Revision as of 06:13, 3 August 2013 editThe Bushranger (talk | contribs)Administrators156,604 edits →User:MilesMoney Personal attacks, non-reliable sources and general non-constructive editing.: closing - to RSN with ye← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:38, 25 December 2024 edit undoHandThatFeeds (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,417 edits →Disruptive behavior from IP: clarify | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} | |||
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize =800K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 1174 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(72h) | ||
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c | |||
|key = 4636e7fd80174f8cb324fd91d06d906d | |||
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | ||
|headerlevel=2 | |||
}}<!--{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
}} | |||
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
{{stack end}} | |||
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchi | |||
<!-- | |||
|format=%%i | |||
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
|age=36 | |||
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
|index=no | |||
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | |||
|archivenow=<nowiki>{{discussion top}},{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{archive top|,Template:Archive top</nowiki> | |||
== Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] == | |||
|numberstart=756 | |||
|minarchthreads= 1 | |||
|minkeepthreads= 4 | |||
|maxarchsize= 700000 | |||
|key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505sc0c | |||
}} | |||
----------------------------------------------------------- | |||
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | |||
---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
As this page concerns INCIDENTS: | |||
Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header. | |||
The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of ] and ]. Issues began when this editor . They did it and and . | |||
Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header. | |||
---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
Do not place links in the section headers. | |||
(Immediately UNDER the header is preferred). | |||
---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
Entries may be refactored based on the above. | |||
---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
--></noinclude> | |||
Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to ] to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I on the talk page of the relevant article, the user and according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to ], both and , they ] stating {{tq|ever since the stupid Misplaced Pages Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Misplaced Pages at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it|q=y}}, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading and and . I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and . | |||
== ] Personal attacks, non-reliable sources and general non-constructive editing. == | |||
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
{{archive top|1=This looks like a job for <s>]</s>]. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 06:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
] Has been repeatedly using Think Progress and The Daily Kos as reliable sources in a BLP , and then resorting to personal attacks. On the page this has been discussed, but he does not seem to . | |||
:The other user in this case is ]? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. ] (]) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Yes the is indeed about ]. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating ] repeatedly even after I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and . ] (]) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. ] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::It's a conduct issue. ] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "{{tqi|Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.}}" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. ] (]) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. ] (]) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::‎إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. ] (]) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does '''not''' in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... ] (]) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
User has been . ] (]) 03:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:{{replyto|AnonMoos}} I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of ] since the signature was perfectly valid per ]. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. ] (]) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: Wouldn't the context of the use be important? For example, I don't think Think Progress should be uniformly excluded as a source for BLP. A current discussion on thinkprogess, is taking place ] Second, as far as being insulting, I would be concerned about ].] (]) 03:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::], this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. ] ] 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to ]]<sup>] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike> | |||
:Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day. | |||
:Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. ] (]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::...] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
<strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. ]<sup>] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike> | |||
::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===None of this matters=== | |||
I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. ]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::That was ''six years ago'', which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. ] (]) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... ] (]) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? ]<sup>] </sup> 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist ]. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. ]] 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Heck, ''I'' am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. ] (]) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. ] ] 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Hi. I'm new here but Arzel has been on my tail from day one. He's following me around, undoing my work, threatening me and trying to get me to stop editing. His edit comments are full of lies, half-truths and insults. I'm really sick of him. Please send him away. Thank you. ] (]) 07:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
*If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Misplaced Pages broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.] (]) 07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The main focus of his attacks have been on ], where he's repeatedly lied about lack of sources. If you look at the section he keeps cutting, it refs ThinkProgress, Washington Post, and DailyKos. It is part of a larger paragraph that refs the Humane Society and Agri-Pulse. One of the secondary sources brings up the coverage of this scandal on the Colbert Report, so we include a link to the primary source for reference. Everything is cited, balanced and accurate, so BLP is not involved. | |||
::Since you asked, I tried to grab some diffs, but I'm sure I missed some and included a few that aren't important. | |||
:Meh. None of ''this'' matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Arzel edit-warring over ]: | |||
::While true, it's still a violation of ], and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what ''else'' it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: | |||
: | |||
: | |||
: | |||
: | |||
: | |||
(there may be more edit-war diffs that I missed) | |||
::It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Misplaced Pages's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart a ''behavioral'' discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. ] (]) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Bonus: | |||
::It's not inherently about the signatures. It's that he's stubbornly insisting on using an outdated system that introduces errors into ''other content''. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: | |||
:::agree on this. Incidental changing of signayures due to the tech issue is not a small problem itself but that clearly has potential to impact a much wider range of mainspace content. I have a hard time believing that there is not a browser that supports https and can run on a decade old computer (something like Opera even). Claiming inability to switch or upgrade needs to be explained in detail or otherwise this has potential to be a bigger problem. ] (]) 17:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Disruptive editing by ] == | |||
Here's where he acts like he owns the article and stays just barely over the line while baiting: | |||
{{atop|1=IP blocked 24 hours, and then ] and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
: | |||
The ] is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page. | |||
: | |||
: | |||
: | |||
: | |||
: | |||
: | |||
] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I looked over the diffs. I am not seeing censorship, hounding, or intimidation. They seem mostly to be Arzel trying to get the page and you to follow policy, with a little impatience and some slow motion edit warring. Some suggestions: Assume good faith ], ie don't assume the worst about someone's motives. Neither you nor I nor anyone else can mind read and discussions where someone assumes that they could get acrimonious very quickly. The archives for this page are full of examples. Second suggestion: slow down and learn the rules around sourcing for ]. They can be tricky and not everyone is born knowing them. ] (]) 19:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Asking me to learn the rules is reasonable. Demanding that I stop editing -- as Arzel has -- is not. ] (]) 21:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Agreed and agreed. What's your position on being asked to slow down on editing biographies of living persons until you are more familiar with reliable sourcing rules? ] is a special case of reliable sourcing and can trip up even a very experienced editor. ] (]) 22:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::: I have interacted with Miles a bit on a BLP. He is new, and obviously has a lot to learn policy-wise. But it strikes me as deeply wrong to sanction a noob (read: ''potential'' friend of and contributor to our community) for relatively garden variety bickering over a good-faith content dispute. This is particularly true since the above diffs indicate that Arzel is guilty of not only ] by harshly criticizing a newcomer but also of ] against Miles, by saying Miles is "incapable of editing WP properly". | |||
:::: Given OP's own (and in my view, more egregious) violations of policy, and the need to provide noobs emotional encouragement as well as policy mentoring, I think it'd send the wrong message to formally warn or sanction Miles. I would however like to see Miles reiterate her or his commitment to abiding by ] standards, including in regards to sourcing, in any future edits to King's page, and to those of others. ] (]) 05:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I think that many personal attacks renders a block really. What positives has the user given to this project? ] ] ] 11:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
*:: Am I the only person who questions ]'s fundamental assertion - which frankly is at the heart of this issue? His claim that Think Progress and The Daily Kos are not reliable sources. Where does this bizarre notion come from and why is it being accepted as fact? It seems to me that if you can arbitrarily decide that partisan sources are inherently non-reliable, then we really should scrub ALL partisan sources cited throughout this project - not just the ones that some equally partisan individual objects to. If Think Progress and The Daily Kos are non-reliable to some, then others could make the identical claim about Fox News, Breitbart and/or World Net Daily. So where does it end? Do we also scrub the NY Post and the Wall Street Journal, since they're also Murdoch-owned, rendering them non-reliable to some? How about the New York Times and the major networks, whom some claim are also non-reliable? I mean, at what point do editors use common sense and put their own personal politics aside and actually let READERS decide what sources are reliable?! How arrogant that some editors try to act as censors, and use flimsy interpretations of WP rules to enforce their own biases. In reading WP's actual policy on RS, especially ] under: "Biased or opinionated sources", it pretty clearly states that my common sense response ''is'' the actual policy! So if this policy is followed, doesn't that reduce the entire case against ] to nothing? I have no dog in this fight, but as an unbiased observer, perhaps Arzel's beef is with WP policies that can't be conveniently twisted to help advance partisan politics. Not with ]. Most notably, how can you folks attack MilesMoney for using a source when at this moment there is a on the very question of reliability re: ThinkProgress. By the way, the votes for "Reliable" are winning. Basically for citing the same policy as I have here. ] (]) 08:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:This is the wrong venue for discussing Reliable Source. ] (]) 14:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: Actually you're wrong. If someone is being accused of using "non-reliable sources", then first there needs to be a clear understanding of what, according to WP policy, a "reliable source" '''IS'''. If the sources meet the policy - then this is done. ] (]) 04:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Reliable sources are judged by the claim being asserted. At RS/N the "winning" side is that TP is citable for its opinions properly attributed as opinions, but ''not'' for assertion of "fact" in Misplaced Pages's voice. O suggest you read the discussion at RS/N. ] (]) 15:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{archive bottom}} | |||
:@]: It looks like you both are ] on ].<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the ] as to whether you should include the ] name for the article in the lead/infobox. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] creating many short unsourced articles and not responding to talk page requests == | |||
::MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::@]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks"></span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as ] in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. ] (]) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus == | |||
Over the past few days, {{User|Oh Yeaaahh}} has created 34+ short, unsourced articles, mostly about train stations. They have not responded to multiple communication attempts and warnings. This may be a promotion only account, or a well intentioned editor; it's difficult to tell because there's no response. Perhaps an admin could offer them some ] and, if they still don't respond, perhaps a brief block will get their attention. - ]] 17:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{atop|There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user ] (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at ], where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. ] (]) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
:I don't see anything wrong with Oh Yeaaahh's station articles except that he copy/pastes infoboxes & text from one to another without remembering to make the needed changes in geographical coordinates and other data. If Dr. Blofeld and others can mass-create unsourced articles consisting only of "X is a village in Y", what's the problem with these? We have articles on just about every railroad station, both current and defunct, in Britain and the United States, for example. ] (]) 17:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::I know that we allow substantial latitude for geographical articles, but ] (apologies to Bowie) does not indicate that we do the same for railway stations. In any case, I may be mistaken in thinking that it's a problem that a new editor is creating many short articles and not discussing them with other editors.- ]] 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: Most of Oh Yeaaahh's articles are decent enough to move ahead with a stub and/or citation needed tag, but I do see a hint of ] in MrX behavior, first he which doesn't go well(an editor even mentioned ] to him), then he reports him as a , and then he is here. <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;">]]</span> 18:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Don't confuse yourself a.amitkumar. The AfD was made in good faith. You will also notice that I specifically asked for guidance at AIV, which I received, thus my post here. Let's stop this trend of making minor issues into full-fledged dramafests. - ]] 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::: You expected to come to ANI and not have your interactions with or about the editor you are complaining about scrutinized? What do you mean by ''this trend of making minor issues into full-fledged dramafests''? '''If the issue was so minor then you shouldn't be on ANI in the first place'''. How many editors do you need to convince you that this is not a major issue? Why did you have to report the user to AIV as a compromised or a promotion only account and ask for suggestions (link to this AIV report is present in my previous comment) when AfD consensus swayed against your nomination and has not even been closed yet(AfD was logged 2 days ago and link for this too is provided in my previous comment)? These remarks are not going to help you in your case especially when you fail to clarify your own actions. <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;">]]</span> 20:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I find MrX's blatantly inappropriate use of warnings to be more problematic than any of Oh Yeaaahh's articles. Quite simply, if you do not have the time nor the inclination to communicate with the editor and explain why you consider these articles to be inappropriate, rather than to tag them all for deletion and ], you should not involve yourself in this issue. And people complain about editor retention issues. —] 08:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed ] is problematic, ] editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a ] tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign --> | |||
::Thank you for your perspective, I guess. | |||
:It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I thank Deor for addressing the topic and not engaging in ad hominem. - ]] 12:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the under the word "this" as well as . — ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. ] (]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{non-admin comment}} IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: ]). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.{{pb}}In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. ] (]) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (]). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). ] (]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles ] (]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here). | |||
::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles. | |||
::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. ] (]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading. | |||
:Myself and the editor had a content dispute at ] (]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per ], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a ], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The ] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of ]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on ], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on ] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here. | |||
:Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept ], and ]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — ] (]; ]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. — ] ] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". ] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Talking about editor retention, I just want to ask a question. After the dressing down MrX got for his actions does anyone care to retain him? Or are retention worries only reserved for newbies? ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 19:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. ] (]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::: I think an editor who has some experience in WP should also have some experience in handling pressures of the WP. The above might have been harsh, but as I mentioned an action against an editor involving AfD's on his article then an AIV and then an ANI report '''within a span of 2 days''' surely raises questions, Editor has the option to call this as ad-hominem/drama-fest/dressing down and not add any clarifications or respond with the so called ''patience'' to explain his actions especially when he expects the same from other editors (This is how I reacted in my first week of WP but don't expect the same from an editor with 20 thousand edits). Even ignoring commenting editors comment would have helped in this situation and the admin looking into the matter would have had full rights to reprimand other non-involved editors if our questions or points were not helping dig further into the case. ''Admins in this forum have a high volume of incidents to handle and some editors will have to discuss and analyze the situation to get a better picture for the admins to take action. 4 lines of a case without diff's is surely going to be analyzed from multiple angles''. If these things on ANI are going to be an issue then I think no one can retain him. Communicating is important for a user but not mandatory and if ten warnings on the talk page did not obtain a response the suggestion of a brief block for such things is quite negative. (This does not mean that Oh Yeaaahh is doing great work, his contributions are incomplete and mostly stubs and is needing some attention from other editors to make it better). <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;">]]</span> 20:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
*I have some pretty serious ] concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking ''me'' when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple ] outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. ] ] 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::So you think when an experienced editor behaves in a "bad" way a dresssing down or stern rebuke is the only option when communicating with him? Is gunboat diplomacy the only option in a case such as this? ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 20:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
