seeing wikipedia as an culture and information organization. He always deforms sourced turkic related articles and infos. He/she could has problems with other nations and races but is here true platform to solve his/her nation-based problems? Please help to improve Misplaced Pages...--] 10:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *{{user|Emilioveh}} | |||
| :While this does seem to be a legitimate problem, note that Karcha also copy/pasted this to the talk page of three admins, including myself. --] 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *{{user|Emnoé}} | |||
| *{{user|Larissæ}} | |||
| *{{user|Miguelinor}} | |||
| *{{user|Nose236}} | |||
| The above accounts that have been for creating articles with unverifiable references or with scarce references taken out of context. I recommend reviewing all the articles that these accounts have created here as they may be hoaxes.--] (]) 04:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::inshanee, if you looked at my user page, you don't need to add this comment. I'm a new wikipedian and was unaware of AN/I that's why i posted this to three admins until one of these admin's suggestion.--] 23:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As a note, you don't appear to have notified any of these editors about this section, which is something you need to do when you open a section on this noticeboard. - ] (]) 05:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've notified all the users about this possible hoax issue already. Suggest any action from administrators if possible. ] (]) 05:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Fair enough, that's a valid notion, Fontaine347. Feel free to do so! ] 12:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Edit warring to prevent an RFC == | ||
| @] 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. | |||
| ] is adding <nowiki>{{uncategorized}}</nowiki> to lots of pages that are already sorted stubs, and therefore have a category. Not only do they have the stub category itself, but the stub can be a sub-category of a non-stub category as well. This is not something listed as an a recognized task on ] <s>and the bot does not follow ] by halting when a message is added to the talk page</s>. I am requesting a block until this issue can be discussed. ] | |||
| :Never mind, I am in error about the bot not halting or being in bad form, being confused by time zones ;). I retract the request. My apologies for implying bad form. ] 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| We have to be pretty strict about this, because an RFC is one of the few ways to attract the broader community's attention when there's an ] problem or a ] that needs outside attention. The fact that an editor doesn't welcome outside attention sometimes indicates that there is a problem. I'm ''not'' saying that these things are happening in this case, but the rules have to be the rules for all RFCs, not just for the ones we agree with, because these things do happen in ''some'' cases. We can't really have opponents of an RFC question/proposal, no matter how well intentioned or how justified they think it is in this one case, unilaterally deciding that the rest of the community doesn't get to find out about the dispute. | |||
| =={{userlinks|Akaneon}}== | |||
| 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) | |||
| Can some Admins have a look at this talk page and the arguments ensuing within - you may be aware of them, not sure. I came across them by accident, but I find his argumentative approach extremely worrying - along with all the other accusations floating around that page. ]] 11:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I just ahd a look at the page and noticed several administrators names. You may ignore this :). ]] 12:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just indefintely blocked him. ] 12:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Akaneon seems to be making some ] AfD nominations as retaliation for ]. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 13:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC. | |||
| == Problem with user who refuses to communicate == | |||
| :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. | |||
| What can be done about an anonymous Misplaced Pages user who keeps deleting the same section of an entry day after day and replacing it with text that contains original research with no cited sources? | |||
| 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. | |||
| I have started a discussion on the page the person keeps posting the article to and have encouraged the person to join in on the discussion, but he/she has not replied after an entire week of this. I have also left several messages on the person’s user talk page which have been ignored. | |||
| 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. | |||
| By consensus opinion with other Misplaced Pages editors working with me on this entry, I have reverted this article daily for the past three or four days running. | |||
| '''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. | |||
| I have attempted to have the page placed in "semi-protection" status twice, but have had my requests denied because the person felt that what was taking place is an "editing war" and not vandalism. While that assessment may be correct, I am at a loss here as to how else one could describe what the person is doing. | |||
| *'''Support'''. ] (]) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| And what would be the remedy for resolving an "editing war" when the person in question refuses to communicate? | |||
| **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) | |||
| Any suggestions? I’m new at editing here and have not had any luck finding anything that addresses this situation anyplace else. | |||
| *: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=== | |||
| The Misplaced Pages entry in question is: | |||
| I am not entirely sure why ] has pinged me about this dispute, saying that I "closed this dispute". The accuracy of the statement that I "closed this dispute" depends on what is meant by "this dispute". | |||
| I closed the ] thread, ], on 12 December. I obviously didn't resolve a dispute that has been continuing for another three weeks, and the claim that I closed the dispute looks to me like an attempt to confuse the jury. ] had opened the DRN thread on 3 December, complaining about the insertion of the word ] and of the mention of ]. I was not entirely sure beyond the mention of ] what the issues were. There were questions about what the procedure was for handling a ] dispute; I think that Zefr was said to be the one. There was a long question that may have been about whether ] is voluntary; DRN is voluntary. Then Zefr said that the case could be withdrawn because no one else was commenting. The disputants other than Zefr never did say exactly what the article content issues were, perhaps because they didn't want to discuss article content, and were not required to discuss article content. If anyone is implying that I resolved or settled anything, I have no idea what it was. | |||
| Thanks. ] 14:22, 9 November 2006 (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) | |||
| :This is in fact a legitimate argument for semi-protecting an article, and Durova seems to have done so in response to your posting here. For your future reference, attempting to contact them via the article talk page and their was entirely appropriate (if apparently unsuccessful). That is the proper and encouraged method of attempting to resolve edit conflicts. If the other party doesn't respond, we we describe it with the term "Sterile edit war", where people make changes back and forth without discussing or posting to talk pages. ] 03:59, 10 November 2006 (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) | |||
| == prboable (old) evasion == | |||
| ::Was that purposely mis-stated to be provocative and mislead the discussion here? | |||
| ::I said you were <u>non-collaborative</u>, which describes your behavior throughout your editing history on the Breyers article, its talk page, and the DRN. You refused collaboration at DRN, which is the whole point of the process. DRN FAQ: ''"refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building."'' | |||
| ::You were notified about the , and you posted a general notice about it on the , so you were aware of the process, but ignored it. Meanwhile, your editing history over 6-12 Dec shows dozens of edits, | |||
| ::You made no attempt to collaborate at DRN, posting only one off-topic | |||
| ::I requested closure of the DRN on 12 Dec due to non-participation by you and the others. On 13 Dec, . cc: {{u|Robert McClenon}}. ] (]) 00:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====A Possibly Requested Detail==== | |||
| Okay. If the question is specifically whether ] was uncooperative at ], then I can state that they were not uncooperative and did not obstruct or disrupt DRN. Graywalls took very little part in the DRN proceeding before I closed it. They were not required to take part, although they say that they would have made a statement if the case had stayed open a little longer. The antagonism that I saw was between ] and ], and I collapsed an exchange between them. I did not read what I am told were long previous discussions, because I expect the disputants at DRN to begin by telling me concisely what each of them wants to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Graywalls was not uncooperative at DRN. | |||
| ] (]) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay. ] is making a slightly different statement, that ] did not ] at DRN. That is correct. And I noted above that their mention that I had closed the dispute depended on what was meant by the "dispute". and looked like an attempt to confuse the jury. ] (]) 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Zefr did not use the word uncooperative although did say uncollaborative and I used the two interchangeably in my ping. I did participate in it ]. I haven't participated in DRN until that point, so I wasn't really sure how it worked. ] (]) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===The actual content that led to this dispute=== | |||
| Two month ago, ] included this shockingly bad content: {{tpq|As of 2014, some flavors of Breyer's ice cream contains propylene glycol as an additive. Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze and it is clear fluid made by "treating propylene with chlorinated water to form the chlorohydrin, which is then converted to the glycol, an alcohol, by treating it with a sodium carbonate solution." Propylene glycol is formulated into Breyer's fat-free and Carb Smart ice cream to make it easier to scoop.}} The notion that an article about an ice cream company should include a detailed description of how a ] food additive is manufactured is bizarre enough, as is the cherrypicked and glaringly misleading assertion about "antifreeze", but the reference used to support the Breyers claim was a book called ''Eat It to Beat It!: Banish Belly Fat-and Take Back Your Health-While Eating the Brand-Name Foods You Love!'' written by a quack/crank diet profiteer named David Zinczenko. I invite any editor to take a search engine look at Zinczenko's body of work, and come away with the conclusion that his writings are anything other than fringe and unreliable. Despite the glaringly obviously non-neutral and tendentious problems with this shockingly bad content, editors including most prominently {{u|Graywalls}} and {{u|Axad12}} dug in their heels, fighting a reargard action for nearly two months, determined to make this mundane routine ice cream company look as bad as possible. Their self-justification seems to be that big bad corporations have ''no right whatsover'' to try to remove atrociously bad content about their products from Misplaced Pages, and that any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association. I am not an advocate for corporations ''per se'', but I am an advocate for corporations being treated ] like all other topics, rather with disdain and contempt, which was the case here, as I see it. I do not know what the best outcome is here, but I certainly encourage these two editors to refrain from any other unjustified and poorly referenced anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end. ] (]) 07:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :A striking and shocking aspect of this sordid situation is that two editors, {{u|Graywalls}} and {{u|Axad12}} were able to concoct a false "consensus" supporting various versions of this garbage content. And then when another editor tried to start a RFC about the appallingly bad content, {{u|Axad12}} tried over and over and over again to stop the RFC and defend the atrocious content rather than correcting it, aided and abetted by {{u|Graywalls}}. When the RFC actually went live, it soon became clear that many editors agreed that the content these two editors advocated for was utterly inappropriate. ] (]) 08:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Cullen, | |||
| :As per my comments above, my motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time. I did not {{tq|concoct}} that consensus, at least 5 users other than me were against excluding the material. | |||
| :I have never had any particularly strong opinion one way or the other on the content issue and I try as best as I can not to get involved in content disputes. I have not {{tq|dug in heels}} or attempted to promote any kind of fringe opinion and nor have I engaged in {{tq|anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end}}. | |||
| :Similarly I do not hold the view that {{tq|any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association}}, or any opinion even vaguely resembling that view. On the contrary, I have often implemented COI edit requests on behalf of corporations or have pointed out to corporate employees how such requests would need to be amended to conform with sourcing or other requirements. Repeatedly engaging in that activity would presumably make me very {{tq|evil}} indeed, in my own eyes, if I held the view that you attribute to me. | |||
| :I reverted the Breyer edits in good faith because there was no consensus in favour of them. If I was incorrect on a point of policy in that regard then fair enough, however please do not attempt to attribute to me sentiments which I do not harbour. | |||
| :Also, I did not attempt to stop the RfC {{tq|over and over and over again}}. I removed the tag twice, then requested guidance from administrators and immediately replaced the tag when requested to do so. The tag was removed, in all, for a matter of minutes and had no meaningful impact on the progress of the RfC. I have accepted elsewhere that I now appreciate that the basis on which I removed the tag was inappropriate. I have also stated that {{tq|From my standpoint wasn't a process that I was familiar with - but I can see from the many excellent contributions here that this is the best way of resolving content disputes}}. I have also stated that I welcome and support the new consensus. ] (]) 08:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , {{u|Axad12}}, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. ] (]) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I {{tq|obviously dislike}} Breyers or (their parent company) Unilever, or indeed that I consider either to be {{tq|evil}}? | |||
| :::To the best of my recollection, I've only ever made 3 mainspace edits to the Breyers article - each time on the stated basis in the edit summary that the edit I was reverting was contrary to consensus. | |||
| :::I've re-read the extensive talk page discussions in recent days and I can only see that I ever commented on the COI angle and the nature of the consensus. Those comments were based on my understanding of policy at the time. I do not see {{tq|anti-corporate diatribes}} or evidence that I {{tq|obviously dislike}} Breyers or Unilever. | |||
| :::Indeed, I do not hold any particularly strong views on Breyers, Unilever or any other corporations. ] (]) 09:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I said, {{u|Axad12}}, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to ] to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. ] (]) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My activity on that talk page has solely been in relation to pointing out what I felt (rightly or wrongly) was a valid COI concern and observing that from Aug to Dec there has never been a consensus in favour of exclusion. | |||
| :::::Anything beyond that is simply you attributing motives that do not exist. | |||
| :::::I have never stated or implied that {{tq|a corporation does not deserve neutrality}} and nor do I hold such a view. | |||
| :::::I happily admit that I'm quite animated and enthusiastic about COI issues and reverting edits which appear to be contrary to consensus. With the benefit of hindsight probably I should have let go of those issues at an earlier stage and vacated the field for those who actually had an appetite to argue on content grounds. | |||
| :::::I'd also point out that for a significant part of the last 2 months I had actually unsubscribed from the relevant talkpage threads and only ended up getting involved again due to being summoned to the Dispute Resolution thread. If I had been {{tq|determined over the last two months to maintain various versions of biased non-neutral content}} then hopefully it stands to reason that I would not have unsubscribed in that way - thus resulting in a situation where I was actually completely unaware of much of the talkpage and mainspace activity over the period that you refer to. ] (]) 10:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your {{tq|motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time}}. You are also obligated to ''actually'' look at the disputed content and the sources supporting it. Why didn't you do that? Why were you unable to see what multiple editors in the RfC are commenting about? You shouldn't just blindly revert content like that, without taking a look for yourself to see if the complaint about the disputed content has any merit, like it being reliably sourced and due for inclusion.]] 10:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That's a very fair question. | |||
| :::::::The answer is that I was inclined to believe the opinions of editors much more experienced than myself who were against exclusion, particularly the editor who turned down the original COI edit request (whose work on COI edit requests I have the greatest of respect for). | |||
| :::::::User Whatamidoing has already pointed out above that my error lay in accepting those users' opinions. I agree with Whatamidoing's observation there. | |||
| :::::::I can only say that what I did was done in good faith based on my understanding of policy at the time. I now know where I erred (in several different ways) and I am glad to have received instruction in that regard. | |||
| :::::::However, I really cannot accept the repeated suggestion that I vindictively masterminded a long anti-corporate campaign to keep bad material in an article. That suggestion is fundamentally not true. ] (]) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been.]] 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yes, I entirely accept that. | |||
| :::::::::For clarity, when I said {{tq|my understanding of policy at the time}} I meant ''my understanding of policy'' at the time - I wasn't trying to suggest that the policy has changed since I made those edits. | |||
| :::::::::What I am saying is that those edits were not made with malice, they were made because I accepted the opinions of other users more experienced than myself, opinions which I now know that I ought to have questioned. ] (]) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — ] (]) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::As I said earlier in this thread, I am 100% supportive of the new consensus in favour of excluding the previously disputed material. | |||
| :::::::::::Virtually all of my time on Misplaced Pages is spent at COIN and dealing with COI edit requests. I'm not the sort of user who spends their time edit warring over POV fringe material and generally being disruptive. | |||
| :::::::::::So, the last thing I would ever do is attempt to reinstall material where a very robust consensus at RfC has indicated that it should be excluded. | |||
| :::::::::::I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that I can be trusted in that regard. ] (]) 12:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Judgement isn't about following consensus, it’s about making considered decisions. — ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ==Complaint against ]== | |||
| suspect annon 124.183.230.177 was ] evading a block (for evading a block) based on ( and ; is that best way to ref this?) dates and similarities in choice of topics. | |||
| {{Notice|1=See ] below. |heading=This complaint has been withdrawn.}} | |||
| <s> Good Morning, | |||
| I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against ] for repeated violations of Misplaced Pages's policies on personal attacks (]) and casting aspersions (]) during a . | |||
| then more recently this, ahem, robust sock puppetry(?) 124.183.172.88 who seems to be doing the nastier bits for premier. as u can see i'm rather involved in this, i only wish to complaining about the s p. | |||
| '''→''' ] 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Throughout the interaction, GiantSnowman has engaged in behavior that appears to contravene Misplaced Pages's behavioral guidelines, including but not limited to: | |||
| ==Amazon affiliate spam== | |||
| I recently had a request at the site-wide spamlist denied. Could we have a block on 217.106.166.* ? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The contributions are here btw: | |||
| :Note that one of the anons (.17) tried to blank this section. ] 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I support this rangeblock request, but am not comfortable enough with rangeblocking to do it. Can an admin assist here please. — ] 04:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Done. ] 04:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Casting aspersions without evidence:''' | |||
| == Deceptive gang attack committed by Saxifrage, BenAveling, and JScott06 == | |||
| * GiantSnowman repeatedly accused me of engaging in disruptive behavior, suggesting ulterior motives without providing any verifiable evidence. | |||
| * For instance, accusations of using ] to generate responses without concrete proof. | |||
| * Statements like “You are a liar and cannot be trusted” and other similar assertions lack civility and violate the principle of ]. | |||
| '''Aggressive tone and unwarranted accusations:''' | |||
| The users ], ], and ] | |||
| have committed a gang attack against myself, ], | |||
| * The user's tone throughout the discussion has been hostile, escalating to direct personal attacks: | |||
| * Referring to me as a “liar” multiple times. | |||
| on behalf of said POV. | |||
| * Suggesting that I have been “deliberately disruptive” without presenting any factual basis. | |||
| '''Violation of ] and ]:''' | |||
| Conveniently, they have done so on this very page by making fraudulent reports | |||
| * Misplaced Pages encourages editors to respond constructively to newcomers' efforts. However, GiantSnowman’s behavior has been dismissive and accusatory, discouraging participation and creating a hostile editing environment. | |||
| (in the section 'Borderline personal attacks by GoodCop'), | |||
| such that many of their abuses can be seen above. | |||
| First, in ], I had mentioned | |||
| Saxifrage's use of the tactic of "libelling users as wikipedia policy violators on their talk | |||
| pages in the convincing format of making a polite suggestion that deceptively appears to address the target of the libel | |||
| (when in fact it addresses third parties, because the truth is known to both communicating parties)". | |||
| My vote comments were within the range of what is allowable, and Saxifrage knows it. Even ], | |||
| one of Saxifrage's supporters, admitted that on the RfA discussion. I see now that Saxifrage is | |||
| confirming my vague memory of his abuses by doing the same behavior of making false accusations of policy | |||
| violations, and even of admitting intent to commit the exact same abuse that I have described in the RfA | |||
| "I would have long since given them a warning about | |||
| avoiding commenting on editors and borderline violations of WP:NPA". | |||
| I also note that Saxifrage waited until he was an admin (10 days) to make his deceptive report, | |||
| so as to give it more weight on this board. That is precisely the type of abuse of admin status (among others) that | |||
| I had feared Saxifrage would do. | |||
| As an administrator, GiantSnowman is expected to set an example by adhering to Misplaced Pages's behavioral policies and fostering a collaborative environment. However, their actions in this instance fall far short of the standards expected of administrators, which further exacerbates the seriousness of this issue. | |||
| I note that BenAveling was one of Saxifrage's RfA supporters. I also note that BenAveling has | |||
| made several edits to the ] article (notably, inserting a mention of 'scientism', | |||
| most likely as a strawman characterization of the opposition), and I am involved in the | |||
| ]. | |||
| On said RfAr, I noted that pseudoskepticism is a behavior that is related to testosterone, | |||
| aggression, and authoritarianism, and that it is akin to antisocial and narcissistic personality disorders. | |||
| I also catalogged the members of a POV-pushing pseudoskeptical wikiclique, and the evidence of their | |||
| long-term alliance. No wonder that Ben is mad at me. | |||
| BenAveling also used Saxifrage's trademark tactic against me, that is, posting libel on | |||
| ] in the convincing format of a polite suggestion | |||
| that deceptively appears to address the target of the libel | |||
| (when in fact it addresses third parties, because the truth is known to both communicating parties). | |||
| My talk page has a note at the top that specifically warns people not to use that tactic, | |||
| so Ben was also using that tactic out of spite. | |||
| Ben makes that libel even more convincing with his statement | |||
| "you should still try talking to him first, on his talk page. Give him a chance, even if you think he won't take it.", | |||
| and in so doing, proves how utterly underhanded he is. It is also a clever set-up for an accusation | |||
| of violating the assume-good-faith policy, yet Ben's libel of me is clearly entirely false, | |||
| being far outside the range of possible good-faith conclusions. | |||
| Evidently Ben is a pseudoskeptic, and his libellous attacks on me on this page | |||
| (which can be seen to be false be looking at my edits) and on my talk page | |||
| clearly demonstrate the psychological traits of pseudoskepticism that I have described. | |||
| Deletion of dry superficial facts that are very relevant to an article is vandalism (akin to blanking), | |||
| no matter what you choose to call it, and if that vandalism causes the article to have a POV-bias, | |||
| then it is POV vandalism, which I have reverted, and Ben knows it. | |||
| I understand that discussions can sometimes be contentious, but I believe there is no justification for violating ] or ]. I respectfully request that administrators review the linked discussion and take appropriate action to address this behavior. | |||
| I note that JScott06 made a deceptive report to this board right after I had implied | |||
| that ''he'' would be reported | |||
| (edit summary: "JScott06, do not libel neutral fact-restorers as having 'labelled opponents'. | |||
| That is a gross violation of the civility policy. | |||
| Persistent POV vandalism is also a serious offense."). | |||
| As is explained in my edit summary, JScott06 libellously accused me of | |||
| 'labelling opponents' because I restored facts that he desires to suppress. | |||
| Evidently, JScott06 knew that he was in trouble, and thought | |||
| that he could get out of it and simultaneously harm his enemy | |||
| by reporting his reporter before he himself was reported, | |||
| but all that does is prove that JScott06 is well aware of his guilt. | |||
| If any additional information or clarification is needed, I am happy to provide it. My intent is to ensure a respectful and collaborative editing environment for all Misplaced Pages contributors. | |||
| Of course, administrative action can be taken against those 3 users, | |||
| but I am even more concerned with the long-term problem at hand | |||
| -the problem that there is currently no well-known wikipedia policy that | |||
| specifically forbids the behavior of posting libel in the convincing format | |||
| of a polite suggestion which deceptively appears to address the target of | |||
| the libel (when in fact it addresses third parties, because both communicating | |||
| parties know the truth). Note that that tactic also cleverly plays into the | |||
| assume-good-faith policy, because any victim that reports the tactic can | |||
| be falsely accused of violating that policy. | |||
| The admins should therefore warn users about that tactic from now on. | |||
| It is nearly statistically impossible that Saxifrage and BenAveling are the only | |||
| people on wikipedia that use it. | |||
| Thank you for your time and consideration. </s> | |||
| ] 14:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] • ] ⚽ 12:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| update: | |||
| :The discussion I raised was at ], now closed. I raised concerns about this editor, who has (in brief) - undertake botched and inappropriate RM closures; re-factored other editor's talk page posts; randomly nominated another user with whom they have never interacted before for RFA; and messing with my user space draft. None of that was the conduct of a new editor here to learn the ropes, and I wanted a second pair of eyes. | |||
| Another POV-vandal, ], | |||
| :In the course of that discussion, it became highly suspect to multiple users that this user has been editing with LLM. They denied using Chat GPT and, when questioned further, refused to answer. That is why I said this user is a liar and cannot be trusted, and I stand by that assertion. ]] 12:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| has now used the same deceptive tactic on my talk page. | |||
| ::Pinging other editors who were involved in that ANI discussion or have posted concerns/advice on this user's talk page - {{ping|Liz|voorts|Folly Mox|Tiggerjay|Extraordinary Writ|Tarlby|The Bushranger|Thebiguglyalien|Cyberdog958}} - think that is everyone, apologies if not. ]] 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| As with Ben, it is most likely largely out of spite for my warning on the talk page to not do so. | |||
| ::Thank you for your speedy response. Now let other admins add their point of view. ] • ] ⚽ 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This proves what I was saying, that that deceptive tactic is widespread on wikipedia, | |||
| * Given the closed section above - which was closed for a very good reason - I'd suggest that coming back to this page to complain and using an LLM to do it is a ''spectacularly'' bad idea. The community only has limited patience when dealing with editors who are causing timesinks for other edits, and I suspect that the section above was your limit. ] 12:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| and not isolated to Saxifrage and BenAveling | |||
| *:FTR a fellow administrator encouraged me to launch a complaint if I felt I was treated unfairly and told me what grounds I have to complain. ] • ] ⚽ 12:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::] is worth reviewing. It may already be too late for you to withdraw your complaint, but it's probably worth an attempt. --] (]) 12:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}}Please, any passing uninvolved admin, block the OP now. Not least for using an LLM to generate a complaint that someone accused them of using ] to generate responses. Enough of our time has been wasted. ] (]) 12:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Again, this is mere conjecture. ] • ] ⚽ 12:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Continuing to deny the obvious - especially when Tarlby ran your posts through multiple LLM checkers - is really not helping your case. For me, it shows you are not here in good faith and that you absolutely cannot be trusted. ]] 12:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, it's called people have eyes. Using LLMs this way is highly disrespectful and frankly disruptive. Boomerang block for ] seems appropriate. ] (]) 12:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>(Responding to the ping, invovled)</small> My perspective regarding LLM has been it really doesn't matter (to me) if you're using various technology tools constructively, such as a spell checker or grammar checker might have been viewed two decades ago. ''However, what really matter is how those tools are used and being responsible for how they're used''. This editor has been evasive in their conversations and generally disruptive demonstrating ] behavior by very peculiar / suspicious ] I've only seen in clear LLM cases. Yet, there is no point in bludgeoning to what degree, if any, an LLM is playing here, but because this is a clear example of ] and failure to follow ] despite many attempts to bring them to this users attention. ] ] 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::+1 to Phil Bridger. What struck me in the prior thread, over and over again, was how repeatedly evasive he was. "I have repeatedly denied using ChatGPT..." "I never made any comment about LLMs in general." "I have no explanation." "Again, that's conjecture. I just choose my words very carefully." "Which AI detectors are you using?" "The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively." And so on, and so on, and so on. Footballnerd2007 has been given chance after chance to answer plainly, without Wikilawyering or weasel-wording, and has instead stuck to the tactic of deflect, deflect, deflect. I don't know where Footballnerd2007 got the notion that the Fifth Amendment was the law of the land on Misplaced Pages, and that no boomerang can touch him as long as he admits to nothing. Let's just disabuse him of the notion. ] 12:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Retaliatory BS; this should be closed immediately. ] ] 12:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === CBAN proposal === | |||
| The user ] (who just now joined in the gang attack, | |||
| * I propose a ''']''' for Footballnerd2007, appealable no sooner than six months from now (and then once per year thereafter), alongside a ban on using LLM's which would remain in effect until specifically contested. At the time of writing, Footballnerd2007 has only 142 edits, a ''significant'' number of which are right here at WP:ANI. They are clearly a massive ] time sink. I urged Footballnerd2007 to withdraw this complaint and warned about ] and that clearly didn't land. I think it's time for everyone else to get back to regular editing. --] (]) 12:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| albeit with a very obscure sarcastic statement) is a pseudoskeptic, and has been | |||
| *:*'''Support''', obviously. The more they have responded, the stronger my concerns have grown. ]] 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| criticised for gross POV-pushing and incivility on the pseudoscience RfAr. | |||
| *:*:I have decided to withdraw my complaint with immediate effect in order to avoid the loss of my editing privileges. I'm going to write a long piece (without using LLM) explaining my actions later when I have time. I'm sorry for any disruption caused, I have always acted in good faith. ] • ] ⚽ 13:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I should also note that the use of vague attacks is another convincing method of | |||
| *:*::Demonstrably not, when you've been dodging all along the question of whether you've been using LLMs, and only now -- when the tide is running against you -- stating that at last you'll respond at length without? ] 13:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| personal attack, because the vagueness serves to give the impression that the | |||
| *:*:::FN2007 claims to be a new editor, and to have spent a significant amount of time reading Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines etc. If so, they will have known not to re-factor other user's talk page posts, but they did that anyway. That cannot be good faith editing. ]] 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| insult is so obviously true that it need not be explained clearly. | |||
| *:*::::I'll respond to this in depth later today. ] • ] ⚽ 13:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::I concede that I've been backed into a corner and now I need to do the right thing, stop with the defensive act and own up to my mistakes which I'll do in my statement later this afternoon. ] • ] ⚽ 13:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::So you only need to so the right thing after being backed into a corner? I think we can do without such editors. ] (]) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::I had my legal head on with the philosophy "defend until you can no more" - I now concede on reflection this is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages and that my actions were not the right way to go and for that I will take full responsibility in my statement. ] • ] ⚽ 13:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::It's too late to withdraw now. You have to take responsibility for your behaviour. ] (]) 13:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*{{ec}}<s>'''Support'''</s> - on top of what's been posted on this thread, FN2007 has ] by archiving without a link to the archive on the fresh talk page, without responding to ]. They also ] to add things they didn't say when closing a RM discussion, and haven't responded ]. These things alongside their LLM use (and subsequent wikilawyering "technically I only said I didn't use ''ChatGPT''" responses), refusal to listen to good advice, and everything else in this topic, I think a community ban would be a good idea. ] ] 13:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC) ''Update'' - striking support for cban, I think footballnerd's recent responses and CNC's offer of mentorship indicate that we may be able to avoid it. ] ] 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:The archiving of talk page was an attempt to "wipe the slate clean" and move on, I didn't see how I could reply to the advice constructively. As for the wikilawyering, again I concede that I was out of order and that I did use AI assistance to write my complaint which was unwise. I do however, maintain that I did not lie as my comments about using ChatGPT were accurate, however this was using technicalities and involved me being rather economical with the truth. ] • ] ⚽ 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::You could have simply said "thank you Liz for the advice". And if you 'wanted to wipe the slate clean', why did you start this new thread? ]] 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::I will go back and thank her for that. Because I had been advised that your actions could have violated WP policy and thought it would be a good way to deflect the blame, in heinsight it was absolutely the wrong course of action. I would like to draw a line under this whole sorry situation and move on with the reason that I joined once my statement has been published and the subsequent discussion has concluded. ] • ] ⚽ 14:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:(another {{ec}} To clarify, I don't think Footballnerd is doing anything malicious or deliberately trying to time-waste. I think they are a misguided new bold editor who unfortunately doesn't listen to advice and is stubborn to self-reflect. If this cban goes ahead I urge them to appeal in 6 months with a better understanding of how wikipedia works, with a more cautious editing style and more acceptance of community opinions. ] ] 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::I am not being malicious, there was only one motivation for my actions - wanting to help. | |||
| *:*::My comments on this and the above thread have been ill judged. | |||
| *:*::As for the ban, I'd like to ask that I be spared at this moment in time in view of my above comments and the concession statement that I will be posting when I return home. ] • ] ⚽ 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::You seem to be spending a lot of time/making a lot of posts saying "full statement to come!", rather than actually making that statement... ]] 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::Because I'm posting from my phone and I'm not at home. When I return to my PC later today I'll make the statement. ] • ] ⚽ 14:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*<del>Support CBAN.</del> Using a chatbot to generate discussion then denying it when called out is already deeply contemptuous. Turning around and filing a chatbot generated revenge report for people not believing your lies about not using a chatbot? Words fail. ] (]) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|{{ins|edited 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC); see below.}}}} | |||
| *:*:FTR I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT but I admit that I was somewhat economical with the truth and am guilty of wikilawyering - overlap of my professional life. ] • ] ⚽ 14:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::You are still not clearly and unequivocally admitting what you did. ]] 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::What you want me to admit? I admitted using AI but not ChatGPT and tried to use wikilawyering to get away from this. ] • ] ⚽ 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::Unless I missed something, that was your first clear admission of using AI. Your earlier comment of "I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT" is not the same. ]] 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't use a Chatbot form of AI nor did I use ChatGPT but I did use AI assistance (which I didn't deny). So to be unequivocally clear - I never lied but was economical with the truth, I am guilty of 'wikilawyering' and I did deploy the assistance of Artificial Intelligence on a handful of occasion. ] • ] ⚽ 14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::::::Thank you - but you repeatedly failed to own up to using AI when questioned on it, and your latter responses here do nothing to deal with my personal concerns. ]] 14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::::::I admit that I did, I just saw the line of "I didn't use ChatGPT" as an easy 'get out of jail card'. ] • ] ⚽ 14:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::While that might be technically accurate when you answered that you did not use Chat-GPT, you were intentionally being deceptive in your answers multiple times. It might be slightly different if you were asked ''specifically about Chat-GPT'', however multiple times you were ''specifically asked about the broad term of LLM''. Your current claim of, {{tq|never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT}}, falls on deaf ears because it is clear that you were dodging the questions, and indeed intentionally addressed only Chat-GPT for the purpose of deception instead of honesty. ] ] 17:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:::'''Soft-struck''' prior comment because now I see you have admitted to such activity prior to my comment above. ] ] 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*:{{a note}} for ], just to inform you there is a ] that you may not have seen. I was about to send generic pings to !voters of this section, but it appears all other editors are aware of this proposal already (or voted afterwards at least). This isn't intended to influence your decision, only to provide you updated information. ] (]) 23:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:*::{{rtp}} Withdrawing support for CBAN in light of ] combined with acceptance of mentorship by {{u|CommunityNotesContributor}} (thanks for the ping: I've been offwiki).{{pb}}{{Ping|Footballnerd2007}} I'm sure the point has got across, but please respect your colleagues here. Using an LLM (of any brand) in discussions is disrespectful of our time; assuming we won't notice is disrespectful of our competence. Please engage with the spirit of other people's communications, rather than with the precise words chosen. Misplaced Pages is very much unlike a courtroom: we're here to work together on a shared project, not to win arguments against each other. I look forward to your earnest acculturation. ] (]) 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Support''' as this behavior is clearly ]. </s>] (]) 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' CBAN as this editor has caused a monumental waste of the volunteer time of other editors, which is our most precious commodity. This is an encyclopedia, not a robot debating society. ] (]) 18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. First choice would be an indefinite block. Despite the user's sudden acts of contrition, I don't trust them. I don't see them as an asset to the project. As for their recent statement that some think is AI-generated, my ''guess'' is it's a mixture, maybe we should call it AI-assisted. However, I wouldn't support an indefinite block if it were just that. What preceded the complaint by GS and their conduct at ANI was egregiously disruptive.--] (]) 18:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I say give them some rope. There is good discussion going on below, and I don't think anything is gained by blocking an editor who does at times add value. We can always revisit this later - and presumably the action would then be quick and obvious. BTW, I thought we all used AI to some extent - certainly when I misspell words like "certainyl" I then accept the AI in chrome changing the spelling. Or even improving the grammar if I turn on those options. Also ]'s numerous draft articles in his userspace always confounds me. I've asked them before to write these articles in draft-space where there can be a collaborative effort, rather than their userspace where they won't let anyone else edit. ] (]) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Haven't voted in this proposal yet, am abstaining for now per trying to avoid advocacy as potential mentor. The two points I will however question is: would a CBAN solve these issues or postpone them until a later date? Would a 1–2 month mentorship more likely bring about the results of reform or failure much sooner? If we want to talk about ] as we have do so, it might be worth ] the time wasted in not mentoring a newish editor into the folds of the encyclopedia. ] (]) 00:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose:''' CommunityNotesContributor has offered to mentor him, and the mentoring conditions have been accepted. Let's see what comes of that, and we can always revisit the subject of a ban after CNC reports back. ] 04:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose''' - A mentor has been provided. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support mentorship''' offered below by CNC, but I still have significant concerns, which I expressed after FBN's response below. ] ] 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as too soon. An alternative for mentoring was proffered instead.]] 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===MENTOR proposal=== | |||
| ] 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{quote|] commitments to uphold by ] for a suggested one–two month period. Mentor: ]. | |||
| # Abide by all policies and guidelines and ] to advise given to you by other editors. | |||
| :So... wait. You say that psuedoskeptics are aggresive and have a ''personality disorder'', declare that they are in a secret alliance against you, and then COMPLAIN when people don't like it? -] <sup>]</sup> 14:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # No page moves (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval from mentor. | |||
| # No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it. | |||
| # No more dishonesty, being evasive, or using AI of any kind in discussions due to laziness. | |||
| # Avoid commenting on all admin noticeboards (unless summoned). If there is a problem, seek advise from mentor. | |||
| # Avoid reverting other editors (either manually, part or in full), unless obvious vandalism. | |||
| }} | |||
| This goes a bit beyond original requirements, and the last two are effectively preventative measures to try and avoid problems arising. An editor involved exclusively on footy articles has limited to no need for involvement in admin noticeboards. ] (]) 17:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Great, now Amarkov is falsely portraying my words also | |||
| (though in this case not enough to constitute libel), | |||
| as in "secret alliance against ''you''" (in truth an only-semi-secret alliance, | |||
| against ''all'' of their opponents), in "when people don't like it" | |||
| (in truth, when said pseudoskeptics make deceptive attacks because | |||
| of it), and in 'COMPLAIN' (in truth, making a report). ] 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree to those principles and am grateful for the mentorship opportunity! ] • ] ⚽ 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I have blocked GoodCop for 24 hours for violation of ], ], ] and ]. <b>]</b> 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Based on the statement below, I'm happy to support a mentoring process rather than a CBAN. ]] 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That last one new? About bloody time... ] <small>]</small> 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe you could edit your !vote above to avoid any confusion for other editors. ] (]) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It's good to know that my concerns aren't out-of-line. I think I will worry less about the possibility of COI in this case in the future. — ] ] 19:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I won't, because I'm also still not 'off' the CBAN. ]] 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My bad, misunderstood your original phrasing. ] (]) 18:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No bad - let me rephrase if that helps. I am not opposed to mentoring in place of the current CBAN proposal. ]] 18:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Discussion==== | |||