*:At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. ] (]) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::: You are misreading, First there is no ''bad'' behavior by the reporting user and such scrutiny is not ''dressing down'' but is an opportunity for the user to clarify his stance. How can the admin know this is not a bullying case or not a new user bite if there are no answers to the questions above? <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;">]]</span> 21:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
*::The discussion is , if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of ] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? ] ] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Ah. The "misreading" card. An often used tactic to discredit an opponent. Not so. I think MrX was subjected to loud, reprimanding comments. I see some of the comments above as a classic case of severely criticising the behaviour of a longterm editor. For instance you bolded this comment: {{xt| If the issue was so minor then you shouldn't be on ANI in the first place.}} That's shouting at the guy and it is a form of incivility. What I am trying to say is you could have phrased your criticism at a much lower decibel level without shouting at MrX. Why don't you try that next time? As far as your comment {{xt| How can the admin know this is not a bullying case}}, in that case I think AGF is a real solution, at least in the beginning. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 21:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: You are free to claim and understand what you wish. right now I am just going to ]. <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;">]]</span> 21:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::: I will follow your lead. I'm outta here. :) ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 22:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
*I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of ], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not ], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. — ] ] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:*This is concerning, and I note that they are failing to change geographic information and coordinates in some of their copies, have still not responded, and have now created an article with a copy of the AfD template that had been placed on one of their previous articles. I am reminded of a now indefinitely blocked user, but am holding off on mentioning the name here because it may be ] will take the messages to heart and demonstrate himself/herself to be either a new user who is not going to be so disruptive, or a valid clean start. However, that user's poor, inaccurate and unreferenced articles were a serious problem requiring a lot of clean up; when such problems persist, they are serious. ] (]) 21:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
*:Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to ''talk circles indefinitely''. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... ] ] 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::*Does the name of the indeffed user start with the letter "P"? ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 18:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*:Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context. | |||
:Don't see anything wrong here. User Oh Yeaaahh has simply created multiple rail station articles that the community has embraced since the beginning of WP, just as thousands of other users have done, and there is nothing wrong with that. Articles could ALWAYS use improvement, but that's not a reason for Mr. X to be discouraging users from broadly attacking a new user's good faith work. --] (]) 05:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*:Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith." | |||
::Creating articles without any evidence that they satisfy WP:V and WP:GNG is a Bad Thing. To the extent that such failings have been overlooked in the past, we need to change how we deal with these failings. If other people in the past failed to comply with the encyclopædia's basic norms, that's not carte blanche to ignore WP:V and WP:GNG (or to copy-and-paste errors in article-space). ] (]) 15:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*:The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.] (]) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::It should be pointed out that, with the exception of BLPs, sources proving the passing of ] and ] need only ''exist'', they are not required to be ''in'' the article at all. (Until you move up the ladder to DYK/GA/FA/etc., but not for a "basic" article, no.) - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 23:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion. | |||
== Accusations at ] that need to be resolved == | |||
:This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal). | |||
:This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. ] (]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. ] is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] (]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. ] ] 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed. | |||
:::I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. ] is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and ]. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::{{tq|The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.}} <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this ] insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: {{ping|Pbsouthwood}}, what say you? ] (]) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted. | |||
:::::And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves. | |||
:::::So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. ] (]) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::], there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an ]. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... ] (]) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of ], which is always appropriate. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::# This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report. | |||
:::::::::# The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is. | |||
:::::::::# If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me. | |||
:::::::::] (]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::] ] ] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but ''plausible'' content ''before'' removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor ''plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given''. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge. | |||
:::::Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader. | |||
:::::At the risk of being ], I also refer readers to <s>]</s> <u>(looks like that essay has been expunged, try ])</u>. · · · ] ]: 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. ] (]) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its ''compulsory'', and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. ] ] 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). ] (]) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Yes, I've seen , but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that . I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a ]. ] ] 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further. | |||
:::::::::::And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context"). | |||
:::::::::::Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. ] (]) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? ] ] 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. ] (]) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. ] ] 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). ] (]) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. ] (]) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Have you considered starting an ]? The fact is that you made a ] addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus ''for your addition''. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (], ], ], etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed ''were'' on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That ''is'' a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually ''is'' such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to ] you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --] (]) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. ] (]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::What? I never started an RfC. — ] (]; ]) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I just checked and on 12/9/24 at ] you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from ] and ] about 2 weeks ago." | |||
::::Did that not actually happen? ] (]) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::] is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. ] (]) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... ] ] 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard ]. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. ] (]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. ] ] 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::], is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Request for closure=== | |||
There is a difficult POV dispute at this talk page. In the discussion thread at ], some editors have accused other editors of being paid advocates for Monsanto and pushing a pro-Monsanto POV, as well as some implied accusations of ] violations. The main statement of these accusations is this: . Three of the accused editors have explicitly denied the accusations: , , and . I have attempted to suggest that these concerns be raised at the appropriate noticeboards instead of repeating them at the article talk page: . Unfortunately, all that is happening is that the accusations are being repeated and the back-and-forth is continuing on the article talk page, and it is making it very difficult to get to any consensus about content. | |||
Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of ] and ], which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? ] ] 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. ] (]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. ] ] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! ] (]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the '']'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the ] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view. | |||
:::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits == | |||
If the accusations are true, then offending editors are violating ] and ]. If the accusations are groundless, then those continuing to make the accusations are violating ] and ]. Whatever the case may be, I think that it needs to be figured out (to the extent of what can be determined on-Wiki) and dealt with (at least to the point of moving the accusations to the proper place). I have put ] on the article talk page. --] (]) 19:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:This discussion began when another editor raised the point that Monsanto had recently chosen ] to handle their PR in the wake of the ]. I mentioned that this thing has been going on for a long time, with George Monbiot noting in "" that Monsanto shills were running around the Internet in 2002 playing all sorts of dirty tricks. Is there some kind of PR operation occurring on Misplaced Pages? It's possible. Reliably sourced content critical of Monsanto is removed on daily basis by editors who seem to just "show up" out of the blue from absolutely nowhere. {{user|Firemylasers}} is one of the latest obvious ]'s. Then you've got {{user|SpectraValor}}, whose first edit was to remove a reference to the ] in the lead section. ] has been at this nonsense for months, recently removing the fact that the "HCIA is "partly funded by Monsanto" while three editors, SpectraValor, ], and User:Thargor Orlando all removed the fact that "American journalist Jake Tapper of CNN says that Monsanto has "a history of questionable ethics practices and close ties to the government".] Today, Thargor went hog wild, removing critical commentary about Monsanto and the media from ''The Louisiana Weekly'', Thom Hartmann, and the ''Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune'', replacing it with an absolutely hilarious personal paraphrase that makes no sense to any human being on the planet, except for maybe SpectraValor who tried the same thing just a few days ago and ] who tried it earlier in the month. I have dozens more of these diffs showing anything critical about Monsanto is deleted, watered down, or altered in a way that it no longer reflects the original source, while new user accounts and users who have never touched this article before seem to just "appear" out of the blue to revert to each other's versions. They tried to get the article deleted and they failed. Now they are trying to delete the content. ] (]) 00:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::You've pointed out that an obvious SPA is an obvious SPA. Great. You've also accused a number of other editors, including some who have been here for quite a long time, of being "paid shills" simply because they disagree with you on an article about an event that's only a few months old. This is eminently unproductive. You certainly managed to run me away from the article by escalating the rhetoric. | |||
Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in ]. After the "cleanup" by ] (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists. | |||
{{collapse top|A few diffs}} | |||
While blocked for edit-warring | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
I tried to get him to stop at ], to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. ] (]) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Since the block expired | |||
:If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ]. | |||
* | |||
:As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* | |||
::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* | |||
:::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic. | |||
* | |||
:::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* | |||
::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* | |||
:::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (], 2007, unassigned). Users ], ], ], ], {{lang|la|et al}} edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing. {{Small|(Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)}}{{pb}}The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "''must''" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.{{pb}}In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.{{pb}}At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue. ] (]) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{Small|Also, like, if only one of {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} {{tqq|gets updated}}, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction. ] (]) 15:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
* Is it just me or are talk pages like ] just perpetual ] issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like ]? ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
And that's only what I collected before getting sick of it after a few days. | |||
*{{ping|Fram|Tom.Reding|Kanashimi|Primefac}} I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran ] 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{collapse bottom}} | |||
*:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: |
:Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? ] (]) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
:{{re|Fram}} this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". Like {{u|Silver seren}} mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran ] 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::A13ean, I'm sorry you feel falsely accused, and perhaps my wording confused you, but you did remove the ''content'' about the march sourced to the AP in while replacing it with off-topic sources that have nothing to do with this subject in violation of ]. Yes, you left the AP source ''in'' the article, but the content it cited was no longer there. ] (]) 06:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::I changed | |||
<blockquote>''Currently in the US most corn, soybean and cotton are genetically modified crops. Critics say GMOs can lead to serious health problems and cause harm to the environment. Though the US government and many scientists say the technology is safe, health advocates have recently been pushing for mandatory GMO labeling. Although 90% of Americans favor GMO labeling, attempts to require labeling have been unsuccessful.''</blockquote> | |||
:::::to this | |||
<blockquote> | |||
''Most of the corn, soybeans and cotton currently grown in the United States are genetically modified. There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food. However, critics have objected to GM foods on several grounds, including safety issues, ecological concerns, and economic concerns raised by the fact GM plants (and potentially animals) that are food sources are subject to intellectual property law. Some advocates have pushed for mandatory GMO labeling, and while 90% of Americans favor GMO labeling, attempts to require labeling have been unsuccessful.'''</blockquote> | |||
:::::I understand that you objected to the sourced statement I added about the scientific consensus. However, the rest of my edit in that section only expands on the concerns of the protestors, and continues to rely on the AP source in question. We disagree on one point; you could have addressed it in a reasonable manner. Instead you responded with . This is no way to act in a collaborative effort. ] (]) 17:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Viriditas has acted with extreme hostility towards myself and has accused me of being a SPA, editing in bad faith, trolling, astroturfing, etc numerous times. Here are some diffs: (unfounded accusation of bad faith), (direct accusation of being some sort of astroturf/shill), (direct accusation of being here to disrupt), http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566206688&oldid=566204885 (direct accusation of being SPA in a manner that violates AGF), http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566376264&oldid=566371720 (accusation of trolling, astroturfing, bad faith, etc). | |||
:::Here's two more general examples of this kind of behavior (with other users/generalized): http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566199730&oldid=566180385 (accusation of grand conspiracy to protest Monsanto or something), http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566200209&oldid=566199730 (same thing but slightly more direct). | |||
:::At this point I'm attempting to back away, but Viriditas babysitting of the article and constant attacks mean that it is impossible to discuss anything with the other editors without Viriditas popping up and interfering. He/she is being extremely disruptive and is actively denying that ] claims are fringe, as well as attempting to spread discredited studies and completely ignoring the scientific evidence on the matter. | |||
:::To be quite frank I am disappointed with this reaction. I was hoping to have a discussion over the page's issues, not some sort of massive argument over simple things like ] claims. And for the record I don't work for Monsanto, or a PR firm, or any of the places that Viriditas seems to think I work for, and am quite willing to prove it through whatever means are necessary if desired - these accusations are absurd. ] (]) 05:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Your account was created approximately a year ago on 18 July 2012. You never used it, preferring to let it "sleep" until 22 July 2013, at which point you launched right into attacking the reliably sourced "Monsanto Protection Act" material (HR 933) in another thread. You've also admitted to creating another sleeper account, ], which you created on April 30. Further, you have disrupted virtually every discussion on the talk page, distracting away from the topic under discussion and efforts towards article improvement by attacking every editor who disagrees with your efforts to remove reliable sources as a "pseudoscientist" promoting "fringe" beliefs. Meanwhile, you continue to "challenge" every reliable source that criticizes Monsanto or quotes members of the March Against Monsanto, and claim that we can't write about this topic because the reliable sources violate every policy and guideline. The fact that you are an SPA dedicated to disrupting the talk page and the fact that you have admitted creating multiple accounts tells me that there are strict limits to AGF. You created your account a year ago, didn't use it, then created another account in April, and didn't use it. That implies questionable intent, and as any SPI/CU can tell you, follows the typical pattern. ] (]) 06:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::In Viriditas' defence, his edits seem to me to be broadly in line with a coherent view of the Topic and tend toward a coherent article which could be defended as being in-line with WP policies ... although I think there are some problems to be resolved over whether/how fringe guidance applies to some aspects of the content. The problem is that it is difficult to have a genuine discussion when his assumption is that any holder of differing views is operating in bad faith (and I see I am included in his rogues' gallery above) - this makes progress towards consensus difficult or impossible because of the often combative and personalized nature of interactions with him on the Talk page (and he is not the only editor behaving in a less-than-civil fashion). The bad behaviour around this article is a problem which needs to be resolved. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 06:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
::::::I noted that you, SpectraValor, and Thargor all "coincidentally" happened to making similar edits to the same section stretched out over a period of a month, and this is not an isolated incident. Thargor might make an edit and talk page argument, disappear, than SpectraValor would come back and make similar edits and similar talk page arguments, and then disappear, and the cycle would repeat. Just yesterday, you complained on the talk page about the so-called pseudoscience in the article and how it needed to be balanced out. I asked you to point out this pseudoscience for me, and you could not, so you went ahead and ''added'' it to the article to support your argument. Ironically, you engaged in ] while at the same time complaining about it. When confronted with this, you argued that we shouldn't whitewash their beliefs. So this kind of editing also appears to be disruptive. You complain about fringe concepts, and when asked to identify them, you fail to find them, so you decide to add them to the article! That's very strange editing behavior. ] (]) 06:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Nothing in the wiki rules prohibits possessing multiple accounts. I have | |||