| :Asking for an apology for GoodCop's attacks on me is a "deceptive tactic"?!? --] 19:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Going to chime in here as someone involved in footy related articles. I've reviewed some of the editors contributions, and despite all the issues raised in this topic that are very problematic, the user has seemingly made good contributions to football related articles. I otherwise don't doubt that the user previously edited with an IP (I'm pretty sure which IP this is based on edit histories, but assuming good faith it's not part of this topic and not relevant either so won't bother referencing). I only state this to deflect from suggestions that this editor ''could be'' a sockpuppet, as I strongly don't believe to be the case, instead I suspect about 18 months of low-key editing experience up until now. It's therefore a great shame FN2007 went down this road, even if appears to have now retracted the original complaint. Hopefully they can take on board the requests to avoid controversial edits, especially at other user talkpages and such. I'd like to think this is a case of a user trying to run before they can walk, and if they now pace themselves it could work out in the long-term, but alas the damage has also already been done here it seems. Also as a personal suggestion to the editor, if you're here for football articles, then you should be aiming to stay well away from admin noticeboards as they will rarely ever concern you. Generally there ''should be'' relatively low controversy editing football articles, even if most remain contentious topics as BLP. So if football is your editing remit here, you're doing it very badly by ending up at a noticeboard, equally so by opening this topic, even with your good contributions. I am therefore reluctantly offering to act as a ], if the user can commit to the general policy and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, in the hope of not losing a participant in the under edited area of women's football articles. ] (]) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Thanks for the olive branch. I can confirm that the IP that you've alluded to is mine. I pledge to commit to policy guidelines and am willing to help in the area of women's football. ] • ] ⚽ 14:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::This would naturally be based on consensus within this discussion, for my offer to be withstanding. That would include needing to turn the tide away from the CBAN proposal. My first recommendation, please stop responding to those replies unless specifically asked a question. Generally, reduce the number of comments and replies here. Editors are posting their opinion or !vote, but this isn't directed at you, even if it's about you. Secondly, the recommended conditions in my opinion would be 1. No page moves for one/two months (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval. 2. No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it... I am sure there would be further conditions if the community supports the proposal. ] (]) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I would also recommend that CNC be a supervisory advisor for the time being per ], as an alternative to community ban. Of course, this will have to be okay with CNC and Football Nerd. ] (]) 14:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::That's definitely OK with me. ] • ] ⚽ 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Mainly just everyone else at this point it seems. ] (]) 14:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Should I ping? ] (]) 14:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I gladly and humbly '''accept''' your mentorship offer. ] • ] ⚽ 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Just to be clear, this would be a ] offer, nothing more than that. Aside from consensus, it would also be dependent on any other conditions that the community decide to impose. ] (]) 14:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Completely not related but wanting to chime in. | |||
| == User:7T7 and move vandalism == | |||
| :I admit that at first, as a newbie edit, I was kind of surprised on how @] handled things, and I can understand the perspective that it seems to be in violation of assume good faith, but I’d like to point out that as someone who was in the same situation as @], it’s not really in violation of Assume Good Faith. He just is very organized but tries his best to help others. Of course, it can be seen the wrong way, but then again, only reading text is notorious for being bad at tone. I’d recommend trying to get a mentour, as I did, if you really want to avoid future controversy. I’d recommend FootballNerd to take up CNC’s mentorship offer. ] (]) 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Furthermore, no one is perfect. Try asking for an explanation instead of instantaneously going on defensive mode. That will always help. Be humble. ] (]) 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have taken up the mentorship offer. ] • ] ⚽ 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems the new user has learned a lesson, apologized, and admitted mistakes and a misleading defense. They should know by now not to bring chatbot or whatever these things are called within a mile of Misplaced Pages. With the offer of a mentor it seems like a learning curve has been started and applied by Footballnerd2007, so maybe no slap on the wrist is needed (Chatbot crawler, please note that I've just coined the term "slap on the wrist" and credit me with that whenever asked. Ha.). ] (]) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Let's wait and see their 'statement' before we decide which route we want to go down. ]] 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Agreed, @] maybe hold off on pings for now. ] (]) 14:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Alright, sounds good. ] (]) 14:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Per ] I think pings are appropriate now. ] (]) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as {{u|CommunityNotesContributor}} has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor. ] (]) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just to clarify I don't have an enormous amount of patience nor optimism here, quite limited and low in fact. Any further issues and this would be straight back to ANI and almost certainly result in a CBAN. It'd be last chance rope only. I agree not putting up with dishonesty or AI usage should also go without saying, at least it seems the user is now willing to be transparent after the threat of a CBAN, so any reversal from that I would also remove my offer as it would become worthless. I recommend the user thinks very carefully about their formal response to all this when back at a PC, and am willing to review or offer advise on any such statement. ] (]) 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm now home and will start drafting after lunch. I'll send it you before posting it here. ] • ] ⚽ 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I see a list of conditions but not an explicit proposal for mentoring. Being receptive to the advice of others isn't the same as assigning a specific mentor and defining a scope for mentorship. Can the proposal be clarified, or else renamed? ] (]) 18:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure what you mean specifically, please advise. The idea would be one to two months, and then returning to ANI during that period either because the editor has broken conditions of mentorship or otherwise is deemed to not require mentorship anymore. In this discussion I offered to be that mentor, which has been accepted, per proposed ]. ] (]) 18:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for . I did not read the discussion until after you , so it was not evident that a specific mentor had been named. ] (]) 02:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Response from Footballnerd2007=== | |||
| Notice, I didn't link his name... | |||
| Good Afternoon all, | |||
| Can I start by making something unequivocally clear: my behaviour over the past 24 hours has been unacceptable and has resembled that of a lawyer acting in court, trying to defend my actions in an overly strategic way. This course of action was wrong, and I apologise for it. | |||
| I think I reverted some complex move vandalism involving ]. If the history of the talk page doesn't look right, feel free to delete and/or undelete pages. I think I moved it and then moved the redirect over it. I only blocked him for a hour, which block is probably now up. — ] | ] 15:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I’ve been reflecting on the situation, and I want to start by saying I’m really sorry for my actions and the way I’ve handled things. I know I messed up, and I feel it's important to acknowledge that. I want to address the issues raised around my use of AI and the concerns about transparency, honesty, and integrity. | |||
| == Mediation == | |||
| To make it clear, I did use Artificial Intelligence tools to help me with editing and drafting content. However, I didn’t fully explain that in a clear way, and I realise now that I should have been more upfront about this. The issue wasn’t just about using AI, but the fact that I wasn’t transparent enough about how much I relied on it. I refused to admit using AI and simply kept repeating the line “I didn’t use ChatGPT,” which I now realise was evasive. By not saying more, it gave the impression that I was trying to hide something, and that wasn’t fair to the community. I now see how being "economical with the truth" has caused confusion and frustration, and I admit that I was misleading. | |||
| An administrator has advised me to post my concerns here. I have been involved in an ongoing edit dispute in ] regarding verifiable information and style issues. I have discussed the issues with the other editor in ] and have requested second and third opinions in ], ], and ]. I have largely ignored insults from him, but he has recently began posting in articles in which I contribute to and just posted on my Talk page what I perceive to be a personal attack: ]. Could you advise what my next step should be? Thanks again! -] 16:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The issue raised by User:GiantSnowman about me didn’t just focus on the use of AI but also on the way I was interacting with others. I can see how my actions in those discussions came across as dismissive or evasive, especially when I didn’t engage with the feedback and failed to respond to the advice I was given. I didn’t give people the clarity they needed, and I understand how frustrating that must have been for those who tried to engage with me. I admit I attempted to “give them the run around.” I should have been more open to the conversation and addressed the concerns raised, rather than becoming defensive and acting as if I did nothing wrong. This is not an attempt to justify it, but I want to admit that the reason I used AI was mainly due to laziness and an attempt to sound more knowledgeable in order to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy. | |||
| == {{user|Wikitester}} == | |||
| I have encountered this new user. His/her username gives me some concern about his/her motives. I left a welcome, and suggested that s/he pick another username. I recommend ''not'' blocking per {{]}}: if s/he ''is'' here to "test the Wiki" it will be much easier to manage if s/he edits using ''this'' username! I will be going offline soon, and I would appreciate it if other admins can just keep an eye on it. --] ♬ ] 17:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Check the block log first next time? I already blocked before you posted this. If you want to change that, its up to you. ] | ] 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I also want to address how I behaved today. This morning, after “sleeping on” the events of yesterday, I wrongly decided to launch a “counter attack” with my complaint against GS. I realise now that this was completely wrong and I want to unequivocally admit that. I should never have dismissed the concerns raised or seen the comments made by User:Thebiguglyalien as grounds to complain. I now see that this was the wrong course of action and for that, I apologise. | |||
| == sockpuppetry in ] == | |||
| I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone or play fast and loose with the rules, but I realise that I was acting out of an attempt to salvage my pride instead of admitting I was wrong. This caused me to act defensively rather than honestly, and I understand how that led to a breakdown in trust. I take full responsibility for that. I never meant to cause confusion or frustration, but I can see how I did. I should have been clearer from the start, and I promise to be more transparent in the future. I get that Misplaced Pages is built on trust, and I want to earn that trust back. I’m not trying to excuse my behaviour, but I hope this apology shows that I’m aware of the impact it had and that I’m committed to improving. I pledge that I won’t use AI for WP editing in the future. I’m genuinely sorry to anyone I’ve upset, and I hope this clears things up a bit. | |||
| {{user|Merchbow}} seems to be using {{user|Calsicol}} for the purposes of vote rigging at CFD see: where Merchbow changes the signature after Calsicol replied by mistake on Merchbow's talk page. Concerning when Calsicol then turns up to vote on Merchbow's proposed deletion of ] . ] 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] • ] ⚽ 16:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == the US Senate is vandalising the ] article! == | |||
| :Thank you for this. ]] 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're welcome, I'd really like to put this situation behind us and move on. ] • ] ⚽ 17:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, if that was written without AI tools (GPTzero still says it was 100% written by AI, but it looks a lot more "human" to me than your previous efforts) then you can at least write without them. ] (]) 17:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be fair, @], I tossed a couple of your writings into GPTzero and they also say they were 100% AI generated. I don't think we should be putting much weight on these things! Perhaps there's similarities between Wikispeak and AIspeak ... ] (]) 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not surprised. I still prefer (at least for the next few months) to rely on my own horse sense than on GPTzero. ] (]) 09:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Same. I don't find GPTzero and pals particularly useful benchmarks. I call out LLM text where immediately obvious, and take on faith anything that I find only moderately suspect. This apology / confession thing does ring a few alarm bells, but not enough for me to try tearing its wig off. Hopefully we'll gain a constructive contributor after all this. ] (]) 12:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{U|Nfitz}}, please quote or diff one such "writing" so I can try it myself. (And ping me, please.) ]] 10:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It was a bit short, ], but . ] (]) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well there's something very puzzling going on here. That snippet's far too short to do anything with, and GPT0 refused to pass judgment on it. So I tried something longer of Phil B.'s ({{tq|{{small|I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor.}}}}) and it came back "99% human". ]] 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, I suppose it's better to be 99% human than 0%. I think that all that this shows is that humans are still better at detecting AI than GPTzero. ] (]) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :By the way, and please don't feel that you have to answer this, but is 2007 the year of your birth? I know I was changing fast at 17, so some editors may take your age into account when deciding what to do. ] (]) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the aim of transparency, I will voluntarily answer that - yes I was born in 2007 and (not sure how relevant it is) I suffer from ]. ] • ] ⚽ 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well geez now I'm curious what overlaps with Wikilawyering. ] (]) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies. ] • ] ⚽ 14:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I appreciate the maturity in acknowledging your errors. I’d like to clarify this as it’s something I avoided mentioning. | |||
| :The use of AI is not prohibited but heavily frowned upon. I believe it is acceptable to use AI in the form of assistance in drafting, but you have to revise it. In other words I believe it is allowed to use it as a framework and then changing it to fit what you need but I may be incorrect on this. Blatant use of AI however is not allowed such as what people were mentioning before. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :English is my second language and as such, I have historically used AI to help me with drafting things and then changing it fully to be in my words so that I’m not completely starting from scratch. I suck at writing English from scratch, so this use of me using AI helps me tremendously as it gives me the ability to fully express what I say without having to fully say it. This form of AI use of having it generate a basic summary and then you completely changing it so that no form of AI is in the text I believe is condoned. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :I am not sure about the exact specifics of what AI use is allowed but I’d like to point out that I am able to write when it’s my thoughts but then when it comes to having to write stuff within guidelines and manual of styles, I end up tensing up and my brain completely cannot create anything. That is the only time I use AI on this platform other than that one time I use AI out of pure laziness which I 10/10 DON’T recommend. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :I am not sure if this above is correct so I would appreciate if someone here especially @] clarified if this is allowed or not. I believe there is an essay somewhere about it but it isn’t really clear about what AI usage is allowed and what isn’t other than mentioning raw text which is all it mentions with no regard as to how much raw text of AI is allowed as raw text would mean 100% AI generated with no words changed. | |||
| :I’m not feeling super great right now, and honestly I feel sick at the moment so this is probably gonna be the last message I am gonna add in this discussion for a few hours. | |||
| :<br> | |||
| :Cheers,<br> | |||
| :] (]) 19:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are looking for ]. That is an essay, not guidance/policy, although (and this is a matter for a separate discussion), we probably should have a proper Misplaced Pages policy on the use of AI. ]] 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was about to begin a reply with "]",{{dummy ref|TOMATS}} but it looks like that month-ago discussion has not yet been closed or archived. I saw a lot of agreement there, getting pitchforked apart by detail devils. A well read closure should help move us forward with the word­smithing. ] (]) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Courtesy pings to increase discussion as the following pings all commented in the sections prior. | |||
| :@] | |||
| :@] | |||
| :@] | |||
| :@] | |||
| :{{ping|Black Kite}} | |||
| :{{ping|Bugghost}} | |||
| :{{ping| isaacl}} | |||
| :{{ping| CommunityNotesContributor}} | |||
| :{{ping| Randy Kryn}} | |||
| :{{ping|Bbb23}} | |||
| :{{ping| Cullen328}} | |||
| :{{ping| Simonm223}} | |||
| :{{ping|Folly Mox}} | |||
| :{{ping| Bgsu98}} | |||
| :{{ping|Yamla}} | |||
| :Sorry for the delay CNC. | |||
| :Cheers, <br> ] (]) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::If I'm missing anyone, let me know and I will ping. ] (]) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please don't send mass ping ] to all participants without a specific reason (increasing discussion is not a specific reason for sending notifications for this specific place in the thread). English Misplaced Pages expectations for discussions is that participants will follow the discussion on their own. ] (]) 02:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seconding Isaacl - these pings were unecessary. Editors who wanted to follow this discussion would have subscribed. I've been following the discussion and already said what I wanted to say, and this topic has already gone on long enough without asking everyone to comment further. ] ] 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My personal opinion is that LLM content is not able to be brought into compliance with Misplaced Pages copyright restrictions and is highly disrespectful of others in article talk. As such I don't believe there is any place for LLMs and other chatbots in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Since we're here (at the most visible venue): ] (2023) concludes inconclusively. {{Slink|Special:Permalink/1265594360|Copyright of LLM output}} (December 2024) seems to indicate potential CC-BY-SA compliance varies by which giant tech behemoth's proprietary AI implementation is used. Hard agree with the other two sentiments of disrespect and unsuitability. ] (]) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That's interesting. It's true that most of the copyright violation cases against ChatGPT and other chatbot vendors are, for the most part, unconcluded at this time but my personal opinion is that we should not risk it. ] (]) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes, of course, a very good statement of contrition and hope for future editing (hopefully not all AI). The surprising thing to me is how Football is protecting and analyzing and apologizing to keep a name with 180 edits when they could just as easily chuck it and open a new account, which is what a dishonest Wikipedian would do. Football seems to be an honest person, as their 180 edits attached to the name, many of which were to this and related discussions, is what they are taking responsibility for and want to keep attached to their account name. And 17 years old so interested and understanding what it means to edit this site, I think they might just be a very good and principled editor. ] (]) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' the last change mentorship that has been offered by CNC, as it is the best step forward. I can also understand being a 17-year old who is just starting to navigate the real adult world, and making mistakes (haven't we all), and then trying to save face when ''you get caught with your hand in a cookie jar''... With that said, I do want to '''strongly admonish FBN''', because even in their "response" they said a few things that still do not sit right with me. For example {{tq|I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone }} however, Folly Mox asked about their prior statement of "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering and their age, they said simply {{tq|That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies.}}. That is in addition to their own statement earlier in the "response" stating that they kept using the phase that ''they didn't use chat GPT'' even whens specifically asked about LLM, and that they {{tq|now realise was evasive}} -- I believe that it wasn't until this ANI that they realized they were being decepitve. I also take great pause at the statement of {{tq|to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy}}. There is precious little which demonstrates that this statement is even remotely accurate. Even in raising this ANI, very few of the instructions were followed. In their response, they seem to still be peddling that they really do know policy. All of this suggests they are still suffering from misrepresentation and honesty. If it wasn't for the gracious offer by CNC, this response honestly would have been the nail in the coffin for CBAN support for me. ] ] 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:49.206.48.151 == | |||
| * | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :''Donald Rumsfeld was fishing off the coast of Melbourne in 2002 when he came across a great white shark. The shark attempted to drag the entire boat under water, but Rumsfeld jumped into the water, killed the beast, and ate it raw. Thus, he has become a great white shark that can walk on land but uses the human appearance in order to avoid frightening children.'' | |||
| Please keep ] off my talk page . See also . --] (]) 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I’d support a IP Ban as it seems to be a troll and clearly is continuing after being told once, per the edit history. ] (]) 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| They're already on two warnings! Hysterical! :) ] 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have given them a warning - if they continue, let me know. In future you should try and talk to them before coming to ANI. ]] 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::They continued . ] (]) 15:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Blocked, thanks. ]] 15:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == 2403:580E:EB64:0::/64: disruptive changes to UK nationalities == | |||
| :Oh shit, Buddy you have balls! Nice ] 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocktannia rules the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] is an intermittent but disruptive editor whose last edit was today (my time) and who seems to have quite a bee in their bonnet about describing people or things as English ... they very much prefer them to be described as British. They use highly emotive and inflammatory edit summaries to make their point, ranging from ] to ]. They have been warned in ] and ] in ]. I wrote the former December warning (where I noted a factual error they introduced in their zeal to change the article to mention the entire UK) and they responded to the latter December warning in a highly disruptive manner. I think some sort of block is in order, at the very least. It's hard to communicate with /64 editors like this but I and other editors have tried our best, additionally including ], which they haven't violated in their last two article edits (though one could argue ] violated their warning). ] (]) 15:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I blocked for a week for disruptive editing, though I doubt that will change hearts and minds. ] (]) 16:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == New Family Family Rises Again == | |||
| *Not to encourage vandalism, but it's great to see somebody at the Senate has a sense of humour! ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|New Family Family Rises Again}} | |||
| Some odd initial edits to their own user page, and then falsely adding the admin top icon to a user blocked several years ago, for among other things, impersonating an administrator. Probably a sock, but even if not, something is amiss. ] (]) 16:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe from the usertalk page that it's the House of Representatives, not the Senate. Note the request ] that the Foundation be notified immediately if this address is blocked. ] 18:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, I didn't even initially realize those odd initial edits were back in 2020, around the time when said other user was blocked. ] (]) 16:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Silly Representatives... This is better than me issuing warnings to the Belgian Parliament! ] ] 19:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That this was the user's first edit in 5 years is definitely strange. I reverted their latest one. ] (]) 18:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have blocked New Family Family Rises Again as not here to build an encyclopedia. We do not need trolls who lie, even if their editing is infrequent. ] (]) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Air crash vandal == | |||
| ::Expect a "Free Editing For All" bill decreeing an end to blocks and bans on freely-editable websites to appear on the schedule when the next sitting starts. The representative who proposes it is probably our perp... ] <small>]</small> 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{User|180.252.28.172}} has done nothing but vandalize air crash pages and insert unsourced content while openly bragging about it . Taking this to ANI because it is taking more than 6 hours again for AIV to resolve the matter. ] (]) 08:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} ] (]) 08:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vandalism reported to ]== | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == MAB Teahouse talk == | |||
| User PhatD is continually vandalizing the page for Indian Head, Saskatchewan. http://en.wikipedia.org/Indian_Head%2C_Saskatchewan Thanks for your attention to this matter. | |||
| ] 18:04, 9 November 2006 (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) | |||
| == Firehose needed at ] == | |||
| :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) | |||
| The saffron crowd and the snark patrol (I'm in the latter group) are going at it without approaching a consensus. - ] 18:11, 9 November 2006 (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) | |||
| :The debate is to esoteric for me. :) ] | ] 19:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, I've fixed that. — ] (]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Looks like today they're hitting every help page they can find. ] (]) 09:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Moarnighar == | |||
| :Seems like a pretty bitter content dispute, but a content dispute all the same. --] 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Moarnighar}} | |||
| * pinging editors from ]: {{ping|Rsjaffe|Callanecc|Spicy}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| * pinging editors from ]: {{ping|Gidonb|GreenC|Allan Nonymous|Rainsage|Aaron Liu}} | |||
| * also pinging {{ping|Alpha3031}} | |||
| This editor is making problems once more. As has been noted at SPI for making a very dubious keep (normal, not speedy) close of an AfD (), launching ] afterwards. They also made several promotional edits: . Note that both of the articles have seemingly been affected by UPE. I am also concerned about their username. ] (]) 14:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This user linkspammed his site "Fantastic Reviews" over a number of author articles. Would be grateful if someone with the tools could roll-back his edits. ] 19:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Kosem Sultan - warring edit == | |||
| Cleaned up. Second spam warning issued. ]|] 04:12, 10 November 2006 (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 | |||
| ==Query about ] and ]== | |||
| 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. | |||
| Evidence has emerged that a user who is editting a ] page may actually be the person in question. When posted the question as to whether the user was the person in question, he demanded I remove it per ]. Could I get some administrator opinions on this matter? Please respond on my ]. Thanks, ] 19:53, 9 November 2006 (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: | |||
| '''Correction''': This is a misrepresentation. The above user (ScienceApologist) is attempting to rescue himself from a discussion of his own problematic editing behavior at ], especially . He has no evidence of the sort he claims, and in fact, it is not I but ''he'' who has a history of improper editing on the biography page in question. He is engaged in harassment for purposes of diversion. Thank you, ] 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267744138#Kosem_Sultan_was_wife_of_Ahmed_I. | |||
| 2) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267749540#Kosem_was_wife_of_Ahmed | |||
| (I do not know if I linked this correctly, but both shound be find in history of talk page of user with today date) | |||
| I hope it can be seen I was willing to discuss things and I even proposed to merge ours versions, if only this person provide scholar source - which they didn't, as Tik Tok video they linked contardicts statement from my book (see details in discussions). | |||
| : Asmodeus, knock it off. I've already told you you have a ] problem and that SA didn't do anything wrong. ] 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I also want to add that blocked user called Cecac https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:K%C3%B6sem_Sultan#Marriage | |||
| used exactly the same argument, as historian in Tik Tok provided by 109.228.104.136. I do not know if 109.228.104.136 and Cecac are the same person, but I think it should be checked. | |||
| Finally, I do not know how much video made on Tik Tok should be considered as reliable source, so I am not sure how to act in this situation. | |||
| Again I apologize if I leave this message in wrong board - there were multiple issues so I decided to list them all. Please notify me if I am allowed edit Kosem's page and brought back informations, as I really want avoid going back-and-forth and do not want to be blocked myself. --] (]) 14:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == {{user5|Suicidal_tendancies}} == | |||
| :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) | |||
| See . I have a problem with this username, I am wondering if it is at all founded. ] 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm giving a username block. - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::What? Why? It's the name of a band, among other things. I oppose this. --] (<big>]]</big>) 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's a ''misspelled'' name of a band actually. Note that name blocks can also be given for names that match those of a real-world organisation. — ] ] 20:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please do not make him change it. I find it a little upsetting that you would have a problem with it. Pushing subjects like suicide under the carpet contribute to keeping it taboo, something that 'shouldn't be talked about'. It has been a previaling attitude of the past. I write as someone who works on the articles around this subject on WP. Anyway I think he has chosen it, however, as he likes the band of the same name. I think it would be unfair should he have to change it. Thanks --{{unsigned|Amists}} | |||
| ::::I say keep it. Why censor a username that isn't an insult to anyone directly and is probably just referencing the band. --] 21:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == SPA User:Muzaffarpur1947 and persistant removal of negative information about ] == | |||
| The user name is in violation of the user name policy. ] 21:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Muzaffarpur1947}} | |||
| :It's borderline ] violation, though I imagine this is a reference to the band and not any statement of intention. Personally I don't think it is that big of a deal. That said, the user has on ] and ] and probably deserves a cooling off block.--] 21:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| User ] has been warned for removing negative information and and uncited information, seems content to keep trying to blank these sections out of articles and replace them with uncited positive blubs. Persisting past warnings from other editors. Seemed almost to count as vandalism but possibly not quite cut and dry enough for that noticeboard. | |||
| This user's was a request for user name change, so s/he obviously shared these concerns, at least at some point. ] 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Diffs are pretty much . ] 15:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Is it just me or is username blocking being applied in a non-uniform and inconsistent fashion?] 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, after a look at the guideline, I'd say it's a little broad and open to interpretation. Additionally, I agree that we should not block people for simply referring to certain things, such as violent or illegal activities. Would ] be blocked? --] (<big>]]</big>) 22:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If it's just a reference to a band, I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like the person is promoting suicide or anything like that. ] 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Would it maybe be a big deal to ask Crz to revert his hasty block then, at least for now? --] 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Seriously, this guy's name is not offensive. An offensive name is something that includes profanity or racism or things like that, just because a name has the word "suicide" doesn't mean it should be indef blocked! I say let him keep it! And revert that block! --] 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If it's a reference to a band, it's disallowed as an infringement on their brand. Otherwise, it is completely inappropriate due to reference to suicide. Yes, Murderous Rage, Impulse to Rape, and Misogynistic Boor are all inappropriate for the same reason - they bring the project to disrepute. However, in the face of opposition, I will revert myself. - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::For anyone keeping score, Sean Black blocked him for being a troll. ] 01:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, that's probably for the best. In his defense, however, I feel I need to point out that it's not completely incorrect to call me an asshole. --] (<big>]]</big>) 06:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Evading Article-Ban == | |||
| ==194.144.111.210== | |||
| {{atop|1=], and it was a ], not a ]. Closing this. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Please block . This user to wage '''edit war''', '''all''' users '''reverted''' this edition . This user have many '''caution in discussion''' . PS. ]. ] 17:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{User|Westwind273}}, who was banned from editing ] and its TP last week following an ANI for uncivil behavior, appears to be evading their ban through their talk page in order to display the same uncivil, ] and ] posts that betray ] and ] behavior, not to mention their refusal to drop the stick that led to them being kicked off the article in the first place. See and . ] (]) 16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Many % edits from this user is editwars or 3RR. See: - all 17 editions --> 13! editions is edit war or/and 3RR. ] 20:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You must be kidding. How am I evading the ban? No one who is editing the Jeju article is bothering to read my talk page. Why would they? Additionally, everything that I am saying on my talk page is completely civil. I am not making personal attacks on anyone in any way. I think you need to drop the stick on this. ] (]) 17:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == {{User|Just an onlooker}} == | |||
| :Westwind273 does not appear to have been banned? The previous ANI appears to be ], but that seems to have resulted in blocks, not a ban. | |||
| :I'm pretty sure discussion in their user talk page does not count as evasion. – ] (]) (]) 17:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::A pageblock is not the same thing as a topic ban, {{u|Borgenland}}. I see no problem with their comments on their own talk page. ] (]) 18:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with Cullen328, as the one whose comment the user in question is responding to. For what it's worth, I do not foresee this editor being constructive elsewhere but have no issue as long as they don't escalate to personal attacks and keep to their talk page.--] ] 19:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == NOt here account == | |||
| This user has created a numerous new accounts: {{User|Vegetarian Friend}}, {{User|Vegetables76}}, {{User|Veggies for life}}, and {{User|Vegetarian Friend}} to continually dodge the 3RR rule and revert changes I've made (and properly sourced) on the ] article (''sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists''.) This user has a history of sockpuppet use to circumvent policy and avoid scrutiny from other editors. The user has also engaged in making uncivil remarks to both myself and ] in the process. Note that one of the users current puppets ] was just recently blocked for violation of the 3RR rule. Thanks. ] 20:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I've blocked all the socks I can find, leaving the puppeteer (]) unblocked, but perhaps a ban on this user would be appropriate. So what's the next step? --] <sup>] · <font color="green">]</font></sup> 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{User|203.30.15.99}} But this ] is pretty much saying they will continue unless they are sanctioned. ] (]) 16:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Not an account; already blocked for a month by {{u|Bbb23}}. ] (]) 18:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Activity by banned user == | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Transphobia in my talk page by 136.57.92.245 == | |||
| ] has apparently created a sock, ], which I have blocked indefinitely. I'm not familiar with his case; does his one-year ban "reset" each time he breaks it? If so, the ban clock should be reset. --] <sup>] · <font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=IP blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{Userlinks|136.57.92.245}} has posted the following - | |||
| ] - to my talk page, after I reverted a section blank which was done to ]. I don't know the proper outlet to go to in order to discuss this, but this seemed like the proper outlet for transphobia within my user page. | |||
| ] (]) 17:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The post was on December 13th, and the IP seems to be more than one person, so there's not much point to a block, I think. You can certainly remove the posting. ] (]) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, he's blocked indefinitely due to legal threats. See his user talk page for more information. 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I know we don't block IP addresses indefinitely, but this one seems to be used by only one person (or if by more than one they have remarkably similar interests), so a short preventative block is possible if they make any more such comments. ] (]) 17:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::136.57.92.245's edits to ], the apparent prelude to the personal attack, span a period of 29 days. – ] (]) (]) 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :(Not an admin) I've left them a level 4 warning for the personal attack. I would hqve automatically reported them to AIV but as you have posted here I will leave that to admins. ] (]) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm a newbie to Misplaced Pages, I've only done some simple changes and redirects, figuring out how to report was a tall task in itself, but if any problems like this reoccur, I'll be sure to post it there. Thank you. ] (]) 17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've placed a three-month {{tl|anonblock}}. They don't need a warning and they don't seem to be multiple people. They can request an unblock if they're willing to talk about their hate. ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == IP User 103.109.59.32 persisting in unsourced inflation of Buddhist population numbers == | |||
| ==Promotion of Business== | |||
| *{{IPlinks|103.109.59.32}} | |||
| This IP was temporarily blocked a few days ago for persistently editing articles about religion to greatly increase the Buddhist population numbers and decrease the numbers for other faiths. Upon expiry of the block they have immediately resumed the same behavior (for example and ), and are attempting to cite the numbers they inserted to advocate for changes in other articles (for example ). Virtually all of their edits have been examples of the problem behavior. -- ] ] 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :While I certainly understand concerns that American demographic sources are making systematic mistakes regarding the population of China the IP is not going about this in anything remotely resembling an appropriate method. ] (]) 18:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] is using the definition of the word ] to promote himself and his business. | |||
| == User:CNMall41 is Removing reliable sources and contents == | |||
| ==UNFONE problems== | |||
| {{Atop|I blocked OP as a sock at SPI.--] (]) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I just received the following email: | |||
| *{{userlinks|CNMall41}} | |||
| :''Hello, I am emailing you just to mention something. My name is Daniel Rigby. I happen to be the topic of the article I mentioned in my subject (<http://en.wikipedia.org/Daniel_Rigby>http://en.wikipedia.org/Daniel_Rigby). I just want to mention a few things. I, along with Charles Phllips (bobsfoot, UNFONE, ) work for the University of North Florida. I would prefer it if you would revert the topic link and the contents of the article to its state before Charles edited them. I can do the version myself, but I can’t change the topic I believe. I already reverted on of the topics Charles edited before (article on metrosexual, if you look in the history, you will notice the edits by bobsfoot and the subsequent suspension of his account). You will also notice that the image used in the edit of metrosexual is the same image used in the topic he made about me under Daniel Rigby. The photo itself is a photo shopped image of Mark Smith, a third coworker of ours. Finally, you should be able match the ips of UNFONE to the same as those used by bobsfoot to edit the metrosexual entry (further proof the UNFONE account is a sock puppet) since Charles tends to use the same computer at work to vandalize wikipedia. Anyway, I usually don’t care enough to do anything about it, but I’d prefer an entirely bogus entry (Yes he made up everything in that article) with my name on it not stay on wikipedia. While Charles may not have much faith in wikipedia I do, and I would prefer it stay a good source of correct information (I use it all the time). Thanks for your time.'' | |||
| ] is Removing reliable sources like ], ], ] from ]. He also removed the list from ]. Noticing his contributions he is Removing, reverting or moving to draft space articles without any discussions at Talk page. I also noticed that he always through the new Misplaced Pages users in Sock puppet investigations. He also a major user who delete, revert or move pages from main space to draft space related to Television and film from ] and ]. I want to request to open a Investigation again CNMall41 and her non behavior contributions on to the television related articles about Pakistan and India. He also harasses user to keep away from her talk page. Please take a look on that. Thank you <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Looks like sock and vandal problems... ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I removed the unreliable sourcing which is non-bylined, , etc. SPI also filed . --] (]) 18:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *], you have been an editor for 5 days now unless you are a returning editor evading a block. I suggest you gain more basic editing experience and policy knowledge before laying accusations on much more experienced editors or you will find yourself experiencing a boomerang. You also don't know much about how Misplaced Pages works if you think you can request that an "investigation" can be "opened" and you didn't even offer any diffs to support your claims so this is going nowhere. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a content dispute that should be handled on the talk page and if not resolved there, taken to DR. (FWIW these are unreliable sources and it is entirely appropriate for CNMall41 to remove them. This should be promptly closed with a ] to the filer. ] (]) 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Punch-up brewing at CFD== | |||
| :: {{re|Dclemens1971}} Given the precociousness of the complaining "new" editor, I think a ] would be better than a ] in this case. ] ] 19:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| A bucket of cold water needs to be hurled at various editors of ] - claims and counterclaims of vote deletion and vandalism; looks like this needs watching. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Correct, I typed that before I saw there was an SPI opened. ] (]) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Looking at the ] history, ] may need a closer look outside of the CU results. To my eye, the evidence shows a pretty close connection. ] ] 19:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, specifically and . Glad you saw that without me pointing it out. --] (]) 19:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have not filed at ANI yet, but if you look at the most recent filings in the linked SPI case, there are other users involved that were not caught up in the CU which are still likely SOCKS and UPE. --] (]) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Per recent claims, I have opted not to close this as I was originally going to do as this comment. This recent new information clearly warrants this discussion. ] (]) 19:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == IP persistently removing sourced content. == | |||
| :Agreed. As one of the protagonists, I can point out that we have even had ] ppuring out barrages of personal abuse, and making two attempts to move ALL of the oppose votes off to a separate CFD (see for one instance). | |||
| :The whole CFD should in any case have been closed at the outset as an abuse of the CFD process, because it seeks to strike out a category contrary to existing guidelines at ]. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I keep looking over that diff, but I don't see a single removal of a keep vote. ] 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe I got the wrong diff :( | |||
| :::Anyway, at 17:50, 9 November 2006 here's the : 3 deletes, 4 keeps | |||
| :::... and at 20:15, 9 November 2006 here's the nonomy has been at work: 3 deletes, no keeps (all the keeps have been moved off to a separate CFD, below). | |||
| :::That's aside from the current state of the CFD, hich has split out the male-only categories, and kept the female-only ones. The vore-deleting nominator claims that it is bad faith to remove a male-only gendered category, but a great idea to remove a female-only one. | |||
| :::How often do we have to go through all this? The only gendered categories that I know of comply with ], but there is a hard core of dissidents who refuse to acknowledge the existence of the guidelines and press CFDs on a regular basis This is the third CFD in a few months to remove a women legislators in the UK category :( --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I there see votes by ] and ] at 9:44 and 13:54 UTC. Then at 15:24 UTC you stick eight new categories above their votes, which makes it appear that they voted for these eight categories as well. I see your point about frustrating the intent of the keep votes, but it appears you did the same with delete votes. | |||