:::::A) Disclosed the only other account I have. | |||
:::::B) Have NO edits on the other account. | |||
:::::C) Am ONLY using THIS account. | |||
:::::D) Am using the account that was created FIRST. | |||
:::::E) Have done NOTHING to warrant these repeated accusations of grand conspiracy, astroturfing, bad faith, etc. | |||
:::::As such your accusations of bad faith are completely unfounded. There are no rules against a delay between account creation and first edit. You have NO excuse for your repeated attacks, nor does choosing MaM as my first article to contribute to mean that I am some sort of astroturfer or acting in bad faith. YOU have disrupted EVERY conversation ever created on that page - blaming it on me is highly amusing but ridiculous. I am not the one who decides to edit war over every minor change to the article. In fact I have not even made any contribs to the article proper - I wanted to discuss it on the talk page first, and instead was met with EXTREME hostility from you in reaction to every single comment I made. Your claims that I challenge every reliable source are false, as your sources are not reliable, and you have been actively attempting to use discredited research in order to justify your promotion of ] claims. You have attacked every editor on the page for attempting to provide a NPOV on the article. In no way am I dedicated to disrupting the talk page - in fact I argue the opposite, I argue that YOU are dedicated to edit warring your opinions into the article, disrupting every single attempt to discuss the article, pushing pseudoscience, and adding as many opinion pieces as possible in while simultaneously excluding any opinion pieces that you dislike. In no way are your violations of AGF justified by my actions. ] (]) 06:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::You have not made ''any contribs'' to any article on Misplaced Pages under this account except the talk page, highlighting the SPA issue I've raised. My "opinions" are not in this or any other article, Firemylasers. The entire purpose of your account seems to be to attack editors who are trying to actually improve the topic area. Every discussion you've participated in involves attacking reliable sources. Then when editors respond, you attack the editors. And you post large, unformatted, one line screeds that scrolls the discussion right off the page and makes it impossible to discuss anything with you. Further, you continue to make an enormous number of absurd and patently false claims, such as claiming that the COI between employees of Monsanto and the government is a "conspiracy theory", that economic losses by small farmers faced with Monsanto's patent rights and monopoly of the food supply "lacks evidence", and that every reliable source which describes the "Monsanto Protection Act" is a "misinterpretation". What you don't get is that we don't write from an editorial POV, we write from the POV of the sources and we attribute those views to the sources. This fact seems to keep eluding you, hence your continuing problem dealing with what you perceive as "conspiracy", "pseudooscience" and "fringe" theories. We are not dealing with editorial opinions, we are dealing with the opinions of the sources. Is this making sense yet? ] (]) 06:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I have avoided making contribs specifically to avoid having an edit war, which has been your default response to any contrib that you disagee with. I was initially going to follow the "be bold" directive, but after reading the page's edit history I decided to take it to talk. Your claim that the entire purpose of my account is to attack editors is completely false - you may notice from my contribs that I agree with other editors on the page and have ''attempted'' to discuss issues with the page, which was made rather difficult from your appearance and subsequent personal attacks and attempt at pushing fringe claims. The definition of reliable source is not yours to write Viritidas. You've been attempting to justify your fringe views with fringe sources. I merely pointed how said sources were pseudoscience/fringe. My responses were detailed because I felt that including detail and citing sources would help explain the issue in detail - unlike your responses, most of which consisted of blatant abuse of ] and outright denialism of my sources. Claiming that a COI had been acted upon is what I was calling a conspiracy - this is exactly what that claim was implying. The economic losses indeed lack evidence, as was proven by OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto and the subsequent appeals. Your "reliable" sources on HR 933 were biased and did not provide a NPOV, and you explicitly attempted to exclude reputable sources such as NPR on the grounds that they were not providing the biased narrative used by a certain article. You have repeatably reverted changes made by other editors in order to ensure that the article is littered with opinion pieces and devoid of NPOV in as many sections as possible. ] (]) 07:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::According to you, ''all'' sources that criticize Monsanto or represent the POV of the protesters and their march (the actual subject of the article in question!!) are "biased" and are full of "pseudoscience", "fringe", and "conspiracies". Such is the extent of your conversational skills. It sounds to me like you really need to read up on ] before doing any editing. Again, we do not write from the POV of editors, we write from the POV of the sources. You keep confusing the two. It's really funny that you keep accusing me of POV pushing when all I am doing is representing the sources ''about'' the subject. On the other hand, you keep arguing that we cannot use this or that reliable source because you ''know'' as an editor it is "fringe", "conspiratorial", "pseudoscientific", or "lacks evidence". But that's not how we use sources. In fact, we use sources entirely ''independently'' of what editors believe or think about them. Whether you think sources are "biased" about HR 933 or not is irrelevant. We represent their significant views. ] (]) 07:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Look at the aggression in this comment. (Viriditas has been using POV sources) ] (]) 09:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. There is ''no'' "aggression" in my comment at all, and ''all'' sources are POV. You appear to share the same confusion as Firemylasers. All sources have a POV. Our job as editors is to best represent that POV using the framework of our policies and guidelines. This means using ''reliable sources''. And when we are dealing with a topic about the ], it is important to best use sources ''about'' the subject to avoid OR. We don't use sources about ''other'' subjects that have nothing to do with the topic we are writing about (which several editors, including the OP keep doing). I hope that makes sense. When we write about the March Against Monsanto, we use sources ''about'' the March Against Monsanto. Those sources will inevitably contain a POV that an editor disagrees with. Our job then becomes one of figuring out how to best represent that POV based "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". It's actually very simple, but some editors bring so much baggage to the job, they begin to ''engage'' in a dispute about the content rather than ''describing'' what the sources say about the dispute. Seriously, this isn't rocket science. ] (]) 09:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::As an initial disclaimer, I should mention I have had interactions with Viritidas before and I've never thought much of the way they interact with other editors and explain their POV. But I have to agree that some of Viritidas's accusations seem careless at best. For example, Viritidas accuses 'they' of trying to get the article deleted. | |||
:You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with ] and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::But looking at the linked AFD, of those who nominated to delete, we have ] who later agreed after the article was improved to keep it (although still felt the AFD was justified). RMcC remains involved in the article talk page but otherwise is an with a wide range of interests, and in fact that's the only involvement a related area I noticed . | |||
::And you are now '''required''' to cite how your edits meet ]; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::We have ] who's comment may have been a little quirky but seems to have had little or no involvement in the subject area, instead involved in other things particular video game related article and they do sometimes participate in the AFD process and has edited as an IP again with of involvement in the topic area ignoring vandalism apparently from others using the IP. | |||
::::While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner. | |||
:::We have ] who does have a but also other areas related to the health, medical and biological sciences, particularly from what I can see in opposition to fringe and pseudoscience and poorly sources claims; and other related areas like IP law and economics. They are a somewhat including regular deleting spam like stuff. | |||
::::After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories. | |||
:::Finally we have ] who also has a fair amount of involvement in the area but also other science related areas particularly it looks like, fringe science and pseudoscience areas as well as other stuff, for example, tech (IT) related areas and is also a . | |||
::::Hopefully, this is easily resolved. | |||
:::There is one more editor who was initially a weak delete, later changed to a weak keep who I'm not mentioning. Meanwhile there was apparent in favour of the 'keep'. While the 'keep' seems to stand regardless of the canvassing, it points even more to the suggestion there was any conspiracy involved in the AFD being unfounded considering the evidence shows none of the editors suggesting delete being SPAs or having any evidence of a COI. | |||
:::] (]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::While this doesn't preclude some of the editors named by Viritidas above as problematic SPAs and who's editing is worthy of analysis, it does demonstrate the problem when Viriditas accuses anyone who disagrees with them or undertakes edits they disagree with as being potential Monsanto shills, without even considering the editor's history and experience, and raises the likely negative effect this will have on any discussion. | |||
::::43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::] (]) 06:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? ] (]) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::], I don't mind you mentioning me. I've had little-to-no involvement in the topic area in question but spend plenty of time at AFD. I was particularly put out by the suggestion that I was somehow a Monsanto "agent" trying to "censor" debate through standard WP processes and said so. It was a rediculous suggestion and one made by both SPA IPs and experienced editors alike, which was disappointing. I would feel the same if those sorts of things were still being thrown around on the talk page. ]] 12:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. ] (]) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I note those accusations continue even here, above - ''"They tried to get the article deleted and they failed"''. Lumping experienced and uninvolved editors in with silly, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about pro-Monsanto "agents". We - those who initially supported the deletion of an article about an event that clearly failed ] - are not part of some giant pro-GMO conspiracy. We are editors who tried to uphold policy in the face of hysterical and emotional personal attacks at that AFD from (ironically) clearly anti-Monsanto SPAs. ]] 13:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Editors should not blindly revert. They should be '''required''' to understand the guideleines. ] (]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::I don't recall ever discussing you here, nor did I participate in the AFD. But, I am curious now. How do you maintain that this failed WP:EVENT when we have reliable sources saying just the opposite, commenting on its impact, its influence, and its lasting legacy? This is what irks me the most. I think the sources are at odds with your personal opinion, and we write articles (and determine their notability) from the sources, not from personal beliefs. ] (]) 13:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::You discussed me when you referred to the "they" who supported deleting the article, as I initially did. And I don't "maintain" that view - that's my point. As I said above - <u>initially</u>. The original article was a horrible mess started only days after the event with basically only social media for sources. As the AFD continued, coverage increased and some of that substantiated a potential legacy. Thus my changed !vote (and the nom's). Despite our obvious willingness to be convinced (would a "Monsanto agent" be so willing?), we were still accused of trying to "censor" the subject organisation. Be glad you didn't participate - it was pretty disgraceful behaviour - but don't make the mistake of jumping on the bandwagon now. ]] 14:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens. | |||
*'''Comment by uninvolved editor''' I've been watching the discussion and edits for a only short period, but find the statements made by Viriditas to reflect pertinent aspects of the situation from a balanced perspective with respect to policy covering content. With respect to the SPA comments, looking at the this ] would seem to support that observation.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 05:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Sorry but no, Viriditas's believes currently marketed GM food is dangerous etc, and has been pushing this viewpoint. That is completely out of line with the sources. ] (]) 09:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::That's strange, since ''I have never said that anywhere''. What I have said, is that the protesters believe that, and I have explored virtually every aspect of their argument since editors have been disputing every source about the subject. I have analyzed their claims in the sources and I've traced them back to the published evidence and studies, showing where their beliefs come from and how they started. In any case, let's test your claim. You said I believe that currently marketed GM food is dangerous and I've been pushing this viewpoint. Could you provide a single diff to the article showing this? No, you cannot, because all I have done is best represent our reliable sources. On the other hand, the OP and others keep adding ''off-topic'' sources to this article that have ''nothing'' to do with the march. That's called OR. ] (]) 09:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Viriditas's edits are very much in favor of his expressed POV (and the anti-scientific claim) that there is no scientific consensus on GM food and that they are unsafe. It's in basic violation of multiple policies and guidelines. He may be right on Firemylasers, he may be wrong, but Viriditas has ] beyond what the evidence suggests. ] (]) 12:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::It's pretty easy to refute you, Thargor. Here you go: ] (]) 13:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP. | |||
* Viriditas has been aggressively pushing his points of view about this topic. He was even doing it on his userpage during his last block. I suggest uninvolved editors and admins have a look through some of his comments to see the sheer ] behaviour. He has been attempting to minimise the mainstream position as much as possible in that article as have a number of other editors who think they are saving wikipedia from the corporations or whatever, ] (]) | |||
:*On the contrary, you will not find a single diff or contribution showing that I have "minimized the mainstream position" at all. are my contributions for you to look at. Please provide the diff that shows me pushing a POV. The diffs will actually show that I have repeatedly promoted the mainstream position, and I am responsible for adding the vast majority of pro-GMO POV content to the article itself using sources ''about'' the march. The problem is that some editors don't understand ''writing for the enemy'' and have come to this article with a POV warrior chip on their shoulder intending to do battle with other editors and to add off-topic sources to push a singular POV that has nothing to do with the March Against Monsanto. Oh, and btw, is a link to your contributions. What do we find? Well, your very first edit was to violate NPOV, by removing an Associated Press story that reflected the mainstream coverage of the event where "organizers said that two million people marched" around the world, and replacing it with content that misrepresented a single source noting that "an estimated 200,000 marched worldwide". Should we look at more of your contributions, IRWolfie-? I suspect we will find more egregious violations. Another example of "he who smelt it, dealt it" at work. I mean, you got a lot of nerve complaining about me, IRWolfie-, when your very first edit is a NPOV violation. ] (]) 09:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Are you kidding? The associated press story used the numbers reported by the '''organisers''', The newspaper I included gives an actually decent estimate rather than swallowing whats reported wholesale by the organisers. That churnalists credously repeat the claim doesn't make it true, or reliably sourced. ] (]) 09:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits. | |||
I wake up to find notification of ''this'' in my E-Mail inbox? Well it's nice to know an issue I've been involved in is at ANI for it's '''third''' time etcetera. I only touched on the AFD because I was trying to better my AFD Record, didn't think I'd end up being part of an ANI Discussion! Anyway, as already established unless I read over the article all I could tell you about the subject is that it's a match that took place in Monsato. IP, yes, I have, but if you check its logs first of all it's a SHAREDIPEDU registered to my (at the time) school, one or two of its edits were me clearing up mess others have made on it generally. I dunno what else to say really, I'll cast my eyes over things if you need the extra head? ] ] ] 11:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
*I agree with IRWolfie on this one. And using terms which are noted as "being used by critics" as though they were the proper Wikilinks violated NPOV even here. In this case, Viriditas is quite "at fault" and his rejection of science and NPOV here ''as an editor'' is not helping him. We use what the reliable sources state (yes - including the anti-GM sources, properly attributed - I would not dream of being unbalanced in any article), but extensive side excursions attacking other editors without providing clear evidence of violations of Misplaced Pages policies is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy in itself. Viriditas - you are beating a very dead horse at this point. Cheers. ] (]) 11:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*If we decide it is true, or simply probable, that Monsanto's PR team is manipulating Misplaced Pages articles, our problem is much bigger than perceived rudeness. Collect, I really appreciate you, but I'm surprised to see you describe Viriditas as "rejecting science". What do you mean by that? ] (]) 12:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::*Yeah, Collect, where have I rejected science anywhere? Where have I rejected NPOV? Where did I make these edits and to which article? I suggest that we won't be getting any actual diffs anytime soon. Oh, and Collect? What are you talking about? Can I get the little bouncy ball thingy, cause I'm just not following you. ] (]) 13:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::*Ask IRWolfie that (''He has been attempting to minimise the mainstream position as much as possible in that article as have a number of other editors who think they are saving wikipedia from the corporations or whatever'') - it appears that you have a strong view which ''contradicts the mainstream view'' on certain products which have undergone rigorous scientific examination. Perhaps I ought to have said "dislikes the scientific consensus on GM foods"? ] (]) 13:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::*What an unusual response! Am I talking to you or IRWolfie through you? (Could you ask him to pass the salt?) In any case, do these diffs support your claim that I have a strong view which contradicts the mainstream view? ] (]) 13:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::We are posting on a noticeboard -- no need for nice personalized commentary. shows you ''removing'' "scientific consensus" and changing it to "many scientists" and then adding ''Some people are concerned, reports the Associated Press, about whether "genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment". Due to these concerns, some consumers, companies, and organizations have advocated for mandatory labeling laws. The ] supports voluntary labeling but opposes mandatory labeling laws because it believes it would "mislead or confuse consumers into thinking the products aren't safe.'' I suggest this is reducing a sourced claim about scientific consensus and adding material quite specifically implying that the foods may not actually be safe. And removing a slew of reliable sources at the same time. Perhaps you did not intend it that way? Could the "consensus" be wrong? Yeah. Does that mean we reject and remove the reliable sources making that claim? Nope. Do we seek NPOV with ''all'' sides correctly presented? Yep. But removing the claim entirely is not how to do it. Cheers. `] (]) | |||