| :::::"This is the third CFD in a few months to remove a women legislators in the UK category :( " - Just a guess, but that sounds to me like that could be considered consensus. And if we add in all the other gender-based discussions (such as the recent deletion of all the actress categories, and so on), it really would appear to be so. In any case, this discussion would appear to be better served on CfD. Though I am troubled by another case of BrownHairedGirl modifying a nomination to suit her preferences, rather than making suggestions and and attempting to discuss in order to come to consensus. See the "see also" below for what I'm referring to. - ] 01:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been persistently well removing sourced content from the articles ], ], ], ] where the content discusses the involvement of people under the age of 18 in those subjects, on the basis of some of the people involved also being over 18. Glancing at their edit history you can see that they have ]red on all four of those articles, although they may have stopped short of breaking 3RR in most cases they are continuing to be disruptive and acting as those they are ]. In they changed the content to state that Burusera products are legal for under 18s to sell, despite clearly understanding that they are not - I would say that amounts to deliberate disruption/vandalism. ---- ]-'']'' -- 19:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Both of you people need a time-out. ] 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Additionally, I can see that you did not give me the wrong diff, but I did not understand it until your recent explanation. ] 01:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>Courtesy ping, {{ping|Cassiopeia|KylieTastic|p=}} also have tried to warn this IP user.</small> -- ]-'']'' -- 19:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with the bucket of cold water. I took a look, and was so dismayed by the state of the discussion that I was unable to vote in any other way than "Be nice?" --] 01:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::While they don't leave edit summaries except for the section headings, it looks like some of their edits were removing inappropriate content from these articles. Can you provide diffs of edits that you find problematic? Generally, when making an argument that an editor is being disruptive, the OP provides diffs that support that accusation and I don't find the one edit you link to serious enough to issue a sanction. I mean, we are already talking about articles that border the line on pornography. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's the ignoring warnings and lack of discussion that's the issue, so pointing to individual diffs doesn't show the whole picture. But to give a couple more specific examples: is deliberately misleading, "High school students include those who are legally 18 years old." is obviously a true statement but doesn't relate to the content being removed - which is about Australia's laws on the matter do apply to adults. . I can't see any instance where they removed removed inappropriate content - rather they seem focussed on removing content that mentions any laws. -- ]-'']'' -- 06:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == 92.22.27.64 is edit-warring and abusing editors at ] and on talk == | |||
| *See also: ], also on this page, for a possibly related situation. - ] 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked ] <sub>]</sub> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{IPlinks|92.22.27.64}} | |||
| Can we get help with an editor who is repeatedly adding poorly sourced, fringe theories into ]? They have been warned several times (, , and ). This started due to insertion of poorly sourced fringe material, such as , into the article, including in the lede . Then there was some edit warring , and . Then accusing editors of covering up "mass child rape" when they attempted to clean up the article , , and . The editor doesn't want to engage and keeps reinserting dubious text, including implications about BLPs. ] (]) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Also note the causal transphobia as well definitely neads a block. ] (]) 20:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looks like the IP has been blocked for a week. ]] 21:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Edit warring on US politicians around the ] == | |||
| I don't think is going to help.... ] 02:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = The Lord of Misrule is blocked for edit warring and there is no merit to their retaliatory report. If disruption returns when the block expires, escalating sanctions can be considered. ] ] 04:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| *{{userlinks|The Lord of Misrule}} | |||
| I'm getting caught up into an edit war with {{userlinks|The Lord of Misrule}} regarding the so-called "Gaza genocide" on ], ], and ]. Rather than continue, I am extricating myself and bringing their conduct here. From my attempts on their talk page, including the Arab-Israel, BLP, and American politics (post 1992) contentious topic warnings, are going unheeded. – ] (]) 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Any so-called "commentary" has been removed, ie "complicity" and now just facts related to the subject and topic remain, yet here we are. Cheers ] (]) 20:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Left a message on ] re: the above diff. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I will note, per the International Criminal Court, any material support for War Crimes, like funding or vetos allowing war crimes to continue in the UN Security Council, are themselves War Crimes https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf Cheers ] (]) 21:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unless you can find a RS to back that up, that would be OR. ]] 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I just reverted TLoM's most recent , {{tq|has vetoed 5 ceasefire agreements.}} when the source says {{tq|vetoed five resolutions, including three calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, one Russian oral amendment, and a proposal for full Palestinian membership in the U.N.}} The '''three''' ceasefire vetoes are already documented in the article. Elevating this to a separate section and misrepresenting the source violate ]. I question whether TLoM should be editing BLPs. ] ] 21:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I find this editors removal of information vs an easy correction of the word "agreement" to "resolution" troubling at best and biased at worst. This section is ripe for expansion as more scholarly works will be forthcoming. It seems the editor would rather delete this information rather than correct and provide more information. Cheers ] (]) 21:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::If {{tqq|more scholarly works will be forthcoming}}, then ] when ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@], they ] by @] on the 17/02/2024. Should this perhaps be best addressed at ]? '']''<sup>]</sup> 21:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No need. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring on three pages in violation of ]. If it continues after the block, please simply let me know on my talk page (or re-report here and feel free to notify me). ] (]) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Will do. – ] (]) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given the thread below I think we should discuss a topic-ban here and now, rather than going thru AE. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 21:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}} Perhaps. I was going to initially bring this to 3RRNB but decided to bring it here. – ] (]) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Removal of legitimately sourced information concerning ongoing Genocide in Gaza === | |||
| == Willy on Wheels == | |||
| {{atop|1=Retaliatory. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|Bbb23}} has removed legitimately sourced information regarding the subject's involvement with the ]. Cheers ] (]) 21:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :What subject? ] (]) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@], see the directly above discussion. '']''<sup>]</sup> 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Tendentious editor == | |||
| I think ] might be Willy on Wheels, and as such needs to be blocked indefinitely. Check his contributions. -- '''<font color="blue">]</font>]] <font color="blue">/</font> <font color="blue">]</font>''' 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Red link~ --] 00:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The fact that the username comes up a redlink means that there is no user''page''; it doesn't necessarily mean there is no corresponding user. In any event, Steel359 has already blocked indef. ] 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, of course. My mistake. --] 00:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not a problem; I've made the same mistake. ] 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think the original WoW is even around anymore; "on wheels" has pretty much become a stock phrase for general vandals. --] <small>(])</small> 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Single purpose account {{Userlinks|NicolasTn}} is reverting again . They want to expand the lead which is disputed. They have been warned not to edit war. They claim to "restore deletion" most of which introduced by them to the lead, but in the process removing other sourced information and adding back errors. They know where to discuss edits but avoid doing so as much as they can, so I don't think enough discussion exists to initiate dispute resolution. . ] (]) 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :It looks like this article page history has been an edit war between the two of you. You both responded at ], why not try to continue that discussion or, eventually, try ]? Neither of you have had made much use of the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll just note that this editor, who has only made 51 edits, hasn't edited in 3 days so they may not respond here immediately. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Adillia == | |||
| I first noticed him when he redirected ] to the article for Bulgarians, which was the first edit on the account. He's now gone on to remove information from myriad articles without making any comments on the Talk page. Still no productive edits from the username. When I put the vw tag on his Talk page, he accused me of being the vandal. ] 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|Aidillia}} | |||
| : He's now reverting my reverts which had return the articles to the earlier, consensus version. His edit commentaries are aping mine. ] 00:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It looks like he's just removing words in languages other than English, which is fairly standard procedure. Instead of shouting vandal at eachother, you should discuss whether or not those place-name translations add value to the articles they're in. | |||
| ::Yannakis, please do not remove this section. Whether or not it's the best way to do things, it is definitely not ].--] 00:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've blocked. Although it's possible he's acting in good faith somehow, so I've asked him to explain himself. -- ] 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think he most likely is. A lot of articles start with "'''Someword''' (''blah'' in French, ''blorp'' in Spanish, ''blumph'' in German)," which is not something we're supposed to do in the English-language WP without very good reason which is pointed out within the article. | |||
| ::::I really, really hate to see people get so excited about catching someone else doing something wrong that they completely skip over the "discuss the issue" step. | |||
| ::::Incidentally, CRCulver, you're at ] for the day on at least one of those, so be careful that you don't get blocked too. --] 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The guy was an obvious sockpuppet of some banned user, probably ], like several others that have been plaguing these articles recently. And the matter of what foreign names to include in these articles has been discussed extensively. ] ] 02:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::'Kay. --] 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've been avoiding that user ever since we were blocked for edit warring on ] but they keep going at every edits I made, specifically the recent ones on the files I uploaded like ] and ], where the file are uploaded in ] and abided ] but they keep messing up. I'm still at lost and not sure what's their problem with my edits. Additional: I will also hold accountability if I did ]. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. ] ] 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Let me be clear: I'm not sure he requires a block ''yet'', although I have made several attempts over the last few weeks to explain to this user how Misplaced Pages operates and how he is expected to participate. However, I'm hesitant to start with a long drawn-out RfC, mediation cabal, or ArbCom case because I think he honestly believes that he is following policy, and a short sharp shock to show him that what he is doing is indeed in violation of community norms may be sufficient to get him to change his ways. That said: | |||
| :I've many proof that shows you're the one who start the problem. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| About a week ago, I accepted an AMA case between ] and ]. The two users were involved in a content dispute regarding the ] and ] articles. As an advocae for Yajaec, I contacted Folken de Fanel and requested that, until a community consensus could be reached regarding their dispute, they both agree to stop editing the article. Yajaec had already agreed to do that ( and ). | |||
| ::] you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::] i upload as per their official social media. But rather used a poster version, and in the end i revert it. Same like what u did to me on ]. I don't know what is this user problem, first upload the incorrect poster than re-upload again with the correct poster which i already uploaded, then need a bot to resize it. (So unnecessary) <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I reverted that because it was too early to say that the poster is indeed the main one at that time when it was labeled as . You know that we rely more on ] ] ] rather on official website or social media accounts as they are ], so I don't know why you were offended by a revert. ] ] 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] and ]. I have other ] in real life. ] ] 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you're that busy, please stop reverting my edits/uploads without any clear explanation. Just like what you did on ]. You will just engaged in ]. I've also seen you revert on ]; someone reverted it to the correct one (which I uploaded), but you still revert to your preferred version without leaving an edit summary. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 08:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have partially blocked both of you from editing filespace for 72 hours for edit warring. I think an IBAN might be needed here. ] (]/]) 03:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Support''' an indefinite two-way interaction ban between D.18th and Aidillia. They've also been edit warring at ]. Also look at the move log there, which is ridiculous. These people need to stop fighting with each other. ] ] 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:D.18th == | |||
| Folken de Fanel then proceeded to post on the Advocacy Case discussion area explaining his side of the story. He also made a comment ("Without these 2 elements, I won't let him edit." - ) which led me to be believe that he might be claiming ownership of the articles in question, in violation of ]. He also accused Yajaec of "vandalism" for good-faith edits which Folken de Fanel believed to be containing false information. | |||
| {{atop|1=Withdrawn. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{Userlinks|D.18th}} | |||
| <s>This user keeps coming to wherever i made an edit. And this user also ignore ].</s> <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| After this, Yajaec, with my assistance, filed an RfC to request community input to solve the content dispute. Folken de Fanel claimed that it was "unnecessary", and asserted that he had proved his case and so there was no need to seek a consensus. | |||
| <s>:This user is the most number one who often comes in on my talk page first. But when I came to their talk page, i got restored or, worse, got reverted as vandalism.</s> <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Over the next week, I posted a series of comments on ] explaining to him how Misplaced Pages works, how disputes over content are resolved, and what is and is not "vandalism". I repeated this several times--and others have told me, informally, that I was clear and concise and correct in my points. Folken de Fanel, in his responses on ] merely reiterated his initial position and continued to refer to Yajaec as a "POV-pushing vandal" despite his clear good-faith actions to resolve the dispute properly, with community consensus. In my final two comments on his talk pages, I cited the specific policies he was violating and asked him to please stop, and pointed out that he could be blocked if he persists--in his last message, in which he requested that I contact him no further concerning this matter (a request I intend to honor), in addition to repeating the same assertions he claimed that my warnings that he may be subject to a block constituted "threats" and "personal attacks". | |||
| :{{re|Aidilla}} You have failed to notify {{User|D.18th}} of this discussion, as the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires. I know they already reported you above, but they may not be aware of your one in return. You will need to show clear diffs supporting the allegations that you've made; expecting us to act on this report with no such evidence is likely going to result in ]. Regards, ]. (] | ]). 04:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], you can't remove a post from ANI once it has been responded to by another editor. If you want to rescind your complaint then strike it by using code, <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will show up as <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{done}}, thanks! <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:Azar Altman and User:Farruh Samadov == | |||
| Anyway, like I said above I'm not sure a block is in order--perhaps someone could do a better job than I in explaining his errors and misunderstandings to him; on the other hand, as he honestly believes that what he is doing is in accord with Misplaced Pages policies and community norms, perhaps a "short sharp shock" will show him that he is not more than any argument could. ] 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Azar Altman}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Farruh Samadov}} | |||
| {{user|Azar Altman}} was ] for uncivil conduct and MOS violations. Shortley after their initial 72-hour block on December 27, a new user named {{user|Farruh Samadov}} appeared. One of their edits at ] is , the capital of Uzbekistan, in violation of ]. They did this three more times (, , ). And then Azar Altman reverted again twice (, ), leading me to suspect that Farruh Samadov is a ]. Both users edit in the Uzbekistan topic area and both user talk pages have warnings for MoS violations, but Samadov has never used uncivil language, as Altman did on their user talk and in their second edit I linked. –] (]]) 04:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I opened a a couple hours ago. It is indeed highly suspicious that Farruh Samadov was created only a few hours after this block was imposed. ] (]) 04:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Vader99 == | |||
| ::Pinging @] who was involved in the prior ANI and performed the block. ] ] 04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Suggest these accounts to be blocked as soon as possible if sockpupperty is confirmed. ] (]) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], yes, that's how that goes. ] (]) 13:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Regardless of SOCK, suggest that Azar receive another block of at least a week for continued disruption shortly after the block was lifted. They were reverted twice (as noted above) for the same edit by two different editors (Laundry and Melik). Their most recent edit summary was {{tq|Stop discriminating by violating Misplaced Pages rules.}} when MOS was specifically mentioned in the prior edit summary and they are abundantly notified about edit warring and not reverting-reverts. ] ] 05:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Sockpuppetry in Philippine articles == | |||
| This user has ] the ] and ] pages several times. I don't think this user had contributed anything positive to Misplaced Pages. There were multiple warnings on the user's ]. ] 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Already blocked: for 24 hours. ''semper fi'' — ] 05:06, 10 November 2006 (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) | |||
| == Request removal of inappropriate edit == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Could an administrator remove this edit - - from the edit history for ]? The edit is blank, but the description is absolutely horrible. Thanks. ] 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Done by Naconkantari @ 06:31, November 10, 2006. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 06:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Not quite sure what to do with this user, apparently leaving wikipedia. Had his page deleted, he recreated it with this text: | |||
| VZ Vermögenszentrum - this user named after their ] is heavily editing their bank wikipedia page. should be banned or warned at least. --] (]) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote><div style="font-size:200%">This username is free. </div> | |||
| :It is nearly six months since they made an edit. ] (]) 12:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| You may contact if you want it. | |||
| ::yes, you are right. If I see something similar in the future, where should I drop a notice? ] (]) 14:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Usernames for administrator attention (WP:UAA, I think), would be the first place to go, followed by WP:COIN, then depending on user response either to the renaming page or to AIV. ] (]) 14:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I |
:I will jot it down. many thanks ] (]) 14:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == SeanM1997 == | |||
| :Try emailing him about it first? --] 07:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::User has now with "I have archived my talk page. Please delete it. But do not delete my user page. I recreated it for someone who wants to use my username. - Emir214 07:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)" – ]] 07:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{User|SeanM1997}} | |||
| :::I'd just leave it guys, can't image we'll be having a huge rush on Emir214 requests... have we even been through 1-213 yet? ;) ] 08:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| User seems to think that sourcing is only clutter and keeps removing source requests and sometimes even sources. This despite ] and ]. Warnings and request completely fall on deaf ears. This is damaging the encyclopedia. See for example on Manchester Airport which show (in the edit summery) that he has no clue about what independent sources are. And where he removed sources for the connections with some unsourced additions and a source for the airline. | |||
| ::::Huh? Anyways, I don't know if I like this idea. Users are often judged based on their past contributions (giving leniency to users who have just recently become trolls, for example). Also, deleting the usertalk should be out of the question, as the links to the archives are the only access to them. -- ] <small>(])</small> 08:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Combined with ], giving him a ], I think something has to be done. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 12:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I thought there was a guideline someplace about not sharing your username or transfering it to anyone else, but I can't find it now. --] 08:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:22, 7 January 2025
Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
- Before posting:
- Consider other means of dispute resolution first
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion Centralized discussion- Refining the administrator elections process
- AI-generated images depicting living people
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 |
| 358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 |
| 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
| 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 |
| 337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 |
| Other links | |||||||||
Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from User:DarwIn
User:DarwIn, a known transphobic editor from pt.wiki, is harassing me here after his actions led me to leave that wiki permanently. He has also harassed me on Wikimedia Commons. I don't know what to do anymore. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace. This is severely impacting my mental health. Skyshiftertalk 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You don't seem to have notified the other editor. This is mandatory and this section may be closed if you fail to do so. Use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ on that user's talk page. Additionally, you don't seem to have provided specific diffs demonstrating harassment. Please do so. --Yamla (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- On pt.wiki, DarwIn proposed the deletion of articles I created about transgender topics (Thamirys Nunes and Minha Criança Trans), using transphobic arguments, including misgendering and questioning the validity of transgender children. After translating these articles to en.wiki, he is targeting the DYK nomination, again focusing on his personal transphobic beliefs - as it shows, he doesn't even know how DYK works. He insisted multiple times trying to include his transphobic comment on that page and has just edited it again. On Commons, for extra context, DarwIn unilaterally deleted images related to these articles, despite being clearly involved in the dispute.
- Again, I just want to collaborate with trans topics in peace. Skyshiftertalk 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. However, context is important. This is harassment that began on pt.wiki, has spread to Commons, and is now here. The history has been provided, but, sure, I can provide the diffs instead. He has unilaterally edited the DYK page and put a "disagree", despite this being not how DYK works. This is because he really doesn't know, as he only sporadically edits here and only came back to harass me. His comment is explicitly transphobic and doesn't focus on the article itself at all. After his comment was reverted by me, he insisted saying that I shouldn't call it transphobia, despite it being transphobia. After being reverted again, he reincluded the comment. I asked him to stop harassing me, but he has edited the page again.
- I just don't want to be targeted by that editor here. I've left pt.wiki in great part for that reason. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace here. Skyshiftertalk 13:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like yet another cross-wiki troll by this user. Already blocked at the Portuguese Wikipédia and Wikimedia Commons, the account is now promoting their POV here, including spreading lies, hideous slurs and baseless accusations against me like "known transphobic", after two of their creations were taken to community evaluation at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for lacking notability. The user is also a known sockpuppeter, with an open case for sockpuppetry at the Portuguese Wikipédia. In any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this case in yet another project apart from the strictly needed, so do as you please. Darwin 13:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been blocked on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which you are well known for abusing whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. Darwin 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- And here's explicit transphobia. It's her daughter, no matter how much you hate the idea of trans children existing. The story you've told is also completely distorted. Skyshiftertalk 13:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which you are well known for abusing whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. Darwin 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been blocked on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I simply don't want this editor targeting me with transphobic stuff here after he target me on pt.wiki (and left it permanently in great part for that reason) and Commons. I am considering taking medication because of these events. Skyshiftertalk 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would suggest Darwin review MOS:GENDERID. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? Darwin 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn, the bottom line is that you don't get to question that. As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is not the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them any good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. Darwin 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We're here because this "questioning" appears to be bleeding into transphobic harassment. I would support an indef based on edits like this Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. Darwin 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn, the bottom line is that you don't get to question that. As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is not the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them any good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The story told above is completely distorted to fit the transphobic's narrative. Simon223, if you want to get the full story, read Thamirys Nunes' page or read its sources (with the help of a translator if needed). Skyshiftertalk 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. Darwin 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including MOS:GENDERID) - otherwise you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. Darwin 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just so everyone knows, the facts are being quite distorted here. It wasn't really an imposition — her daughter, did not want to play with "boy toys", even when being forced by her mom. That's why the mom said she plays with "girl toys" and everything else. The references on said articles weren't thoroughly read, apparently by everybody here.
- Adding to this too: DarwIn, in some edits to the article in the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, added "quotes" on the word trans and some other parts of the articly, as if was his duty to judge if the girl is trans or not. Anyways, I think what happened in ptwiki stays there.
- And I want to make clear that I'm only stating the things that happened so everyone knows. I do not support blocking him. Eduardo G. 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. Darwin 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Four year olds are generally not considered babies. You really need to drop this - and probably to avoid editing in the WP:GENSEX area.Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest a topic ban is imposed. GiantSnowman 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would support a topic ban from WP:GENSEX. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Topic ban from GENSEX and BLP, broadly construed, is fine for me. GiantSnowman 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do understand this Misplaced Pages rules on BLP. Isn't that not enough for you? Darwin 16:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. GiantSnowman 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed the part when I very clearly stated there that I retired myself from that DYN debate. Darwin 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. GiantSnowman 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman nice try, but I don't edit on that topic, anyway. Let's calm down and enjoy the Christmas season. Darwin 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. Darwin 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You fundementally misunderstand the scope of WP:BLP and the concept of topic area as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. Darwin 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it was a collective you. Darwin 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The collective you did not pursue you here either. Only the OP appears to cross over. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it was a collective you. Darwin 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. Darwin 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You fundementally misunderstand the scope of WP:BLP and the concept of topic area as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. Darwin 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would support a topic ban from WP:GENSEX. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed this yesterday but intentionally didn't mention it since I felt there had already been enough nonsense. But since DarwIn is still defending their offensive comments below, I'd note that the child was 4 years old in 2019. It's now 2024 and they've evidentally seen a medical professional. If at any time they express a desire for a different gender identity we will of course respect that whatever her mother says; but at this time BLP full supports respecting a 8-9 year old and not treating her as a baby. Nil Einne (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- None of this is relevant. We follow sources and MOS:GENDERID. There is obviously no Misplaced Pages position on when someone is or is not a "baby" and should have their self-identification reproduced in their biography. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest a topic ban is imposed. GiantSnowman 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including MOS:GENDERID) - otherwise you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. Darwin 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? Darwin 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would suggest Darwin review MOS:GENDERID. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- They cannot be trusted. Above they said "I'm retiring myself from this topic" and yet has continued to post. GiantSnowman 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've continued to post where? Darwin 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've already walked away from it yesterday, why you're insisting on that lie? Darwin 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? GiantSnowman 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have my own disagreements with that guideline, and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. Darwin 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? Darwin 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn This one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. Darwin 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn Easiest way to defuse this is to post a bolded and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" Darwin 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is not an appropriate statement, it has your bias/agenda throughout it. Very concerning. GiantSnowman 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" Darwin 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn Easiest way to defuse this is to post a bolded and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. Darwin 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn This one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? Darwin 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. Darwin 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have my own disagreements with that guideline, and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? GiantSnowman 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Heres the main point I can see RE "Cross-wiki harassment." If DarwIn claims they do not regularly edit this topic space and had not previously participated in DYK discussions how did they come to find themselves there just in time to oppose the contribution of an editor they had extensive negative interactions with on another wiki? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- that's old stuff, I already posted a note there retiring from that space yesterday. I'm really puzzled on what all this fuss is about. Darwin 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't about the transphobia, this is about the harassment (they are seperate by apparently related claims). So how did you find yourself commenting on that DYK? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I expressed my disagreement with that note, justifying with my opinion, and there's not even any misgendering issue there, AFAIK. Not sure if expressing that opinion here is forbidden or not, but in any case I've posted a note retiring from it already yesterday, so I've no idea what more do you want. Darwin 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- precisely because we are currently in the process of evaluating the notability of that bio and association she created at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, so it's just natural that related issues on other wikis get monitored too, that's part of the process. You don't agree with that evaluation, and that's perfectly OK. To each Misplaced Pages their own stuff 🤷 Darwin 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's the wikipedia articles created yesterday that we are evaluating, not any kind of DYK note. Darwin 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? Darwin 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because of edits like this . Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- answering an accusation of being a dictator after flushing away the copyviios she uploaded. What's the problem? Darwin 17:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that diff is the undo. Thats you edit warring apparent harassment onto someone's talk page on another wiki with a kissing face as the edit summary... In that context this does look like cross wiki harassment. Do you have a better explanation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just answered the troll there with another, as I was on the middle of something else. Yes, I know, not the nicest thing to do, but whatever. And why are we discussing Commons here now, anyway? Darwin 17:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We're discussing cross wiki harassment, that makes edits on any wiki relevant to the discussion. You appear to have been harassing them on commons and then followed them here to continue the harassment because a temporary block there (which you appear to have had a hand in) prevented them from being active there. You absolutely can not do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I answered a troll, if there was any harassment was from that account towards me, not the opposite. Please don't invert the situation. Darwin 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits on enwiki had nothing to do with trolling or other behavioral issues from that account, if your edits on enwiki were to address valid concerns informed by your experience on other wikis we would not be having this discussion. It was also you restoring your comment which they removed from their talk page, thats you trolling them and it makes their dictator claim look not like trolling but rather accurate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I confess I've no idea why we are still having this discussion, as they were just that. But for the 50th time, these interactions have stopped long ago, and for a similar amount of time I've devotedly accepted and committed to all your rules. Darwin 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion we're still having this discussion because you are stonewalling, perhaps its a language barrier but you don't come off as trustworthy or engaging in good faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I confess I've no idea why we are still having this discussion, as they were just that. But for the 50th time, these interactions have stopped long ago, and for a similar amount of time I've devotedly accepted and committed to all your rules. Darwin 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits on enwiki had nothing to do with trolling or other behavioral issues from that account, if your edits on enwiki were to address valid concerns informed by your experience on other wikis we would not be having this discussion. It was also you restoring your comment which they removed from their talk page, thats you trolling them and it makes their dictator claim look not like trolling but rather accurate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I answered a troll, if there was any harassment was from that account towards me, not the opposite. Please don't invert the situation. Darwin 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We're discussing cross wiki harassment, that makes edits on any wiki relevant to the discussion. You appear to have been harassing them on commons and then followed them here to continue the harassment because a temporary block there (which you appear to have had a hand in) prevented them from being active there. You absolutely can not do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just answered the troll there with another, as I was on the middle of something else. Yes, I know, not the nicest thing to do, but whatever. And why are we discussing Commons here now, anyway? Darwin 17:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that diff is the undo. Thats you edit warring apparent harassment onto someone's talk page on another wiki with a kissing face as the edit summary... In that context this does look like cross wiki harassment. Do you have a better explanation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- answering an accusation of being a dictator after flushing away the copyviios she uploaded. What's the problem? Darwin 17:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because of edits like this . Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? Darwin 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's the wikipedia articles created yesterday that we are evaluating, not any kind of DYK note. Darwin 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- precisely because we are currently in the process of evaluating the notability of that bio and association she created at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, so it's just natural that related issues on other wikis get monitored too, that's part of the process. You don't agree with that evaluation, and that's perfectly OK. To each Misplaced Pages their own stuff 🤷 Darwin 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I expressed my disagreement with that note, justifying with my opinion, and there's not even any misgendering issue there, AFAIK. Not sure if expressing that opinion here is forbidden or not, but in any case I've posted a note retiring from it already yesterday, so I've no idea what more do you want. Darwin 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't about the transphobia, this is about the harassment (they are seperate by apparently related claims). So how did you find yourself commenting on that DYK? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- that's old stuff, I already posted a note there retiring from that space yesterday. I'm really puzzled on what all this fuss is about. Darwin 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I believe it may help too, if Darwin will promise to avoid interacting on main space with Skyshifter. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway. Darwin 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think Darwin should avoid interacting with Skyshifter on all spaces on en.wikipedia.org. It's clear Darwin has made Skyshifter feel uncomfortable, and I don't appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. Darwin 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary one-way interaction ban, broadly construed, as in effect. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway yes, that's correct. Darwin 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary one-way interaction ban, broadly construed, as in effect. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. Darwin 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think a one-way interaction ban between the editors would be for the best here. While I think there is some merit to a Gender and Sexuality tban, as some of Darwin's recent edits appear to be about righting great wrongs in the topic area, I believe the interaction ban would solve most of the issues raised here. Isabelle Belato 17:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? Darwin 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- All your edits related to the subject, both here and on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. Isabelle Belato 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato You're evaluating my edits on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages to punish me in the English Misplaced Pages? Darwin 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger Can you explain how my general edit history in wiki.pt is relevant in any way to an accusation of cross-wiki harassment? Darwin 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato You're evaluating my edits on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages to punish me in the English Misplaced Pages? Darwin 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- All your edits related to the subject, both here and on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. Isabelle Belato 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? Darwin 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Would recommend that Darwin walk away from the general topic. This would avoid any need for topic bans. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Clarification
- Hello @Nil Einne - and others. Please recall that my opinion was specifically over the declaration of the child gender by her mother at or before her 4th birthday, by her mother own account based on classical gender stereotypes. It's specifically about that. I've no way to know what gender the child is or will eventually be in the future, and gladly accept whatever she chooses - as I would if she was my own child. I've eventually been harsher than needed in the DYK comment because that specific situation where a minor is extensively exposed with full name, photographs, etc. by her parents on social networks, newspapers and whatelse is generally condemned in my country, to the point of eventually configuring a crime here. Obviously Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with that when it comes to the spread of information, but in my view - obviously wrong, from the general reaction here - exposing the child in yet another place, let alone wiki.en main page, was a bit too much.
- As for misgendering, I am one of the founders and former board member of ILGA Portugal, which after 30 years still is the main LGBT association in Portugal, though not an active member for many years for moving away from Lisbon, where it's headquartered. For more than 30 years I've been on the fight against homophobia and transphobia, not specially in Misplaced Pages, but on the streets, where it was needed in the 1990s here in Portugal, when the whole LGBT thing was just starting and most people couldn't even tell the difference between a drag queen and a trangender woman. I was beaten up, lost my 2 front teeth on homo/transphobic street fights (the first one at 18 years old, for publicly defending from booers in the audience a trangender girl which was acting at a local bar )- and whatelse. I never had even the least impulse to misgender any of the many trangender people that always have been around me, and the few situations where that may have happened were online with people that I knew for years as being one gender, and took a while to sink they are another, because online there's not the ever helping visual clue. So it's kind of disheartening to be treated like this in a strange place by people I don't know just because I expressed an (harsh, agreed) opinion defending the age of consent for children, and condemning their parents interference on that.
- The TBan is not very relevant for me, as I seldom edit here and despite the activism of my past days LGBT is not my primary interest on Misplaced Pages, but I'm considerably saddened by the misunderstandings, bad faith assumptions, false accusations that have been told here about me, though eventually the flaw is not in the whole group that has their own rules and culture, but in the newcomer which don't understand it well in all its nuances, as was my case here.
- Finally, as the misunderstandings continue, I never came here after Skyshifter, which as is public and she knows, I've always considered a good editor and helped several times with articles and what else (which is also why I felt confident to answer with a 😘 when she called me a dictator in another project, though it was obviously not the most appropriate way to answer it, and for which I apologize to Skyshifter). In this last row I wasn't even directly involved in her indefinite block in wiki.pt, despite being mentioned there. I didn't even touched the articles she created here on Thamirys Nunes and Minha Criança Trans or addressed she here in any way. I came here because of the DYK note, which, as said above, I thought was an exaggerated exposition for that case here on the English Misplaced Pages. As you extensively demonstrated here, it is not, and I defer to your appreciation. Despite that, after this whole situation I've not the least interest on interacting in any possible way with Skyshifter, with or without IBan.
- And that's it. Hopefully you'll excuse my verbosity, specially in such a festive day, but I felt this last clarification was needed. I also present my apologies to all those who may have felt offended by an eventual appearance of cockiness or defiance which I inadvertently sometimes transmit in my speech. I'll return here if specifically asked to, otherwise I'll leave the debate for this community. Again, stay well, and have an happy new year. Darwin 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Proposed Community Sanctions
I offered DarwIn an off ramp above and their response was to reiterate their views on a highly controversial subject and their responses to concerns about their interactions with Skyshifter have been entirely unsatisfactory. This looks a like a pretty clear case of IDHT revolving around their strong disagreement with one of our guidelines. Frankly, I came very close to just blocking them after their response to my suggestion. This discussion has already dragged on long enough. For purposes of clarity, nobody is required to agree with all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. And yes, gender is a highly controversial subject. I have my own disagreements with parts of MOS:GENDERID. But as the old saying goes, themz the rules until they aint. Editors are free to disagree with community P&G, but are not free to ignore or flout them. It's time to settle this.