:::::::Your interpretation of the diff is in error. The sources ''about'' the march in that section said nothing about any "scientific consensus" regarding "food on the market derived from GM crops" and the fact that their "risk poses no greater risk than conventional food". I removed that statement as it had ''nothing'' to do with the subject of the march and was sourced to references that had nothing to do with the topic which the ] policy explicitly prohibits. On the other hand, the Associated Press news article ''about'' the March reported "The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention in recent years, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products even though the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe", which is exactly what was added—directly from a reliable secondary source ''about'' the subject. We only use sources about the subject. Editors don't get to pick and choose which sources they like to see in the article about ''other'' subjects. ] (]) 22:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::In an usual move, I fully agree with Collect, ] (]) 09:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Then you both support violating ] and ]. Per NOR, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context...precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Misplaced Pages." Per FRINGE: "...the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing." That's very clear and easy to understand. So then, one wonders why you both encourage others to violate it? ] (]) 22:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* As per the opening statement, seeking clarification; I am an independent, volunteer WIkipedia editor - as per my ] I work at a university and I work on WIkipedia for fun and because I think it is a good thing to do - it serves the public good. I do not work for Monsanto or any PR firm. I have no sock puppets. With respect to the March Against Monsanto article - I actually stopped watching and working on it because I find it too unpleasant to edit with ] - his/her discussion style on Talk is ''generally'' (not always) too un] for me (which I have found sadly ironic since at the top of his/her ] page, one finds a quote: "In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred. This is an ancient and eternal law".) I have wondered if Viriditas was going to get him/herself in trouble for going too far with negatively commenting on other editors. Sorry it came to this. Viriditas - please stop focusing on other editors and please don't bring your battlefield style ''even here'' (as per your comments above). Please take this thread - which is not about the MaM article, but is rather about your behavior on Talk - as a wake-up call to try harder to meet the high ideals of your quote in your daily editing work; in Misplaced Pages terms, to meet the high ideals of the ]. More particularly, if you had ], this thread would not even exist. ] (]) 12:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*Sorry, I thought you left because you were tired of blanket reverting my edits. You can imagine that kind of behavior doesn't exactly encourage a civil response. ] (]) 13:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Sarcasm. bummer. Please take this as an opportunity to hear the community. Please be more civil and focus your comments on content not contributors. ] (]) 13:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Just an observation but if you feel strongly about the SPA shouldn't you open an SPI over at AIV? That would get the checkuser run and either confirm or deny anything you can draw conclusions to. Just saying because multiple editors can have very similar writing styles, thought they tend not to be identical. ] (]) 13:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
: |
::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Uninvolved tangential comment''': I would be surprised if Monsanto is not working to influence our coverage of their business domain. I think Monsanto and GMO is an area where we should be very careful to use only high quality sources - the kind that is neither funded by the pro or anti lobby. Viriditas is right that all sources have a POV - but not all sources can be considered reliable sources of information about facts. We should prioritize academic treatments of this field because the scientific dialogue is the only dialogue that we can depend on to be influenced by facts and to be striving towards uncovering the actual risks and benefits of GMOs and the business models of Monsanto. Partisan sources should be given little priority.] 13:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
**I don't doubt that it's true on both sides. I think there's a lot of influence to get specific types of biased sources into the encyclopedia, and I think the March article has enough editors on both sides trying to keep good sourcing in. The issue is more the bad faith and the bad science (even if its from generally good sources). ] (]) 14:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". ] (]) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::No. You brought this here. The ] is on ''you'' to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also {{tqq|How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"}} - because that's exactly what you said. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at ]. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at ]. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. ] (]) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::When a content dispute involves several pages it is often <small>though not always</small> best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate ] when that happens. ] (]) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their ] of ] from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* The scientific consensus is that currently marketed GMOs are safe, yet Viriditas acknowledges he is pushing for claims of dubious safety (or that he would, at this point he was still blocked at the time) in the ] article at . It is this insertion of fringe claims without the mainstream position that is at issue. Viriditas's commentary is that of the supporters ("Protesters are concerned that Monsanto's claim that their products are safe cannot be trusted because of many similar claims that turned out to be false", "Protesters want to end the conflict of interest which permits Monsanto to operate with impunity and promote their agenda within the halls of government and as members of supposedly independent scientific review boards. ", etc etc), and is not supported by the evidence (it's more like Seralini's position which was utterly discredited). As in all such monologues from Viriditas, it eventually comes down to a conspiracy about Monsanto. I suggest people read through some of his dialogues during his blocks (ironically one of his blocks was for making unsubstantiated allegations), it is most illuminating. Reading through his comments you see the aggressiveness and the same false allegations appearing in one way or the other. I asked Viriditas to stop calling people shills, he said he would, but he has continued. If I recall, Viriditas believes the statements by the March Against Monsanto people ''are'' in fact representative of the mainstream position about safety ("''Questions and concerns about the safety of GMO food, crops, and associated herbicides are not fringe by any stretch of the imagination.''"), ] (]) 14:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
**it seems that as far as the content aspect is concerned that you and some others have raised concerns about how the general issue of GMOs is addressed in this article about a protest movement whose existence is premised on raising public awareness about the potential dangers of GMOs. I would have to agree with Viriditas that much of that material is off topic and should be linked to the article on GMOs. This article is not directly about the science related to GMOs, but indirectly about the science related to GMOs through the related stances adopted by the March Against Monsanto that is the subject of the article; that is to say the topic upon which Misplaced Pages is supposed to be providing an informative article to the reading public.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
***That's a argument that can reasonably be made, and some people, such as yourself, have made this argument in a reasonable manner. I don't entirely agree with this, and think that there should be a brief mention of the mainstream view in the article, but this is something we can discuss like adults and come to a consensus or compromise on. However, it's never appropriate for any user on either side of the debate to personally attack, insult, and accuse of paid editing <s>anyone</s> everyone who disagrees with them. That's the concern here. ] (]) 15:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
***The problem is that fringe theories must be addressed wherever they occur. This is not to say that the March page must be littered with fact checks on every line, but the opposition to including scientific evidence to combat fringe claims (most importantly regarding the scientific consensus on GMO safety) is the problem. We even have sources that link the consensus to the March, which was also removed by the same person who thinks ALEC is bankrolling me. ] (]) 16:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
*While reading through this discussion I began to get a knot in my stomach, and I realized that it was reminding me of several discussions at meetings that I have had in the real world in which I tried to speak against planned actions being supported by skilled PR people and management experts. In each case I was unable to get my point across because such a person was so good at turning the discussion into an extremely polite attack on me that my point about the topic of the meeting was ignored rather than refuted. I have nothing to say about Monsanto myself, and have never interacted with ], but I ask you not to dismiss his/her concerns simply because he/she is not very diplomatic. Even if every allegation made here against him/her is true, this is not a reason to assume that the concerns he/she brought forward are unfounded and should not be looked into. —] (]) 15:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for your comment, but you are missing the point. Uncivil behavior destroys Misplaced Pages. There ''are'' means within Misplaced Pages to deal with concerns about COI/sock - V's way of addressing concerns - by making harsh accusations in Talk - is the ''wrong way.'' The 4th pillar (a pillar, mind you!) exists so that even when editors disagree about content, Misplaced Pages remains a decent community to work within. And that is why there are specific means to address concerns about socks/COI - so they can looked at and dealt with carefully, intentionally, respectfully, and as per policy and guidelines. If this is not clear to you please revisit ] and ]. ] (]) 17:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Sometimes truth and honesty are favored over sticky-sweet speak. I've seen talk pages completely derailed whilst editors remained incredibly polite. We are adults with limited time trying to write an informative encyclopedia. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 17:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Thanks for commenting, Petrarachan. You are the other editor at Misplaced Pages that I have left pages on account of; your comments continually express a misunderstanding of ], as they do here. The 4th pillar has nothing to do with your opinion of other editors (positive or negative), nor with "sticky sweetness". Truth & honesty on the one hand, and civility on the other, are not mutually exclusive. Civility is a pillar of Misplaced Pages; it is not ''optional''. I hope you come to understand civility and its importance one day. ] (]) 18:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::I need no thanks. Your response is a case in point: though couched in politeness, your comments are ascerbic and condescending. I too have left the entire GMO issue alone, save for my efforts at MAM, because of my inability to deal with you (and the others who regularly work on GMO articles). And it's not because you aren't polite. I will say, you are the only editor on wiki to ever accuse me of being difficult to work with, that I can recall. I will also add that it was whilst trying to save this article from the trash bin that I was (link sheds more light on the origins of this article and related editing problems) in an attempt to have me banned - the only time on wiki I have ever been taken to any noticeboard. The charges were trumped up, and the case failed. My behaviour is no different on this article than any other i work on, nor is it different towards you, jtydog, yet the reactions to my editing and behaviour when I work on anything GMO related, are wildly out of alignment. I also experienced my first complaints on my talk page whilst building this article - a slew of them from a whole team of editors. After over two years, all of the sudden people are outraged by my behaviour? I have to think the problem does not lie with me, but maybe a POV problem surrounding the GMO issue. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 21:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 == | |||
:::::::Correction: I have now been taken to a for my second time, again related to work on this article. There is a suggestion that I may need to take a break from working on it, although I haven't worked on the article in about a month, until yesterday. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 00:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}} | |||
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed . | |||
Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine. | |||
:::::::::Sorry you got into trouble, Petrarchan. You wrote above that my comments are "couched in politeness, but are acerbic and condescending." One of the huge limitations in Wiki is that this is all written-word and it is hard to convey tone and very easy to read tone into things. I re-read what I wrote and found nothing explicitly acerbic or condescending, and I would be interested to see what you found to be explicitly so. I can imagine you reading what i wrote, and imagining it was written with acerbic intent - and applying such intent while reading can indeed make it or any text very ugly (even "I love you" can be said nastily). But I didn't write it acerbicly - that was not my intention. I actually wrote it sadly. (if you would, re-read with that tone in your mind) Civility is hard. "Couching in politeness" is certainly part of it and is not to be discounted. It is much more. I try to be civil always, and I fail sometimes. Anyway, I wanted to respond, but we are way way off track of the ANI. I would be happy to try to work through this with you, on your page or mine. ] (]) 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Civil is nice, but honesty is better by far. I've heard you state numerous times that you were saddened by editors' behaviour (I'm including our work together at BP). This has always struck me as problematic. This place should not make us emotional on that level, and if it is a repeated phenomenon, the best thing is to walk away from Misplaced Pages until a level of detachment arises. A less passionate editor is always better, in my observations. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 23:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::: Civil is not "nice". It is the fifth pillar of wikipedia. You have not acknowledged that. It is no wonder you don't see why it makes me sad when people ignore it. Blowing off ''any'' of the pillars destroys the foundations of wikipedia. For this one, Misplaced Pages wants a vibrant community of editors with differing opinions, working together to create great content. This is a lovely ideal, but it is ''hard.'' Treating people in an uncivil manner - ''especially people with whom you disagree'' - frustrates the ideal. (it is easy to treat people with whom you agree in a civil manner, right? The pillar exists because people disagree, intensely, all the time.) Groupuscule, SlimVirgin, Arc de ciel - all three of these editors "get it". They are unfailing, beautifully, civil. Others, including me, struggle. Some ignore it altogether.] (]) 14:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::: What you were edit warring in there was "''In the US the majority of the corn, soybean and cotton crops have been genetically modified, which anti-GMO advocates say can lead to "serious health conditions" and cause damage to the environment.''" This statement you were edit warring is a fringe claim which is against the scientific consensus. Just because you quote someone else as saying it doesn't mean it's suddenly acceptable. You can't insinuate something is dangerous in an article when the most reliable scientific sources disagree, ] (]) 09:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
On December 10, I noticed on the article ] page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with . For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless . I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, . Zander , and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit , and now that I am putting said comments , Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as and . | |||
''Here is the history of these "edit wars" where I quoted from a Guardian article, saying that the protesters believed GMOs were dangerous to their health.. (I've copied my recent remarks from the MAM talk page.)'': | |||
This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I see a ''heck of a lot of policing'', but little to no content creation related to the March Against Monsanto. What I have seen is a lot of trying to keep the article from being written, or stories spun about how all problems lie with two editors and their bickering. I do hope Admins come around, and thoroughly look through the archives. They will see exactly what type of content has been aggressively added and what has been removed, all with a very specific pro-Monsanto and pro-GMO POV, and wildly outside the bounds of this article's subject matter. It began for me , and more pro-biotech was added . I had to continually remove the ( and ), but I was told over and over, by a variety of editors in numerous ways, "" and , and it was and because . One time, IRWolfie and erased most of my work. We weren't allowed to say "Anti-GMO advocates point to studies they believe prove GMOs can lead to serious health consequences" because, , the source material from ] mentioned ], who found that GM corn created large tumors in rats, and who according to this group of editors, was discredited. And here's when another SPI to "eliminate soapboxing". Then there was the time IRWolfie the entire article Fringe Theory. And of course, the various efforts to change the number of protesters from 2 million to "between 200,000 to 2 million" based on written while the protest was still ongoing, which Jtydog started ... and which ended up ensconced in Misplaced Pages at the and the , as well as this one... meaning these editors support the use of this one reference to change the truth that was reported by literally every other media, and to this day, which is that the protest was attended by 2 million protesters (no "range" is ever mentioned, only on Wiki). "2 million" is the uncontested turnout number as for as RS is concerned, but we are not allowed to state that on Misplaced Pages. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 10:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:An article is required to not advance a fringe theory, per ]. Pointing at studies and saying they "found that GM corn created large tumors in rats", when the same study have been ''completely discredited'' is part of the problem here. You are creating the idea that their views are well supported when they are not. You made a large amount of changes to an article in a short period, and I reverted it highlighting issues. You should be then discussing the issue per ], but instead one of your friends re-inserted the material. That you think a statement from the '''worlds largest scientific organisation''' etc is Monsanto propaganda is quite frankly ridiculous, and that you were edit warring to remove this is in violation of discretionary sanctions in this area. Uninvolved editors and admins should reflect on how much of a conspiracy theory that is; we have people here claiming that position statements from the AAAS are Monsanto Propaganda. ] (]) 11:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
: - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Nonsense. Nobody, I repeat, nobody has created the idea that their views are well supported. What we have done is ''use reliable sources about the subject'' to best represent the topic. The statements from the AAS and other articles you keep adding ''have nothing to do with the subject of this article'' and actually violate our policy on original research and our very guideline on fringe theories. We can only use reliable sources ''directly related to the topic of the article'' that directly support the material under discussion. You can't use them out of context, and you can't synthesize prose in order to debunk ideas that the scientific community considers fringe. I suggest you actually ''read'' ] and ]. ] (]) 00:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. ] 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== SPA ] back at it on ] == | |||
::It is certainly propaganda ''in this context''. I'm unsure who my friends are, are what they tried to add, but I will speak for myself if you don't mind. I never tried to add or mention Seralni or any science whatsoever. The quotation i sought to add was rejected simply because Seralini was mentioned in the referenced article. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 18:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::"You made a large amount of changes to the article in a short period of time", aka, as Robert states below, "At the time, the article was badly structured and badly formatted, and I nominated it for deletion. ''Four days later, it was much improved'', and I recommended an early close as a Keep". I did that work. And you were the one who requested it. In the deletion discussion your complaint was that the article needed to be expanded. I took my cue directly from your comment. No one helped me at the time, many complained about the article at the deletion discussion, but didn't make efforts to improve it (which is somewhat the case to this day). I was alone because Viriditas was blocked for 3RR during his early attempts to improve the page. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
===Much heat, but little light=== | |||
Well, at least my post here got some responses! Unfortunately, it seems to be a dialog between users on one "side", who talk in principle about how bad PR manipulation of our content potentially could be, and those on the other "side", who deny that they are doing anything other than editing for what they believe to be NPOV. | |||
Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA ], who's been POV pushing on the ] article since . A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be . They've already , and have received an warning--to which they were . Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, ] ]] 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
It seems to me that, for an administrators' noticeboard, I'm seeing awfully little input from administrators here. | |||
:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Allow me to make a modest proposal: | |||
::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:#If you believe that another editor is violating ], please report it at ]. | |||
:::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:#If you believe that another editor is violating ], please report it at ]. | |||
:What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible. | |||