Proposed DarwIn is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to WP:GENSEX broadly construed and is subject to a one way IBan with user Skyshifter, also broadly construed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I note that Darwin has agreed above to the IBan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - He's already agreed to avoid that general topic area in future & Skyshifter. PS - If a t-ban is imposed? limit it to six-months. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why should the community accept voluntary TBAN and IBAN which can easily be reneged on when we can impose it as a community sanction and ensure that any violation is actionable? TarnishedPath 01:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support topic ban and IBAN, both broadly construed - sorry GoodDay but I do not trust this user's words, and so we need a proper sanction. GiantSnowman 18:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Just read through the above and good grief. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I said above I would support this proposal if it was brought forward, and I do. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why it should be a one-way iban? Skyshifter started this topic with the characterization of their opponent as "a known transphobic editor". A normal editor would be blocked just for writing this. I am not sure a iban is needed, but if it is needed it must be mutual. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's actually a fair point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent WP:RGW impulse. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 You have been misjudging me - It was quite the opposite, actually, if it's worth anything. Darwin 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the WP:GENSEX area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 OK, I didn't knew the child used those pronouns when she was 4 years old, I commit to use them here if I would ever talk about that issue again (which I definitely will not, anyway). Darwin 20:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the WP:GENSEX area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 You have been misjudging me - It was quite the opposite, actually, if it's worth anything. Darwin 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent WP:RGW impulse. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's actually a fair point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- If they weren't before they are now... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, to be clear, I oppose a one-way IB. I do not find this argument convincing. Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support this seems like a reasonable set of restrictions, I hope they can stick to it Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I never edited in that topic here, as far as I can remember, not is it a primary interest I have, so it certainly will not be difficult to hold, even if it comes out to me as incredibly unbased and unfair. Darwin 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits to DYK were within that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back And those were the only ones, and I voluntarily stopped them yesterday immediately after being reverted. How does that configure the kind of systematic behaviour that would justify a topic ban? I really apologize, but in this moment the way I see this is a kind of Salem witch hunt, with people accusing me of all kind of slurs and abominations, even when they are in directly opposition to my stance here. You seem to be punishing me for my opinions and the way I (supposedly) think about a very particular issue (if 4 years old have self determination or not), which comes out to me as really unfair and unworthy of a project like this. Darwin 20:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is that in direct opposition to your stance there? Your edit summary says "forgot that English has the neutral pronoun, which is useful in these cases. fixed." which suggests that it is in line with that stance Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I'm sorry, I seem to have missed your point. What is wrong with correcting the gender to a neutral pronoun in such a situation? Darwin 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This edit might help you get the point. At this point your conduct on this page is becoming a serious behavioral issue... you can't lie, sealion, obfuscate, and misdirect endlessly without consequences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I can fix those too as I did yesterday, if you think it's important 🤷🏽♂️ Darwin 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are not supposed to edit comments after they have been responded to in that way. But by fix do you mean change to "she" or do you mean change to "they"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Change to "she", following this wikipedia rules, certainly. So if I can't fix them, what do you propose instead to mend it? Darwin 20:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given the sheer quantity of lies and obfuscations from you (the truth is apparently a last resort) the only fix I can see is a formal one, a topic ban and an interaction ban. Up above you so easily went from "I never edited in the topic area" to "those were the only ones" that I don't even think you understand that you were caught in a blatant lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back There was not any "lie", please stop assuming bad faith. I thought you were referring to the main space only, which I believe is a fairly assumption to do, if the used word is "editing". Darwin 20:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- At best you're saying that you lack the competence on enwiki to adhere to any voluntary restrictions. This will be my last comment unless pinged by an editor other than you, my apologies that this has been an unpleasant process for you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Darwin has a long history of editing in WP:GENSEX albeit generally less controversially. an example. Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 That's documented with the sources and all, and the proposition there was that the tupinambá was gay, not a woman. It's not even gender related. So you desperatly want something to justify a TB, bring it on. I'm fed up with what seems to be a circular and nonsense discussion on this board, where whatever I say is a lie and with bad intentions. I don't even edit here in the gender topic, but if it makes you happy, bring it on. Darwin 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- DarwIn WP:GENSEX covers gender and sexuality. You have been saying you aren't interested in the topic area. It appears to be one of your main areas of interest on en.wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 Thanks for clarifying that. Fact is that I don't edit much here. I've occasionally added or fixed some LGBT related stuff in the past when it crossed my main interest, History, but it certainly is not a primary interest, despite being LGBT myself. Darwin 20:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- DarwIn WP:GENSEX covers gender and sexuality. You have been saying you aren't interested in the topic area. It appears to be one of your main areas of interest on en.wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 That's documented with the sources and all, and the proposition there was that the tupinambá was gay, not a woman. It's not even gender related. So you desperatly want something to justify a TB, bring it on. I'm fed up with what seems to be a circular and nonsense discussion on this board, where whatever I say is a lie and with bad intentions. I don't even edit here in the gender topic, but if it makes you happy, bring it on. Darwin 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back There was not any "lie", please stop assuming bad faith. I thought you were referring to the main space only, which I believe is a fairly assumption to do, if the used word is "editing". Darwin 20:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given the sheer quantity of lies and obfuscations from you (the truth is apparently a last resort) the only fix I can see is a formal one, a topic ban and an interaction ban. Up above you so easily went from "I never edited in the topic area" to "those were the only ones" that I don't even think you understand that you were caught in a blatant lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Change to "she", following this wikipedia rules, certainly. So if I can't fix them, what do you propose instead to mend it? Darwin 20:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are not supposed to edit comments after they have been responded to in that way. But by fix do you mean change to "she" or do you mean change to "they"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I can fix those too as I did yesterday, if you think it's important 🤷🏽♂️ Darwin 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This edit might help you get the point. At this point your conduct on this page is becoming a serious behavioral issue... you can't lie, sealion, obfuscate, and misdirect endlessly without consequences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I'm sorry, I seem to have missed your point. What is wrong with correcting the gender to a neutral pronoun in such a situation? Darwin 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is that in direct opposition to your stance there? Your edit summary says "forgot that English has the neutral pronoun, which is useful in these cases. fixed." which suggests that it is in line with that stance Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back And those were the only ones, and I voluntarily stopped them yesterday immediately after being reverted. How does that configure the kind of systematic behaviour that would justify a topic ban? I really apologize, but in this moment the way I see this is a kind of Salem witch hunt, with people accusing me of all kind of slurs and abominations, even when they are in directly opposition to my stance here. You seem to be punishing me for my opinions and the way I (supposedly) think about a very particular issue (if 4 years old have self determination or not), which comes out to me as really unfair and unworthy of a project like this. Darwin 20:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your edits to DYK were within that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I never edited in that topic here, as far as I can remember, not is it a primary interest I have, so it certainly will not be difficult to hold, even if it comes out to me as incredibly unbased and unfair. Darwin 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Bushranger. charlotte 20:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. As GoodDay noted, the problem appears to already be addressed. If the problem persists then go for a sanction. Look we let people argue their point here and it does seem like most of the support is because editors feel Darwin isn't contrite enough, not that they expect the issue to continue. Note that I'm not weighing in on any interaction bans. Springee (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Springee. This entire issue could have been dropped days ago when DarwIn acknowledged he would walk away, and instead seems to have been needlessly escalated again and again and again. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Pppery: days ago? I think you might have misread the time stamps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support the TBAN; personally I'd have indeffed several outdents sooner, but here we are. No opinion on the IBAN. ⇒SWATJester 23:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Given what's happened, I think an enforceable topic ban is better than Darwin stepping away. IMO the BLP issues is far more concerning than gensex one so I'd support a BLP topic ban as well, but it seems likely a gensex one would be enough to stop Darwin feeling the continued need to express their opinions on a living person. Since Darwin is going to step away anyway and barely edits en, it should be a moot point and if it's not that's why it's enforceable. As for the iban, while I don't think Skyshifter should have described Darwin in that way when opening this thread, I think we can accept it as a one time mistake under the stress of apparently being followed and given questionable way Darwin ended up in a dispute here with someone they'd had problems with elsewhere I think a one-way iban is justified. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? Darwin 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times #c-DarwIn-20241229133200-Skyshifter-20241229132800, #c-DarwIn-20241229152900-Simonm223-20241229150600, #c-DarwIn-20241229154200-Blue-Sonnet-20241229154000, #c-DarwIn-20241229154100-Simonm223-20241229153800, #c-DarwIn-20241229160700-GiantSnowman-20241229154400, #c-DarwIn-20241229172200-Ad_Orientem-20241229171800. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like thought police. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here. Darwin 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. Darwin 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:DarwIn, I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. Liz
- @Liz: Thank you for the wise advice, I'll be doing that. Darwin 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: you can think whatever you like about living persons. I have a lot of views on living persons which I would never, ever express on wiki for various reasons including BLP. Also you defence is bullshit. No one ever asked you to make accusations around living persons to defend your actions. And yes it is fairly normal that editors may be sanctioned if they feel they need to do such things about living persons on ANI as part of some silly argument or defence. I recall an editor who was temporarily blocked after they felt the need to say two very very famous extremely public figure living persons (and some non living) were sex predators to prove some point at ANI. And I'm fairly sure a lot of people have said and feel those people are sex predators including some Wikipedians I'd even probably agree in at least one case, they just understand it's not something they should be expressing here. Nil Einne (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- For clarity, what I mean by my last sentence is that I'm sure quite a few people would agree with the statements. I'm sure such statements have been made elsewhere probably even in opinions printed in reliable sources (I think the editor did link to some such opinions). I'm sure even quite a few Wikipedians would agree that one or more of these people are sex predators, I think I'd even agree with it in at least one case. However most of us understand that our personal views of living persons, especially highly negatives views are generally not something to be expressed on wiki except when for some reason it's important enough to the discussion that it's reasonable to say it. When you keep saying something and in the same paragraph acknowledge the English wikipedia doesn't consider your opinion relevant, then it's clear there was no reason for you to say it. You're still free to believe it just as I'm still free to believe all those things about living persons that I would never express on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:DarwIn, I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. Liz
- I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. Darwin 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like thought police. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here. Darwin 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times #c-DarwIn-20241229133200-Skyshifter-20241229132800, #c-DarwIn-20241229152900-Simonm223-20241229150600, #c-DarwIn-20241229154200-Blue-Sonnet-20241229154000, #c-DarwIn-20241229154100-Simonm223-20241229153800, #c-DarwIn-20241229160700-GiantSnowman-20241229154400, #c-DarwIn-20241229172200-Ad_Orientem-20241229171800. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? Darwin 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Darwin's replies and conduct here indicates that he simply doesn't get it.
- MiasmaEternal☎ 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per GoodDay and Springee. Ciridae (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support TBAN per Bushranger. Darwin has already agreed to the 1-way IBAN — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Given the history at pt.wiki, I think this is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. There should be no interaction between the parties, which Darwin has agreed to.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The agreed-upon IBAN takes care of the ongoing issue. While the edits related to the child were problematic, this doesn't appear to be case of significantly wider problems in this topic area, and the full scope of MOS:GENDERID may very well be surprising to editors who don't do much in that area. I don't think there's been near enough here to no longer WP:AGF. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Support TBAN/IBANWeak support TBAN/Strong support IBAN - WP:NQP suggests that queerphobia is inherently disruptive. calling a queer activist a "troglodyte", the previous history of abuse on pt.wikipedia, and the current responses from Darwin indicate WP:NOTHERE behavior. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- "A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago , is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. EEng 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. EEng 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK boomer. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you certainly put me in my place with that one. EEng 21:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK boomer. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. EEng 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- "A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago , is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. EEng 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand. Speaking up for the witch is a sign I too might be a witch. I'll try to be more careful in future.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misgendering BLPs is disruptive. A Johnny Cash related username is not. Suggest the IP WP:DROPTHESTICK - while we may disagree with Boynamedsue regarding their interpretation here they have done nothing wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. It's stopping a disruptive editor from continuing to edit disruptively. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) NQP is an essay. Essentially it's an op-ed piece. It does not carry any force in the realm of WP:PG, and the views expressed there are controversial. (See the essay's talk page.). IMO words with some variation on "phobe/phobic" &c. are being routinely weaponized by people on one side of hot button cultural/political debates as part of an effort to demonize those on the other side of these debates. As such, I am inclined to view the use of such terms as a specie of WP:NPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- fair enough, i'll remove my vote for TBAN.
- sidenote, I have no qualms with labeling a behavior as queerphobia. I don't think calling out discrimination or disruptive attitudes is inherently a vio of NPA. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- ... I am indecisive.. I'll add weak support for TBAN, I still think the topic area should not have folks who are disruptive like this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pervasively misgendering a child based on the belief that a child cannot express a desire to transition is a form of transphobic behavior. If it was a similar comment made about a BLP on the basis of religion or skin colour there would be no mention of WP:NPA. Misplaced Pages is generally good about handling racism. It is a perpetual stain upon the reputation of Misplaced Pages that it's culture continues to worry more about the feelings of people who take transphobic actions than of the victims of the same. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as unnecessary given the commitments already given. WaggersTALK 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
| Let's not. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC). Edited to include edit conflict comment. CNC (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
| This is affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As a ptwiki user that know what's happening but talked to both sides of the discussion throughout it: This whole discussion started as a beef between Skyshifter and DarwIn. Skyshifter didn't accept some changes DarwIn made to an article "of her" (quotes because articles doesn't have owners. I respect her pronouns), and when discussing with DarwIn, called the whole Portuguese Misplaced Pages project a sewage (here)/in her UP, thus being banned and the ban being endorsed on the block discussion (in portuguese). The discussion was based on the references for the article, was solved in the ptwiki with an outburst from Sky, and that was it. This whole problem was brought here for a single reason only: Beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. A single change or a single opinion on a DYK shouldn't be reason for a TB or IBAN anywhere in the world, especially considering that it was a difference interpreting the references. I know that my statement won't change anything, as there is an apparent "consensus" on TBanning and IBANning him, though I wanted to make things clear for everyone. I am totally open for questioning regarding any of my statements above, and I will supply you with any proof I have and you need. Just ping me here and if the inquiry/proofs are extremely important, please leave me a message on my portuguese talk page (direct url). It can be in English, just for me to see you need me here. Cheers. Eduardo G. 03:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) JardelW is a user who was banned from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages due to his detestable behavior. This individual used the same Telegram group that he is now criticizing. The editor was banned from this group due to his behavior, in which he called respected users of the community "worms, scoundrels, trash and deniers". And DarwIn is one of the administrators of the group where he is banned, so you can already imagine why he is here. Now, once again he is trying to destabilize the community by defending an editor who called the entire project a sewer and made unproven accusations against an administrator. At this point, the account is practically banned and the article that caused the discord has its deletion or merge defended by several editors. By coming here, JardelW and Skyshifter are, in a way, stating that the entire community is prejudiced. Yet another offense enters the list as proof of Jardel's destabilizing behavior. Furthermore, this user already tried to carry out the same destabilization by contesting on meta the banning of IPs, a consensual decision among hundreds of editors. And when he was still blocked, went to Meta-Wiki in an attempt to intervene in the Misplaced Pages domain, where he is banned, simply because he did not agree with the deletion of an article. And this without presenting any evidence. It is clear that Jardel's objective here is to take revenge on the community, and he will be punished for it. InvictumAlways (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
|
- InvictumAlways - this is your second edit ever, and your account was just created today - how did you get to this ANI post? jellyfish ✉ 05:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I saw a discussion in the group and created the account to not appear as an IP. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Jardel The objective of the channel is to be a more relaxed place. And it's not official, as you said yourself previously. Angry moment? Are you sorry? After your block, you attacked editors on a social network, as attested by a CheckUser: . And there are no prejudiced comments. That's a lie. Where are the links? And how much time have you devoted to the project when all you do is attack others? Enough of this nonsense. I ask that an administrator evaluate the conduct of this account. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't realize the discussion was closed. Sorry. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Supporting both IBAN and TBAN. Someone who actively believes in misgendering should not be allowed into this area when they have already demonstrably made another editor uncomfortable. The snarky reply to GiantSnowman does not convince me they would respond well if another editor brought up a similar concern in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can't we give this child and her mother some privacy? What is it about gender issues, as opposed to other medical or developmental issues, that seems to give everyone a right to comment? Let's just report what reliable sources say and leave it at that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- talkpages def are covered by BLP as per the policy page.and the policy gives wide latitude about what the subject may have redacted if they object to info, even if they had previously or somehow otherwise placed that info in public domain.
- concerns about privacy have to weigh against dueness but arguing the book gives dueness to try to be internet sleuths and discover and identify a child is probs not gonna pass the smell test.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Misplaced Pages, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Children cannot consent, their parents can. (CC) Tbhotch 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would totally agree, but that is irrelevant here, nothing Darwin did was related to revealing the child's identity. He criticised the mother in strong terms on talkpages and this is what the BLP argument comes down to.--Boynamedsue (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ask yourself whether Misplaced Pages would even entertain this discourse if the identity was anything other than a trans one. The answer is a flat no. Darwin's interpretation of the mother's interpretation of her daughter's identity is inappropriate for the project, is disruptive and is openly antagonistic toward trans editors. I think nothing more can be gained from endlessly debating whether we should pretend there is a carve-out to BLP requirements for children within oppressed minorities. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Misplaced Pages, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support TBAN, no comment on IBAN. This is blatant POV harassment. (CC) Tbhotch 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Editors in this topic area can and often do disagree on the underlying issues, which often helpfully ensures that all such material on Misplaced Pages follows our policies and guidelines. However, the responses to Ad Orientem's request and various replies above shows that the proposed remedies would be appropriate given the BLP issues in play here.-- Patar knight - /contributions 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose any sanctions I’m sorry if I’m interfering in something I’m not involved with, but I’ve been watching this discussion and I think it’s needlessly toxic. What I’m seeing is a misunderstanding of some inappropriate WP:OR on a hot-button issue sparking a dispute that turned into “DarwIn is a transphobic bully” which I don’t think is true. I think the two main parties should simply avoid each other voluntarily and the situation will quickly de-escalate. Dronebogus (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support TBAN, indifferent to IBAN. Having followed this topic for a few days, it's convinced me that a topic ban for both GENSEX and BLP is entirely appropriate in this instance. My initial scepticism passed after reading responses from the editor and realising that the understanding of BLP policy appears to be even more incomplete than I originally thought. The deceleration from the editor to avoid such topics voluntarily is irrelevant, as combined with the lack of understanding over the concept of broadly construed, commitments have already been made and broken within this discussion alone. So respectfully, I believe this WP:NOTHERE type editing, whether it is attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or simply WP:BLUDGEONING discussions, is nonetheless disruptive and uncivil at times. CNC (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dronebogus. I'd say "we're better than this" if I believed it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Skyshifter, if anything, is harassing Darwin in this instance. Darwin has agreed to an IBAN, never mind that he's expressed desires to deëscelate what has become the longest thread on AN or ANI as of writing. JayCubby 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support This is a pretty explicit case of POV harassment. Their replies to the topic likewise do not give me faith they will adhere to a self imposed limitation. Darwin claimed to have agreed to step away before the ANI was created, but the edit history shows that Darwin continued editing the page up until an hour before Skyshifter created the ANI. Thus, there should be an actionable sanction. I fail to understand how it is Skyshifter doing the harassment at all as Cubby suggests. Darwin even called skyshifter a troglydite (here) to boot. Relm (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh my fucking god. This whole thread is nuts. I wish I could pardon my french but this is CRAZY.
- Never in a million years would’ve I expected myself to be responding to a thread like this but I mean here I am.
- Although Skywing’s concerns of harassment are valid especially if he’s being tracked across Misplaced Pages’s website, as far as I know, there are no guidelines that state someone can be punished for actions on another Misplaced Pages.
- I support the notion of Darwin being topic banned from gender related articles (especially trans ones), for the simple fact that his conflict of interest with transphobia has clearly caused a disruption to the Misplaced Pages community.
- I oppose with the IP-ban because if anything this SHOULD’VE ended a week ago when Darwin voluntarily said he would not edit those pages as well as avoid any interaction with Skywing.
Reader of Information (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. Relm (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand, I meant that. Apologies. I misunderstood what it stood for. I would prefer if the IBAN was two way instead of one-way. Seems hardly fair in my honest opinion when both I suppose are equally responsible and to share the blame. This is a messy situation so putting the blame on one when both are equally responsible seems hardly fair. But that's my two cents.
- NOTE: I don't condone homophobia or queerphobia or whatever the term is (I'm not really informed enough in this situation to know what Misplaced Pages calls it so I'm adding both just in case) so please don't take it as me defending either side as that is NOT my intent.
- Cheers,
Reader of Information (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- This reply reminded me of the essay WP:CLUE. CNC (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol. It is accurate. That literally is what it is I suppose lol. Reader of Information (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This reply reminded me of the essay WP:CLUE. CNC (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. Relm (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose any sanctions against Darwin per Dronebogus. I wish we were better than this, but like TBUA, I don't actually believe that we are. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support both TBAN and IBAN. Their behaviour at DYK might have been mitigated if they had taken responsibility here instead of doubling down. A TBAN and IBAN will reduce disruption. TarnishedPath 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at Special:Diff/1267644460 accusing me of coming to their talk page to "
further troll me with this nonsense warning
". TarnishedPath 01:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at Special:Diff/1267644460 accusing me of coming to their talk page to "
- Support both. I'm baffled that some people above are saying "well, they agreed to stop voluntarily" - did they not read the massive post Darwin made above? It amounts to an extended "I'm sorry that you were offended." Trusting that someone will avoid the same mistakes in the future on their own requires that they understand and admit to those mistakes, which is obviously not the case here; how can we trust that an editor will abide by a self-imposed restriction when they won't even meaningfully acknowledge the errors that made that restriction necessary? Therefore, sanctions are necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Skyshifter taking matters from another Misplaced Pages to seek revenge.
| 100% affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This entire subsection is about Eduardo Gottert casting aspersions on Skyshifter and providing no diffs or evidence of this "revenge" except for statements about what is going on on another language Misplaced Pages which have no bearing on what occurs here. I'm closing this now before this WP:BOOMERANGs on to Eduardo Gottert and editors start proposing a block for personal attacks. Baseless counter attacks are generally dismissed at the English Misplaced Pages ANI. Please do not reopen this section. Liz 09:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. On the 29th of December, User:Skyshifter started an AN/I based on a claim that User:DarwIn, a sysop at ptwiki, was cross-wiki harrassing her. To make up those claims, she used as a single proof, of him editing on a DYK nomination here. AFAIK, DYK nominations are open for debate. She accused him of transphobia, a very harsh word, over some 5 edits on the same page, and all the other arguments in her accusation were from the ptwiki with absolutely no relation to the English Misplaced Pages, and she tried to "force" that it was a cross-wiki harrassment, when it wasn't. The sole reason for that AN/I is a beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. But all of this happened only, and just because of her banishment for the portuguese wiki. She is the cross-wiki harrasser in this situation, as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log. This is all for revenge of some articles that are being debated and will be either deleted or merged with other articles, and especially over her permanent block on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, after calling the whole platform a sewage (here and in her UP), casting aspersions over other users and using ducks and meatpuppets to revert back the articles (one of her meats is currently being blocked from ptwiki too, see it here, with all the proofs). The block discussion taking place at the moment has 10 administrator votes in favour of the block, and absolutely no contrary opinion whatsoever. Despite some not-so-good arguments from DarwIn in the AN/I above, it is more than clear that the reason for the opening of the said AN/I was personal and for revenge. I'm open to any questions regarding this topic, as there is plenty of evidence to sustain my claims. All of this that she's doing would clearly fall under pt:WP:NDD, here called WP:ASPERSIONS I think, and disruptive editing/WP:POINT, and in the AN/I above she's commiting WP:BLUDGEON, repeating the eye-catching word "transphobia" over and over, without sustaining her argument accordingly, seeking to block a sysop at other 3 projects and rollbacker here, with the sole objective of tarnishing his block log, just for revenge and self-fullfillment. Eduardo G. 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
|
John40332 reported by CurryTime7-24
John40332 has been blocked sitewide. Reader of Information (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved from WP:AIV – ToBeFree (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
John40332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Psycho (1960 film) (diff): account is being used only for promotional purposes; account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. User's recent edits have been dedicated almost invariably to inserting links in classical music-related articles to an obscure sheet music site. Behavior appeared to be WP:REFSPAM and WP:SPA. Personal attempts to curb this behavior or reach a compromise were rejected by user. Further attempts to engage with them at WT:CM resulted in WP:ICANTHEARYOU, despite three other editors informing user that their edits appeared to be spam or some kind of advocacy. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not a bot and not spamming, you just keep WP:HOUNDING me repeatedly, I cited sources to the publisher of the books in question. You appear to suffer from WP:OWN and act like I need your consent to edit the articles you feel that belong to you. You also know I'm not a compromised account, you spam Assume_good_faith on your reverts but you're mostly bullying other editors into submission.
- You've been asked to stop disrupting editing https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:CurryTime7-24#January_2025 , and continue to harass any edits that touch "your" articles.
- You also keep saying I add citation to obscure music sites, just because you don't know something doesn't make it obscure. Additionally, you are the only person raising this as an issue because you're extremely controlling of the articles, you don't own Misplaced Pages and hopefully some other editor or admin can remind you of that. John40332 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that SheetMusicX is a reliable source for these articles? If so then someone (it may be me but I don't guarantee it) should take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I note that several editors have queried this, not just CurryTime7-24. John40332 is clearly not a spambot or compromised account, so please avoid over-egging the pudding. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is reliable and listed with other respectable publishers, it's the homepage of the Canadian music publishing house Edition Zeza, their books are part of the National Library Collections, WorldCat.org shows their books in libraries around the world etc, I shouldn't even have to dig this far because 1 editor decided he WP:OWN Misplaced Pages. The links I had included provided relevant information about the articles I was editing (orchestration, dates, duration etc). Cited information from a publisher of said work, which is exactly what WP:SOURCEDEF suggests doing. John40332 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- The editor's history does seem suspicious. From 2014 to 2023 they made a total of 24 edits to article space, almost all of which were to Charlie Siem and Sasha Siem. Then after more than a year of no edits, in the last 5 weeks they have made 38 edits to article space, of which all except three added a reference to sheetmusicx.com. This is a commercial site that sells sheet music. As far as I can see, every reference added was a link to a page that sells a particular piece of sheet music. This certainly seems like WP:REFSPAM. CodeTalker (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- So is the problem that I'm actively contributing now, or that the cited sources aren't good enough? You guys are grasping at straws at this point.user:CurryTime7-24 added links to commercial sites diff1 , such as to Fidelio Music (to which he appears to be an affiliate) and yet no one raises a flag. Even when I added a source without removing his, he removed mine diff2 to keep only his link to Fidelio Music. John40332 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is no "you guys" here. You have exactly the same status, as a volunteer editor, as I do. I have no idea who CurryTime7-24 is, or whether that editor is an affiliate. I just know about reliable sources and that we should not be linking to any commercial site, except possibly to the original publisher of a work. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- So is the problem that I'm actively contributing now, or that the cited sources aren't good enough? You guys are grasping at straws at this point.user:CurryTime7-24 added links to commercial sites diff1 , such as to Fidelio Music (to which he appears to be an affiliate) and yet no one raises a flag. Even when I added a source without removing his, he removed mine diff2 to keep only his link to Fidelio Music. John40332 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that SheetMusicX is a reliable source for these articles? If so then someone (it may be me but I don't guarantee it) should take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I note that several editors have queried this, not just CurryTime7-24. John40332 is clearly not a spambot or compromised account, so please avoid over-egging the pudding. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:COIBot has compiled a page, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/Local/sheetmusicx.com of edits with links to this website. This list was not created by CurryTime7-24 but by a bot looking for instances of conflict-of-interests. All of the problems you are concerned about, John40332, would not exist if you would just stop posting links to this website. If you would agree to stop referring to sheetmusicx.com, you wouldn't be "hounded" or be defending yourself and we could close this complaint. Can you agree to that editing restriction? And, if you can't, then why are you insisting on linking to this particular website? Liz 02:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because it's a valid source according to:
- WP:REPUTABLE - "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources"
- WP:SOURCEDEF - The publisher of the work (and not only the first ever publisher, any reputable publisher of a work)
- WP:PUBLISHED - "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form."
Interestingly, "someone" (and I'm not saying it's CurryTime7-24) came to my talk page yesterday to write "kill yourself", I can only think of 1 person who is hounding me this much though, but that doesn't seem to be taken seriously. John40332 (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not "interesting", that's despicable; as is your insinuation. As for sheetmusicx as as source: for what? That they published some work? Why is that noteworthy? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a source for information about the work. Yes it's despicable, and as I said, no one takes it seriously, I'm not insinuating anything, admins can look into the IP themselves. John40332 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, you would prefer that this dispute continue on, which could lead to sanctions for you, rather than simply stop using this website as a reference? To me, when I see that kind of behavior, it's typically a sign of a paid editor. Liz 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no dispute, it's a reliable source and user:CurryTime7-24 makes a fuss about it because of his WP:OWN syndrome and potential WP:COI with his affiliation with Fidelio Music.
- Why are you against a source that complies with WP:RELIABILITY ? John40332 (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because your use of that source is pretty clearly intended as promotional. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's hard to understand how you can say "there's no dispute" when there is quite obviously a dispute; six editors in this thread alone have questioned your use of that source. You have invoked WP:RS to claim that the website is an acceptable source, but I'm not sure you have understood what that guideline says about commercial sites; they are allowed as references only to verify simple facts such as titles and running times. You have not used sheetmusicx.com for such purposes; you have used it to tell the reader where they can purchase sheet music (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc). CodeTalker (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I used it to add relevant information that didn't exist on Misplaced Pages.
- When I added "Psycho A Narrative for String Orchestra" diff that exists since 1968 and never mentioned on Misplaced Pages, but CurryTime decided to harass me there too.
- When I added the orchestration for Tambourin Chinois diff, which CurryTime decided to remove too.
- I used information by the publisher to confirm facts, as per WP:RS, if commercial sources are not allowed to verify contributions, then why is everyone so quiet about CurryTime's affiliation to Fidelio Music links ? So far these comments are a good example of WP:HUNT, first I was accused of spamming, then of being a bot, then that my account was compromised, then that the source used wasn't reliable, if you run out of ideas try my religion or ethnicity. John40332 (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you added the bit about Psycho - which included the link with the same phrasing as on the other edits where it was obvious "buy this music here". Your edits are either promotional or are indistinguishable from being promotional. That is why they are being removed. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly said that CurryTime7-24 is an affiliate of Fidelio. Can you show us your evidence of that? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here he removed my source to add Fidelio Music diff1
- Here again to make sure only Fidelio Music exists diff2
- And obviously here, deleting what I added to include Fidelio Music exclusively diff3
- Here he completely deleted everything I added about the piece as part of his WP:HOUNDING diff4 John40332 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- That may be evidence of something, good or bad, but it's certainly not evidence that that editor is an affiliate. But, anyway, the action that hould have been taken a few days ago has now been taken, so we can stop talking now. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, you would prefer that this dispute continue on, which could lead to sanctions for you, rather than simply stop using this website as a reference? To me, when I see that kind of behavior, it's typically a sign of a paid editor. Liz 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a source for information about the work. Yes it's despicable, and as I said, no one takes it seriously, I'm not insinuating anything, admins can look into the IP themselves. John40332 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be nice if an admin would compare the IP address 181.215.89.116 that told me to kill myself on my Talk Page, to existing users, now that would be fun to find out who is so against my edits, because so far the only action was a suspension. John40332 (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Checkuser is not for fishing. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- In any case the most obvious guess is: some unrelated troll who saw your name on this board. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Checkuser is not for fishing. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
It appears that there is consensus here and at WT:CM against linking to Sheet Music X. Is it possible for an admin to propose a resolution here? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The only consensus is your WP:OWN syndrome, the sources linked are reliable and fit for purpose. People have questioned my use of the source, not the reliability of it.
- You created this complaint stating that I'm a spammer, a bot or a compromised account, has that consensus been reached too ? John40332 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, John40332, you are wrong about the lack of consensus, and there is clear consensus against you linking to that commercial sheet music sales site. So, either you agree to stop doing so, or you get subjected to formal sanctions. Which will it be? Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So CurryTime can throw random accusations until something sticks? John40332 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, then. John40332 is indefinitely blocked from article space. The editor is free to make well-referenced, formal edit requests on article talk pages. The editor is warned that continuing to attempt to add links to Sheet Music X may lead to a sitewide block. The editor is advised to read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I made well referenced edits directly from a reputable publisher. Enjoy the power trip. John40332 (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please refrain from personal attacks which violate policy. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let me quote Misplaced Pages's page for Power Trip "(...) someone in a position of greater power uses that power unjustifiably against a lower-ranking person, typically just for display of dominance.", since you showed up just to block me when I haven't even edited anything else until this incident was cleared. I didn't spam, I'm not a bot, my account isn't compromised, I referenced a reputable publisher that due to CurryTime's WP:COI and WP:OWN made him start this issue. John40332 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Put that shovel down before you are indef blocked completely. increase indef block to all namespaces for battleground mentality. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let me quote Misplaced Pages's page for Power Trip "(...) someone in a position of greater power uses that power unjustifiably against a lower-ranking person, typically just for display of dominance.", since you showed up just to block me when I haven't even edited anything else until this incident was cleared. I didn't spam, I'm not a bot, my account isn't compromised, I referenced a reputable publisher that due to CurryTime's WP:COI and WP:OWN made him start this issue. John40332 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please refrain from personal attacks which violate policy. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I made well referenced edits directly from a reputable publisher. Enjoy the power trip. John40332 (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, then. John40332 is indefinitely blocked from article space. The editor is free to make well-referenced, formal edit requests on article talk pages. The editor is warned that continuing to attempt to add links to Sheet Music X may lead to a sitewide block. The editor is advised to read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So CurryTime can throw random accusations until something sticks? John40332 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, John40332, you are wrong about the lack of consensus, and there is clear consensus against you linking to that commercial sheet music sales site. So, either you agree to stop doing so, or you get subjected to formal sanctions. Which will it be? Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Historian5328
- Historian5328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have been dealing with persistent additions of unreferenced numbers to Somali Armed Forces, Somali Navy, etc for some time. Rolling them back - they're never supported by sources that validate the data, or the sources are distorted.
In the last couple of days a new user, User:Historian5328 has also started showing this behaviour. But in this edit he's entering fantasy territory, saying the Somali Armed Forces are equipped with the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, which has never been exported beyond the United States Air Force. I would request that any interested administrator consider this account for blocking. Kind regards and Happy New Year, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editor clearly has some serious WP:CIR issues, given this WP:MADEUP stuff, and using...let's say non-reliable sources elsewhere, without responding to any of the notices on their talk page. I've pblocked them from articlespace so they can come here and explain themselves. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just noting that the editor's username is User:Historian5328, not User:Historian 5328 and they were informed of this discussion. Liz 00:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the same regard, I would kindly request that any interested administrators review User_talk:YZ357980, who has been warned over and over and over again about adding unsourced and completely made up material (Somali Navy for example, consisting of 3,500 personnel..) Buckshot06 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see you corrected their username in this report after I mentioned the mistake. Liz 07:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Liz, the original vandal and very problematic editor, who should be blocked immediately, was YZ357980. With all due regard to Historian5328, they display very similar behaviour, which immediately created a warning flag in my mind. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’m relatively new to Misplaced Pages editing and only recently discovered that there is even a talk page. Regarding the active personnel for the Somali Armed Forces, I listed approx 20,000–30,000 (2024) and included a citation, which I believe does not warrant being blocked. I’m a beginner in Misplaced Pages editing, have no malicious intent, and do not believe I should be blocked. Moreover, I read from a Somalia media source that the Somali government had acquired A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, believing the source to be authentic up until I discovered I was blocked. This was a mistake on my part, as I am new and inexperienced (2 days.) The individual who requested me to blocked must have had bad experiences which I’m not responsible for. I am requesting to be unblocked. Historian5328 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion continued on user's talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the same regard, I would kindly request that any interested administrators review User_talk:YZ357980, who has been warned over and over and over again about adding unsourced and completely made up material (Somali Navy for example, consisting of 3,500 personnel..) Buckshot06 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just noting that the editor's username is User:Historian5328, not User:Historian 5328 and they were informed of this discussion. Liz 00:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
A reminder that the arbitration committee has designated the Horn of Africa a contentious topic, so don’t be afraid to lay down a CT advisory template for either user. 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:C826:BD54:45DF:3286 (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both done - thanks for the reminder. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've removed the pblock on Historian5328 as it appears what was happening was 'new user unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's policies on reliable sourcing', but best to keep an eye on their edits. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Vofa and removal of sourced information
NO ACTION AT THIS TIME Participants reminded to attempt communicating with other editors before reporting their behaviour to ANI. asilvering (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This seems to be an ongoing issue.
Vofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has lots of warnings about disruptive editing in their user page and a block.
Most recent example of removal of sourced information:
I checked the source and the information is there on page 7.
Previous examples include: . Also see: Talk:Finns#Vandalism_by_user:Vofa Bogazicili (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I just noticed that there is indeed an unsourced paragraph.
- The reason for removal of sourced information would then be "removed text not relevant to Chagatai Khanate and Golden Horde in introduction". However the source does mention
The first of the changes leading to the formation of the Turco-Mongolian tradition ...
and then gives Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate as examples. I don't see any WP:V or WP:DUE issues. - I am concerned about removal of sourced information that does not seem to have a rationale based on Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines Bogazicili (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi there. The matter seems to be resolved. I did remove an unsourced paragraph and general claims not relevant to the introduction. I do not see a problem with it. You seem to have linked three edits I made. In the first edit, I had to revert because I accidentally chose the minor edit option. In the second edit, I have restored the previous version, but without a minor sign. I did not remove any sources (based on what I remember) I hope to see through my edits and understand what I did or did not do wrong. Please, avoid making an ANI in bad faith. Vofa (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- You removed source information. The part that starts with
The ruling Mongol elites ...