:#If you believe that we do not have an adequate policy for dealing with edits by PR accounts, please start a discussion about how to improve our procedures. | |||
:For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:#But if you are not willing to do any of those three things, then please stop making accusations. | |||
::] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:#Anyone who is unwilling to do any of the above, and continues to make accusations, should get attention from administrators, because throwing around accusations without being willing to back them up is just using ] violations to try to get the upper hand in a POV dispute. | |||
:::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:#I would like to see some administrators make sure that the above is actually being adhered to. | |||
::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is . Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. ] ]] 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. ] (]) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Even if it was a personal attack, making one ''back'' isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::], your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Thanks, --] (]) 22:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{atop|result=Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
::That is good advice also for non-administrators, and I agree with it. ] (]) 23:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (] to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized ] by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. ]] 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Seconded. ] (]) 02:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Thirded, ] (]) 09:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Also agree - this would improve things immensely. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 09:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Thanks, all of you. OK, here is what is going to come next. I'm going to put a very conspicuous link to this part of the discussion here, on the article talk page. Then I'm going to watch the article talk page very carefully for any editor who goes against number 4 in the above list. If I see that happen from now going forward, I'm going to open a thread here on ANI about the editor(s) in question, specifically and by name. --] (]) 17:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::*Link: ]. --] (]) 17:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Comment About AFD and other matters=== | |||
As was mentioned, I originally nominated the article for deletion. That happened after an unregistered editor (IP address) came to the ] and complained that he or she had spent several hours formatting a table listing the cities in which the protests took place, only to have it deleted from the article without discussion. The unregistered editor whined that the deleting editor must have owned stock in ]. That was the first accusation of ] in editing this article. Unfortunately, not much has changed in a few months. At the time, the article was badly structured and badly formatted, and I nominated it for deletion. Four days later, it was much improved, and I recommended an early close as a Keep. (When I said that my nomination had been justified, I meant that the article when I nominated it was not worth keeping, but that it was worth keeping after the work done on it.) The article has been contentious since then, with continued failure to assume good faith. As Tryptofish says, if you have evidence of bad faith or bad behavior, report it, but only if you have evidence. | |||
] (]) 01:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:All this based on an IP accusing an Admin of having a COI? Did that request actually have any 'proof' ground to stand on? Call it a lack of 'WP:IPs are human too' if you must but I really think that the cause of his may actually have held no reason to escalate. (And no I haven't read the whole discussion.) ] ] ] 12:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::All this is not based on the originator of the article. Robert is saying his deletion nomination was based on that one incident. Attempts are being made to tie the present situation to the problems with the IP, but unfortunately the archives may need to be reviewed for the true story. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 19:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
===Comment from relatively uninvolved Jusdafax=== | |||
I have never edited the MAM article I believe, but I look in now and again and have ventured a Talk page comment or two, to the general effect that ''Viriditas raises some questions about the article that should be considered carefully by the community.'' Viriditas has made a lot of sense to me over the years on other topics. While I have worked with Tryptofish in the past, like him, and am puzzled by the seeming conflict he has with Viriditas, I am even more unclear as to the motivations of some of the other parties who seem so furiously determined to edit this article from its early stages. In my view, this ongoing conflict is a time-sink for a cautious editor or admin, and ANI is unlikely to solve what is basically a content dispute. The next step is either a well-advertised Rfc which will be interesting to word, or dispute resolution. Since the parties at odds appear intractable, that DR attempt probably means a subsequent trip to ArbCom, the final Misplaced Pages court of appeal. Perhaps that should be contemplated now, rather than waste months of time and then go there. ]]] 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I am further than this than Jusdafax. I came across it offwiki because of a phone call. They knew I edited Misplaced Pages and wondered why Monsanto seemed to be controlling our content. At a quick look a main issue seems to be the undue tagged media section. I assume it is there because of the claim that the media was told by Monsanto to play down the issue and we sourced it. I think this is very due in the article. If we don't include it without the tag then we could be just as guilty as the media. I agree that this should go to ArbCom quickly and be dealt with as it is a recent event. Btw, I live in Canada and don't care if they GMO my food or label it as such. I just want it to be cheap, nutritious, and taste ok. ] would be fine with me.--] (]) 13:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::''"I came across it offwiki because of a phone call. They knew I edited Misplaced Pages and wondered why Monsanto seemed to be controlling our content."'' ... ''"I am even more unclear as to the motivations of some of the other parties who seem so furiously determined to edit this article from its early stages"'' ... This illuminates the situation excellently. People have forgotten to ] in this area, and jumped to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with them must be doing so at the behest of a big evil corporation. Please, let's take this to ArbCom. Any sort of rational discourse falls by the wayside when people can't even imagine for a second that those on the other side of the conflict are just doing their best to keep a neutral article, and accurately represent scientific consensus. ] (]) 14:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::This is a wildly inappropriate action. Hopefully administrators step in on this. ] (]) 15:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Jusdafax, please let me suggest doing the "thought experiment" of temporarily "forgetting" that you know either Viriditas or me. Pretend that we are both editors whom you have never come across before, and look at what we each have said on the article talk page, and evaluate what you see in that fashion. Myself, I became aware of the page in a rather odd way: I saw on my watchlist that an RfC that I hadn't noticed previously has been removed after a month from the RfC page by the bot, and I thought that the page about the March sounded interesting, and I started watching it then. What I have seen, just looking at it with whatever eyes I brought to it, was rather different than what Canoe1967 describes here. I saw a couple of editors who varied in how articulate and clueful they are, who appeared to be arguing in good faith for what seemed to me to be reasonable NPOV, and Viriditas and maybe a few others responding to them with spectacular suspicion and confrontation. I then tried to offer what I though were some middle-ground suggestions. The allegedly pro-Monsanto editors responded in ways that weren't always clueful, but which mostly seemed to me to be good faith and with willingness to compromise. Viriditas has consistently responded to me by insulting me and refusing to credit any good faith, or even basic intelligence, to anything I have said. It's really quite shocking, some of the nastiest stuff directed at me during my entire Wiki-career, and I've had a lot of experiences with some real characters. At the same time, I think that the possibility of POV-pushing by persons who are secretly working for someone, in this case Monsanto, is something that is intolerable, so I'm trying to keep an open mind. | |||
::Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:::Like some others above, I expect that this issue will eventually find its way to ArbCom, and I'm seriously considering making myself the filing editor. But doing that at this step would be premature. That's just the way things are. I want the administrative issues that I've raised here to be given a chance. If they fail, there should probably be an RfC/U. And if that reaches no conclusion, then, ArbCom here we come. --] (]) 16:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. ] (]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::The problem of the POV. The article is about the protest. It should be the POV of the protest. I think others are trying to shove too much of the Monsanto POV into it. That balance should be in the Monsanto article. We don't include Judaism in Christian articles just to balance the POV. If the protestors call Monsanto a 'big evil corporation' that goes in the protest article and in the Monsanto article they can claim the protest is 'a brain dead fringe group full of quacks' if they wish and if they can source it.--] (]) 16:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
*This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Then you should make that argument at the article talk page, not here (and be prepared to explain how that would not be ]). --] (]) 16:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
*:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history? | |||
::::::I could care less about the article. What I do care about is the possible outside POV pressure on it which is why ArbCom should be consulted. It is an article on a protest. It should stress the POV of the protest. The Monsanto article would stress their POV of the protest. We have ] with NPOV but we also have ] and ] which each have their POVs stressed. Any NPOV in the protest article should be balanced in ] but the protest article itself should stress the POV of the protest.--] (]) 18:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
*:Or is that just something that isn't done? – ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::You seem to misunderstand the issue at the article. No one is opposed to the article being about the protest, that's sensible. The conflict comes from the anti-science, fringe points of view being stated without question against policy, the coatracking of other GM debates within the article based on thin association to the march, and a more minor sub-conflict about the media issue. That's it. To frame this as anyone trying to make the article into something other than that is simply wrong. You may have been told that when you were canvassed over the phone to rescue the article, but if you came to the talk page of the article, you might know these things. ] (]) 20:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
*::If you are talking ], there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean ] see ] and ]. ] (]) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::There are no "anti-science, fringe points of view being stated without question against policy" and there is no "coatracking", and there never has been. You've been making these ridiculous claims over and over and over again in an attempt to hold the article ] to your POV by removing anything that criticizes Monsanto or presents the views of the protesters as stated ''directly in reliable sources''. More recently, Alexbrn noticed that the article didn't actually contain any of these fringe POV, so he took it upon himself to add it to the article to prove your point! So your newest tactic is not to concede you were wrong, but to actively turn this article into ''exactly'' what you are criticizing it for doing! I'm sorry, but that's very dishonest. ] (]) 22:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
*:::I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know ]!). - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Your edit history speaks for itself at this point. That you still haven't chosen to retract your attacks on your fellow editors should say a lot. ] (]) 22:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
{{od}}If the article is about a protest based on wing-nut anti-science then the article should mention their claims about wing-nut anti-science. We don't censor articles on other fringe theories and exclude their theories so we shouldn't with this one.--] (]) 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Of course, but it was properly summarized per policy as "concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods (GMOs) on human health", but now its been turned into "the belief that GM foods can adversely affect human health, causing "cancer, infertility and birth defects", which takes the concerns about food safty and turns into into an unscientific "belief" that GMOs can "cause" these things. The problem is, the sources never said that. What's going on here is that Thargor, Alexbrn, and others are purposefully trying to turn this article into the very things they are criticizing in order to substantiate their initial criticism, a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. ] (]) 22:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Disruptive editor on ] == | |||
::The point is that the claims about cancer, etc. are '''what the movement itself claims''' AND '''what it is reported as claiming in a reliable source''', therefore is perfectly proper for Misplaced Pages to contain this material. We must not editorially sanitize the view of the protestors as this has the non-neutral effect of making their views appear less fringe than they verifiably are. This is Wikpedia 101. Your counter-arguments that draw on implications this is part of a plan by editors who are working in league, as well as being insulting, is just a tremendous waste of time for everyone involved, as this whole noticeboard discussion sadly shows. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 08:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
User ] has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing ] simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. ] (]) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I am going to write this article off as another one that forces offwiki editor views onto yet another failed article. You should all take your personal POVs and go create blogs with them somewhere. Misplaced Pages is not the place for this crap. If I had my way I would topic ban the whole lot of you.--] (]) 22:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm not a big fan of the rotten apple/throw the baby out with the bathwater approach. I would settle for editors simply adhering to the most basic policies and guidelines and using sources ''about'' the subject. ] (]) 00:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:If anyone was trying to censor the anti-science viewpoints from the article, I'd stand with you in opposition. The only desire is to ensure that the worst of the claims get the proper scientific context. ] (]) 22:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Per ]: "...the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing." Got it yet, Thargor? ] (]) 00:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::"A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." ] (]) 15:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::I don't think this article is about a mainstream idea though. It involves a protest based on fringe theories as well as democratic change. Read ] and then try to tell us they are not stating fringe theories.--] (]) 15:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::I've been arguing that they've been stating fringe theories from the start. That's what got me labeled an "ALEC-funded" shill and got you involved in the first place. The mainstream idea, in this case, is protesting big corporate entities. The fringe theories not broadly supported by scholarship are their claims. ] (]) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::I am cofused by what you mean. Is the protest partially supported by fringe theories not backed by mainstream science? If so, then all of those fringe theories should be mentioned in a protest article about the fringe theories they are based on. We could also create ] since it seems they are notable and widely covered.--] (]) 17:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::That would simply be a POV fork of the controversies article, ] (]) 18:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{od}}This article is not about the controversy though. It is about the protest and the protest was not controversial. If the protest is based on fringe theories that are controversial then that controversy should not coatrack this article about a protest. We could move this article to a section of ] and thus include both sides in more detail. It just seems to me that editors want to slam the protest article as much as they can with other science material that this protest wasn't based on.--] (]) 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:The issue you're missing is that our guidelines insist that fringe theories be combated where they appear. If we present the fringe theories of the protesters without noting the consensus viewpoint, the article is out of balance and not in line with Misplaced Pages policies. No one is asking for point/counterpoint on each issue, simply on the issue of GM safety that we have a clear scientific consensus. ] (]) 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::I think you either didn't read ] or are selecting material from it and paraphrasing it. I don't know why I continue to discuss an article that is doomed to be a mess. Editors are trying to coatrack it with both sides of the controversy which belongs in other articles. I still think you should all be topic banned for trying to force your personal POVs into Misplaced Pages articles. Go edit Pokémon for a while.--] (]) 20:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate. | |||
===Comment from alleged paid editor or sockpuppet SpectraValor=== | |||
:Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. ] (]) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
My work-derived income comes 100% from public funding of my research, and I have never studied genetically modified corn or any of the other products the March protests. I have never received money from Monsanto or any other GMO producer. I was never asked to edit this article. Several of my colleagues and employees and family members edit Misplaced Pages, and it is likely that I have at some point edited some of the same articles as them but I have never to my knowledge coordinated edits with anyone. I have never been paid to make an edit. I have never made an edit as the result of an off-Wiki request. These accusations made against me are disturbing and false. With the proper guarantees of confidentiality, I would be willing to share my standard financial disclosure form with Wales or another Misplaced Pages official. The question of paid editors is important, but I am not one. I came to the article because I had recently developed an intellectual interest in the science and social implications of GMOs, nothing more. | |||
::{{ping|Longislandtea}} I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read ] it states — {{xt|genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included.}} The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. ] (]) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Sources need to be '''legitimate''' and''' relevant'''. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. ] (]) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}. | |||
::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.'' | |||
::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states. | |||
::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.'' | |||
::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial. | |||
::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album | |||
:::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/ | |||
:::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ] ] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? ] (]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. ] (]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. ] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} === | |||
I will not edit this article again, and I regret my poor judgment in staying involved for several weeks. To those with the time and energy to stick with it, please remember that just as important as ensuring paid editors follow Misplaced Pages policy is ensuring anti-corporation editors and anti-paid-editor activists also follow Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 00:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:There is no reason for you to stop editing the page if you want to continue editing it. (And there is no reason for you to keep editing it if it is giving you aggravation.) I have observed that these accusations have been made against you at the article talk page, and I have observed that you denied the accusations there. --] (]) 01:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:In the discussion above, this comment: seems to be a lot of the reason for the accusation, and it's worth evaluating for whether it's really evidence, or just seeing a coincidence when none exists. --] (]) 01:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
On October 22 2024, {{lu|Pillowdelight}} changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too. | |||
*I am a graduate student in physics and recently a part time scientific consultant (I have never edited any page related to my only paying customer or their industry). I have never received money from Monsanto, or any agriculture related business or NGO -- the same goes for every member of my family and my in-laws. I have never edited wikipedia under any other account, and you can see from my edit history I have no more interest in GMO safety than I have in several other subjects. I will gladly prove my real life identity to any administrator with whom I have worked productively in the past, including those who I disagree with on various subjects. I'll even send you a picture of me in my (100% organic) garden, if it get's people to stop the knee-jerk assumptions that everyone who disagrees with them is a "corporate shill". The behavior on this subject has gotten way out of hand. ] (]) 01:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers: | |||
* I walked away from the article some time ago. I'm not paid to edit; I'm not a shill; but I'm tired of being treated as one. ] (]) 15:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023 | |||
* Some time ago, in the interests of transparency, I took the trouble to make pretty much everything about me discoverable from my User Page (TL;DR - no Monsanto connection whatsover). ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 05:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021 | |||
===Question for Viriditas=== | |||
]: above, someone asked you why you did not pursue an ] or other specific complaint procedure: . At that time, this was your reply: (lower part of the diff). | |||
Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Setting aside how you would know how large or small the other user is, I can fully appreciate the value of not escalating things. However, given that you have chosen to continue to assert that there may be SOCK or COI violations going on, and given how important it is to control any paid POV pushing on-Wiki, why would you not ask for such an investigation, and would you be willing to request such investigations now? Thank you. --] (]) 15:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name. | |||
:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article == | |||
===Focus and wrap-up please?=== | |||
As (too often) happens in Misplaced Pages, this conversation has gotten completely derailed. Can everybody please get back on topic, rather than heatedly discussing things that belong on the Talk page of the relevant article? The point of this ANI is Viriditas' behavior, namely, "some editors have accused other editors of being paid advocates for Monsanto and pushing a pro-Monsanto POV, as well as some implied accusations of ] violations." I think that the discussion has laid the accusations to rest and has also made it clear that the manner in which they were repeatedly made was inappropriate. Several participants (including me) have said that we stopped working on the article because it is too hostile there. So what about V's behavior? Thanks. ] (]) 22:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
: You've left out a few observations from the discussion, namely, that regardless of Viriditas' possible lack of diplomacy, some issues he raised are seen as worthy of further consideration. It was suggested that the possibly of an effort by Monsanto to influence ] and other related pages here is not outside the realm of possibilities. Also, one editor mentioned that this is essentially a content dispute which may need to wind up at ArbCom, and a few called for this to happen sooner rather than later. Why not allow this thing to play out, as I doubt that Admins have had sufficient time to fully look into the records? Sunshine is always the best disinfectant. Covering up an open sore often ends with infection. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 23:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::I agree with Petrarchan47 (which may come as a surprise to them!). I'm in favor of focus, but it's premature to wrap-up. But what I ''would'' say is that it is long past time to stop discussing content here (as opposed to at the page) and long past time to stop discussing theoretical concepts of what might or might not be going on, on Misplaced Pages. The issue here is user conduct. The conduct of the accusers, and (simply by logical extension) the conduct of the accused. --] (]) 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Oops, you forgot to mention the issue is also whether we need pro-GMO science at the protest article, how policy regarding fringe affects our article, and whether there is some weird teamwork taking place at this and GMO articles on wiki that happens to coincide with Monsanto's interests. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 23:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Now I'm back to not agreeing. But that comment certainly ''is'' an interesting ''example'' of conduct. --] (]) 23:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Petrarchan if you want to open a separate ANI on the issues you state, please do so, but please do not take the focus away from the issue raised by the OP.] (]) 14:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::And Tryptofish I don't agree - ''even if it turns out that V was correct'' that there are socks and COI going on, the way he/she has handled those concerns has been inappropriate. Additionally no serious evidence or even arguments have been made here that there is anything to those concerns. And this is not the forum for addressing those concerns, in any case.] (]) 16:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::Jytdog, it may actually be that I agree with you more than might be apparent. My desire here, as I said, is to focus on editor conduct, because, after all, this is ANI, not the article talkpage or some kind of chatroom. At this point, we are accumulating a long list of editors who are, in apparent good faith, disavowing any connection to Monsanto (reminding me a bit of "I am not now, and never have been, a member of..."). I'm keeping an open mind, but I'm not yet seeing any clear evidence of shill-like editing. POV disagreements, yes, but not organized. On the other side, I'm seeing what you seem to see, which are a lot of serious accusations. I just took a look at Viriditas' user contributions, and he seems to have made about 45 edits since I left a notification on his talk page about my question to him above. I will continue to keep an open mind until my question above gets answered, but I believe that an answer is needed. --] (]) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ] - disruptive behaviour == | |||
Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on ], with both {{user13|Counterfeit_Purses}} breaking 3RR , , , and {{user13|Statistical_Infighting}} being right at 3 Reverts | |||
{{archive top|result="der, den, dem, des; das, das, dem, des; die, die, der, der..." I think we're done here--] (]) 13:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)--}} | |||
, , . | |||
* Has repeatedly removed xfd and speedy deletion templates from his articles despite being informed that this is unacceptable. | |||
* Vandalised templates. | |||
* Has made no effort at bettering himself despite being told that his behaviour may have consequences. | |||
* Most amusingly of all, he told a bot "fuck you". | |||
This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it and , on the 17th, , and then being at the above today. | |||
All the evidence is ] (). Since he is clearly not acting in good faith, I suggest a permanent ban.--] (]) 17:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
] (]) | |||
there is a fucking reason why fuckin noone trusts you fags at wikipedia youre all fucking bots. youre always deleting my fuckin articles most of you fuckin fags on this motherfucking site are fuckin 10 year old cunts so go a fucking head fucking ban me you cunts i dare you faggots because ive had enough of you fucking twats. im going log the fuck out for the last fuckin time. {{unsigned|Mikrul}} | |||
*E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the ] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Vandal encounter == | |||
*Hmm, {{U|Bwilkins}} was being very gracious with a 24-hr block. ] (]) 17:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
] seems to be a vandal who seems to be ready to start an edit war. I have reverted their disruptive edits, and they have begun to add them back. | |||
:: The funny part is that I EC'd with their above post - my comment was going to be "I see nothing worth a ] on their talkpage" ... then they posted the reply above - and you'll see my pesonalized block notice. Yes, I ]'d ... (]<span style="font-family:Forte, cursive, sans-serif;color:black">]</span>]) 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Are we keeping stats on the number of times a user says fucking (or some variant) in one post? I wanna know if the above sets a record (probably not).--] (]) 20:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::: I've also surprised that a) I'm a "fag/faggot", b) I'm a "bot", c) I'm a "cunt", d) I'm a "twat", e) I'm 10 years old. Honestly, what are the odds of being all 5 of those ''at the exact same time''!!!!!! (]<span style="font-family:Forte, cursive, sans-serif;color:black">]</span>]) 21:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::: At least you're not a nazi Communist <small>(that'd be Bugs, if I remember the ghost of Trollmas Past right)</small>. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 00:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::Bwilkins, if I said he was right on, say, two or three out of those five, would you block me? ] (]) 00:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::BWilkins, you could block him just for asking the question. Better still, get a crat to make him an admin again. That'll teach him.--] (]) 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::: He should never have resigned his bit to begin with - that makes ''him'' at least 2 or 3 of the above too LOL (]<span style="font-family:Forte, cursive, sans-serif;color:black">]</span>]) 13:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: Can a named account be faked or an account hacker commit suicide for another user as a personal favor to a content antagonist? Perhaps no A/C at home? ] (]) 02:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Quick note. Rule of thumb: native speakers make spelling mistakes, non-native speakers make grammar mistakes. User:Mikrul is 100% positive an English native speaker. (As well, as anyone who has got up to a reasonable level in another language knows, unless you're some sorta genius, you can only ''dream'' of getting to that level of idiomatic fluency in cussin'.)--] (]) 09:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Thanks for calling me a genius :P Anyway, could we get back on topic? Is anyone opposed to a permaban here?--] (]) 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::I'd say that if the behavior continues, yes. Otherwise, just let his ''Pulp Fiction''-esque vent be one of those amusing things that happened one day. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 23:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::(@Newbiepedian: Oh, it's different for people whose native tongue is one of the ''sensible'' Germanic languages. English is like the embarrassing kid brother of that language family, the one with dreadlocks and body piercings and ridiculous spellings and loanwords: "Hey, German, Swedish, Dutch! Look at all these cool words I stole from French - I dunno how to pronounce them, but I'm gonna use 'em anyway!", etc, etc) | |||
::::::::::::No activity post-block, and I think "im going log the fuck out for the last fuckin time" is a pretty clear declaration that we won't be hearing from them soon. Hatting.--] (]) 13:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::<small> "WTF? Word-endings to indicate the dative and genitive cases and shit - that's just like soooo 10th Century, rest of the extant Western and Northern Germanic languages dudes", etc, etc</small> | |||
{{archive bottom}} | |||
diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] | |||
== ] (NYyankees51) topic ban == | |||
I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
An indefinite topic ban was imposed on {{user|Instaurare}} (aka {{user|NYyankees51}} ) by the community . Evidently, ] decided, (on his own?) to lift the topic ban . As far as I understand, only the community or arbcom can lift such a topic ban, according to ]. Instaurare has resumed editing LGBT-related articles, . - ]] 04:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:{{not done}} - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, this was a violation of UNBAN by HJ Mitchell. ] (]) 05:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== User:Glenn103 == | |||
:The edit questioned was pretty much on the ragged edge of "broadly construed" and it is legitimately within the province of an admin to determine just how far he wishes to construe it. The wording from the admin, in fact, indicates he would still consider the general ban about making problem edits in that area to be actionable, but the Chick-Fil-A non-scientific poll likely was properly removed, and trying to judge HJ Mitchell here about his reasonable judgement call is not really going to aid the project. One problem is that virtually every article on current people and events now has ''some'' element relating in ''some'' way to LGBT, or could easily have such a connexion made. Where a topic ban is presumably so all-encompassing, a much larger group ought to be involved in making that definition hold. Note: I opined than and now ''draconian solutions do not work, and using them for any outside rationale is worse.'' Cheers. ] (]) 06:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{userlinks|Glenn103}} has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* Based on his phrasing , it appears that HJ Mitchell thought this was an ArbCom ban. I should also mention that User:Collect was the only one who openly opposed the original topic ban, which otherwise had a crushing consensus. ] (]) 09:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: ]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: ] & ]). Immediate action may be needed. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* And Istaurare has even edit warred over his clear topic ban violation . I think HJ Mitchell is largely responsible for this state of affairs (very poorly worded reply and arrogating himself powers not otherwise invested in him), but Istaurare certainly looks bent on continuing/resuming the behavior that got him topic banned. ] (]) 10:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The "breakfast poll" which is not actually a "poll" of any real sort, is not something which belongs in any article posing as "fact." I suggest that if, in fact, 53% of Americans were boycotting Chick-Fik-A that their sales would have diminished quite sharply. In fact HuffPo reported that CFA sales ''rose'' 12% in 2012., thus having a suggestion in the article that 53% were boycotting the company is a teensy bit ludicrous, and contrary to ] as it is not a "fact" any more than "73% of Gnarph magazine site poll responders say that the country of Diperia is run by aliens" would be a fact in the ] article. Cheers. ] (]) 12:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::: ANI is not the place to hash out content disputes. Since you seem to agree with Instaurare's edit, and you yourself are not topic banned, you're welcome to go to the article talk page and argue your content points over there. ] (]) 17:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — ] ] 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*] is not in a position to unilaterally lift Instaurare's community ban from LGBT subjects. There is still an entry in ] for the ban, and the bannning discussion did not confer any special authority on one admin. NYyankees51 was previously from abortion in 2012 under ] but that one is long expired. If Instaurare wants to edit in the LGBT area he needs to ask the community to lift the ban. ] (]) 13:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Before people take up their pitchforks against HJ Mitchell, let's look at the history. If you look at the discussion above leading up to the topic ban along with the block log and their talkpage , it seems it happened at the same time as Instaurare was indefinitely blocked again by HJ Mitchell (they were quickly unblocked but only to discuss any putative community actions). In other words, Instaurare was topic banned even though they couldn't edit anyway, and weren't unblocked until about 4 months later at ] and Instaurare appeared to abide by the dejure block . While there's nothing wrong with imposing a topic ban on an indef editor who may one day be allowed back (and I don't think it was entirely clear at the time what else was going to happen to Instaurare), it is a little unusual even if not unheard of. Now looking at the topic ban discussion, while HJ Mitchell was involved in the related discussions, they didn't discuss the topic ban itself. Are we even sure they were aware of the community topic ban? | |||
:As per the earlier link, HJ Mitchell did impose a LGBT topic ban when unblocking, along with a bunch of other restrictions and they were surely entitled to lift these restrictions which appears to me to be what they were doing in the . This doesn't affect the community imposed topic ban and HJ Mitchell probably should have reminded Instaurare when lifting the restrictions that community imposed topic bans remained in effect, including a topic ban on LGBT related articles. In fact they probably should have worded the restrictions clearer when unblocking; reminding Instaurare to abide by community imposed topic bans or other restrictions on them, and what they were, as seperate from any additional restrictions (not including redundant restrictions) imposed as a condition of the unblock. But as I suggested, perhaps HJ Mitchell was not aware of the community topic ban or simply forgot about it, a mistake but surely not a terrible one. | |||
:Even if HJ Mitchell was attempting to lift the community topic ban, considering their high involvement in the case and the strange way the topic ban came about, I can understand their feeling it was better for them to impose and lift the ban, even if I don't agree it was okay. | |||
:Now as for Instaurare, this may have been unfortunate confusion on their part. So I suggest for now, a reminder they still have to abide by a community imposed restrictions and appeal these seperately. And also a suggestion considering the reaction to their edits, it will be a mistake to appeal these restrictions any time soon. And perhaps a reminder that they will only get so many chances (I'm going by the suggestion I get from the comments above that the edits were problematic for reasons beyond being in violation of a topic ban, I didn't check the edits myself). | |||
:] (]) 14:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::I agree that HJ Mitchell's actions were probably not purposely intended to override the community ban. Also, I didn't post this to discuss the quality of Instaurare edits at the Chick-fil-A SSM controversy article, or to rehash arguments already concluded in the topic ban discussion. The fact seems to be that Instaurare is still topic banned from LGBT-related articles, broadly (or draconianly) construed, until such time that the community lifts the ban following a request from Instaurare and an ensuing discussion. - ]] 14:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: @Nil Einne: There was nothing strange or unusual about the way the community imposed topic ban was discussed or enacted. It had overwhelming consensus and NYyankees51 was allowed to participate in the AN discussion as the state of his talk page demonstrates. ] (]) 17:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*Hi folks, you've got yourself a good burning at the stake going there, so I won't take too much of your time. I'll just clarify that my lifting of the restrictions was intended to apply only to those restrictions which I imposed as a condition of Instaurare's (or NYyankees51 as he was known then) return, listed at ]. Neither those restrictions nor my lifting of them should (nor were they intended to) supersede any restrictions imposed by the community. In all honesty, I'd forgotten about the community restrictions, and I apologise to Instaurare and the community for my ambiguity. Of course it is not within my gift to lift sanctions imposed by the community, and I apologise if I gave the impression I believed it was. ] | ] 14:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::HJ, thanks for the clarification. Indeed when I saw the post on your talk page I suspected you weren't talking about the community LGBT restriction, but something else. But Instaurare must have read your post and assumed he was now free of any LGBT limits. ] (]) 15:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places? | |||
The topic ban discussion closed four days after I was indef'd, and the indef took all my attention. I honestly forgot about the community TB, though I'm not sure I knew about it at all; again, I was focused on the indef at the time. So I apologize; it was an honest mistake on my part and HJ's too. I seriously doubt my chances of ever getting the TB lifted, given that my two undoubtedly non-contentious edits (removing a clearly unreliable source and a simple re-sectioning) were swiftly and vociferously removed and the TB papers served immediately, with my fan club showing up with pitchforks for both me and HJ. So I doubt I will ever get a fair hearing regardless of past or future editing, but I intend to continue trying to rehabilitate my reputation as though I have a chance. Alas, the sanction stands, and I will abide by it, and I will continue editing constructively in other topic areas. ] (]) 17:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I mean you might have a point, but wow. – ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: You were notified of the community-imposed topic ban at the time it was enacted . I ] that both you and HJ Mitchell somehow forgot about it given that HJ Mitchell imposed a more extensive topic ban himself (covering abortion as well) upon your unblock . He is surely allowed to lift the ''additional'' restrictions he himself imposed, but not those were also covered by a community consensus. To have the latter restriction lifted, see the procedure at ]. ] (]) 17:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Similar behavior to {{checkuser|PickleMan500}} and other socks puppeted by {{checkuser|Abrown1019}}, which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been ]'d, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. <small>Since these socks have been banned (]), I haven't notified them of this discussion.</small> ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Your point is valid, but with the greatest respect, I think that's what Instaurare just said. Given the number of things going on and given that this all took place over a year ago, I would hope he could be forgiven for a slight lapse of memory (once); I don't think he is trying to claim that my action somehow negated the community-imposed topic ban. ] | ] 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Good catch, and looking at the contribution histories it {{duck}}. Changing the block to indef as a sock accordingly. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: Yeah, ''right here and now'' he is not. Earlier, he was edit warring on a talk page trying to remove others' replies pointing out his topic ban and also raising doubts . ], so I'm making myself ''crystal clear'' here. ] (]) 18:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::I didn't even look at the link he posted til now. I assumed it was linked to one of HJ's posts on my talk page. I apologize. ] (]) 22:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion == | |||