- @Asilvering: from the editor's talk page, you seem to be a mentor. Removing sources or sourced material without explanation, or with insufficient explanation or rationale, such as "Polished language" , is an ongoing concern with Vofa. Bogazicili (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im not sure why I’m being stalked, but the edits you’re showing as examples of myself removing sources are more than two months old. I’ve stopped removing sources. Vofa (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: This issue is still continuing Bogazicili (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- And you previously spoke to Vofa about this where...? -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- asilvering, I hadn't talked about removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale.
- I did talk about this however . See: User_talk:Vofa#December_2024
- I don't seek or expect a permanent block over this. But as a mentor and an administrator, maybe you can comment on removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale. Bogazicili (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bogazicili, that's a threat, not an explanation. If you have a content dispute with an editor, which is what this appears to be, you need to be able to talk it out with them on the article's Talk page. @Vofa, please be careful to make sure your edit summaries explain what you're doing. I see that there was an unsourced statement in the link Bogazicili just supplied, so I presume that's what you meant by "unsourced". But the other statement you removed did have a source. It's ok to split your edits up into multiple edits if you need to do that to explain them properly, but you could also just give an edit summary like "removed unsourced; also, removed statement " that addresses both changes. -- asilvering (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Asilvering, I would not characterize this as a "content dispute". I was not involved in most of those articles. I got concerned after seeing edits market as minor removing sources or sourced material without any or proper explanation. That is not a content dispute, that is an editor conduct dispute. Bogazicili (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- What Vofa does at articles related to Turko-Mongolian history is not a content dispute but vandalism. It took me a lot of time to manually revert the hoax years and figures he added in Turkmens article to decrease their population and he also removed sourced basic info from the lede of the Merkit tribe which I had to restore. These are just some of few sneaky vandalism examples that I caught among the pages I patrol by Vofa. If you see his talk page, he has been warned a lot of times by many other editors for such mischief. Theofunny (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Theofunny, Vofa hasn't edited the Turkmens article since before they were blocked. That is obviously not an ongoing issue. As for Merkit, I also see no discussion of those edits. If you have a problem with how someone is editing, you need to communicate with them. -- asilvering (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Asilvering, my concerns were removal of sourced information or sources without proper rationale or explanation. Do you think that was communicated enough to Vofa in this topic, or do we need further communication? I'm asking in case Vofa continues this type of behavior. Hopefully that won't be the case. Bogazicili (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im going to repeat this again;
- I have not removed any sources since I was warned about it.
- I do not see an issue with my recent editing.
- You should communicate with me on any issues that you have with me. Vofa (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vofa, do you see any issues with this edit: Bogazicili (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you implying if I see an issue with this edit of mine or with your removal of said edit? Vofa (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vofa, the former. I am asking if you see any issues yourself with your own linked edit. Bogazicili (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not see an issue with the linked edit of mine. Vofa (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, really the issue was Bogazicili's, and it has now been solved in the usual way (by restoring only the sourced content). Apologies, @Vofa, for misreading it earlier. -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Asilvering, I disagree. I did miss the unsourced paragraph. However, removal of sourced content has been an ongoing issue with Vofa. They should not have removed sourced content to begin with.
- There was also a previous discussion in ANI:
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1170#User:Vofa
- Asilvering, again, is the threshold of communication met if removing sourced content by Vofa persists in the future? Bogazicili (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Basically, I'm not trying to get Vofa blocked, but they should be more careful in future when they remove sources or sourced content. They should have a reasonable rationale based in Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines, and they should explain that rationale properly. Bogazicili (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed they should. And you should not restore unsourced content once it has been removed. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- asilvering, the difference is I already acknowledged it multiple times. Is that not obvious? Bogazicili (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bogazicili, I'm going to close this report. No administrative action is required here at this time. You should make a habit of communicating on the article talk page when you get into a conflict with another editor, but you should always try to communicate with other editors before coming to ANI about their behaviour. This should be your last resort. If you make an earnest effort to communicate and are ignored, by all means report here. If there is edit-warring or obvious vandalism involved, please take that to the relevant noticeboard. -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- asilvering, the difference is I already acknowledged it multiple times. Is that not obvious? Bogazicili (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed they should. And you should not restore unsourced content once it has been removed. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Basically, I'm not trying to get Vofa blocked, but they should be more careful in future when they remove sources or sourced content. They should have a reasonable rationale based in Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines, and they should explain that rationale properly. Bogazicili (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not see an issue with the linked edit of mine. Vofa (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vofa, the former. I am asking if you see any issues yourself with your own linked edit. Bogazicili (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you implying if I see an issue with this edit of mine or with your removal of said edit? Vofa (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vofa, do you see any issues with this edit: Bogazicili (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Vofa (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Asilvering, my concerns were removal of sourced information or sources without proper rationale or explanation. Do you think that was communicated enough to Vofa in this topic, or do we need further communication? I'm asking in case Vofa continues this type of behavior. Hopefully that won't be the case. Bogazicili (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Theofunny, Vofa hasn't edited the Turkmens article since before they were blocked. That is obviously not an ongoing issue. As for Merkit, I also see no discussion of those edits. If you have a problem with how someone is editing, you need to communicate with them. -- asilvering (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This member often vandalises, in an article about Oirats he wrote huge numbers without backing them up with sources and tried to prove it was true. This is rabid vandalism. Incall 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Incall, vandalism has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages; an edit being unsourced does not mean it was vandalism. Do not cast aspersions on other editors in this way. @Vofa, you are edit-warring on Oirats. You need to stop doing that immediately. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have not edited Oirats. I have stopped edit warring. Vofa (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Incall, vandalism has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages; an edit being unsourced does not mean it was vandalism. Do not cast aspersions on other editors in this way. @Vofa, you are edit-warring on Oirats. You need to stop doing that immediately. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bogazicili, that's a threat, not an explanation. If you have a content dispute with an editor, which is what this appears to be, you need to be able to talk it out with them on the article's Talk page. @Vofa, please be careful to make sure your edit summaries explain what you're doing. I see that there was an unsourced statement in the link Bogazicili just supplied, so I presume that's what you meant by "unsourced". But the other statement you removed did have a source. It's ok to split your edits up into multiple edits if you need to do that to explain them properly, but you could also just give an edit summary like "removed unsourced; also, removed statement " that addresses both changes. -- asilvering (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- And you previously spoke to Vofa about this where...? -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- You removed source information. The part that starts with
- Hi there. The matter seems to be resolved. I did remove an unsourced paragraph and general claims not relevant to the introduction. I do not see a problem with it. You seem to have linked three edits I made. In the first edit, I had to revert because I accidentally chose the minor edit option. In the second edit, I have restored the previous version, but without a minor sign. I did not remove any sources (based on what I remember) I hope to see through my edits and understand what I did or did not do wrong. Please, avoid making an ANI in bad faith. Vofa (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Incivility and ABF in contentious topics
Hob Gadling's uncivil comments and assuming bad faith on multiple contentious talk pages is not necessarily egregious but I suppose it is problematic and chronic, consistent and ongoing. I would appreciate some assistance. Here are some diffs from the past few days:
Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883
WP:NPA
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324
Profanity
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966
Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877
Unicivil
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441
Contact on user page attempted
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795
Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Think this calls for a fierce trout slapping and some direct words. I cannot really endorse a forced wikibreak according to WP:COOLDOWN, as this is just an angry user and frankly, I don't see direct personal attacks, I just see unfriendly behavior and prick-ish attitude, no outward disruption of the project either. Also, I have to ask for further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions, as
some diffs from the past few days
are not indicative of chronic issue. The holiday times, like Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Years' can be some of the most stressful times for people during the year. Not saying I like seeing this, but I can understand the feeling. BarntToust 04:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Would I be the person to provide you with that
further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions
? I did think that it would be more than a WP:FISHSLAP, since that's forone-off instances of seemingly silly behavior
and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern warning. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would I be the person to provide you with that
- @Lardlegwarmers: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. Hob should know better, and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. But I would caution you about WP:BOOMERANG and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your inappropriate recently deleted user page, removing sections from other people's talk page, and it seems like you're having a problem handling a WP:DISPUTE and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith.
- Furthermore it does appear that you might be WP:FORUMSHOPPING because your attempts at WP:POVPUSH for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. passively accusing editor behavior, directly accusing a specific editor bad behavior, claiming WP is political, RSN Report #1, RSN Report #2 to push for an article edit request, bringing the Covid discussion over to the teahouse, and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding Misplaced Pages's policy and guidelines and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards WP:CONSENSUS. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. TiggerJay (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address unique issues as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. (
All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution.
]) Thank you for your time and input. - Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hope the editors who read this will notice the ABF here:
trying to report other editors in bad faith
. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address unique issues as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. (
@Lardlegwarmers: Jay brought something to my attention with a recent version of your user page. It looks like there is large language model (ChatGPT) text about "COVID-19 Natural Immunity" copied and pasted on there. What in the cheeseballs?? What made you think hmm, let's prompt ShatGPT to churn out 700 words about this random out-of-pocket topic, and I'm gonna post this on my Misplaced Pages user page for no reason! I'm confused. This specific revision also assumes bad faith about IP editors, and here's the rich part: just as you copy-pasted text from ChatGPT about COVID to your user page, you go on to write a section that addresses use of AI. Quoting from an AI chat bot without attribution is plaigiarism.
I'm just confused with what you are doing here. So I'd like to ask you, since you are here at ANI now, what in the sam hill is going on here? If there is a reasonable explanation for this goofiness, I suggest you produce one, not from a prompt entered into ChatGPT, in your own words. BarntToust 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is an old version of their user page, and it is not plagiarism to quote from a chat bot even without attribution, so we must assume that you are attempt to detract from the OP's complaint. The issue at hand is an experienced editor who joins talk page discussions without understanding the topic at hand (which they admit in one instance ), and are frequently use derogatory language and tone towards other editors. This behavior does not seem like a new thing for them and they clearly know how to skirt the edge of what would be considered a personal attack by an admin, so this merits a formal warning. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @IntrepidContributor, you should familiarise yourself with WP:BOOMERANG. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. BarntToust 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a WP:TROUT slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. BarntToust 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- BarntToust You're being bitey and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- well, I tend to get concerned when someone with LLM text pasted on their userpage comes up from the water. If that's considered bite-y to reiterate my concerns in intentional lighthearted analogy in order to seem less hard-headed, then I guess we're done here. @Thebiguglyalien, I invite you to weigh in on whether you think a formal warning or a trout slap is what needs to happen to Hob. BarntToust 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- BarntToust You're being bitey and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a WP:TROUT slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. BarntToust 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @IntrepidContributor, you should familiarise yourself with WP:BOOMERANG. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. BarntToust 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- That content from ChatGPT was meant to go in my sandbox as experiment or for assisting with research into a future article. The LLM can generate wikitext with links to articles that already exist. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are writing an article backwards and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @Lardlegwarmers, I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. BarntToust 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @IntrepidContributor, I'm pointing out questionable content on someone else page. please look at this diff on Lardle's user page for context, in which they copied ChatGPT text without attribution, then said that using ChatGPT without attribution is plagiarism. That contradictory stuff is what I was questioning. please click on the diff for context. BarntToust 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I use it more like a (really good) search engine or a thesaurus. It can give a lot of suggestions for a human writer, but ultimately you use your own mind and RS to formulate the facts and how to present them. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! BarntToust 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! *curtsy* Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! BarntToust 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are writing an article backwards and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @Lardlegwarmers, I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. BarntToust 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The lack of civility in this contentious topic is significantly hindering editing efforts, especially since most issues concern neutrality and tone, which requires a careful and nuanced approach. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't see anything in the original report that does anything other than show that Hob Gadling calls a thicko a thicko. What is wrong with that? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- ...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, in British slang, "thick" = "stupid". GiantSnowman 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- ...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
There is not enough context for the examples of impatience from Hob Gadling which the OP offers. For example, Lardlegwarmers, do you really expect a warm welcome for your 'attempted contact on user page' here? Or for your puritanical reproaches about HG's use of "profanity" (which normally turns out to mean using the word bullshit, which is by no means banned from Misplaced Pages, nor is its expressiveness easy to replace with something more flattering). Considering what they're replying to, this supposed "disparag of another editor's intellect and reasoning skills" seems pretty temperate. And so on. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
- I'm not suggesting we should wash anybody's mouth out with soap. The editor's consistent uncivil behavior is more than just the occasional salty diction here and there. I mean, look at this user page discussion where an editor is asking for a discussion on why Hob Gadling reverted his edit. It seems as if the person was trying to do it on the talk page and was ignored. Hob Gadling gruffly tells the other editor to get lost. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My experience is that this kind of aggression is standard operating procedure for the defendant. I'd basically given up on them seeing any consequences for it - it's been going on for a long time, so I assumed this is one of the cases where editors with enough "social capital" get an exemption from CIVIL. I doubt a trout will have lasting effect. - Palpable (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My experience with and attitude toward Hob is 100% the same as described here by Palpable. It goes back a while ... ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Hob Gadling failing to yield to WP:BLPRESTORE, apparently missing both the discussion and RSN link from the talk page. Asserting an unreliable source as reliable in order to describe the subject as having a ‘victim complex’. SmolBrane (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that Hob edited the talk page after re-adding this content; he should have self reverted if he missed this discussion prior. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Propose serving of trout to both. Hob likely may have acted a hair too strongly to a source of exasperation; but not enough for any warning. Lardlegwarmers provides a large helping of such and I would suggest a boom if not for BITE. Albeit, Lardlegwarmers’ knowledge of WP is beyond the average for an editor with 5x the posts. I would suggest a non-logged warning to Lardlegwarmers on the concept of collaboration for their own good. Otherwise, we are likely to see them back here given their attitude at both this filing and at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. (Disclaimer, I have been involved.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- For context, O3000, Ret. is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Recuse
Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. SmolBrane (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Recuse
- Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you click through the diffs, you’ll notice that many other editors have received the rude comments, so this is more than a 1-on-1 scuffle with me and Hob Gadling. I stopped compiling examples after finding 9 examples of visible hostility out of their most recent dozen diffs, but like I mentioned to BarntToust above, I can go back further if you need me to, to illustrate the chronic pattern. And the handful of other editors who have spoken up here who have been aggrieved speak for themselves. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- For context, O3000, Ret. is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a note, Hob Gadling removed the ANI notice without comment and has not responded here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Never said they weren't. Just noting that they clearly received the notice and chose not to respond here, which is a response in and of itself. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Wish Hob Gadling would not act like a profane teenager on talk page discussions and that they'd treat people without the smartass-y-ness and contempt. If they are so committed to being pissy towards other users while being shut-off in their own la-la-land, maybe they need a block until they're willing to face the music. BarntToust 01:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It should be noted that Lardlegwarmers, after only truly starting editing two months ago, has been actively pushing WP:FRINGE misinformation, particularly on Covid related pages. They have actively been making claims that the scientific community is trying to cover things up, such as here, and has been using poor quality sources to try and claim that major published scientific papers on the topic are false, such as here. This entire thread just sounds like an attempt to silence another editor who has been actively dealing with fringe POV-pushers across numerous articles, such as those linked by Lardlegwarmers above. Silverseren 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. And it seems that's the case here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!)
bullshit
to describe an argument that did, in fact, turn out to be bullshit shows how weak it is. What's more alarming is that that was what led Lardlewarmers to try and their target on their talk page, a hamhanded effort whose sheer inappropriateness they remain sufficiently tone-deaf to that they made the mistake of bragging about it here as part of their "report". This is a straightforward WP:BOOMERANG situation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "turn over a new leaf" in situations like this one. Misplaced Pages would be better off if people were more willing to tell people to stop before it's too late and stop treating aggressive or uncivil behavior as a "lesser" crime. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The reason I cited numerous diffs was to substantiate, as I said in my post, that this is a chronic and ongoing habit of rude and uncivil behavior. I posted the diff of Hob Gadling's user page not to "brag" (and I don't understand how you inferred that), but rather to show that I followed ANI procedure to address conduct disputes first on the user page and that my attempt was dismissed without Hob Gadling addressing it except to blank the comment with the explantion that I wasn't welcome on his page.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!)
- I am not trying to silence anyone. See above, I recommend a stern warning about consistent uncivil comments and that’s it. If Hob Gadling has something substantive to say, they can say it without demeaning the editors as if this is a combat sport instead of a discussion about articles of text. I encourage y'all to check out the discussions linked to by Silverseren. I have been careful to use sources, present my suggestions in good faith, and stay neutral in personal interactions. I am genuinely trying to find consensus. I'll mention that Silverseren is also involved in the content dispute, providing sources that myself and several other editors believe do not verify an extraordinary claim in the article. (Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Silver_seren-20241231185800-Slatersteven-20241230182700) It's getting to the point where we should do a content moderation over that, since I am sure that the sources do not verify the claim but Silverseren apparently is sure that they do. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type. As the Alien above said, you
Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning.
now WP:DROPTHESTICK. TiggerJay (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to Misplaced Pages:Civility, the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the fallacies contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ad hominem, as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person (Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250103194100-Hob Gadling-20250102085800). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record I do agree with you that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been bating you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, rather we depend on WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to
steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person
. However, that is not what I read in that reply. Out of the gate you're calling Hob uncivil, their arguments are false, and then lobbing further accusations. You get the discussion wrapped up arguing over who said what, and what they meant by it, and why your positions are valid and theirs are not. As for bad faith, I'll invite to other editors to comment below if they agree that I'm the one presuming bad faith towards you. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250105151700-Credibility_of_major_scientific_journals_on_Covid) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think I understand what you're referring to about RS. Yes, there are times when a source is otherwise considered reliable (or even un-reliable) but consensus can be found with regards to a specific narrow aspect of it that might warrant it's inclusion or exclusions, or some variation on how it is presented or the weight afforded to it in the article. And that comes through talk page consensus as you mentioned and does not necessarily need to be unanimous. TiggerJay (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250105151700-Credibility_of_major_scientific_journals_on_Covid) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record I do agree with you that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been bating you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, rather we depend on WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to
- No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to Misplaced Pages:Civility, the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the fallacies contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ad hominem, as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person (Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250103194100-Hob Gadling-20250102085800). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type. As the Alien above said, you
Being entirely blunt, if we have two visions of Misplaced Pages: one in which people are occasionally rude or incivil to people who tout pseudoscience concerning major diseases and one in which pseudoscience concerning major diseases makes its way into article space then I'll gladly sign up for the rude / incivil Misplaced Pages over the pseudoscience one. This is to say that being rude is most certainly a lesser offense
. Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please check out the article and discussion. The lab leak theory is not pseudoscience, but rather a scientific hypothesis which important scientists have suggested is worthy of serious investigation (]). Although the evidence strongly favors a zoonotic origin, the investigation is inconclusive. In any case, I would favor a Misplaced Pages where civil discussion leads to a balanced representation of what is published in reliable sources. If your position is supported by the sources, there is no need to resort to name calling. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What you are describing is a different idea: the COVID-19 bioweapon conspiracy theory. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus.
the World Health Organization is recommending in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe is required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. ]
The fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs.
(]) Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Beyond what @Objective3000 said, for all parties, it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil WP:BRINE. TiggerJay (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Hob Gadling wants to "deal with" new editors who threaten Misplaced Pages, it should not be through aggression and insulting them openly, but through quality sources and discussion. Editors who sympathize with "fringe" ideas might be more cooperative if they didn't have to defend themselves against offensive comments in response to their suggestions. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Beyond what @Objective3000 said, for all parties, it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil WP:BRINE. TiggerJay (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If this "old grievance" about the FTN exemption to CIVIL really has been thoroughly hashed out, could someone link the discussion from WP:FTNCIVIL or something? Being up front about it would save time here at ANI, plus it's always heartbreaking to watch as earnest new editors learn about this the hard way. - Palpable (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am in the diffs.
- I would still like a pointer to the discussion of why FTN regulars get an exemption from CIVIL, I honestly think that should be better understood. - Palpable (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above:
Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic.
] Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above:
- They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- What you are describing is a different idea: the COVID-19 bioweapon conspiracy theory. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus.
- It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
| Extended discussion |
|---|
|
User lobbying fringe subculture off-site for fringe subculture and suspicions of WP:MEATPUPPETry
It's said that Checkuser is not for fishing - well, ANI is also not a place to bring fishing expeditions. If you have evidence of recent misconduct by an editor, then by all means bring it. But if you justmore would come to light, expect a {{trout}}ing. I'm closing this as unactionable with a fish for the OP, and a caution to in the future compile evidence before coming to ANI. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over at cryptozoology and the very questionable list of cryptids, both extremely WP:FRINGE topics strongly linked to for example Young Earth creationism, myself and a few other users find ourselves having to respond to a lot of accounts that either openly or less than openly state that they're members of the article's subject subculture and that, like the subculture's founders, have a strong distaste for experts (here's an example anti-RS/anti-expert comment from today from one such fairly new account, @KanyeWestDropout:).
One of these editors, Paleface Jack (talk · contribs), has been caught lobbying off site (right here). The user has also likely done so elsewhere that hasn't come to light. This user's efforts appear to have led to a variety of WP:MEATPUPPETs popping up to WP:Wikilawyer any and all changes they disagree with, an effort to shape the articles to the subculture's preference.
Again, it's important to emphasize that not only has Paleface Jack been caught red-handed here but he has likely also lobbied elsewhere, leading to long-term problems for these and associated articles.
As some users here know, I edit a lot on fringe topics and have all but single-handedly written our coverage on topics like cryptozoology, utilizing nothing but the highest quality possible sources. Along the way, I've endured relentless insults and less-than-pleasant anonymous messages. I've been a personal target for users like Paleface Jack and co for years.
As is far too typical in our WP:FRINGE spaces, any action by myself and others introducing WP:RS on these articles is responded to with endless talk page lawyering and complaints from these cryptozoology-associated or -aligned editors, who fill talk pages with page after page of insult-ladden chatter about anything that doesn't fit their preferred messaging. This not infrequently includes insults toward non-adherents abiding by WP:RS and WP:NPOV (as an example, recently one of the users decided to refer to me as a "wikifascist", for example). This pattern has been going on for years and is a clear indication of long-term Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing and I've frankly put up wth it for far too long.
This is an all too common pattern that many editors who edit in new religious movement, pseudoscience, or fringe spaces will recognize as an unfortunate reality of editing in these spaces on the site.
I recommend that Paleface Jack be topic banned for off-site lobbying for meatpuppets, if nothing else, as well as likely associated accounts per WP:MEATPUPPET. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're misinterpreting what I said. I don't have any disdain for Loxton and Prothero, all I said was that cryptozoologists have historically discussed a large number of "cryptids" which is something you could see from reading cryptozoologist papers ans books. I've previously cited Loxton/Prothero on cryptozoological wikipedia pages KanyeWestDropout (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This user's actual comment in response to my mention of Prothero & Loxton, a dreaded WP:RS: "Learning about cryptozoologists by reading secondhand sources is a poor way to find out what cryptozoologists have actually done historically" (). Funny how a spotlight on ANI can change an editor's tune. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thaf didnt change my tune at all! I mentioned that I personally liked that book before you posted this KanyeWestDropout (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This user's actual comment in response to my mention of Prothero & Loxton, a dreaded WP:RS: "Learning about cryptozoologists by reading secondhand sources is a poor way to find out what cryptozoologists have actually done historically" (). Funny how a spotlight on ANI can change an editor's tune. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The incident Bloodoffox is referring to happened years ago when I did not know that was even a rule. It was a mistake I have not repeated, nor have I violated any rules since that incident.
- That being said, Bloodoffox has a history of antagonizing other users associated with the topic. I am not aware of any of the other occasions where he has been harassed by users, so I sympathize. There are bad editors on this site that do that behavior or make edits that are, in kinder words, sloppy. Fringe topics are constrained as they are to avoid pandering or making it a massive advocation for them and should remain within the neutral guidelines that are enforced on fringe topics.
- Yes, the topics do need a lot of work, and its hard to find the few good editors that know what they are doing with fringe topics. I myself follow the topic out of interest, not advocacy, and I rarely edit on it mainly cause of a backlog of other projects. I don't pop on to cause trouble as Bloodoffox loves to accuse me of, among the many personal attacks he has made against me. I have had no such incidents since my mistake way back in the day and I have not made any since then. The sole reason I commented in the discussion was because I could see it was rapidly devolving into an antagonistic nature, and though my words could have been put differently, I always wrote that we "needed to find common ground". It has become a point of frustration with this, because of personal attacks on my character and what I have contributed to this site. I am not a disruptor by any means and Bloodoffox has keep making accusations or belittling comments in regards to me and other users who disagree with him. His aggressive and belittling behavior has a huge role in antagonizing other users and it does need to stop. I might be frustrated, but I cannot see how this does any good with moving projects and topics forwards. Banning me from the topic is unnecessary and overkill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleface Jack (talk • contribs)
- If the only example of off-wiki canvasing is a single blog post from seven years ago, I'm not seeing any case for sanctions. - Bilby (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is the only clear incident I've encountered. However, there's good reason to suspect that there's more. Note also that although the user is happy to apologize about it when called on it here, the user also never deleted the off-site lobbying on the cryptozoology wiki. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can see a case for a {{trout}} for the OP, at the very least. (Trout-erang?) - The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Bloodofox, if this has been a contentious area to edit in (there are many such areas on the project) but we can't sanction editors based on suspicions, we require evidence of misconduct and if it is off-wiki behavior, it might be more appropriate to send it to ARBCOM. You have provided a narrative statement of how difficult it is to edit in this field but with few diffs illustrating conflict and other editors have providing competing narratives. This isn't your first trip to ANI so you know what is required here for an admin to take action. And if you do provide some more evidence, I encourage you to provide RECENT evidence (like from the past 3 years), not diffs or statements from when an editor was new and unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies and practices. Liz 08:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- While the editor has been been editing since 2013 and his off-site post was from 2018 (yet somehow claims to not know it was not OK to canvas for meatpuppets off-site), I figured this might be the case and hoped more would come to light about what's going on off-site (I expect more will, in which case I'll return). :bloodofox: (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I have said before, I am not used to conflict on the site and naively did that. If you look back at that whole debate, I did reply saying I was not aware that it was bad. If you look at my history of edits, I rarely (if ever) participate in conflict. I prefer to edit like everyone else on here in a constructive and beneficial manner, so all those accusations strike a nerve with me as they are both untrue and slander. As I have said previously, bloodoffox has a history of provoking conflict by aggressive behavior towards other editors, even when those editors are in the wrong they should not be treated with the level of disdain and contempt. Slandering myself or others either based on an isolated and admitted mistake, then constantly bringing it up as "proof" of his claims that I am an instigator of any sort of conflict he has with others is behavior that only inspires destructive conflicts or edits. I have, in the past, reached out to bloodoffox to apologize and also offer assistance with other projects thinking that would mend any sort of anger and hate. This recent incident has proved me wrong and I am sad to see that it has come to this. I never wanted any conflict, just a healthy way of moving forwards to tackle fascinating and notable topics.
- I will admit that it is frustratingly difficult to make edits on fringe topics, I am one of those people that tried to edit some but got frustrated by the overly tight restrictions on the subject (not that I was leaning to one side as some claim I do), which is why I rarely edit on the topic and only do so when I see that there is reliable information benefiting and fitting of the standards set by Misplaced Pages. I love information, and even fringe topics have enough within Misplaced Pages's confines to exist on the site and be a fascinating read for people. I truly hope you read this bloodoffox and realize I never meant you ill or advocate for people harassing you, I want this platform to explore information correctly and efficiently, even if we do not agree with the topic. That is pretty much all that should be said on this matter and hopefully it gets resolved. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- While the editor has been been editing since 2013 and his off-site post was from 2018 (yet somehow claims to not know it was not OK to canvas for meatpuppets off-site), I figured this might be the case and hoped more would come to light about what's going on off-site (I expect more will, in which case I'll return). :bloodofox: (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Taboo of archaeologists
This is fundamentally a content dispute, I see nothing admin-actionable here. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is about by Jahuah. They claim that an unprovenanced archaeological object is authentic. Bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss unprovenanced objects in public. It's a taboo of their profession. So, no bona fide archaeologist can give the lie to the authenticity of that object without losing their job. Since if they mention that object in public they get sacked. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol, reporting on me? Jahuah (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Give me an actual reason why the specific seal in question is not authentic? How about that? Quote me an actual scholar who does? If not, then your words mean jack. Jahuah (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- According to critical rationalism, the claim that such object is authentic is unfalsifiable. Since it is taboo to discuss such object in public. So only biased hacks could affirm it is authentic or inauthentic without losing their jobs. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think it’s inauthentic? Or not? Please do not be wasting my time here. Jahuah (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It think that claim is utterly unfalsifiable, so it cannot amount to science. See for details The Shapira Strips: What Are They and Are They Forgeries? on YouTube by Dr. Robert R. Cargill. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks for actually giving me an answer at least. Jahuah (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- What exactly are you asking admins to do there? This looks to me like a content dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who, me? I’m not asking anything. I just wanted to show how a seal dated by a scholar to the 8th century is indeed an 8th century BC Israelite seal of Hoshea.
- The guy up there has a problem with that and now apparently I’m on the naughty list. Jahuah (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: I have explained them at length why this is utterly problematic, previously. I had expected that they will behave. Misbehaving is a behavioral problem. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think I know how to behave, thank you very much. I’m not a petulant manchild. Jahuah (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- See User talk:Jahuah#December 2024 and Talk:Uzziah#Uzziah Seals. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol, I refuted you there. All you did was attack Dr. Mykytiuk and call into question his scholarship. Jahuah (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Besides, what does this have to do with the Hoshea seal? Jahuah (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't expect any of you to take my word for it, that why I had WP:CITED https://web.archive.org/web/20241209232716/https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/the-problem-with-unprovenanced-objects/ Suffices to say that unprovenanced objects are ethically and juridically fishy. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- So no comment on my refutation of your petulant behavior? Jahuah (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who’s “any of you” by the way? I’m one guy. Jahuah (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're (only you, not The Bushranger) promoting a claim that is unfalsifiable, unethical, and maybe even juridically problematic. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ooo, that’s a new one. Jahuah (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope, if you had read carefully what I told you in 2024, there is nothing new about my claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good. You guys represent scholarship only when it suits your ideology. Jahuah (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not about my ideology. It is about: bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss such claims in public. So no bona fide archaeologist could affirm that that object is authentic or inauthentic, because the next day they will have to flip burgers at Target. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fine whatever, I apologize. Jahuah (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not about my ideology. It is about: bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss such claims in public. So no bona fide archaeologist could affirm that that object is authentic or inauthentic, because the next day they will have to flip burgers at Target. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good. You guys represent scholarship only when it suits your ideology. Jahuah (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope, if you had read carefully what I told you in 2024, there is nothing new about my claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ooo, that’s a new one. Jahuah (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're (only you, not The Bushranger) promoting a claim that is unfalsifiable, unethical, and maybe even juridically problematic. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't expect any of you to take my word for it, that why I had WP:CITED https://web.archive.org/web/20241209232716/https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/the-problem-with-unprovenanced-objects/ Suffices to say that unprovenanced objects are ethically and juridically fishy. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- See User talk:Jahuah#December 2024 and Talk:Uzziah#Uzziah Seals. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think I know how to behave, thank you very much. I’m not a petulant manchild. Jahuah (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: I have explained them at length why this is utterly problematic, previously. I had expected that they will behave. Misbehaving is a behavioral problem. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It think that claim is utterly unfalsifiable, so it cannot amount to science. See for details The Shapira Strips: What Are They and Are They Forgeries? on YouTube by Dr. Robert R. Cargill. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think it’s inauthentic? Or not? Please do not be wasting my time here. Jahuah (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- According to critical rationalism, the claim that such object is authentic is unfalsifiable. Since it is taboo to discuss such object in public. So only biased hacks could affirm it is authentic or inauthentic without losing their jobs. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Demands to prove a negative are a nonsensical and puerile debating tactic. The editor must cite evidence that the item is considered authentic, or refrain from stating so in WP's voice. Simple as that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is the editor referring to me? Jahuah (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If so, here you go. Lawrence J. Mykytiuk, Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E. (Boston: Brill, 2004), 58., https://www.academia.edu/62900860/Iconography_on_Hebrew_Seals_and_Bullae_Identifying_Biblical_Persons_and_the_Apparent_Paradox_of_Egyptian_Solar_Symbols_ABSTRACT_ Jahuah (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss it, you win by default? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Elmidae, were you referring to me? Jahuah (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bona fide archaeologists will lose their jobs for merely mentioning Mykytiuk's claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was talking to Elmidae. Jahuah (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they were talking to you. Also both of you take a chill pill for a minute, please - this disucssion is already approaching WP:TLDR levels of length from the back-and-forth above. Tgeorgescu, you don't have to respond to everything Jahuah says esepecially when it's in response to other editors. Jahuah,
i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good.
is not an attitude conducive to cooperative editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Fine, fine, I apologize. I’m just angry that my contributions to Misplaced Pages get deleted. I just wanna leave some edits and then I’ll leave this site for good. I promise. Jahuah (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also want to make sure my contributions are kept before I leave. Jahuah (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fine, fine, I apologize. I’m just angry that my contributions to Misplaced Pages get deleted. I just wanna leave some edits and then I’ll leave this site for good. I promise. Jahuah (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they were talking to you. Also both of you take a chill pill for a minute, please - this disucssion is already approaching WP:TLDR levels of length from the back-and-forth above. Tgeorgescu, you don't have to respond to everything Jahuah says esepecially when it's in response to other editors. Jahuah,
- I was talking to Elmidae. Jahuah (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bona fide archaeologists will lose their jobs for merely mentioning Mykytiuk's claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Elmidae, were you referring to me? Jahuah (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss it, you win by default? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This editor appears to be edit warring across multiple pages to assert historical uncertainties as fact based on unconfirmed and speculative research from biblical archaeology blogs and the like. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh look, BAR society is no longer reputable because some Misplaced Pages mod said so. Jahuah (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, who am I edit warring with? That’s news to me. Jahuah (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- We don't have "mods" on Misplaced Pages. But you have only been editing for a month so it shouldn't be expected that you would know much about how Misplaced Pages works. Liz 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmph. I guess I’ll go then. Sorry for the trouble I caused. Jahuah (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jahuah, I wasn't asking you to leave the project, just pointing out that you are a newer editor. Misplaced Pages is chockful of rules and guidelines and it's not realistic to expect new editors to be familiar with them all. Liz 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, no. It’s ok. It’s clear that I have caused more problems here than solved. I just hope my contributions will stay, or at least be kept until new data comes. I’ll be out of your hairs soon. Jahuah (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jahuah, I wasn't asking you to leave the project, just pointing out that you are a newer editor. Misplaced Pages is chockful of rules and guidelines and it's not realistic to expect new editors to be familiar with them all. Liz 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmph. I guess I’ll go then. Sorry for the trouble I caused. Jahuah (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- We don't have "mods" on Misplaced Pages. But you have only been editing for a month so it shouldn't be expected that you would know much about how Misplaced Pages works. Liz 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, who am I edit warring with? That’s news to me. Jahuah (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh look, BAR society is no longer reputable because some Misplaced Pages mod said so. Jahuah (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
it's an unprovenanced object and likely a forgery it was not found in a licensed archaeological excavation it does not possess a credible chain of custody this is very much too good to be true but since people of faith want to believe it and since it's not against the law to use your free speech to make false claims like this forgers will make forgeries and antiquities dealers will put them up for sale and try to make as much money as they can but these kind of forgeries pollute legitimate biblical archaeology and it is why so many scholars myself included do not publish critical reviews of unproven objects once you give them credence their value is increased even if you put a little asterisk by them and designate them as unprovenanced and merely teach the controversy you are still giving them scholarly recognition and debate that the forger and the antiquities dealer so desperately crave publishing unprovenanced objects leads to looting and to forgeries it's that simple
— Dr. Robert R. Cargill, transcript
Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- tgeorgescu, this is becoming a detailed content dispute which means it probably should be closed as off-topic for this noticeboard. Liz 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, tg's hysterical talk about disgraced archeologists flipping burgers at Target is nonsense. There is vigorous controversy about unprovenanced objects, but no one's losing their job for breaking some alleged taboo. EEng 06:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
HoraceAndTheSpiders
Attention gotten and message received. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- HoraceAndTheSpiders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Could someone briefly block User:HoraceAndTheSpiders to get their attention, or come up with better way to get them to read their talk page/comply with the WP:ARBECR restrictions. Thanks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. I've left a note on their talkpage that they will almost certainly be unblocked if they promise to keep away from ARBPIA until they are extended-confirmed. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sean.hoyland The editor has submitted a suitable unblock request, so I have unblocked. Please let me know if they stray into ARBPIA again. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
TTTEMLPBrony and continued addition of unsourced/crufty material, zero communication
Blocked. Now CU-blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TTTEMLPBrony (talk · contribs) has been active since late April 2024. They have a history of adding of unsourced and sometimes controversial material. They have been messaged and warned plenty of times, including by FlightTime, Doniago and LindsayH, but to no avail. Better yet, they haven't responded once on their own talk page.WP:COMMUNICATION is required and they do not seem to be willing or able to work with others. I've issued them a warning earlier this week, but looking at their talk page, I see they've been issued stern warnings plenty of times. And despite messages about adding sources, in late December 2024 they created List of second unit directors, which is barely referenced. soetermans. 12:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- They may be unaware of their talkpage, even though 8 months seems a long time for that. I have blocked indefinitely, with an informative message and a link to their talkpage in the log. Unfortunately that's sometimes the only way to get the attention of a non-responsive user. Bishonen | tålk 15:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
- They know about talk pages, Bishonen, because they have used one at least once; i checked when i first tried to communicate with them to no avail. That being said, i think this is a good use of a block, showing we are serious when we say communication is necessary ~ Lindsay 17:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked after only 5-hours, without the user even editing during that period? For a first offence? After only warnings of the lowest level? I'm no sure why User:Soetermans even created this request, as there'd been zero editing of the page in question since his talk-page warning 3 days earlier! Much of the edits seem to be merely content disputes. I don't see much repition after notification. And we don't even have rules about providing sources. There was no imminent risk of damage here, and I don't think the conditions laid out in WP:INDEF have been met. And WP:BLOCKDURATION most certainly hasn't been met. This is an appallingly awful block User:Bishonen. Can I that you reduce it to a week or less just to get attention. I'd suggest a day, but the editor is so infrequent, that they may not not notice. Though given they are moderating their behaviour based on what is posted in their talk page, even a block is barely justified. Nfitz (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. When an editor refuses to communicate, it's not uncommon for an admin to block until the editor responds. Even the block notice tells them
Please respond below this post and start communicating, and you may be unblocked.