== ] infobox == | |||
The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption. | |||
] just an ] article. Nothing wrong here, but he simply messed up the nice collage made by me a while ago. And as you can see he put the pictures of notable Armenians arbitrarily removing a few. | |||
'''Key Points:''' | |||
I started a discussion on the talk page of Armenians. And to get involved in the discussion I on Armenians TP regarding the infobox. He my note from his talk page and announced "". | |||
*ANI notice | |||
# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:''' | |||
--] ] 06:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides. | |||
#* The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments. | |||
#* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus. | |||
# '''Ongoing Disruption:''' | |||
#* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors. | |||
#* This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context). | |||
# '''Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:''' | |||
#* Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict. | |||
#* Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision. | |||
# '''Impact on the Community:''' | |||
#* The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement. | |||
#* These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic. | |||
'''Request for Administrative Action:''' | |||
: So far I'm seeing rather poor behaviour on both sides. Avdav's outright refusal to engage in communication is definitely troubling and is likely to lead to at least a sanction warning under ]. Yerevanci's actions are slightly better, but he too has been edit-warring, and his only "talk" contributions so far have consisted in making demands that the other side should explain their preference, while not giving any explanation of his own preference himself . His presentation of the case here is also hardly constructive, as it merely presents his statement of taste as a matter of fact (his own preferred collage is "nice", the other one "messed up"; the other guy's choices are "arbitrary", while his own presumedly aren't?) – Incidentally, about the image collages being edit-warred over, the version Yerevanci prefers contains a likely copyright violation and might have to be deleted (see ]). ] ] 07:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::], have you considered that instead of simply removing the entire infobox you make a ] change to the infobox page to include a collage? Future Perfect makes a good point about the existing one possibly being deleted so consider making a new one. If Avdav continues to refuse to engage in discussion then perhaps further action can be taken at a later date. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font> <sup>(]•])</sup></font> 10:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::The only difference between my and his versions is the collage. --] ] 13:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues: | |||
:::Guys, you know what's sad? The fact that he says "I have no time, fur disputing, keep reverting, it will be reverted back again" and you still don't do anything about it. This is a big turn off. Like what else should I do? Some guy from nowhere comes and messes up the collage and says he has "no time to dispute". | |||
:::I just replaced the problematic picture in the collage with a PD one. --] ] 13:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::My point was that you just blank reverted the whole template rather than just change the picture, which is probably why you got a snappy response. I suggest you go to the template talk page, propose the change and see if ] engages in discussion. If he doesn't respond then ]. If Avdav continues to revert he'll hit the ] anyway and most likely get a sanction <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font> <sup>(]•])</sup></font> 14:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Hmm, I see he continues to revert you when you add the collage to the template directly. I've posted a message on his page requesting he participate in this discussion so we can reach an amicable agreement. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font> <sup>(]•])</sup></font> 14:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::Thanks. --] ] 14:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::: Yeah, he just removed your message --] ] 14:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: My willingness to ] is running low. Perhaps an admin should step in with a short block for ]? <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font> <sup>(]•])</sup></font> 14:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::: That is probably the best option for now. A one-day block would be enough, I think. The guy has made some useful edits in the past. --] ] 14:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::: I would still expect you to post on the template talk page with your proposal to change the image to give the other editor an area to respond if he choses to do so. Show you are willing to discuss it. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font> <sup>(]•])</sup></font> 14:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::: Done. I don't have much hope though.--] ] 14:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{outdent}} I have an AE warning to Avdav and made it clear that he'll be blocked if this reverting continues. On that note, I'd like to ask Yerevanci too to refrain from further edits on the two pages without consensus. ] (]) 14:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:No problem, but I think users that "have no time for dispute" should be blocked for a day. He removed all the warnings on his talk page and doesn't seem to be willing to discuss anything. --] ] 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Well, it seems that a discussion . Let's see how this turns out. ] (]) 15:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions. | |||
::: He doesn't seem to be engaging in any discussion. "" He just seems to be pushing his POV and refuses to discuss. --] ] 15:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed. | |||
:::: Sorry. I'll have to revert it. He doesn't cooperate in any way. --] ] 16:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
# Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments. | |||
::::: Watch that 3RR though; it goes for both editors. Since the reverts you make on the new template and the reverts you made in the article itself have essentially the same effect, exchanging the one set of pictures against the other, I would argue that both sets of reverts should be counted towards 3RR together, which means you are probably already both past it. ] ] 16:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Are you guys kidding me? The user constantly refuses to engage in any discussion. --] ] 16:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::: I know, but as I said, your own discussion behaviour has not been ''that'' much better – as far as I can see, you have still not detailed just how and why you think your selection of images is better than the other. And of course you don't "have to revert" anything. There is no danger that either the one version or the other will seriously damage the encyclopedia if it stays on for a day or two. There is now at least one third party in the discussion. Convince him, and he will likely make the revert for you. So far, we only have one editor's statement of taste against another's. ] ] 16:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: Man are you serious right now? By that logic I can go to the ] article and remove a guy from the infobox I don't like and get away with it? Avdav clearly stated "" You think this behavior should be even tolerated on Misplaced Pages? --] ] 16:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Misplaced Pages's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia. | |||
], I wonder what the waiting period is. If we don't get any response from him by tomorrow, would I be entitled the right to revert his edits because he refuses to engage in discussions? --] ] 21:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for your attention to this matter. | |||
UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. | |||
] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.'' | |||
::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you." | |||
::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::{{tq|you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated}}{{snd}}Well, I just put it through GPTzero and got ''97% human''. Might be best if you don't just make up random "evidence". ]] 17:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice. | |||
:::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output. | |||
:::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice. | |||
:::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. ] (]) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than ''your'' words. ] (]) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{external media|video1=}} | |||
::::::::::Rc2barrington's user page says {{tq|This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring}}, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant ''majority'' of readers). It really is that simple. ] (]) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::<p>Putting the use of LLM aside, however you compose your message you should comply with the basics of ANI. This includes not making allegations without supplying evidence. This would normally be in the form of diffs but in this case just links might be fine. But ] has provided none. </p><p>Probably because this is because their initial complaint appears to be unsupported by what's actually happening. They claimed "{{tqi|Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editor}}". But where is this? I visited the talk page, and what I see is here ] there was a request for clarification from the closer, something which is perfectly reasonably and which the closer followed up on. The OP then offered an interjection which frankly seemed unnecessary. There was then a very brief forumish discussion. To be clear, AFAICT no one in the follow up discussion was suggesting any changes to the article. So while it wasn't he most helpful thing as with any forumish discussion; it's hardly causing that much disruption especially since it seems to have quickly ended and also cannot be called "the same arguments" since there was no argument. No one in that discussion was actually suggesting changing the article. </p><p>Then there is ]. There was again some forumish discussion in this thread which again isn't helpful but wasn't that long. But there was also discussion about other things like the name of the article and whether to restructure it. To be clear, this isn't something which was resolve in the RfC. In fact, the closer specifically mention possible future issues in a non close comment. </p><p>Next we see ]. Again the main focus of the discussion is in how to handle stuff which wasn't dealt with in the RfC. There is a total of 2 short comments in that thread which were disputing the RfC which is unfortunate but hardly something to worry ANI about. </p><p>Next there is ]. DPRK was briefly mentioned there but only in relation to a suggestion to change the infobox for other countries. No part of that discussion can IMO be said to be disputing the DPRK RfC. Next we have ]. Again DPRK was briefly mention but only in relation to other countries. No part of that discussion can be said to be disputing the RfC. AFAICT, the only threads or comments removed from the talk page since the closure of the RfC was by automated archival. The only threads which seem to be post close are on ] and none of them seem to deal with North Korea. </p><p>So at least on the article talk page I don't see what the OP has said is happening. The tiny amount of challenging of the RfC is definitely not something ANI needs to worry about. Even the other forumish or otherwise unproductive comments aren't at a level that IMO warrants any action IMO. If this is happening somewhere else, this is even more reason why the OP needed to provide us some evidence rather than a long comment without anything concrete, however they composed it. </p><p>] (]) 10:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)</p> | |||
== Concern About a New Contributor == | |||
:As Fut. Perf. has said, your responses are not much better. I'm ''trying'' to help you make the edits you want but so far it's just, "I don't like the way it looks" . --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 21:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{atop|Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
:: Please don't distort the facts. I clearly that hHe removed a few notables without any explanation. The "better looking" part is also there, but I care more about why a few people were removed from the collage without any discussion whatsoever. --] ] 22:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}} | |||
Dear Wikipedians, | |||
== Threats of violence at ] == | |||
I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @], despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies. | |||
{{hat|1=Your meme is under another troll's bridge. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 23:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
{{archivetop|User is indeffed for trolling and using tired memes. ] (]) 14:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
{{user|SlowBrozz}} posted shortly after I reverted to a prior revision of ] - is this a credible death threat or mere trolling? I also suspect sockpuppetry, having seen {{user|Msmicle}} exuding similar traits to SB, sans the threat above. ]\<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 09:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively. | |||
:It's not a threat of violence, but an old and tired internet meme. See . In any event, I'v indeffed him for vandalism. ] (]) 09:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::This isn't my party, but I have reported cases like this to the authorities myself in the past. But I'm not the first responder here. Still, I'd be curious to see what other editors think the policy should be on this case. I do think the indef block is a good first step. ]]] 09:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:<small> There's even a musical version for the meme, along with 9 variations...</small>]\<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 11:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::It's just a silly meme. There's an indefinite block, that is sufficient. ] <small>(])</small> 12:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{archivebottom}} | |||
{{hab}} | |||
Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed. | |||
== User:Arctic Kangaroo (yet again) == | |||
Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{archive top|result= | |||
#Photo he wanted deleted was recently deleted on Commons; not our bailiwick anyway. | |||
#General issue of non-adults legally contributing text or pix here: above our pay grade. WMF should address this, but probably won't. | |||
#Topic ban on all image uploading: '''enacted'''; I'll notify him in a few minutes. | |||
#Indef block until of legal age: not enacted, see #2 above. | |||
#Indef block for ] issues: '''enacted'''. | |||
--] (]) 23:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
Given the endless saga that ] has involved multiple individuals in, over an extended period, it might seem reasonable to assume that s/he has actually understood by now what the Creative Commons license implies. Apparently not. AK has recently posted on Jimbo's talk page a statement saying that "On a side note, all my works are always ''All rights reserved''. I pointed out to AK that that was "an assertion that you are claiming rights incompatible with the CC licence", and suggested that it be withdrawn. AK's response: | |||
:"Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions. | |||
:''"I will be sleeping soon, so may not be able to continue talking about this until the next time I log on. Just to clarify, what I mean by that is wherever else I upload them. Here though, how I wish it's the same as well. Anyway, I did not know that the consequences of a CC license can be that serious. I simply can't believe how immoral people are. Just 1 simple mistake, it's so hard to forgive and forget just "because CC said so, so I have to dump my morals into the bin" | |||
:Perhaps if you supplied ] of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor ''and'' are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet. | |||
:By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) ] ] 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. | |||
::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed). | |||
:::Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly: | |||
:::: • | |||
:::: • | |||
:::: • | |||
:::: • | |||
::::and many more | |||
::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. ]] 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence ''at all'' that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. ] (]) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. ]] 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under ], a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. ]] 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. ] (]) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. ]] 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} | |||
:{{ping|Kriji Sehamati}} hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. ] ] 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits ''are'' problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--] (]) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. ]] 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. ]] 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? ]] 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against ]. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. ] (]) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively about this exact issue on this same board, which by another editor. This is intentional disruption. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) ] (]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::Dear @], | |||
*:::::It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old. | |||
*:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::Dear @], | |||
*:::::::I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. ]] 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. ] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::::Okay! ]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::::I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of ] and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. ] (]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::::Dear @], | |||
*:::::::::I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. ]] 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::::The page of Justice ], who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. ]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been ] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. ] (] · ]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages. | |||
*:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. ] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::] is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. ]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of ]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. ] (]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). ] (]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. ]] 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. ]] 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. ]] 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''Support BOOMERANG''' - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and ] mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. ] (]) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions == | |||
It is self-evident that AK has even now failed to understand the nature of the CC license - as ''applying everywhere'', as ''irrevocable'', and that s/he ''cannot impose conditions on it, or limit where it applies''. Given this failure to understand licensing, after having it explained repeatedly, I have to suggest that a block per ] is not only advisable to avoid further disruption, but obligatory in that AK is (regardless of issues over age) incapable of giving consent to a licence s/he appears incapable of understanding. Far too much time has been wasted on this issue already, and I see no reason to drag this out any further. Accordingly, I formally propose that AK be blocked indefinitely, and that 'indefinitely' in this case shall be taken to mean until (a) AK can prove (via private communication with the WMF) that s/he is of a legal age where there can be no reasonable doubt that the CC license ''is'' applicable, and (b) when AK can demonstrate that s/he fully understands the implications of the CC license. ] (]) 16:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{atop|result=The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute. | |||
'']'' is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent. | |||
:Some extracts from my email to Jimbo. Read more about the whole saga on Jimbo's page and the Commons DR. | |||
:#''When I uploaded those images, I did not know how severe the consequences are - I couldn't even think of it.'' | |||
:#''But anyway, I hope that you can forgive my mistake by deleting those images. It's quite disturbing to me now, with a very important final school exam and an even more important national exam just round the corner.'' | |||
:#''Deleting my images will give me peace of mind, so that I can take my time read through all the available licenses, comprehend them fully, clarify anything if need be, and then think about whether I'm fine with them, before uploading any further images (or even the deleted ones) back to Misplaced Pages. Because remember, I really want to contribute some good images to Misplaced Pages, but all I need now is some time to reconsider, and deleting the images will make me able to reconsider better. Because I also don't want them on Commons at all, just on en.wiki alone with a notice to keep it on en.wiki only and not upload them anywhere else.'' | |||
:<big>]</big>]] 11:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence | |||
::More coming up when I'm back from dinner. <big>]</big>]] 11:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
: ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .'' | |||
Reportedly ''by whom'' is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article. | |||