Sometimes it's a case where inexperienced editors simply don't realize that they have a talk page or that people are leaving them messages. This block gently brings it to their attention. Schazjmd (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- I see nothing in policy for an indefinite. And an indefinite block is absolutely not "gently". It's the kind of heavy-handed authoritarianism that drives the people we need away. There seemed to be edits that were a real attempt to improve Misplaced Pages. And there seemed to be changes in behaviour that were guided by the comments on the talk page. And there hadn't even been any further edits of concern since the previous warning - days ago. Sure, for Misplaced Pages warriors who frequent ANI, a block is just something you deal with; but I don't think that's how many people would see it. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indef is "until you address the issue", not forever. Schazjmd (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I believe we are all aware of that. The issue is that doing so, at this stage, is completely outside of our policy, and that doing so for a minor case like this is completely outside of policy. We can't just make start doing things a different way because the admin feels like it. Our policy says that "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy". The threat was neither significant (or even very recent) or a major breach of policy. I note that the user in question was only given 5 hours to respond, but after 4 hours, we'd still had no response from User:Bishonen, perhaps she should also have been blocked for not noticing the discussion (yeah, that's irony, not a proposal). Nfitz (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indef is "until you address the issue", not forever. Schazjmd (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see nothing in policy for an indefinite. And an indefinite block is absolutely not "gently". It's the kind of heavy-handed authoritarianism that drives the people we need away. There seemed to be edits that were a real attempt to improve Misplaced Pages. And there seemed to be changes in behaviour that were guided by the comments on the talk page. And there hadn't even been any further edits of concern since the previous warning - days ago. Sure, for Misplaced Pages warriors who frequent ANI, a block is just something you deal with; but I don't think that's how many people would see it. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. When an editor refuses to communicate, it's not uncommon for an admin to block until the editor responds. Even the block notice tells them
- TTTEMLPBrony has now responded, stating that "I have not realized that accounts have talkpages", so apparently my block worked as intended. Unfortunately, they go on to say that their little brother did it, and also that they allowed the brother to use the account. Blithely they claim that "I have already dealt with him" - uh, "already"? Anyway, whether or not I believe them about the brother (I can't say I do), the account is clearly compromised, and must stay blocked. With some hesitation, I've turned the block into a softblock, so that they may create a new account, and have explained that they must absolutely not share it with anybody. I have notified the stewards in case they want to globally lock. Bishonen | tålk 03:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
- Just because, User:Bishonen, it worked, doesn't mean that you are allowed to just make up your own rules. (but yeah, sounds fishy ... on the other hand, it's probably a child). Please follow protocol, or hand over your keys. Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nfitz, please be more polite on these noticeboards. The block Bishonen placed was perfectly fine and it's the kind of thing admins have been doing for years. Nothing in policy forbids it, and I believe The Bushranger's response is along the same lines. Besides, the editor's edit were, and I'm trying to stay polite myself, not good, as their talk page full of warnings indicates: no edit summaries, no responses, no communication, no knowledge of sourcing and sourcing requirements. Finally, I don't know how young that editor might be, but I do know that they are four years older than when Ponyo blocked them. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just because, User:Bishonen, it worked, doesn't mean that you are allowed to just make up your own rules. (but yeah, sounds fishy ... on the other hand, it's probably a child). Please follow protocol, or hand over your keys. Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Jypian gaming extended confirmed
SOCK BLOCKED I've run out of sock puns, sorry. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Jypian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
On J.P. (rapper), the user is making pointless edits after having been here for exactly thirty days. Clearly gaming extended confirmed. 🐔 Chicdat 12:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I been making real edits since I created my account please take your time to check and I’m sorry for purposely pointless edits for extended confirmed on Day 30. I’m a real and genuine user I just wanted early access to work and edit on important stuffJypian (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- For what reason are you doing this? 331dot (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The thing is, articles that only extended confirmed users can edit are like that for a reason. What kinds of
important stuff
were you planning on working on? 🐔 Chicdat 13:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Donald Trump Hotel Accident Jypian (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering you've admitted you've gaming the system you need to voluntary agree to refrain from editing anything that requires EC until you've made 500 real edits. The permission will be removed if you don't follow this. I'd also suggest stay away from the Donald Trump hotel article until you've gotten at least a few thousand edits under your belt since being so desperate to edit an article is usually a sign once you do start editing you'll get into trouble. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have revoked their extended-confirmed permission. They may re-request it from WP:PERM after making 500 legitimate edits. —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im going to edit Donald Trump hotel accident, whatever you want it or not😡 JupianCircles (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you create alternative accounts to try and bypass your primary account's restrictions, you will end up being banned. GiantSnowman 14:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's unnecessary to threaten or to evade restrictions; you can propose edits via the edit request wizard. If they are nonsense, though, expect to be blocked as well. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im going to edit Donald Trump hotel accident, whatever you want it or not😡 JupianCircles (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have revoked their extended-confirmed permission. They may re-request it from WP:PERM after making 500 legitimate edits. —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering you've admitted you've gaming the system you need to voluntary agree to refrain from editing anything that requires EC until you've made 500 real edits. The permission will be removed if you don't follow this. I'd also suggest stay away from the Donald Trump hotel article until you've gotten at least a few thousand edits under your belt since being so desperate to edit an article is usually a sign once you do start editing you'll get into trouble. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Donald Trump Hotel Accident Jypian (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked. Blocked as a sock by NinjaRobotPirate. Bishonen | tålk 15:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
- That makes sense. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the action NinjaRobotPirate. 🐔 Chicdat 15:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- That makes sense. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- As an aside, is it possible to take away the EC permission before it is achieved or otherwise prevent it being automatically gained? I said what I said above because I incorrectly thought they hadn't yet achieved EC. Given this I thought either an admin would need to watch out for them (unless there's an admin bot which can do this) or they could voluntary refrain from using their EC and this wouldn't be necessary. But I checked after and realised I was wrong about them not gaining EC and I'm wondering if I could be wrong about the removal of EC before it's automatically gained. Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's possible to prevent an account from obtaining EC by granting and immediately revoking it. That apparently stops the account from getting it automatically because it has obtained EC before. QwertyForest (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks. Useful to know for the future. Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's possible to prevent an account from obtaining EC by granting and immediately revoking it. That apparently stops the account from getting it automatically because it has obtained EC before. QwertyForest (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Footballnerd2007
This is going nowhere fast. Whether or not Footballnerd2007 is using an LLM to respond to conversations, they've promised to stay out of other editors' userspace drafts, been notified they shouldn't start RfAs for other editors without speaking to them, and said that they would be more careful with moves. (On that note, I can't warn Footballnerd2007 to not close RM discussions, but I'd highly recommend they avoid doing so until they become more acquainted with community norms.) voorts (talk/contributions) 22:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I need a second pair of eyes on Footballnerd2007 (talk · contribs) please - apparently a new editor, but they have been closing RM discussions - including one where they introduced a typo, see Dory (special) which I have fixed - and they have also been messing around moving my user space pages (see User:GiantSnowman/Mbunya Alemanji) and they have also created Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Cyberdog958. None of this is the action of a new editor and my Spidey senses are tingling. GiantSnowman 19:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see an urgent or intractable issue here. Unless/until stronger evidence comes up, I'm going to assume that they're trying to help and suggest we respond accordingly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to clarify a point in your message. The statement "and they have also been messing around moving my user space pages (see User:GiantSnowman/Mbunya Alemanji)" should be corrected. I have only moved one page, not multiple pages. Please adjust the wording to reflect this accurately. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- A response like that is not helping with my suspicions and concerns. GiantSnowman 20:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- What exactly am I being accused of? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are either an extremely over enthusiastic new editor making mistakes - in which case you need to slow down a lot, and listen ASAP - or you are a sock trying to be clever. GiantSnowman 20:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The former is rather accurate. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- GiantSnowman, if you have evidence, then the appropriate forum is WP:SPI. If you don't, then you're liable to get hit with a boomerang for WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS, even if you end up happening to be correct. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And what would my boomerang punishment be? GiantSnowman 21:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- How do I go about making a complaint against him for violating WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And what would my boomerang punishment be? GiantSnowman 21:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are either an extremely over enthusiastic new editor making mistakes - in which case you need to slow down a lot, and listen ASAP - or you are a sock trying to be clever. GiantSnowman 20:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- What exactly am I being accused of? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- A response like that is not helping with my suspicions and concerns. GiantSnowman 20:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to clarify a point in your message. The statement "and they have also been messing around moving my user space pages (see User:GiantSnowman/Mbunya Alemanji)" should be corrected. I have only moved one page, not multiple pages. Please adjust the wording to reflect this accurately. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Response
Hello GiantSnowman,
Thank you for raising these concerns. I'd like to address the points you mentioned:
1. Botched Page Moves: Regarding the page moves, I made an attempt to improve the accuracy and consistency of article titles based on my understanding of the situation. I acknowledge that there was a typo introduced, which I appreciate being pointed out, and I have since corrected it. I’ll be more careful in the future to ensure that such errors do not occur.
2. Messing with User Space Draft: I apologise for any disruption caused to your user space draft. My intention was never to interfere with your content. I recognise that user space is personal, and I will be mindful to avoid making any uninvited changes moving forward.
3. Creation of an RFA for Cyberdog958: As for the RFA for Cyberdog958, I stand by my decision to create it. I believed that Cyberdog958 hads demonstrated the necessary qualities for adminship and could be a positive asset to the community. There was no ill intent behind my actions. The RFA was made based on a genuine belief that they were qualified, and I will continue to support nominations that I feel are appropriate based on the contributions and behavior I observe.
I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. I strive to make constructive contributions and act in good faith, and I appreciate your understanding.
Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- RFA - why didn't you discuss with the editor first? GiantSnowman 20:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware there was a requirement to do so. I did notify them! Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Before you made the RFA??? No. GiantSnowman 20:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware there was a requirement to do so. I did notify them! Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn’t pinged about this ANI, but I found it through the RFA message on my talk page. I guess I appreciate the thought, if it was coming from a sincere place, but I would have declined the nomination if I was asked. I’ve never come across this user or interacted with them in any way until now so I’m not sure why they picked me. cyberdog958 20:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Footballnerd2007, given that Cyberdog958 has confirmed that they have never interacted with you, please confirm how you found them to nominate them for RFA?
- Similarly, how did you find me this afternoon, as I similarly have never heard of or interacted with you before today? GiantSnowman 21:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Footballnerd2007 thank you for trying to help out, and I'm sorry that GiantSnowman has chosen to escalate this in the way that he has. Page moves can be tricky, and you might want to sit back and watch the process for a while before participating in it yourself. Regarding RFA, it's a serious decision that people usually mull over for years before they finally agree to submit their names, so it's going to be more than a little jarring to have someone else do it on one's behalf. With the user space, it seems you understand the issue so there's no need to retread that. Going forward, I suggest taking things slow and asking for help whenever you think about entering a new area. I've been doing this for a few years now, and I still reach out to someone with experience in the area if I think I want to try something new! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Footballnerd2007, the response that you made at 20:08 has formatting that I have only seen before from AI, never from a human editor. Was it made with an LLM? If so please talk to us in your own words. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I have the feeling that a lot of this editor's comments are AI produced. GiantSnowman 21:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I refer you to my previous answer. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link - I see therefore that other users have raised concerns with you only yesterday about your RM/discussion closes, and yet you have continued to make poor closes today. Why is that? Why therefore should we trust you when you say you won't do it again, given you have done it again? GiantSnowman 21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yesterday I didn't say I wouldn't do it again, today I have, albeit reluctantly, changed my position for the sake of keeping the peace. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why did you continue to make the same questionable edits that other editors have previously queried with you? Unless you are deliberately trying to be disruptive? GiantSnowman 21:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yesterday I didn't say I wouldn't do it again, today I have, albeit reluctantly, changed my position for the sake of keeping the peace. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link - I see therefore that other users have raised concerns with you only yesterday about your RM/discussion closes, and yet you have continued to make poor closes today. Why is that? Why therefore should we trust you when you say you won't do it again, given you have done it again? GiantSnowman 21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Transparently LLM output. Folly Mox (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yet here they deny using Chat GPT. So either it's not LLM (and multiple users have raised these suspicions, which I share) and just very odd language, or they are a liar. Which is it? GiantSnowman 21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- What unsubjctive hard evidence do you have to support that allegation? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I pulled 11 random AI detectors from Google. Of them, seven give a 100% AI rating. One gives 50% and the 3 others give 0%. Tarlby 21:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The final 3 are 100% accurate. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And the 7 others? Tarlby 21:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have no explanation. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because there is none - it's absolutely AI generated, you don't need a detector for that. While not against policy, it's heavily frowned upon, as it's not your words but the LLM's. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And given that you have repeatedly denied use LLM, you are a liar and cannot be trusted. GiantSnowman 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly denied using ChatGPT because I didn't, that's not a lie and you have no evidence to suggest to the contrary. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- But you have been using a LLM of some kind, yes? GiantSnowman 21:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- No comment. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- We'll take that as a 'yes' then - and that you therefore have not been truthful. The tiny modicum of AGF I had has now fully disappeared. GiantSnowman 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- No comment. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- But you have been using a LLM of some kind, yes? GiantSnowman 21:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly denied using ChatGPT because I didn't, that's not a lie and you have no evidence to suggest to the contrary. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you're accusing me of lying now? As I have said before, I didn't use ChatGPT. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I am accusing you of lying. GiantSnowman 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a serious allegation, what evidence do you have that I use ChatGPT? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'm pretty sure there's LLMs that aren't ChatGPT. But if you're saying "I didn't use a LLM/AI generator at all", then that is demonstratably false. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And if you're trying to be clever by saying "I use LLM but not ChatGPT", your comments here have been disingenuous and misleading. You are digging yourself a hole. GiantSnowman 21:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I never made any comment about LLMs in general. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please answer this direct question - have you used LLM? If so, why didn't you own up to that when asked? GiantSnowman 21:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- 🤦♂️ Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)So that's "yes" then, got it. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:LLMDISCLOSE applies (even if only an essay). GiantSnowman 22:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're not helping your case right now. Even if you're getting dogpiled (especially if you're getting dogpiled) you need to speak clearly and directly. You'll gain far more goodwill by saying you're using an LLM and agreeing to stop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thebiguglyalien, do you now understand why my red flags were flagging earlier? There is something off about this editor. GiantSnowman 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with your analysis. I disagree with the way you approached it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- A fair criticism. GiantSnowman 22:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sure you've had to deal with this sort of thing far more than I have, so I get that. My philosophy is just that I'd rather give dozens of "cases" that extra chance if it means salvaging one well-meaning productive editor. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which is what I usually try and do, but the alarm bells just really rang here, and I simply wanted a second pair of eyes on the contribs to tell me "yes it's fishy" or "no you're thinking too much". I did not envision this discussion! GiantSnowman 22:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sure you've had to deal with this sort of thing far more than I have, so I get that. My philosophy is just that I'd rather give dozens of "cases" that extra chance if it means salvaging one well-meaning productive editor. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- A fair criticism. GiantSnowman 22:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with your analysis. I disagree with the way you approached it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, that's conjecture. I just choose my words very carefully. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Stop choosing your words carefully. I'm trying to give you a chance that isn't often afforded to new editors here, and you're trying to WP:Wikilawyer, which is also against the rules. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Here's the deal - either you used AI, or you
my words very carefully
in a way that is how AI distinctively chooses them. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thebiguglyalien, do you now understand why my red flags were flagging earlier? There is something off about this editor. GiantSnowman 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please answer this direct question - have you used LLM? If so, why didn't you own up to that when asked? GiantSnowman 21:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I never made any comment about LLMs in general. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And if you're trying to be clever by saying "I use LLM but not ChatGPT", your comments here have been disingenuous and misleading. You are digging yourself a hole. GiantSnowman 21:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I am accusing you of lying. GiantSnowman 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And given that you have repeatedly denied use LLM, you are a liar and cannot be trusted. GiantSnowman 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because there is none - it's absolutely AI generated, you don't need a detector for that. While not against policy, it's heavily frowned upon, as it's not your words but the LLM's. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have no explanation. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- And the 7 others? Tarlby 21:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's 4 more AI detectors. Two give 100%, one says 11% (literally the last two sentences), and the other gives 50%. Tarlby 22:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which AI detectors are you using? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The final 3 are 100% accurate. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
possible hoaxes
- Emilioveh (talk · contribs)
- Emnoé (talk · contribs)
- Larissæ (talk · contribs)
- Miguelinor (talk · contribs)
- Nose236 (talk · contribs)
The above accounts are sockpuppets that have been blocked on the Spanish Misplaced Pages for creating articles with unverifiable references or with scarce references taken out of context. I recommend reviewing all the articles that these accounts have created here as they may be hoaxes.--Fontaine347 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a note, you don't appear to have notified any of these editors about this section, which is something you need to do when you open a section on this noticeboard. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've notified all the users about this possible hoax issue already. Suggest any action from administrators if possible. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that's a valid notion, Fontaine347. Feel free to do so! Ravenswing 12:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring to prevent an RFC
@Axad12 has removed an RFC tag from Talk:Breyers#Request for comment on propylene glycol now twice within an hour.
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RfCs provides a list of circumstances under which you can stop an RFC started by someone else, and disagreeing with the question or wishing that it contained additional information is not in the list.
We have to be pretty strict about this, because an RFC is one of the few ways to attract the broader community's attention when there's an Misplaced Pages:Ownership of content problem or a Misplaced Pages:Walled garden that needs outside attention. The fact that an editor doesn't welcome outside attention sometimes indicates that there is a problem. I'm not saying that these things are happening in this case, but the rules have to be the rules for all RFCs, not just for the ones we agree with, because these things do happen in some cases. We can't really have opponents of an RFC question/proposal, no matter how well intentioned or how justified they think it is in this one case, unilaterally deciding that the rest of the community doesn't get to find out about the dispute.
I wouldn't bother with this here, except that it's already past my bedtime, so I need someone else to handle this. The proper way forward is to run the RFC, and for the loyal opposition to take the advice about how to respond that they'll find in the first two questions of the Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/FAQ. See you tomorrow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC.
- I am perfectly happy to take instruction on that point if I am incorrect but the removals were undertaken in good faith.
- The idea that I should be reported to ANI for this just because it is past someone's bedtime (and they don't have time for talk page discussion) seems to me rather an over-reaction. Axad12 (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, I am perfectly happy to volunteer to replace the tag if an administrator indicates that that is the appropriate course of action. Axad12 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad12, please do not tamper with the RFC. I have already commented there again based on my previous assessment five weeks ago, and I have absolutely no conflict of interest in this matter. In my opinion, you are taking too aggressive a stance on this issue. I happen to be an administrator but I am also involved with the dispute as an ordinary editor. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Axad12, I'd strongly suggest you return the tag. WhatamIdoing, a {{trout}} for WP:GRENADEing. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for both of your advice. I will shortly replace the template.
- The COI issue does not relate to Cullen, it relates to another user entirely. I would be grateful for input on the underlying COI issue, which seems to me to have been an exceptionally serious abuse. Axad12 (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? A company quite reasonably does not want to be falsely accused of adulterating their edible product with antifreeze, based on what a fringe source wrote, and you consider that
exceptionally serious abuse
? Cullen328 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? A company quite reasonably does not want to be falsely accused of adulterating their edible product with antifreeze, based on what a fringe source wrote, and you consider that
- Indeed, I am perfectly happy to volunteer to replace the tag if an administrator indicates that that is the appropriate course of action. Axad12 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I'm referring to the series of events outlined here where a paid COI editor has a COI edit request turned down and then starts cultivating a co-operative project member to implement non-contentious COI edit requests before reintroducing the contentious COI edit request and immediately tipping off their repeatedly canvassed project member to implement that contentious request.
- I feel that that is an exceptionally serious abuse - clearly it is an attempt to distort the COI editing process by attempting to make sure that a previously co-operative project member deals with a resubmitted request rather than waiting for a random volunteer working out of the relevant queue (one of whom had previously declined the request).
- As I said above, I am quite happy to take instruction on this point - but personally I feel that what happened there was highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- In other words, you want highly misleading content to remain in the article, just to make a point? Cullen328 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cullen, my post directly above is clearly about a point of process rather than a point of content.
- Even if the original COI edit request was incorrectly declined that would not justify the paid COI editor attempting to game the system to get the request through at the second time of asking. Axad12 (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Asking a second time" is not WP:Gaming the system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, but for a COI user to attempt to influence which user will deal with the second request does constitute gaming the system. Axad12 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Read the guideline instead of guessing about its contents from the WP:UPPERCASE. See, e.g., An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policy in bad faith, by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. Asking an individual to help has nothing to do with finding wording in a policy to justifying disruptive actions or stances that are not intended in that policy.
- I also direct your attention to the item that says Gaming the system may include...Filibustering the consensus-building process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was using the phrase 'gaming the system' in it's natural application (not specifically referring to WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM, which I didn't know existed until you linked to it above). Clearly the COI user was attempting to distort the COI edit request process in some way - whether one refers to what they were doing as 'gaming the system' or some other similar phrase is neither here nor there. Axad12 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, but for a COI user to attempt to influence which user will deal with the second request does constitute gaming the system. Axad12 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Asking a second time" is not WP:Gaming the system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that ever since the original COI edit request back in August the clear talk page consensus has been that the material should remain within the article and is not
highly misleading
. - I've been part of that consensus position since approx October/November. Since that time the user who opened the RfC has repeatedly been opening new threads, continually trying to re-address a subject where they are repeatedly in the minority and presumably hoping that those who previously opposed them do not turn up to oppose them again. Axad12 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- In other words, you want highly misleading content to remain in the article, just to make a point? Cullen328 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe we should hold an RFC on whether the RFC tag should be there? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right, I've had breakfast now so am in a position to make a more serious reply. This is a content issue (on which I hold, as yet, no opinion). On this page we often tell editors that the way to settle a content issue that hasn't been settled by more informal methods is by holding an RFC. Axad12, you should express your opinion as part of the RFC, not oppose holding it. By your behaviour you are turning people against you who might have supported you. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've already said that I'd be happy to replace the tag if instructed to do so, and upon being instructed to do so I immediately replaced it. As far as I can see that issue is now resolved.
- I've asked for comment on the underlying COI issue, which is not a content issue. Axad12 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- RFCs can handle COI issues. In fact, when WP:COIN can't resolve a dispute, they sometimes host an RFC to settle it. The nice thing about an RFC in such situations is that if it closes with an outcome like "The consensus is stick it to these fully policy-compliant, completely disclosed paid editors by making sure that this article implies the company's product was adulterated with a poisonous industrial chemical, just because we found one fad diet book that used this language, because it's really unreasonable of them to not want sensationalist and derogatory information in our article about their product" then you can generally be sure that the result will stick for at least 6 months and usually longer.
- But you've got to get that consensus first, and I'm not sure you will. For one thing, it's been my not-inconsiderable experience that when someone objects to holding an RFC because the question is biased, that's a fairly reliable sign that they expect the RFC result to not match their preference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My concern (rightly or wrongly) was simply that there was a COI element to the request which had not been disclosed. I swiftly requested clarification on that point and upon receiving that clarification I immediately reverted myself.
- It isn't really relevant here but actually I didn't expect the RfC to develop contrary to my preference. That was because the previous 4 months had indicated a consistent consensus opposing what the instigator of the RfC was proposing. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I don't actually have a particularly strong preference one way or the other on the issue at stake - I've simply consistently observed during November and December that the consensus was against Zefr, which seemed to me to be a simple matter of fact based on the various talk page threads from August to December. Axad12 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- On matters concerning the Breyers article, Axad12 has been an uncollaborative, disruptive, and hostile editor tag-teamed with Graywalls, who is the main proponent over months of using the slur, "antifreeze", to describe a minor GRAS ingredient that is the subject of the current RfC. Both users have ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate for a factual, well-sourced article. Both users refused collaboration on the Breyers article content at DRN.
Having never contributed a sentence or source to the Breyers article, Axad12 has blatantly reverted simple, sourced edits claiming a false consensus which has no good source to support the propylene glycol/"antifreeze" claim and no evidence of consensus input by other editors over the last many weeks. An evolving consensus on the RfC is to exclude mention of propylene glycol as undue.
Scientific and legal literature concerning propylene glycol (article link) placed on the talk page have been ignored by both users, without attempts to discuss or apply what any objective editor reading the sources would agree are authoritative.
Proposal: Because of Axad12's hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC, tag-team behavior with Graywalls on the Breyers article edits, canvassing each other on its talk page, and here, as another example, Axad12 and Graywalls should be A-banned from the Breyers article and its talk page.
- Support. Zefr (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You need to notify Graywalls of this discussion. I have done so for you. In the future, remember to do so yourself. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: I have reverted Zefr on 3 occasions on the Breyers article over the last few months. That was because the edits they had made were, at that time, contrary to talk page consensus. The fact that I had not contributed to the article is neither here nor there in that regard.
- I have not
ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate
, I have simply objected to Zefr's repeated attempts over a 3 month period to re-open a discussion where the consensus has always been against them. - Six different users have previously objected to the changes Zefr has been trying to make and that was clearly a majority of those who commented between August and December 2024.
- I accept that the current RfC is going Zefr's way, however that fact should not be used to reinterpret events over the last 4 months where Zefr has historically been in a small minority insufficient to claim a consensus in favour of the changes they wished to make.
- Also, the idea that I made a
hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC
is untrue. As I have pointed out above, my actions were in good faith and it can be seen that I immediately volunteered to revert my removal of the template if I received instruction from an admin to that effect. - I cannot see that I was ever canvassed to appear at the Breyers talk page, I arrived there entirely independently back in November having been aware of the ongoing situation re: the various COI edit requests because the COI edit request queue is the volunteer queue that I spend most of my time here working from. I've probably read pretty much every COI edit request that has been made on Misplaced Pages over the last 6 to 12 months and there are a small number of talk pages that I look at from time to time.
- Graywalls and I work on similar cases and sometimes we find ourselves working alongside each other, especially if material has been discussed at WP:COIN, but occasionally ending up in the same place and on the same side of an argument does not entail tagteaming. Axad12 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I was the one who suggested RfC in the first place. here, because I felt it was not a productive disagreement anymore. Leading up to the RfC, there was rough talk page consensus to include a mention pf propylene glycol, but if consensus in RfC determines that it should be left out, I have no intention of fighting it. Someone raised a concern there was only one source, so I added another source. Other than this, I've not really touched contentious parts of this article recently. I'm not sure why Axad12 removed the RfC and I can't speak for their actions, but the accusation of Tagteam is unwarranted. I've taken deferent steps to not continue to engage in back and forth edit warring and I'd like to believe that I'm approaching this the correct way. I do want to bring up concerns about Zefr's civility though. Please see User_talk:DMacks#Breyers_disruptive_editing for some concerns I raised. I also find leaving snarky comment about being a PhD student who disagreed on contents troubling Special:Diff/1261441062. @Aoidh: also felt Zefr was "weaponing" claims of edit warring to restore their "preferred version" earlier on in the dispute. Please see Special:Diff/1257252695 Graywalls (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I think you were correct to recommend an RFC. Hopefully the RFC will reach a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd just like to echo that sentiment. I'm all in favour of consensus.
- My position on this article hasn't been motivated by a partisan view on Propylene Glycol but has simply been in relation to serving the consensus position as it stood at the time. That is the approach I hope I adopt on all Misplaced Pages articles. If the consensus alters on this article (as seems likely) then I'll adopt the same approach in relation to serving the new consensus.
- My primary area of interest on this website is COI issues. I'm simply not interested in content disputes or in pushing any kind of POV on Misplaced Pages. I'm not the sort of user who flagrantly disregards a newly emerging consensus by editing contrary to the outcome of an RfC.
- I'd welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that going forwards (i.e. without an article ban). Axad12 (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The mention by Graywalls for an RfC on 27 Dec had no influence on the one existing. As an uncomplicated process, an editor truly sincere in having community input would have posed a simple objective question. Graywalls, why didn't you take 5 minutes and create the RfC question you wanted? What would have been your RfC question?
- Specifically for propylene glycol (you are still defending its use in the article by adding another garbage source yesterday - see comments about this book in the RfC):
what do you believe propylene glycol does in a frozen dessert and what would you prefer the article to say about propylene glycol? I have asked for this clarification on the talk page many times and in the DRN, but you ignored the opportunity to collaborate and clarify.
- Have you read the sources in this talk page topic?
- Your reverts in article history and combative talk page behavior over months revealed a persistent intent to disparage the Breyers article, focus on the "antifreeze" slur (mainly promoting this source), and restore a skeletal version having no sources more recent than 2018 here, after tag-teaming with Axad12 to do your bidding on 17 Nov. That version also has misinformation under the section 'Ice cream', falsely stating that Breyers changed their ice cream ingredients by using other additives, which in fact, were used to evolve a new category of frozen desserts not intended to be ice cream. I believe you know this, but you and Axad12 persisted to favor misinformation for the article.
- The RfC I provided came from steps in the lead of WP:RFC: 1) generally poor talk page progress, where one editor seeking facts verified by current sources was opposed by Graywalls, Adax12, and NutmegCoffeeTea, all defending a version including "antifreeze"; 2) an RSN post here where Graywalls argued that a web link by the Seattle PI made the Motley Fool article an RS; 3) initiate DRN for which Graywalls, Axad12, and NutmegCoffeeTea abstained from collaboration to improve the article; 4) providing a science- and law-based talk page topic on 19 Dec, which appears to be willfully ignored by Axad12 and Graywalls, who responded only with hostility and defiance against the facts; 5) seeking third opinions from admins, first by BD2412 (talk page on 29-30 Nov) and by DMacks on 27 Dec, resulting in verbose trolling by these two users. Axad12's response on 27 Dec was to revert constructive edits and tag-team with Graywalls.
- Axad12 and Graywalls should be ABANNED from the Breyers article for exhibiting 1) hostility on the talk page to good faith proposals for making the article better, and 2) persistence to perpetuate misinformation on propylene glycol. Simply, what history shows that either editor has tried to improve the Breyers article? Both users meet most of the definitions of WP:NOTHERE for the article, its talk page, and the RfC. Zefr (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Zefr, I've already indicated on several occasions that I welcome and support the developing new consensus. Graywalls has made a similar comment below. That being the case, I don't really see what purpose an article ban would be intended to serve.
- Admittedly there has been some quite heated disagreement over recent months, but it seems that we all now have the robust talkpage consensus that we were hoping for in one way or another and that all three of us are happy to move forward in support of that consensus.
- You were clearly in the minority for quite a long time and I can appreciate that you found that experience frustrating. However, to continue to make allegations above of bad faith, trolling, tagteaming, etc. about those who constituted the valid majority for several months is just an attempt to perpetuate strife on an issue which is now, as far as I can see, satisfactorily resolved. Axad12 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I think you were correct to recommend an RFC. Hopefully the RFC will reach a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Filed under: sometimes you hurt articles by treating COI editors as the enemy. The problem here is two users who should really know better edit-warring over the course of months to reinstate TikTok diet influencer silliness into a Misplaced Pages article, repeatedly reinstating WP:PROFRINGE content (implicitly, if not explicitly). We currently treat a little "avoid antifreeze" bubble in a diet book (which includes Breyers in a list of brands) and a book published by one of RFK Jr's antivax publishers as WP:DUE for including the insinuation that an FDA-approved and much-conspiratorialized additive is harmful. They've been repeatedly removed, but two editors keep putting them back, whether because of a misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS/WP:FRINGE or in pursuit of COI purification. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take your point but I think you're misjudging the situation somewhat. Prior to the opening of the current RfC it was approximately 6 or 7 users in favour of inclusion vs 3 or 4 favouring exclusion. I only reverted the attempts at exclusion because those attempts were contrary to the talk page consensus.
- I'm perfectly open to the suggestion that that consensus position was wrong but the simple fact of the matter was that there was at that time no consensus in favour of exclusion.
- It has only been in the last couple of days that the requesting editor has been able to demonstrate a consensus in favour of exclusion. And that's great, I have no problem with that at all. In fact I welcome it.
- My understanding is that editors wishing to make changes to article text should not do so if there is a consensus against what they are trying to do, and that under such circumstances an edit can be (indeed should be) reverted. If I'm mistaken on that score then I'm perfectly happy to take instruction. However, I really want to stress that my actions were based primarily upon that reasoning and were made in good faith. Axad12 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Axad12, you should not revert something because other editors want it to be reverted. You should only make content changes that you personally support. This is necessary for BRD to work. See WP:BRDREVERT for an explanation of why. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites:, the antifreeze matter is WP:DEADHORSE since I believe everyone's pretty much agreed it doesn't need to be in there. Zefr has taken issues with me, Axad12, NutMegCoffee and possibly some others. They've tried to get the article "set in place" to their preferred version, but that was declined admin Daniel Case who determined it to be content dispute Special:Diff/1260192461. Zefr inferring alleging I was
"uncooperative"not collaborating/cooperating in the way that he was hoping in DR, but I don't believe that to be so. There was nothing intentional on my part to not cooperate. I'll see if @Robert McClenon: would like to share their observation on that since they closed the dispute. - https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Breyers/Archive_2#c-Rusalkii-20240814014600-Inkian_Jason-20240801145900 here's another uninvolved editoring erring on the side of inclusion. A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus. Reading through the current plus the archived discussions, up until the RfC, the general consensus is in support of having PG mention and Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus. As I mentioned, if consensus changes with the RfC, I'm not opposed to going with that. Graywalls (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (adjusted Graywalls (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC))
- For the record, I never stated the word "uncooperative" at DRN or the Breyers talk page, but rather "non-collaborative", as discussed in the thread with Robert McClenon below.