The content dispute began when I changed it like this () with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'': | |||
:::Licenses will be revoked for all my images, which have been deleted out of courtesy. I remember guaranteeing somewhere that any of these CC licenses I grant in future will be non-revokable already. Anyway guys, don't mix text contributions with image uploads. For my text contribs, it doesn't bother me whether it's CC-BY-SA-3.0 or CC-0 or All Rights Reserved. But my photos are somethings personal and treasured, so obviously for that I will guard more aggressively. But I have already promised somewhere that I will not upload any more of ''my'' photos until I fully understand the licenses. Using the above promises, I hereby think that an indef block or even an image upload ban will be redundant. <big>]</big>]] 14:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{text diff|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.}} | |||
::::Actaully these comments are digging your hole even deeper. It has been explained to you many times CC cannot be revoked (or, to be more precise, if someone is using your images, you can't prevent these copies to be spread under CC terms). You don't have to guarantee that you will grant non-revokable licenses, because once you upload you can't revoke ''anything'' on the uploaded copy. If you have so deep misunderstandings on CC, you simply should not edit, for lack of ]. --''''' ]'''''] 15:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::While the images may be gone, their license status can ''never'' be changed—if somebody has already downloaded a copy, for example, they can freely redistribute it under the terms of the CC-BY-SA, and there's nothing you can do about that. "Licenses will be revoked for all my images"—no they won't, because it's ''impossible''. If you fail to grasp this, then I concur with Cyclopia that you shouldn't be allowed to contribute anything under a CC license. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 15:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Then let's make it like this. For those who have been lucky enough to save a copy, they must use it under the CC terms. But for those who couldn't manage to do so (too bad), it's license revoked (in other words, all rights reserved). That's OK? <big>]</big>]] 15:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::I ''may'' still upload ''my images'' in future, but with the conditions mentioned at the top of this. Also, I may still upload other unrelated images, even if not mine. For example, copyrighted but free work. <big>]</big>]] 15:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::Still, no. You cannot impose your own conditions on a CC license and decide to whom it does and doesn't apply. "But for those who couldn't manage to do so (too bad), it's license revoked"—no, they could still obtain a copy from somebody who did manage to download it, and you can't say that if they do, it's suddenly ''All rights reserved''. Also, if you upload any images to en.wiki, you can ask for people not to use it anywhere else, but you cannot require it, because anybody who wants to upload the images elsewhere would be perfectly within their rights to do so under a CC license. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 15:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I'm more interested in my images, so let me just declare: The license has '''never been valid''', and I never knew how serious the consequences were, so I'm asking for it to be revoked. | |||
:::::::No blocks first. Let's discuss before taking any action. | |||
:::::::<big>]</big>]] 16:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Assuming the license has never been valid, there's no reason it would be any more valid here than at Wikimedia Commons. This has actually been a central part of my reasoning for a block all along. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Blocks are for '''prevention'''. The competence reason is invalid, actually. Just revoke the licenses, and as long as after this incident(s), I learn from my lesson, then everything is alright. No need to block. I already said, revoke the licenses, and any future license will be valid. Not enough careful consideration this time, and noobiness in this field, should be forgiven. <big>]</big>]] 16:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::No, because '''''the license cannot be revoked'''''. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*i would prefer a ban to a block as that will make sockpuppet reverting easier and needed due to the licencing issue. ] (]) 16:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support indef ban''' -] also said: ''"I've never approved of CC licenses"'' on Jimbo talk page, which seems clear enough. We have already had other cases of people who (impossibly) wanted to revoke their licenses, and we correctly blocked them. If you don't agree with the CC, you can't edit Wikimedia project, simple as that. Indef should not be forever, but should be on the conditions listed by ATG above. Ban instead of block, per Agathoclea above. --''''' ]'''''] 16:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Indef block''', as explicitly says he has no intention of accepting TOS and obviously can't be bothered to read and understand the licensing terms he explicitly agreed to follow. "Indefinite" not "infinite", as he could come back when he's fully understood the licensing and we're comfortable that he is legally able to agree to them (if there's consensus that that is a problem), allow him to get himself corrected for any bad advice he received, etc. On the other hand, if there's any history of sock, that's abuse not newbie-negligence/bad-advice, and I would support ban as well. ] (]) 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support indef ban''' per Agathoclea. ] ] 18:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support indef''', with regrets; it's a shame that an experienced editor, who is usually fairly solid (AfC and images obviously being exceptions) needs indeffing, but that's what it's come to. The statement quoted by Cyclopia is immensely troubling, and is not compatible with Misplaced Pages. ] ] 18:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' the terms proposed, as they are basically "ban all editors under the age of 18" by the back door. <s>'''Support''' indef block until such a time as AK acknowledges that material he contributes on English Misplaced Pages ''must'' be licensed appropriately, and that there is no way of making this "All Rights Reserved elsewhere" or whatever.</s> --] (]) 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
**{{ec}} I am going to refrain from supporting or opposing a block or ban, as I don't feel I'm sufficiently familiar with the editor's history to judge one way or another. However, I do agree with Demiurge1000 that the conditions seem inappropriate. I don't think it's right to add a condition that the block/ban can be lifted when "AK can prove (via private communication with the WMF) that s/he is of a legal age where there can be no reasonable doubt that the CC license ''is'' applicable"—if we have concerns about underage editors not being legally capable of licensing their contributions under the CC license, this needs to be discussed in a broader sense, not just imposed randomly on young editors. <span style="font-family: Georgia">– ] <small>]</small></span> 18:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm not proposing we ban all editors under 18, by the back door or otherwise. I'm proposing we block ''one'' editor who has used the "I'm a minor" excuse to cause us no end of trouble, in order to prevent this one editor doing it again. As for the broader legal issue, if it ''did''' turn out that CC licenses by minors aren't enforceable, and we had to ban all minors from editing, nothing we do here would make the slightest difference. ] (]) 18:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::AK's "I'm a minor" excuse is completely invalid, so I don't see why AK becoming of legal age should affect any block. For the record, ] and ] might be useful. The latter link says, "Licenses granted by minors are as valid as those granted by adults. Both minors and adults are protected by the same copyright laws and they can issue equal licenses." <span style="font-family: Georgia">– ] <small>]</small></span> 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''. | |||
*'''Support''' a ] indef block until the user is mature enough to contribute to this project, which given his track record, should include a clear and unambiguous statement, in their own words, about the licensing/reuse implications of submitting content here. ] (]) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.() | |||
*I'm not quite sure I understand the problem - given Arctic Kangaroo's clarification, I took his "all rights reserved" comment as referring to stuff he uploads elsewhere - and unless he uploads or posts ''the same'' stuff to Misplaced Pages (which for all I can tell he does not, or at least will not do in the future), there's nothing wrong with that. ] (]) 18:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*Yes; he was (probably) talking about his earlier media contributions (seven files; I think) to Commons , ; no way related to Misplaced Pages. That matter is pending for the decision of WMF legal; considering his age. I didn’t see a word by him about his current or future contributions against the CC terms (including both text and media). ]] ]]] 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::*<s>I believe that at least the photo that prompted the dispute was uploaded to Misplaced Pages first, then deleted here once it was on Commons. So the problem already affects files uploaded here on enWP.</s> --] (]) 04:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::*Sorry, I didn't follow the dates correctly. It does seem that this file was uploaded to Commons first (though using the Misplaced Pages upload wizard). --] (]) 04:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*I agree with you that most likely what AK is saying is that on all other websites, he? releases his images with all rights reserved and that he wishes he could do so on wikipedia. However it still sounds to me like he doesn't understand there's nothing unique about wikimedia projects, some other websites require free licences and many websites even though not requiring free licences requiring you to irrevocably licence your content to them (often allowing them to do whatever they want including sublicence). And of course it doesn't matter what the websites requires if they allow CC and he choses CC he can't later revoke the licence. Or to put it a different way, it sounds like he still doesn't understand he can't just ignore what he's doing and imagine all rights are reserved and if he makes a mistake people have to accept that and follow his changes months later. Further it sounds like he still doesn't understand no one can revoke his licence, the only possibilities are a court could decide he didn't actually licence the content in that way or that even if he did he was entitled to revoke it because of his age (and of course without revoking people can voluntarily remove his content). Or in other words he still doesn't understand how the licence works. ] (]) 20:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support indef''' per Someone. ] appears to be the real problem here, as AK seems not to be able to understand the nature of participation here and the requirements of the licensing which applies '''''every time the "save" button is pushed'''''. It's much too early to consider a ban instead of a block. ] (]) 18:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' legal has ] and claims that there is no issue with allowing minors to edit. --] | ] 18:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*'''Comment''' That page should be called "Removal of photos ''uploaded'' by minors". It gives the initial impression that it is about photographs ''of'' minors. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::*<s>Further it says "''the claimed absence of ongoing consent as a "good rationale" to remove the photograph.''" ]] ]]] 19:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)</s> | |||
:::*Wow! That page is only about consent of a minor in photos of minors; not photos by minors. ]] ]]] 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Well it is a bit of both: photos of minors by minors. As such it is hard to separate out the advice. Also it makes the mistake (in my non-lawyer interpretation) of confusing a licence with a contract. I licence has no return promise, which is necessary to make it a contract -- Commons does not promise to display your photograph. So the argument that a minor benefits from the "contract" since ''"A minor who posts photos on Commons, for example, receives a large benefit from the use of and international recognition and exposure gained from the global project"'' is false imo. So I continue to await some applicable legal advice. ]°] 19:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*I assume this discussion is initiated without understanding what is discussing on Jimbo’s page. So I request to read it entirely prior to make any comment here. Thanks. ]] ]]] 19:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::The other link posted above contains I think more appropriate advice. Essentially, we don't know wrt a minor revoking a licence because it hasn't been handled by the court, but AK is affected by the ''contract'' he makes with WMF every time he presses the save button (to irrevocably agree to release your contribution) and he does benefit from that contract in various ways, making it difficult for him to renage on his side of the deal. ]°] 19:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thanks; but still it is very vague to me. Notice how cleverly that regarding his younger age. ]] ]]] 20:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
* '''Oppose''' a broad ban applied to all editing activity, or indef block. '''Support''' a topic ban on uploading images. I sympathise with those whose patience has run out and indeed when I saw AK's name here yet again I heaved a weary sigh. But I think a blanket ban would be unnecessarily harsh. There have been two areas of signal incompetence on AK's part: inappropriate decisions at AfC and the uploading of images. We have already topic banned AK from the former, and can perfectly well ban him/her from the latter as well. The rest of AK's contributions have not attracted any ire that I'm aware of and this would leave AK free to contribute (and possibly to grow in knowledge and experience.) I realise this is counter to the flow of opinions here but although AK's judgement has been monumentally poor in these two areas, I do think they are perhaps areas which can be cleanly isolated and we should give him/her the opportunity. ] ] 20:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*@Kim: I think the problem goes beyond images, simply because of AK's lack of understanding (or willingness to understand) that he is invoking the CC/GFDL licenses each and every time he makes an edit to an article or posts a comment. The editing page is very clear about that, and there's no real distinction between uploading text and unloading an image. If AK doesn't understand (or agree) that he has voluntarily licensed his image by uploading it, then he also doesn't understand that he has similarly licensed his '''''words''''' by uploading text. Misplaced Pages is utterly dependent on every editor implicitly agreeing to the licensing sceme (whether they are a minor or not) - the whole house of cards falls down if that is undermined. Given that, AK's refusal to understand in regard to images cannot stand in isolation. He cannot say that everything's hunky-dory when he licenses his text, but not when he licenses his images. It is this fundamental lack of competence that concerns me, and lead me to support an indef block until he can show that he understand the way this system works. A topic ban on image uploads is not, I think, sufficient, since it's AK's '''''global''''' lack of understanding which is the underlying issue. ] (]) 20:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support indef ban''' <S>I actually have concerns beyond CIR. As I understand it, AK has now taken the copyright issue of the commons photos to OFFICE. While I had some sympathy to AK's position, I have little sympathy for that cause of actions. IMO, it's equivalent to ], particularly since all evidence suggests AK voluntarily licenced their content under those licences and it sounds like having failed to convince the commons community to take them down (which I don't necessarily agree with but understand), they're not attempting legal means to force their way. Even though it may be commons, it affects here enough that I suggest action is justified. As long as the legal request continues, I would suggest that AK should be unwelcome. If the WMF decides to abide by the request, we're in a tricky situation, personally I would still be reluctant to allow them back based on the fact I would consider the legal issue unresolved and unresolvable (the proble, is the foundations decision doesn't necessarily mean AK has a credible case but we don't want to fight this) unless AK withdraws the request (which doesn't have to mean the images would be reuploaded). There's no way the community can trust that next time AK doesn't get their way, they're just going to try to force it by other means (not based on the fact they necessarily have a genuine case but that people won't want to fight them on it). It's true once they're of age, it may be more difficult but I'm not sure if this would be enough to me. Now if the WMF decides to ignore AK request (and if it actually goes to court we'e obviously respect the court's decision),</s> I would support allowing AK back when we can be confident of their competence. ] (]) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*Not AK; it is we who contacted and to legal, not to office for getting an advice. ]] ]]] 20:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::*Clarified below in detail ]] ]]] 03:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Sorry it seems I misunderstood the comments, I've struck out the relevant parts of my reply. However I continue to support a block for competence reasons. As I mentioned in a discussion above, I'm not so much concerned over the 'all rights reserved' on other websites bit, as I think what AK means there is not quite what Andy suggested. But I am concerned over the continued lack of understanding of how licencing works, and what the CC is. Ultimately people have to understand what they're doing here, including understanding and accepting (not necessarily agreeing) with licencing and my impression is after all this time this still doesn't apply to AK. Failure to do so results in the nasty mess we are in now. (And AK's claims that text and images are different doesn't help their case, in fact it makes it worse.) P.S. I should clarify that the reason I worded my original response to refer to an indef ban is because I regarded the NLT thing as diff from what we normally deal with so neither community ban nor indef block seemed appropriate. Now it's no longer an issue I'm fine with either an indef block or a community ban. ] (]) 04:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''support topic ban. weak support ifdef''' The images could probably be deleted under the assumption that he did not validly enter into a contract/license as there was no "meeting of the minds" regarding what the license meant. That is a severe ] issue, but not one that deserves an ifdef imo - on the other hand, that same licensing issue applies to all edits he makes in the project, which would mean if he is not agreeing to the license, or cannot understand it, he cannot contribute. ] (]) 21:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support indef block''' until Arctic Kangaroo can demonstrate that they understand the terms of the CC-BY-SA license and accept that all contributions they make to Misplaced Pages will fall under this license irrevocably. Until then, AK should not be allowed to edit (or upload images to Commons, for that matter). ] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*{{non-administrator observation}} Arctic Kangaroo's comments "I'm never uploading anything to Commons again" and "I have no complaints about my text contributions being used" suggest that a block or ban over this may be unnecessary. —] 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*If I said "I'm never uploading anything to Commons again", would the same apply to me? What about ]? --] (]) 21:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*@rybec: See my comment to Kim Dent-Brown above. The fact that AK "has no complaints" about his text uploading is not really relevant - he doesn't have any complaints about it '''''now''''', but that situation could easily change in the future if he doesn't understand and agree that hitting the save button -- for text '''''or''''' for an image -- is implicitly agreeing to an irrevocable license. In point of fact, AK is not '''''entitled''''' to make one judgment about image uploading and another about text uploading, it's all the same thing, which is something he needs to understand before he can continue editing here, whether or not he intends to upload images. ] (]) 21:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*I echo Beyond My Ken. If he considers the license he used for his images to be invalid because he is a minor, then he must also consider the same license invalid here where he contributes text, and therefore should not be allowed to contribute. He can't have it both ways. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::*The first comment indicated to me that AK wouldn't be contributing any more images. The second could be construed as showing an understanding that making textual contributions is granting a license to use them: it was in response to . Other photographers have donated images without understanding the licenses, then had second thoughts and asked for courtesy deletion; it's not always granted, but a cross-wiki block or ban for it would be highly unusual, wouldn't it? —] 23:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Important question for those !voting above:''' Quite a few are saying "indef ban". Is a ] actually being suggested or is the indef ''block'' proposed by the OP what is meant? - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 22:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support indef block but oppose a ban''' I came here expecting to oppose the indef, but comments like: {{quotation|Let me warn you guys, I'm gonna continue protesting until the file is deleted. This is bullshit. You people at Commons have total disregard and no respect for others who contribute. And no respect for creators' rights too. I'm not gonna give a damn on whatever shame this will cause, and also how embarrassing this can be. I just want it deleted, and after that, nobody is to upload it again, even if you make whatever minor