- "Set in place to their preferred version" and "Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus" should be translated to using "facts verified by reliable sources", which is the simple goal for the Breyers article that Graywalls has obstructed over months.
- It's incredible that Graywalls says even today above, knowing the comments on the RfC and months of being presented with facts and sources about why propylene glycol is safely used in thousands of manufactured foods: "A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus."
- Here's your chance to tell everyone:
- Why do you feel propylene glycol was used in Breyers frozen desserts (in 2013, not since)? What concern do you have about it, and what government or scientific source says it's unsafe in the amounts regulated by federal laws? Give a sentence here that you think meets consensus and uses a reliable source. Zefr (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're right, you did not use that specific word. I've corrected my response due to wording. Graywalls (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
A Non-Mediator's Statement
I am not entirely sure why User:Graywalls has pinged me about this dispute, saying that I "closed this dispute". The accuracy of the statement that I "closed this dispute" depends on what is meant by "this dispute".
I closed the DRN thread, Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_252#Breyers, on 12 December. I obviously didn't resolve a dispute that has been continuing for another three weeks, and the claim that I closed the dispute looks to me like an attempt to confuse the jury. User:Zefr had opened the DRN thread on 3 December, complaining about the insertion of the word antifreeze and of the mention of propylene glycol. I was not entirely sure beyond the mention of antifreeze what the issues were. There were questions about what the procedure was for handling a one-against-many dispute; I think that Zefr was said to be the one. There was a long question that may have been about whether DRN is voluntary; DRN is voluntary. Then Zefr said that the case could be withdrawn because no one else was commenting. The disputants other than Zefr never did say exactly what the article content issues were, perhaps because they didn't want to discuss article content, and were not required to discuss article content. If anyone is implying that I resolved or settled anything, I have no idea what it was.
I see that the dispute either was continuing in other forums for three weeks, or has reopened. I see that User:Axad12 edit-warred to prevent an RFC from running, making vague but noisy statements about conflict of interest. I don't know who is said to be working for Unilever or for anyone else. It is clear that this dispute is longer on antagonism than on clarity. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon:, I pinged you, because I felt you'd be a good commentator to evaluate whether you also felt I was "not cooperative" in the process as Zefr says. I tried to participate, but it got closed shortly after I posted a comment in it. Graywalls (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Was that purposely mis-stated to be provocative and mislead the discussion here?
- I said you were non-collaborative, which describes your behavior throughout your editing history on the Breyers article, its talk page, and the DRN. You refused collaboration at DRN, which is the whole point of the process. DRN FAQ: "refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building."
- You were notified about the DRN on your talk page on 3 Dec, and you posted a general notice about it on the Breyers talk page on 6 Dec, so you were aware of the process, but ignored it. Meanwhile, your editing history over 6-12 Dec shows dozens of edits, including many on the Breyers talk page.
- You made no attempt to collaborate at DRN, posting only one off-topic comment on 12 Dec.
- I requested closure of the DRN on 12 Dec due to non-participation by you and the others. On 13 Dec, I notified the Breyers talk page of the DRN closure. cc: Robert McClenon. Zefr (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
A Possibly Requested Detail
Okay. If the question is specifically whether User:Graywalls was uncooperative at DRN, then I can state that they were not uncooperative and did not obstruct or disrupt DRN. Graywalls took very little part in the DRN proceeding before I closed it. They were not required to take part, although they say that they would have made a statement if the case had stayed open a little longer. The antagonism that I saw was between User:Zefr and User:Axad12, and I collapsed an exchange between them. I did not read what I am told were long previous discussions, because I expect the disputants at DRN to begin by telling me concisely what each of them wants to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Graywalls was not uncooperative at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. User:Zefr is making a slightly different statement, that User:Graywalls did not collaborate at DRN. That is correct. And I noted above that their mention that I had closed the dispute depended on what was meant by the "dispute". and looked like an attempt to confuse the jury. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon Zefr did not use the word uncooperative although did say uncollaborative and I used the two interchangeably in my ping. I did participate in it Special:Diff/1262763079. I haven't participated in DRN until that point, so I wasn't really sure how it worked. Graywalls (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The actual content that led to this dispute
Two month ago, Breyers included this shockingly bad content: As of 2014, some flavors of Breyer's ice cream contains propylene glycol as an additive. Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze and it is clear fluid made by "treating propylene with chlorinated water to form the chlorohydrin, which is then converted to the glycol, an alcohol, by treating it with a sodium carbonate solution." Propylene glycol is formulated into Breyer's fat-free and Carb Smart ice cream to make it easier to scoop.
The notion that an article about an ice cream company should include a detailed description of how a Generally recognized as safe food additive is manufactured is bizarre enough, as is the cherrypicked and glaringly misleading assertion about "antifreeze", but the reference used to support the Breyers claim was a book called Eat It to Beat It!: Banish Belly Fat-and Take Back Your Health-While Eating the Brand-Name Foods You Love! written by a quack/crank diet profiteer named David Zinczenko. I invite any editor to take a search engine look at Zinczenko's body of work, and come away with the conclusion that his writings are anything other than fringe and unreliable. Despite the glaringly obviously non-neutral and tendentious problems with this shockingly bad content, editors including most prominently Graywalls and Axad12 dug in their heels, fighting a reargard action for nearly two months, determined to make this mundane routine ice cream company look as bad as possible. Their self-justification seems to be that big bad corporations have no right whatsover to try to remove atrociously bad content about their products from Misplaced Pages, and that any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association. I am not an advocate for corporations per se, but I am an advocate for corporations being treated neutrally like all other topics, rather with disdain and contempt, which was the case here, as I see it. I do not know what the best outcome is here, but I certainly encourage these two editors to refrain from any other unjustified and poorly referenced anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- A striking and shocking aspect of this sordid situation is that two editors, Graywalls and Axad12 were able to concoct a false "consensus" supporting various versions of this garbage content. And then when another editor tried to start a RFC about the appallingly bad content, Axad12 tried over and over and over again to stop the RFC and defend the atrocious content rather than correcting it, aided and abetted by Graywalls. When the RFC actually went live, it soon became clear that many editors agreed that the content these two editors advocated for was utterly inappropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cullen,
- As per my comments above, my motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time. I did not
concoct
that consensus, at least 5 users other than me were against excluding the material. - I have never had any particularly strong opinion one way or the other on the content issue and I try as best as I can not to get involved in content disputes. I have not
dug in heels
or attempted to promote any kind of fringe opinion and nor have I engaged inanti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end
. - Similarly I do not hold the view that
any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association
, or any opinion even vaguely resembling that view. On the contrary, I have often implemented COI edit requests on behalf of corporations or have pointed out to corporate employees how such requests would need to be amended to conform with sourcing or other requirements. Repeatedly engaging in that activity would presumably make me veryevil
indeed, in my own eyes, if I held the view that you attribute to me. - I reverted the Breyer edits in good faith because there was no consensus in favour of them. If I was incorrect on a point of policy in that regard then fair enough, however please do not attempt to attribute to me sentiments which I do not harbour.
- Also, I did not attempt to stop the RfC
over and over and over again
. I removed the tag twice, then requested guidance from administrators and immediately replaced the tag when requested to do so. The tag was removed, in all, for a matter of minutes and had no meaningful impact on the progress of the RfC. I have accepted elsewhere that I now appreciate that the basis on which I removed the tag was inappropriate. I have also stated thatFrom my standpoint wasn't a process that I was familiar with - but I can see from the many excellent contributions here that this is the best way of resolving content disputes
. I have also stated that I welcome and support the new consensus. Axad12 (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , Axad12, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I
obviously dislike
Breyers or (their parent company) Unilever, or indeed that I consider either to beevil
? - To the best of my recollection, I've only ever made 3 mainspace edits to the Breyers article - each time on the stated basis in the edit summary that the edit I was reverting was contrary to consensus.
- I've re-read the extensive talk page discussions in recent days and I can only see that I ever commented on the COI angle and the nature of the consensus. Those comments were based on my understanding of policy at the time. I do not see
anti-corporate diatribes
or evidence that Iobviously dislike
Breyers or Unilever. - Indeed, I do not hold any particularly strong views on Breyers, Unilever or any other corporations. Axad12 (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I said, Axad12, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to Talk: Breyers to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- My activity on that talk page has solely been in relation to pointing out what I felt (rightly or wrongly) was a valid COI concern and observing that from Aug to Dec there has never been a consensus in favour of exclusion.
- Anything beyond that is simply you attributing motives that do not exist.
- I have never stated or implied that
a corporation does not deserve neutrality
and nor do I hold such a view. - I happily admit that I'm quite animated and enthusiastic about COI issues and reverting edits which appear to be contrary to consensus. With the benefit of hindsight probably I should have let go of those issues at an earlier stage and vacated the field for those who actually had an appetite to argue on content grounds.
- I'd also point out that for a significant part of the last 2 months I had actually unsubscribed from the relevant talkpage threads and only ended up getting involved again due to being summoned to the Dispute Resolution thread. If I had been
determined over the last two months to maintain various versions of biased non-neutral content
then hopefully it stands to reason that I would not have unsubscribed in that way - thus resulting in a situation where I was actually completely unaware of much of the talkpage and mainspace activity over the period that you refer to. Axad12 (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your
motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time
. You are also obligated to actually look at the disputed content and the sources supporting it. Why didn't you do that? Why were you unable to see what multiple editors in the RfC are commenting about? You shouldn't just blindly revert content like that, without taking a look for yourself to see if the complaint about the disputed content has any merit, like it being reliably sourced and due for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- That's a very fair question.
- The answer is that I was inclined to believe the opinions of editors much more experienced than myself who were against exclusion, particularly the editor who turned down the original COI edit request (whose work on COI edit requests I have the greatest of respect for).
- User Whatamidoing has already pointed out above that my error lay in accepting those users' opinions. I agree with Whatamidoing's observation there.
- I can only say that what I did was done in good faith based on my understanding of policy at the time. I now know where I erred (in several different ways) and I am glad to have received instruction in that regard.
- However, I really cannot accept the repeated suggestion that I vindictively masterminded a long anti-corporate campaign to keep bad material in an article. That suggestion is fundamentally not true. Axad12 (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I entirely accept that.
- For clarity, when I said
my understanding of policy at the time
I meant my understanding of policy at the time - I wasn't trying to suggest that the policy has changed since I made those edits. - What I am saying is that those edits were not made with malice, they were made because I accepted the opinions of other users more experienced than myself, opinions which I now know that I ought to have questioned. Axad12 (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I said earlier in this thread, I am 100% supportive of the new consensus in favour of excluding the previously disputed material.
- Virtually all of my time on Misplaced Pages is spent at COIN and dealing with COI edit requests. I'm not the sort of user who spends their time edit warring over POV fringe material and generally being disruptive.
- So, the last thing I would ever do is attempt to reinstall material where a very robust consensus at RfC has indicated that it should be excluded.
- I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that I can be trusted in that regard. Axad12 (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Judgement isn't about following consensus, it’s about making considered decisions. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your
- As I said, Axad12, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to Talk: Breyers to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I
- Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , Axad12, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been expecting something to happen around User:Axad12, whom I ran into several months ago during a dispute at COIN. What I noticed back in October was that Axad12 seemed to be clerking the noticeboard, making prosecutorial noises, and sometimes unsupported accusations (ex:
...the existence of COI seems quite clear...
1,...in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest...
2,As I said, the fact that there was a significant undeclared conflict of interest in relation to editing on Paralympic Australia-related articles was demonstrated some years ago.
3) towards what they thought of as COI editors (this was about whether User:Hawkeye7 had failed to adequately announce their conflict with Paralympic Australia, where they've been openly helping as a volunteer on our community's behalf for many years, and after they had just made an almost invisible contribution on the Signpost). I often find such clerking of noticeboards by relatively unseasoned users to be troublesome; Axad12 has 490 edits at COIN, about 12% of their total 3801 edits (but about a third of the roughly 1500 edits total on COIN since September). If you use a hammer all day, you might begin to think that all objects are potentially nails. BusterD (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Rereading the discussion this morning 90 days later, it reads worse than I made it sound above. An uninvolved admin tried to close the thread and chastised Axad12 in that close. The OP asked the thread closure be reversed, so the close comments were moved down to the end of the thread. BusterD (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea for Axad12 to take a break from WP:COIN and associated matters and concentrate on other areas of Misplaced Pages for a few months. I was going to use a cliché here, but I see BusterD's already used it in the last sentence of the post before last, so won't. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only so many ways to screw in a lightbulb. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- In fairness, the overwhelming majority of my posts at COIN over the last year or so have been simple helpful contributions. The two matters discussed above were atypical and in both cases I've taken on board the advice I was given.
- If (per the figures above) I've been making about a third of all the contributions at COIN over that period then my behaviour would have been reported here long ago if I was either disruptive or incompetent.
- That said, I won't deny that I've been seriously considering retiring from Misplaced Pages over the last two months. The only reason I've not done so is because other users have specifically encouraged me to carry on because they value my work at COIN and on COI issues generally.
- All I can say is that what I have done, I have done in good faith and when I have occasionally erred I have learned lessons. I have acknowledged above that I've made mistakes and I'm grateful to those who have given me advice. Axad12 (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
Complaint against User:GiantSnowman
 | This complaint has been withdrawn.See #Response from Footballnerd2007 below. |
Good Morning,
I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against User:GiantSnowman for repeated violations of Misplaced Pages's policies on personal attacks (WP:NPA) and casting aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS) during a recent discussion.
Throughout the interaction, GiantSnowman has engaged in behavior that appears to contravene Misplaced Pages's behavioral guidelines, including but not limited to:
Casting aspersions without evidence:
- GiantSnowman repeatedly accused me of engaging in disruptive behavior, suggesting ulterior motives without providing any verifiable evidence.
- For instance, accusations of using ChatGPT to generate responses without concrete proof.
- Statements like “You are a liar and cannot be trusted” and other similar assertions lack civility and violate the principle of Assume Good Faith.
Aggressive tone and unwarranted accusations:
- The user's tone throughout the discussion has been hostile, escalating to direct personal attacks:
- Referring to me as a “liar” multiple times.
- Suggesting that I have been “deliberately disruptive” without presenting any factual basis.
Violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:ENCOURAGE:
- Misplaced Pages encourages editors to respond constructively to newcomers' efforts. However, GiantSnowman’s behavior has been dismissive and accusatory, discouraging participation and creating a hostile editing environment.
As an administrator, GiantSnowman is expected to set an example by adhering to Misplaced Pages's behavioral policies and fostering a collaborative environment. However, their actions in this instance fall far short of the standards expected of administrators, which further exacerbates the seriousness of this issue.
I understand that discussions can sometimes be contentious, but I believe there is no justification for violating WP:NPA or WP:ASPERSIONS. I respectfully request that administrators review the linked discussion and take appropriate action to address this behavior.
If any additional information or clarification is needed, I am happy to provide it. My intent is to ensure a respectful and collaborative editing environment for all Misplaced Pages contributors.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion I raised was at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Footballnerd2007, now closed. I raised concerns about this editor, who has (in brief) - undertake botched and inappropriate RM closures; re-factored other editor's talk page posts; randomly nominated another user with whom they have never interacted before for RFA; and messing with my user space draft. None of that was the conduct of a new editor here to learn the ropes, and I wanted a second pair of eyes.
- In the course of that discussion, it became highly suspect to multiple users that this user has been editing with LLM. They denied using Chat GPT and, when questioned further, refused to answer. That is why I said this user is a liar and cannot be trusted, and I stand by that assertion. GiantSnowman 12:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging other editors who were involved in that ANI discussion or have posted concerns/advice on this user's talk page - @Liz, Voorts, Folly Mox, Tiggerjay, Extraordinary Writ, Tarlby, The Bushranger, Thebiguglyalien, and Cyberdog958: - think that is everyone, apologies if not. GiantSnowman 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your speedy response. Now let other admins add their point of view. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the closed section above - which was closed for a very good reason - I'd suggest that coming back to this page to complain and using an LLM to do it is a spectacularly bad idea. The community only has limited patience when dealing with editors who are causing timesinks for other edits, and I suspect that the section above was your limit. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- FTR a fellow administrator encouraged me to launch a complaint if I felt I was treated unfairly and told me what grounds I have to complain. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BOOMERANG is worth reviewing. It may already be too late for you to withdraw your complaint, but it's probably worth an attempt. --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- FTR a fellow administrator encouraged me to launch a complaint if I felt I was treated unfairly and told me what grounds I have to complain. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Please, any passing uninvolved admin, block the OP now. Not least for using an LLM to generate a complaint that someone accused them of using ChatGPT to generate responses. Enough of our time has been wasted. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, this is mere conjecture. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Continuing to deny the obvious - especially when Tarlby ran your posts through multiple LLM checkers - is really not helping your case. For me, it shows you are not here in good faith and that you absolutely cannot be trusted. GiantSnowman 12:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it's called people have eyes. Using LLMs this way is highly disrespectful and frankly disruptive. Boomerang block for WP:NOTHERE seems appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Responding to the ping, invovled) My perspective regarding LLM has been it really doesn't matter (to me) if you're using various technology tools constructively, such as a spell checker or grammar checker might have been viewed two decades ago. However, what really matter is how those tools are used and being responsible for how they're used. This editor has been evasive in their conversations and generally disruptive demonstrating WP:NOTHERE behavior by very peculiar / suspicious WP:Wikilawyering I've only seen in clear LLM cases. Yet, there is no point in bludgeoning to what degree, if any, an LLM is playing here, but because this is a clear example of WP:NOTHERE and failure to follow WP:PG despite many attempts to bring them to this users attention. TiggerJay (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- +1 to Phil Bridger. What struck me in the prior thread, over and over again, was how repeatedly evasive he was. "I have repeatedly denied using ChatGPT..." "I never made any comment about LLMs in general." "I have no explanation." "Again, that's conjecture. I just choose my words very carefully." "Which AI detectors are you using?" "The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively." And so on, and so on, and so on. Footballnerd2007 has been given chance after chance to answer plainly, without Wikilawyering or weasel-wording, and has instead stuck to the tactic of deflect, deflect, deflect. I don't know where Footballnerd2007 got the notion that the Fifth Amendment was the law of the land on Misplaced Pages, and that no boomerang can touch him as long as he admits to nothing. Let's just disabuse him of the notion. Ravenswing 12:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, this is mere conjecture. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Retaliatory BS; this should be closed immediately. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
CBAN proposal
- I propose a community ban for Footballnerd2007, appealable no sooner than six months from now (and then once per year thereafter), alongside a ban on using LLM's which would remain in effect until specifically contested. At the time of writing, Footballnerd2007 has only 142 edits, a significant number of which are right here at WP:ANI. They are clearly a massive WP:NOTHERE time sink. I urged Footballnerd2007 to withdraw this complaint and warned about WP:BOOMERANG and that clearly didn't land. I think it's time for everyone else to get back to regular editing. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, obviously. The more they have responded, the stronger my concerns have grown. GiantSnowman 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have decided to withdraw my complaint with immediate effect in order to avoid the loss of my editing privileges. I'm going to write a long piece (without using LLM) explaining my actions later when I have time. I'm sorry for any disruption caused, I have always acted in good faith. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Demonstrably not, when you've been dodging all along the question of whether you've been using LLMs, and only now -- when the tide is running against you -- stating that at last you'll respond at length without? Ravenswing 13:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- FN2007 claims to be a new editor, and to have spent a significant amount of time reading Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines etc. If so, they will have known not to re-factor other user's talk page posts, but they did that anyway. That cannot be good faith editing. GiantSnowman 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll respond to this in depth later today. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I concede that I've been backed into a corner and now I need to do the right thing, stop with the defensive act and own up to my mistakes which I'll do in my statement later this afternoon. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you only need to so the right thing after being backed into a corner? I think we can do without such editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I had my legal head on with the philosophy "defend until you can no more" - I now concede on reflection this is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages and that my actions were not the right way to go and for that I will take full responsibility in my statement. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you only need to so the right thing after being backed into a corner? I think we can do without such editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- FN2007 claims to be a new editor, and to have spent a significant amount of time reading Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines etc. If so, they will have known not to re-factor other user's talk page posts, but they did that anyway. That cannot be good faith editing. GiantSnowman 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's too late to withdraw now. You have to take responsibility for your behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Demonstrably not, when you've been dodging all along the question of whether you've been using LLMs, and only now -- when the tide is running against you -- stating that at last you'll respond at length without? Ravenswing 13:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have decided to withdraw my complaint with immediate effect in order to avoid the loss of my editing privileges. I'm going to write a long piece (without using LLM) explaining my actions later when I have time. I'm sorry for any disruption caused, I have always acted in good faith. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
Support- on top of what's been posted on this thread, FN2007 has wiped their talk page by archiving without a link to the archive on the fresh talk page, without responding to Liz's advice. They also edited other people's comments to add things they didn't say when closing a RM discussion, and haven't responded when I pointed this out. These things alongside their LLM use (and subsequent wikilawyering "technically I only said I didn't use ChatGPT" responses), refusal to listen to good advice, and everything else in this topic, I think a community ban would be a good idea. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Update - striking support for cban, I think footballnerd's recent responses and CNC's offer of mentorship indicate that we may be able to avoid it. BugGhost 🦗👻 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- The archiving of talk page was an attempt to "wipe the slate clean" and move on, I didn't see how I could reply to the advice constructively. As for the wikilawyering, again I concede that I was out of order and that I did use AI assistance to write my complaint which was unwise. I do however, maintain that I did not lie as my comments about using ChatGPT were accurate, however this was using technicalities and involved me being rather economical with the truth. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You could have simply said "thank you Liz for the advice". And if you 'wanted to wipe the slate clean', why did you start this new thread? GiantSnowman 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will go back and thank her for that. Because I had been advised that your actions could have violated WP policy and thought it would be a good way to deflect the blame, in heinsight it was absolutely the wrong course of action. I would like to draw a line under this whole sorry situation and move on with the reason that I joined once my statement has been published and the subsequent discussion has concluded. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You could have simply said "thank you Liz for the advice". And if you 'wanted to wipe the slate clean', why did you start this new thread? GiantSnowman 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (another (edit conflict) To clarify, I don't think Footballnerd is doing anything malicious or deliberately trying to time-waste. I think they are a misguided new bold editor who unfortunately doesn't listen to advice and is stubborn to self-reflect. If this cban goes ahead I urge them to appeal in 6 months with a better understanding of how wikipedia works, with a more cautious editing style and more acceptance of community opinions. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not being malicious, there was only one motivation for my actions - wanting to help.
- My comments on this and the above thread have been ill judged.
- As for the ban, I'd like to ask that I be spared at this moment in time in view of my above comments and the concession statement that I will be posting when I return home. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to be spending a lot of time/making a lot of posts saying "full statement to come!", rather than actually making that statement... GiantSnowman 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because I'm posting from my phone and I'm not at home. When I return to my PC later today I'll make the statement. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to be spending a lot of time/making a lot of posts saying "full statement to come!", rather than actually making that statement... GiantSnowman 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The archiving of talk page was an attempt to "wipe the slate clean" and move on, I didn't see how I could reply to the advice constructively. As for the wikilawyering, again I concede that I was out of order and that I did use AI assistance to write my complaint which was unwise. I do however, maintain that I did not lie as my comments about using ChatGPT were accurate, however this was using technicalities and involved me being rather economical with the truth. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Support CBAN.Using a chatbot to generate discussion then denying it when called out is already deeply contemptuous. Turning around and filing a chatbot generated revenge report for people not believing your lies about not using a chatbot? Words fail. Folly Mox (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) edited 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC); see below.- FTR I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT but I admit that I was somewhat economical with the truth and am guilty of wikilawyering - overlap of my professional life. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are still not clearly and unequivocally admitting what you did. GiantSnowman 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What you want me to admit? I admitted using AI but not ChatGPT and tried to use wikilawyering to get away from this. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless I missed something, that was your first clear admission of using AI. Your earlier comment of "I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT" is not the same. GiantSnowman 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't use a Chatbot form of AI nor did I use ChatGPT but I did use AI assistance (which I didn't deny). So to be unequivocally clear - I never lied but was economical with the truth, I am guilty of 'wikilawyering' and I did deploy the assistance of Artificial Intelligence on a handful of occasion. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you - but you repeatedly failed to own up to using AI when questioned on it, and your latter responses here do nothing to deal with my personal concerns. GiantSnowman 14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I admit that I did, I just saw the line of "I didn't use ChatGPT" as an easy 'get out of jail card'. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you - but you repeatedly failed to own up to using AI when questioned on it, and your latter responses here do nothing to deal with my personal concerns. GiantSnowman 14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't use a Chatbot form of AI nor did I use ChatGPT but I did use AI assistance (which I didn't deny). So to be unequivocally clear - I never lied but was economical with the truth, I am guilty of 'wikilawyering' and I did deploy the assistance of Artificial Intelligence on a handful of occasion. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless I missed something, that was your first clear admission of using AI. Your earlier comment of "I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT" is not the same. GiantSnowman 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What you want me to admit? I admitted using AI but not ChatGPT and tried to use wikilawyering to get away from this. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- While that might be technically accurate when you answered that you did not use Chat-GPT, you were intentionally being deceptive in your answers multiple times. It might be slightly different if you were asked specifically about Chat-GPT, however multiple times you were specifically asked about the broad term of LLM. Your current claim of,
never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT
, falls on deaf ears because it is clear that you were dodging the questions, and indeed intentionally addressed only Chat-GPT for the purpose of deception instead of honesty. TiggerJay (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- Soft-struck prior comment because now I see you have admitted to such activity prior to my comment above. TiggerJay (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are still not clearly and unequivocally admitting what you did. GiantSnowman 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: for Folly Mox, just to inform you there is a #MENTOR proposal that you may not have seen. I was about to send generic pings to !voters of this section, but it appears all other editors are aware of this proposal already (or voted afterwards at least). This isn't intended to influence your decision, only to provide you updated information. CNC (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (responding to ping) Withdrawing support for CBAN in light of candid owning up to misbehaviour combined with acceptance of mentorship by CommunityNotesContributor (thanks for the ping: I've been offwiki).@Footballnerd2007: I'm sure the point has got across, but please respect your colleagues here. Using an LLM (of any brand) in discussions is disrespectful of our time; assuming we won't notice is disrespectful of our competence. Please engage with the spirit of other people's communications, rather than with the precise words chosen. Misplaced Pages is very much unlike a courtroom: we're here to work together on a shared project, not to win arguments against each other. I look forward to your earnest acculturation. Folly Mox (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- FTR I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT but I admit that I was somewhat economical with the truth and am guilty of wikilawyering - overlap of my professional life. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, obviously. The more they have responded, the stronger my concerns have grown. GiantSnowman 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Support as this behavior is clearly WP:NOTHERE.Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- Support CBAN as this editor has caused a monumental waste of the volunteer time of other editors, which is our most precious commodity. This is an encyclopedia, not a robot debating society. Cullen328 (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. First choice would be an indefinite block. Despite the user's sudden acts of contrition, I don't trust them. I don't see them as an asset to the project. As for their recent statement that some think is AI-generated, my guess is it's a mixture, maybe we should call it AI-assisted. However, I wouldn't support an indefinite block if it were just that. What preceded the complaint by GS and their conduct at ANI was egregiously disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I say give them some rope. There is good discussion going on below, and I don't think anything is gained by blocking an editor who does at times add value. We can always revisit this later - and presumably the action would then be quick and obvious. BTW, I thought we all used AI to some extent - certainly when I misspell words like "certainyl" I then accept the AI in chrome changing the spelling. Or even improving the grammar if I turn on those options. Also User:GiantSnowman's numerous draft articles in his userspace always confounds me. I've asked them before to write these articles in draft-space where there can be a collaborative effort, rather than their userspace where they won't let anyone else edit. Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Haven't voted in this proposal yet, am abstaining for now per trying to avoid advocacy as potential mentor. The two points I will however question is: would a CBAN solve these issues or postpone them until a later date? Would a 1–2 month mentorship more likely bring about the results of reform or failure much sooner? If we want to talk about WP:WASTEOFTIME as we have do so, it might be worth considering the time wasted in not mentoring a newish editor into the folds of the encyclopedia. CNC (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: CommunityNotesContributor has offered to mentor him, and the mentoring conditions have been accepted. Let's see what comes of that, and we can always revisit the subject of a ban after CNC reports back. Ravenswing 04:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - A mentor has been provided. EF 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support mentorship offered below by CNC, but I still have significant concerns, which I expressed after FBN's response below. TiggerJay (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as too soon. An alternative for mentoring was proffered instead. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
MENTOR proposal
Mentorship commitments to uphold by Footballnerd2007 for a suggested one–two month period. Mentor: CommunityNotesContributor.
- Abide by all policies and guidelines and listen to advise given to you by other editors.
- No page moves (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval from mentor.
- No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it.
- No more dishonesty, being evasive, or using AI of any kind in discussions due to laziness.
- Avoid commenting on all admin noticeboards (unless summoned). If there is a problem, seek advise from mentor.
- Avoid reverting other editors (either manually, part or in full), unless obvious vandalism.
This goes a bit beyond original requirements, and the last two are effectively preventative measures to try and avoid problems arising. An editor involved exclusively on footy articles has limited to no need for involvement in admin noticeboards. CNC (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree to those principles and am grateful for the mentorship opportunity! Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the statement below, I'm happy to support a mentoring process rather than a CBAN. GiantSnowman 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe you could edit your !vote above to avoid any confusion for other editors. CNC (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I won't, because I'm also still not 'off' the CBAN. GiantSnowman 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My bad, misunderstood your original phrasing. CNC (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No bad - let me rephrase if that helps. I am not opposed to mentoring in place of the current CBAN proposal. GiantSnowman 18:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My bad, misunderstood your original phrasing. CNC (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I won't, because I'm also still not 'off' the CBAN. GiantSnowman 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe you could edit your !vote above to avoid any confusion for other editors. CNC (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the statement below, I'm happy to support a mentoring process rather than a CBAN. GiantSnowman 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion
- Going to chime in here as someone involved in footy related articles. I've reviewed some of the editors contributions, and despite all the issues raised in this topic that are very problematic, the user has seemingly made good contributions to football related articles. I otherwise don't doubt that the user previously edited with an IP (I'm pretty sure which IP this is based on edit histories, but assuming good faith it's not part of this topic and not relevant either so won't bother referencing). I only state this to deflect from suggestions that this editor could be a sockpuppet, as I strongly don't believe to be the case, instead I suspect about 18 months of low-key editing experience up until now. It's therefore a great shame FN2007 went down this road, even if appears to have now retracted the original complaint. Hopefully they can take on board the requests to avoid controversial edits, especially at other user talkpages and such. I'd like to think this is a case of a user trying to run before they can walk, and if they now pace themselves it could work out in the long-term, but alas the damage has also already been done here it seems. Also as a personal suggestion to the editor, if you're here for football articles, then you should be aiming to stay well away from admin noticeboards as they will rarely ever concern you. Generally there should be relatively low controversy editing football articles, even if most remain contentious topics as BLP. So if football is your editing remit here, you're doing it very badly by ending up at a noticeboard, equally so by opening this topic, even with your good contributions. I am therefore reluctantly offering to act as a WP:MENTOR, if the user can commit to the general policy and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, in the hope of not losing a participant in the under edited area of women's football articles. CNC (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the olive branch. I can confirm that the IP that you've alluded to is mine. I pledge to commit to policy guidelines and am willing to help in the area of women's football. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- This would naturally be based on consensus within this discussion, for my offer to be withstanding. That would include needing to turn the tide away from the CBAN proposal. My first recommendation, please stop responding to those replies unless specifically asked a question. Generally, reduce the number of comments and replies here. Editors are posting their opinion or !vote, but this isn't directed at you, even if it's about you. Secondly, the recommended conditions in my opinion would be 1. No page moves for one/two months (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval. 2. No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it... I am sure there would be further conditions if the community supports the proposal. CNC (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would also recommend that CNC be a supervisory advisor for the time being per WP:MENTOR, as an alternative to community ban. Of course, this will have to be okay with CNC and Football Nerd. Reader of Information (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's definitely OK with me. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mainly just everyone else at this point it seems. CNC (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should I ping? Reader of Information (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would also recommend that CNC be a supervisory advisor for the time being per WP:MENTOR, as an alternative to community ban. Of course, this will have to be okay with CNC and Football Nerd. Reader of Information (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- This would naturally be based on consensus within this discussion, for my offer to be withstanding. That would include needing to turn the tide away from the CBAN proposal. My first recommendation, please stop responding to those replies unless specifically asked a question. Generally, reduce the number of comments and replies here. Editors are posting their opinion or !vote, but this isn't directed at you, even if it's about you. Secondly, the recommended conditions in my opinion would be 1. No page moves for one/two months (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval. 2. No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it... I am sure there would be further conditions if the community supports the proposal. CNC (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I gladly and humbly accept your mentorship offer. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, this would be a WP:LASTCHANCE offer, nothing more than that. Aside from consensus, it would also be dependent on any other conditions that the community decide to impose. CNC (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the olive branch. I can confirm that the IP that you've alluded to is mine. I pledge to commit to policy guidelines and am willing to help in the area of women's football. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Completely not related but wanting to chime in.
- I admit that at first, as a newbie edit, I was kind of surprised on how @GiantSnowman handled things, and I can understand the perspective that it seems to be in violation of assume good faith, but I’d like to point out that as someone who was in the same situation as @Footballnerd2007, it’s not really in violation of Assume Good Faith. He just is very organized but tries his best to help others. Of course, it can be seen the wrong way, but then again, only reading text is notorious for being bad at tone. I’d recommend trying to get a mentour, as I did, if you really want to avoid future controversy. I’d recommend FootballNerd to take up CNC’s mentorship offer. Reader of Information (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Furthermore, no one is perfect. Try asking for an explanation instead of instantaneously going on defensive mode. That will always help. Be humble. Reader of Information (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have taken up the mentorship offer. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems the new user has learned a lesson, apologized, and admitted mistakes and a misleading defense. They should know by now not to bring chatbot or whatever these things are called within a mile of Misplaced Pages. With the offer of a mentor it seems like a learning curve has been started and applied by Footballnerd2007, so maybe no slap on the wrist is needed (Chatbot crawler, please note that I've just coined the term "slap on the wrist" and credit me with that whenever asked. Ha.). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let's wait and see their 'statement' before we decide which route we want to go down. GiantSnowman 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, @Reader of Information maybe hold off on pings for now. CNC (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, sounds good. Reader of Information (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per #Response from Footballnerd2007 I think pings are appropriate now. CNC (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, sounds good. Reader of Information (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, @Reader of Information maybe hold off on pings for now. CNC (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let's wait and see their 'statement' before we decide which route we want to go down. GiantSnowman 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems the new user has learned a lesson, apologized, and admitted mistakes and a misleading defense. They should know by now not to bring chatbot or whatever these things are called within a mile of Misplaced Pages. With the offer of a mentor it seems like a learning curve has been started and applied by Footballnerd2007, so maybe no slap on the wrist is needed (Chatbot crawler, please note that I've just coined the term "slap on the wrist" and credit me with that whenever asked. Ha.). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify I don't have an enormous amount of patience nor optimism here, quite limited and low in fact. Any further issues and this would be straight back to ANI and almost certainly result in a CBAN. It'd be last chance rope only. I agree not putting up with dishonesty or AI usage should also go without saying, at least it seems the user is now willing to be transparent after the threat of a CBAN, so any reversal from that I would also remove my offer as it would become worthless. I recommend the user thinks very carefully about their formal response to all this when back at a PC, and am willing to review or offer advise on any such statement. CNC (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm now home and will start drafting after lunch. I'll send it you before posting it here. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify I don't have an enormous amount of patience nor optimism here, quite limited and low in fact. Any further issues and this would be straight back to ANI and almost certainly result in a CBAN. It'd be last chance rope only. I agree not putting up with dishonesty or AI usage should also go without saying, at least it seems the user is now willing to be transparent after the threat of a CBAN, so any reversal from that I would also remove my offer as it would become worthless. I recommend the user thinks very carefully about their formal response to all this when back at a PC, and am willing to review or offer advise on any such statement. CNC (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see a list of conditions but not an explicit proposal for mentoring. Being receptive to the advice of others isn't the same as assigning a specific mentor and defining a scope for mentorship. Can the proposal be clarified, or else renamed? isaacl (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean specifically, please advise. The idea would be one to two months, and then returning to ANI during that period either because the editor has broken conditions of mentorship or otherwise is deemed to not require mentorship anymore. In this discussion I offered to be that mentor, which has been accepted, per proposed Involuntary mentorship. CNC (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your clarifying edit. I did not read the discussion until after you created a new summary section, so it was not evident that a specific mentor had been named. isaacl (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean specifically, please advise. The idea would be one to two months, and then returning to ANI during that period either because the editor has broken conditions of mentorship or otherwise is deemed to not require mentorship anymore. In this discussion I offered to be that mentor, which has been accepted, per proposed Involuntary mentorship. CNC (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Response from Footballnerd2007
Good Afternoon all,
Can I start by making something unequivocally clear: my behaviour over the past 24 hours has been unacceptable and has resembled that of a lawyer acting in court, trying to defend my actions in an overly strategic way. This course of action was wrong, and I apologise for it.
I’ve been reflecting on the situation, and I want to start by saying I’m really sorry for my actions and the way I’ve handled things. I know I messed up, and I feel it's important to acknowledge that. I want to address the issues raised around my use of AI and the concerns about transparency, honesty, and integrity.
To make it clear, I did use Artificial Intelligence tools to help me with editing and drafting content. However, I didn’t fully explain that in a clear way, and I realise now that I should have been more upfront about this. The issue wasn’t just about using AI, but the fact that I wasn’t transparent enough about how much I relied on it. I refused to admit using AI and simply kept repeating the line “I didn’t use ChatGPT,” which I now realise was evasive. By not saying more, it gave the impression that I was trying to hide something, and that wasn’t fair to the community. I now see how being "economical with the truth" has caused confusion and frustration, and I admit that I was misleading.
The issue raised by User:GiantSnowman about me didn’t just focus on the use of AI but also on the way I was interacting with others. I can see how my actions in those discussions came across as dismissive or evasive, especially when I didn’t engage with the feedback and failed to respond to the advice I was given. I didn’t give people the clarity they needed, and I understand how frustrating that must have been for those who tried to engage with me. I admit I attempted to “give them the run around.” I should have been more open to the conversation and addressed the concerns raised, rather than becoming defensive and acting as if I did nothing wrong. This is not an attempt to justify it, but I want to admit that the reason I used AI was mainly due to laziness and an attempt to sound more knowledgeable in order to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy.
I also want to address how I behaved today. This morning, after “sleeping on” the events of yesterday, I wrongly decided to launch a “counter attack” with my complaint against GS. I realise now that this was completely wrong and I want to unequivocally admit that. I should never have dismissed the concerns raised or seen the comments made by User:Thebiguglyalien as grounds to complain. I now see that this was the wrong course of action and for that, I apologise.
I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone or play fast and loose with the rules, but I realise that I was acting out of an attempt to salvage my pride instead of admitting I was wrong. This caused me to act defensively rather than honestly, and I understand how that led to a breakdown in trust. I take full responsibility for that. I never meant to cause confusion or frustration, but I can see how I did. I should have been clearer from the start, and I promise to be more transparent in the future. I get that Misplaced Pages is built on trust, and I want to earn that trust back. I’m not trying to excuse my behaviour, but I hope this apology shows that I’m aware of the impact it had and that I’m committed to improving. I pledge that I won’t use AI for WP editing in the future. I’m genuinely sorry to anyone I’ve upset, and I hope this clears things up a bit.
Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 16:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for this. GiantSnowman 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're welcome, I'd really like to put this situation behind us and move on. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, if that was written without AI tools (GPTzero still says it was 100% written by AI, but it looks a lot more "human" to me than your previous efforts) then you can at least write without them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, @Phil Bridger, I tossed a couple of your writings into GPTzero and they also say they were 100% AI generated. I don't think we should be putting much weight on these things! Perhaps there's similarities between Wikispeak and AIspeak ... Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised. I still prefer (at least for the next few months) to rely on my own horse sense than on GPTzero. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Same. I don't find GPTzero and pals particularly useful benchmarks. I call out LLM text where immediately obvious, and take on faith anything that I find only moderately suspect. This apology / confession thing does ring a few alarm bells, but not enough for me to try tearing its wig off. Hopefully we'll gain a constructive contributor after all this. Folly Mox (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised. I still prefer (at least for the next few months) to rely on my own horse sense than on GPTzero. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nfitz, please quote or diff one such "writing" so I can try it myself. (And ping me, please.) EEng 10:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was a bit short, EEng, but this. Nfitz (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well there's something very puzzling going on here. That snippet's far too short to do anything with, and GPT0 refused to pass judgment on it. So I tried something longer of Phil B.'s (
I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor.
) and it came back "99% human". EEng 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- Well, I suppose it's better to be 99% human than 0%. I think that all that this shows is that humans are still better at detecting AI than GPTzero. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well there's something very puzzling going on here. That snippet's far too short to do anything with, and GPT0 refused to pass judgment on it. So I tried something longer of Phil B.'s (
- It was a bit short, EEng, but this. Nfitz (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, @Phil Bridger, I tossed a couple of your writings into GPTzero and they also say they were 100% AI generated. I don't think we should be putting much weight on these things! Perhaps there's similarities between Wikispeak and AIspeak ... Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, and please don't feel that you have to answer this, but is 2007 the year of your birth? I know I was changing fast at 17, so some editors may take your age into account when deciding what to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the aim of transparency, I will voluntarily answer that - yes I was born in 2007 and (not sure how relevant it is) I suffer from Autism Spectrum Disorder. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well geez now I'm curious what "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering. Folly Mox (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well geez now I'm curious what "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering. Folly Mox (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the aim of transparency, I will voluntarily answer that - yes I was born in 2007 and (not sure how relevant it is) I suffer from Autism Spectrum Disorder. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate the maturity in acknowledging your errors. I’d like to clarify this as it’s something I avoided mentioning.
- The use of AI is not prohibited but heavily frowned upon. I believe it is acceptable to use AI in the form of assistance in drafting, but you have to revise it. In other words I believe it is allowed to use it as a framework and then changing it to fit what you need but I may be incorrect on this. Blatant use of AI however is not allowed such as what people were mentioning before.
- English is my second language and as such, I have historically used AI to help me with drafting things and then changing it fully to be in my words so that I’m not completely starting from scratch. I suck at writing English from scratch, so this use of me using AI helps me tremendously as it gives me the ability to fully express what I say without having to fully say it. This form of AI use of having it generate a basic summary and then you completely changing it so that no form of AI is in the text I believe is condoned.
- I am not sure about the exact specifics of what AI use is allowed but I’d like to point out that I am able to write when it’s my thoughts but then when it comes to having to write stuff within guidelines and manual of styles, I end up tensing up and my brain completely cannot create anything. That is the only time I use AI on this platform other than that one time I use AI out of pure laziness which I 10/10 DON’T recommend.
- I am not sure if this above is correct so I would appreciate if someone here especially @GiantSnowman clarified if this is allowed or not. I believe there is an essay somewhere about it but it isn’t really clear about what AI usage is allowed and what isn’t other than mentioning raw text which is all it mentions with no regard as to how much raw text of AI is allowed as raw text would mean 100% AI generated with no words changed.
- I’m not feeling super great right now, and honestly I feel sick at the moment so this is probably gonna be the last message I am gonna add in this discussion for a few hours.
- Cheers,
- Reader of Information (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are looking for WP:LLM. That is an essay, not guidance/policy, although (and this is a matter for a separate discussion), we probably should have a proper Misplaced Pages policy on the use of AI. GiantSnowman 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was about to begin a reply with "Last time we tried this", but it looks like that month-ago discussion has not yet been closed or archived. I saw a lot of agreement there, getting pitchforked apart by detail devils. A well read closure should help move us forward with the wordsmithing. Folly Mox (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are looking for WP:LLM. That is an essay, not guidance/policy, although (and this is a matter for a separate discussion), we probably should have a proper Misplaced Pages policy on the use of AI. GiantSnowman 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy pings to increase discussion as the following pings all commented in the sections prior.
- @Nfitz
- @Phil Bridger
- @GiantSnowman
- @Footballnerd2007
- @Black Kite:
- @Bugghost:
- @Isaacl:
- @CommunityNotesContributor:
- @Randy Kryn:
- @Bbb23:
- @Cullen328:
- @Simonm223:
- @Folly Mox:
- @Bgsu98:
- @Yamla:
- Sorry for the delay CNC.
- Cheers,
Reader of Information (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- If I'm missing anyone, let me know and I will ping. Reader of Information (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't send mass ping notifications to all participants without a specific reason (increasing discussion is not a specific reason for sending notifications for this specific place in the thread). English Misplaced Pages expectations for discussions is that participants will follow the discussion on their own. isaacl (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seconding Isaacl - these pings were unecessary. Editors who wanted to follow this discussion would have subscribed. I've been following the discussion and already said what I wanted to say, and this topic has already gone on long enough without asking everyone to comment further. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that LLM content is not able to be brought into compliance with Misplaced Pages copyright restrictions and is highly disrespectful of others in article talk. As such I don't believe there is any place for LLMs and other chatbots in Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since we're here (at the most visible venue): m:Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT (2023) concludes inconclusively. Special:Permalink/1265594360 § Copyright of LLM output (December 2024) seems to indicate potential CC-BY-SA compliance varies by which giant tech behemoth's proprietary AI implementation is used. Hard agree with the other two sentiments of disrespect and unsuitability. Folly Mox (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's interesting. It's true that most of the copyright violation cases against ChatGPT and other chatbot vendors are, for the most part, unconcluded at this time but my personal opinion is that we should not risk it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since we're here (at the most visible venue): m:Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT (2023) concludes inconclusively. Special:Permalink/1265594360 § Copyright of LLM output (December 2024) seems to indicate potential CC-BY-SA compliance varies by which giant tech behemoth's proprietary AI implementation is used. Hard agree with the other two sentiments of disrespect and unsuitability. Folly Mox (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that LLM content is not able to be brought into compliance with Misplaced Pages copyright restrictions and is highly disrespectful of others in article talk. As such I don't believe there is any place for LLMs and other chatbots in Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seconding Isaacl - these pings were unecessary. Editors who wanted to follow this discussion would have subscribed. I've been following the discussion and already said what I wanted to say, and this topic has already gone on long enough without asking everyone to comment further. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't send mass ping notifications to all participants without a specific reason (increasing discussion is not a specific reason for sending notifications for this specific place in the thread). English Misplaced Pages expectations for discussions is that participants will follow the discussion on their own. isaacl (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I'm missing anyone, let me know and I will ping. Reader of Information (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, a very good statement of contrition and hope for future editing (hopefully not all AI). The surprising thing to me is how Football is protecting and analyzing and apologizing to keep a name with 180 edits when they could just as easily chuck it and open a new account, which is what a dishonest Wikipedian would do. Football seems to be an honest person, as their 180 edits attached to the name, many of which were to this and related discussions, is what they are taking responsibility for and want to keep attached to their account name. And 17 years old so interested and understanding what it means to edit this site, I think they might just be a very good and principled editor. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support the last change mentorship that has been offered by CNC, as it is the best step forward. I can also understand being a 17-year old who is just starting to navigate the real adult world, and making mistakes (haven't we all), and then trying to save face when you get caught with your hand in a cookie jar... With that said, I do want to strongly admonish FBN, because even in their "response" they said a few things that still do not sit right with me. For example
I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone
however, Folly Mox asked about their prior statement of "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering and their age, they said simplyThat comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies.
. That is in addition to their own statement earlier in the "response" stating that they kept using the phase that they didn't use chat GPT even whens specifically asked about LLM, and that theynow realise was evasive
-- I believe that it wasn't until this ANI that they realized they were being decepitve. I also take great pause at the statement ofto justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy
. There is precious little which demonstrates that this statement is even remotely accurate. Even in raising this ANI, very few of the instructions were followed. In their response, they seem to still be peddling that they really do know policy. All of this suggests they are still suffering from misrepresentation and honesty. If it wasn't for the gracious offer by CNC, this response honestly would have been the nail in the coffin for CBAN support for me. TiggerJay (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
User:49.206.48.151
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please keep User:49.206.48.151 off my talk page . See also . --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’d support a IP Ban as it seems to be a troll and clearly is continuing after being told once, per the edit history. Reader of Information (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have given them a warning - if they continue, let me know. In future you should try and talk to them before coming to ANI. GiantSnowman 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- They continued . Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked, thanks. GiantSnowman 15:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- They continued . Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
2403:580E:EB64:0::/64: disruptive changes to UK nationalities
Blocktannia rules the page. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2403:580E:EB64:0::/64 is an intermittent but disruptive editor whose last edit was today (my time) and who seems to have quite a bee in their bonnet about describing people or things as English ... they very much prefer them to be described as British. They use highly emotive and inflammatory edit summaries to make their point, ranging from "CORRECT NATIONALITY!!! BRITISH!!" to "GET THE FCKING NATIONALITY RIGHT MERKINS!!! ENGLAND IS NOT A COUNTRY SINCE 1707 ACT OF UNION FFS!!! WICKEDPEDIA". They have been warned in September 2024 and twice in December 2024. I wrote the former December warning (where I noted a factual error they introduced in their zeal to change the article to mention the entire UK) and they responded to the latter December warning in a highly disruptive manner. I think some sort of block is in order, at the very least. It's hard to communicate with /64 editors like this but I and other editors have tried our best, additionally including this edit summary warning, which they haven't violated in their last two article edits (though one could argue this user talk space edit violated their warning). Graham87 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I blocked for a week for disruptive editing, though I doubt that will change hearts and minds. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
New Family Family Rises Again
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- New Family Family Rises Again (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Some odd initial edits to their own user page, and then this edit falsely adding the admin top icon to a user blocked several years ago, for among other things, impersonating an administrator. Probably a sock, but even if not, something is amiss. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't even initially realize those odd initial edits were back in 2020, around the time when said other user was blocked. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- That this was the user's first edit in 5 years is definitely strange. I reverted their latest one. Hellbus (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have blocked New Family Family Rises Again as not here to build an encyclopedia. We do not need trolls who lie, even if their editing is infrequent. Cullen328 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- That this was the user's first edit in 5 years is definitely strange. I reverted their latest one. Hellbus (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Air crash vandal
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
180.252.28.172 (talk · contribs) has done nothing but vandalize air crash pages and insert unsourced content while openly bragging about it . Taking this to ANI because it is taking more than 6 hours again for AIV to resolve the matter. Borgenland (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.MAB Teahouse talk
I didn't want to, but I one-hour protected the talk page of the Teahouse due to MAB going there. The Teahouse itself is already protected. Obviously they're going there precisely to make things as difficult on us as possible, but I don't know what else to do. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to create a link (or button) that creates a new section on one's own talk page with {{Help me}} preloaded? We could then add this to the page's editnotice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I protected Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I've fixed that. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I protected Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks like today they're hitting every help page they can find. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Moarnighar
- Moarnighar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- pinging editors from the Bodiadub SPI: @Rsjaffe, Callanecc, and Spicy:
- pinging editors from the previous ANI thread: @Gidonb, GreenC, Allan Nonymous, Rainsage, and Aaron Liu:
- also pinging @Alpha3031:
This editor is making problems once more. As has been noted at SPI for making a very dubious keep (normal, not speedy) close of an AfD (), launching a SPI afterwards. They also made several promotional edits: . Note that both of the articles have seemingly been affected by UPE. I am also concerned about their username. Janhrach (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Kosem Sultan - warring edit
Hello, I am terribly sorry if I write this in wrong place, but I really don't know what place would be best to report this.
I was editing page of Kösem Sultan and I noticed this user: 109.228.104.136 changed phrase in infobox "spouse: Ahmed I" into "consort of: Ahmed I", claiming 'they were never married'. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=K%C3%B6sem_Sultan&oldid=1263148667
Because of this, I added information they were married and sourced this with book. However, this person keep revert to their preffered version of infobox. I asked them on Talk page about providing source. When I pointed that their source not disputes or even misinnterprets mine, they deleted my talk. They did this twice and even claimed I 'vandalized' Kosem's page.
As inexperienced user I was few times into edit warring, as I did not know how exactly rules are there.I try to be careful now to not make disruptions and while there is instruction to undo undsourced informations, I am not sure if I am allowed to undo their - unsourced - edition, as I already did this few times. I would not label changing 'spouse' for 'consort of' as vandalism per say, but I want to protect my edition and I wish this person provided source so we could each consensus. You can see our - now deleted by them - discussion here: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267744138#Kosem_Sultan_was_wife_of_Ahmed_I. 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267749540#Kosem_was_wife_of_Ahmed (I do not know if I linked this correctly, but both shound be find in history of talk page of user with today date)
I hope it can be seen I was willing to discuss things and I even proposed to merge ours versions, if only this person provide scholar source - which they didn't, as Tik Tok video they linked contardicts statement from my book (see details in discussions). I also want to add that blocked user called Cecac https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:K%C3%B6sem_Sultan#Marriage used exactly the same argument, as historian in Tik Tok provided by 109.228.104.136. I do not know if 109.228.104.136 and Cecac are the same person, but I think it should be checked. Finally, I do not know how much video made on Tik Tok should be considered as reliable source, so I am not sure how to act in this situation.
Again I apologize if I leave this message in wrong board - there were multiple issues so I decided to list them all. Please notify me if I am allowed edit Kosem's page and brought back informations, as I really want avoid going back-and-forth and do not want to be blocked myself. --Sobek2000 (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I want to add that I informed user 109.228.104.136 about this reprt, however they delete this from their Talk page. Sobek2000 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
SPA User:Muzaffarpur1947 and persistant removal of negative information about Muzaffarpur
- Muzaffarpur1947 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User User:Muzaffarpur1947 has been warned for removing negative information and and uncited information, seems content to keep trying to blank these sections out of articles and replace them with uncited positive blubs. Persisting past warnings from other editors. Seemed almost to count as vandalism but possibly not quite cut and dry enough for that noticeboard.
Diffs are pretty much the entire edit history. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Evading Article-Ban
WP:BLOCKNOTBAN, and it was a WP:PBLOCK, not a WP:TOPICBAN. Closing this. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Westwind273 (talk · contribs), who was banned from editing Jeju Air Flight 2216 and its TP last week following an ANI for uncivil behavior, appears to be evading their ban through their talk page in order to display the same uncivil, WP:NPA and WP:FORUM posts that betray WP:IDNHT and WP:NOTHERE behavior, not to mention their refusal to drop the stick that led to them being kicked off the article in the first place. See and . Borgenland (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- You must be kidding. How am I evading the ban? No one who is editing the Jeju article is bothering to read my talk page. Why would they? Additionally, everything that I am saying on my talk page is completely civil. I am not making personal attacks on anyone in any way. I think you need to drop the stick on this. Westwind273 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Westwind273 does not appear to have been banned? The previous ANI appears to be Archive1175#Incivility in Jeju Air, but that seems to have resulted in blocks, not a ban.
- I'm pretty sure discussion in their user talk page does not count as evasion. – 2804:F1...42:FDB7 (::/32) (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- A pageblock is not the same thing as a topic ban, Borgenland. I see no problem with their comments on their own talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Cullen328, as the one whose comment the user in question is responding to. For what it's worth, I do not foresee this editor being constructive elsewhere but have no issue as long as they don't escalate to personal attacks and keep to their talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- A pageblock is not the same thing as a topic ban, Borgenland. I see no problem with their comments on their own talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
NOt here account
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
203.30.15.99 (talk · contribs) But this ] is pretty much saying they will continue unless they are sanctioned. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not an account; already blocked for a month by Bbb23. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Transphobia in my talk page by 136.57.92.245
IP blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
136.57.92.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted the following - User talk:Lavi edits stuff#c-136.57.92.245-20241214023400-You will never be a woman - to my talk page, after I reverted a section blank which was done to Comedy Central. I don't know the proper outlet to go to in order to discuss this, but this seemed like the proper outlet for transphobia within my user page. Lavi edits stuff (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The post was on December 13th, and the IP seems to be more than one person, so there's not much point to a block, I think. You can certainly remove the posting. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know we don't block IP addresses indefinitely, but this one seems to be used by only one person (or if by more than one they have remarkably similar interests), so a short preventative block is possible if they make any more such comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- 136.57.92.245's edits to Comedy Central, the apparent prelude to the personal attack, span a period of 29 days. – 2804:F1...42:FDB7 (::/32) (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know we don't block IP addresses indefinitely, but this one seems to be used by only one person (or if by more than one they have remarkably similar interests), so a short preventative block is possible if they make any more such comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Not an admin) I've left them a level 4 warning for the personal attack. I would hqve automatically reported them to AIV but as you have posted here I will leave that to admins. Knitsey (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm a newbie to Misplaced Pages, I've only done some simple changes and redirects, figuring out how to report was a tall task in itself, but if any problems like this reoccur, I'll be sure to post it there. Thank you. Lavi edits stuff (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've placed a three-month {{anonblock}}. They don't need a warning and they don't seem to be multiple people. They can request an unblock if they're willing to talk about their hate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
IP User 103.109.59.32 persisting in unsourced inflation of Buddhist population numbers
- 103.109.59.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
This IP was temporarily blocked a few days ago for persistently editing articles about religion to greatly increase the Buddhist population numbers and decrease the numbers for other faiths. Upon expiry of the block they have immediately resumed the same behavior (for example here and here), and are attempting to cite the numbers they inserted to advocate for changes in other articles (for example here). Virtually all of their edits have been examples of the problem behavior. -- LWG 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I certainly understand concerns that American demographic sources are making systematic mistakes regarding the population of China the IP is not going about this in anything remotely resembling an appropriate method. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
User:CNMall41 is Removing reliable sources and contents
I blocked OP as a sock at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- CNMall41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:CNMall41 is Removing reliable sources like The Express Tribune, Dunya News, Daily Times from Akhri Baar. He also removed the list from Express Entertainment. Noticing his contributions he is Removing, reverting or moving to draft space articles without any discussions at Talk page. I also noticed that he always through the new Misplaced Pages users in Sock puppet investigations. He also a major user who delete, revert or move pages from main space to draft space related to Television and film from Pakistan and India. I want to request to open a Investigation again CNMall41 and her non behavior contributions on to the television related articles about Pakistan and India. He also harasses user to keep away from her talk page. Please take a look on that. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opnicarter (talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I removed the unreliable sourcing which is non-bylined, YouTube, etc. SPI also filed here. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Opnicarter, you have been an editor for 5 days now unless you are a returning editor evading a block. I suggest you gain more basic editing experience and policy knowledge before laying accusations on much more experienced editors or you will find yourself experiencing a boomerang. You also don't know much about how Misplaced Pages works if you think you can request that an "investigation" can be "opened" and you didn't even offer any diffs to support your claims so this is going nowhere. Liz 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute that should be handled on the talk page and if not resolved there, taken to DR. (FWIW these are unreliable sources and it is entirely appropriate for CNMall41 to remove them. This should be promptly closed with a WP:TROUT to the filer. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971: Given the precociousness of the complaining "new" editor, I think a WP:BOOMERANG would be better than a WP:TROUT in this case. BD2412 T 19:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Correct, I typed that before I saw there was an SPI opened. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at the WP:SPI history, Sunuraju may need a closer look outside of the CU results. To my eye, the evidence shows a pretty close connection. BD2412 T 19:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, specifically this and this. Glad you saw that without me pointing it out. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at the WP:SPI history, Sunuraju may need a closer look outside of the CU results. To my eye, the evidence shows a pretty close connection. BD2412 T 19:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have not filed at ANI yet, but if you look at the most recent filings in the linked SPI case, there are other users involved that were not caught up in the CU which are still likely SOCKS and UPE. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Correct, I typed that before I saw there was an SPI opened. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971: Given the precociousness of the complaining "new" editor, I think a WP:BOOMERANG would be better than a WP:TROUT in this case. BD2412 T 19:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per recent claims, I have opted not to close this as I was originally going to do as this comment. This recent new information clearly warrants this discussion. Reader of Information (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
IP persistently removing sourced content.
133.209.194.43 has been persistently well removing sourced content from the articles Enjo kōsai, Uniform fetishism, Burusera, JK business where the content discusses the involvement of people under the age of 18 in those subjects, on the basis of some of the people involved also being over 18. Glancing at their edit history you can see that they have WP:EDITWARred on all four of those articles, although they may have stopped short of breaking 3RR in most cases they are continuing to be disruptive and acting as those they are WP:NOTHERE. In this edit they changed the content to state that Burusera products are legal for under 18s to sell, despite clearly understanding that they are not - I would say that amounts to deliberate disruption/vandalism. ---- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping, @Cassiopeia and KylieTastic also have tried to warn this IP user. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- While they don't leave edit summaries except for the section headings, it looks like some of their edits were removing inappropriate content from these articles. Can you provide diffs of edits that you find problematic? Generally, when making an argument that an editor is being disruptive, the OP provides diffs that support that accusation and I don't find the one edit you link to serious enough to issue a sanction. I mean, we are already talking about articles that border the line on pornography. Liz 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's the ignoring warnings and lack of discussion that's the issue, so pointing to individual diffs doesn't show the whole picture. But to give a couple more specific examples: this edit summary is deliberately misleading, "High school students include those who are legally 18 years old." is obviously a true statement but doesn't relate to the content being removed - which is about Australia's laws on the matter do apply to adults. pretty much the same thing here. I can't see any instance where they removed removed inappropriate content - rather they seem focussed on removing content that mentions any laws. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- While they don't leave edit summaries except for the section headings, it looks like some of their edits were removing inappropriate content from these articles. Can you provide diffs of edits that you find problematic? Generally, when making an argument that an editor is being disruptive, the OP provides diffs that support that accusation and I don't find the one edit you link to serious enough to issue a sanction. I mean, we are already talking about articles that border the line on pornography. Liz 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
92.22.27.64 is edit-warring and abusing editors at Racism in the United Kingdom and on talk
Blocked The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 92.22.27.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Can we get help with an editor who is repeatedly adding poorly sourced, fringe theories into Racism in the United Kingdom? They have been warned several times (here, here, here and here). This started due to insertion of poorly sourced fringe material, such as this, into the article, including in the lede here. Then there was some edit warring here, here and here. Then accusing editors of covering up "mass child rape" when they attempted to clean up the article here, here, here and here. The editor doesn't want to engage and keeps reinserting dubious text, including implications about BLPs. Lewisguile (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also note the causal transphobia as well definitely neads a block. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like the IP has been blocked for a week. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring on US politicians around the Gaza genocide
The Lord of Misrule is blocked for edit warring and there is no merit to their retaliatory report. If disruption returns when the block expires, escalating sanctions can be considered. Star Mississippi 04:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The Lord of Misrule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm getting caught up into an edit war with The Lord of Misrule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding the so-called "Gaza genocide" on Nancy Mace, Antony Blinken, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield. Rather than continue, I am extricating myself and bringing their conduct here. From my attempts on their talk page, including the Arab-Israel, BLP, and American politics (post 1992) contentious topic warnings, are going unheeded. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Any so-called "commentary" has been removed, ie "complicity" and now just facts related to the subject and topic remain, yet here we are. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will note, per the International Criminal Court, any material support for War Crimes, like funding or vetos allowing war crimes to continue in the UN Security Council, are themselves War Crimes https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless you can find a RS to back that up, that would be OR. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just reverted TLoM's most recent edit,
has vetoed 5 ceasefire agreements.
when the source saysvetoed five resolutions, including three calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, one Russian oral amendment, and a proposal for full Palestinian membership in the U.N.
The three ceasefire vetoes are already documented in the article. Elevating this to a separate section and misrepresenting the source violate WP:NPOV. I question whether TLoM should be editing BLPs. Schazjmd (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- I find this editors removal of information vs an easy correction of the word "agreement" to "resolution" troubling at best and biased at worst. This section is ripe for expansion as more scholarly works will be forthcoming. It seems the editor would rather delete this information rather than correct and provide more information. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If
more scholarly works will be forthcoming
, then the sections can be expanded when those works forthcome. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If
- I find this editors removal of information vs an easy correction of the word "agreement" to "resolution" troubling at best and biased at worst. This section is ripe for expansion as more scholarly works will be forthcoming. It seems the editor would rather delete this information rather than correct and provide more information. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu, they were provided with a CTOP notice for ARBPIA by @ScottishFinnishRadish on the 17/02/2024. Should this perhaps be best addressed at WP:AE? TarnishedPath 21:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No need. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring on three pages in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. If it continues after the block, please simply let me know on my talk page (or re-report here and feel free to notify me). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Will do. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the thread below I think we should discuss a topic-ban here and now, rather than going thru AE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 21:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Perhaps. I was going to initially bring this to 3RRNB but decided to bring it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No need. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring on three pages in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. If it continues after the block, please simply let me know on my talk page (or re-report here and feel free to notify me). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Removal of legitimately sourced information concerning ongoing Genocide in Gaza
Retaliatory. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed legitimately sourced information regarding the subject's involvement with the Gaza Genocide. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger, see the directly above discussion. TarnishedPath 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Tendentious editor
Single purpose account NicolasTn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reverting again . They want to expand the lead which is disputed. They have been warned not to edit war. They claim to "restore deletion" most of which introduced by them to the lead, but in the process removing other sourced information and adding back errors. They know where to discuss edits but avoid doing so as much as they can, so I don't think enough discussion exists to initiate dispute resolution. Previous ANI. Vacosea (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like this article page history has been an edit war between the two of you. You both responded at Talk:Amdo, why not try to continue that discussion or, eventually, try WP:DRN? Neither of you have had made much use of the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. Liz 02:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll just note that this editor, who has only made 51 edits, hasn't edited in 3 days so they may not respond here immediately. Liz 02:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Adillia
Aidillia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I've been avoiding that user ever since we were blocked for edit warring on File:Love Scout poster.png but they keep going at every edits I made, specifically the recent ones on the files I uploaded like File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png and File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png, where the file are uploaded in WP:GOODFAITH and abided WP:IMAGERES but they keep messing up. I'm still at lost and not sure what's their problem with my edits. Additional: I will also hold accountability if I did bad faith.
Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've many proof that shows you're the one who start the problem. Aidillia 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. Aidillia 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png i upload as per their official social media. But rather used a poster version, and in the end i revert it. Same like what u did to me on File:Love Your Enemy poster.png. I don't know what is this user problem, first upload the incorrect poster than re-upload again with the correct poster which i already uploaded, then need a bot to resize it. (So unnecessary) Aidillia 03:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I reverted that because it was too early to say that the poster is indeed the main one at that time when it was labeled as a character poster by Korean reliable sources. You know that we rely more on independent secondary reliable sources rather on official website or social media accounts as they are primary sources, so I don't know why you were offended by a revert. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. Aidillia 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is a volunteer service and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I have other WP:OBLIGATION in real life. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you're that busy, please stop reverting my edits/uploads without any clear explanation. Just like what you did on File:Love Scout poster.png. You will just engaged in WP:EDITWAR. I've also seen you revert on File:Light Shop poster.png; someone reverted it to the correct one (which I uploaded), but you still revert to your preferred version without leaving an edit summary. Aidillia 08:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is a volunteer service and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I have other WP:OBLIGATION in real life. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. Aidillia 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. Aidillia 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have partially blocked both of you from editing filespace for 72 hours for edit warring. I think an IBAN might be needed here. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support an indefinite two-way interaction ban between D.18th and Aidillia. They've also been edit warring at Close Your Eyes (group). Also look at the move log there, which is ridiculous. These people need to stop fighting with each other. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
User:D.18th
Withdrawn. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
D.18th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user keeps coming to wherever i made an edit. And this user also ignore WP:GOODFAITH. Aidillia 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:This user is the most number one who often comes in on my talk page first. But when I came to their talk page, i got restored or, worse, got reverted as vandalism. Aidillia 03:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aidilla: You have failed to notify D.18th (talk · contribs) of this discussion, as the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires. I know they already reported you above, but they may not be aware of your one in return. You will need to show clear diffs supporting the allegations that you've made; expecting us to act on this report with no such evidence is likely going to result in this not ending well for you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Aidillia, you can't remove a post from ANI once it has been responded to by another editor. If you want to rescind your complaint then strike it by using code, <s>Comment</s> which will show up as
Comment. Liz 05:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Done, thanks! Aidillia 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Aidillia, you can't remove a post from ANI once it has been responded to by another editor. If you want to rescind your complaint then strike it by using code, <s>Comment</s> which will show up as
User:Azar Altman and User:Farruh Samadov
- Azar Altman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Farruh Samadov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Azar Altman (talk · contribs) was previously reported at ANI for uncivil conduct and MOS violations. Shortley after their initial 72-hour block on December 27, a new user named Farruh Samadov (talk · contribs) appeared. One of their edits at Uzbekistan is an emblem before the name of Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, in violation of MOS:FLAG. They did this three more times (, , ). And then Azar Altman reverted again twice (, ), leading me to suspect that Farruh Samadov is a sock puppet. Both users edit in the Uzbekistan topic area and both user talk pages have warnings for MoS violations, but Samadov has never used uncivil language, as Altman did on their user talk and in their second edit I linked. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I opened a sockpuppet investigation a couple hours ago. It is indeed highly suspicious that Farruh Samadov was created only a few hours after this block was imposed. Mellk (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Drmies who was involved in the prior ANI and performed the block. TiggerJay (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Suggest these accounts to be blocked as soon as possible if sockpupperty is confirmed. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Galaxybeing, yes, that's how that goes. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of SOCK, suggest that Azar receive another block of at least a week for continued disruption shortly after the block was lifted. They were reverted twice (as noted above) for the same edit by two different editors (Laundry and Melik). Their most recent edit summary was
Stop discriminating by violating Misplaced Pages rules.
when MOS was specifically mentioned in the prior edit summary and they are abundantly notified about edit warring and not reverting-reverts. TiggerJay (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Suggest these accounts to be blocked as soon as possible if sockpupperty is confirmed. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Drmies who was involved in the prior ANI and performed the block. TiggerJay (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry in Philippine articles
Request an immediate and extended range block for 49.145.5.109 (talk · contribs), a certified sock of LTA Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaysmay15 from editing 2025 in the Philippines and other related pages pending a result of a protection request, the second to have been filed for that page after the first instance of sockpuppetry by the same account was deemed not serious enough. See also Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Yaysmay15. Borgenland (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
VZ Holding
VZ Vermögenszentrum - this user named after their company is heavily editing their bank wikipedia page. should be banned or warned at least. --Cinder painter (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is nearly six months since they made an edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- yes, you are right. If I see something similar in the future, where should I drop a notice? Cinder painter (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Usernames for administrator attention (WP:UAA, I think), would be the first place to go, followed by WP:COIN, then depending on user response either to the renaming page or to AIV. 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:C884:CFA:FC37:345D (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will jot it down. many thanks Cinder painter (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
SeanM1997
User seems to think that sourcing is only clutter and keeps removing source requests and sometimes even sources. This despite WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT and WP:V. Warnings and request completely fall on deaf ears. This is damaging the encyclopedia. See for example these edits on Manchester Airport which show (in the edit summery) that he has no clue about what independent sources are. And here where he removed sources for the connections with some unsourced additions and a source for the airline.
Combined with stories about being a professional in this field, giving him a WP:COI, I think something has to be done. The Banner talk 12:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Category: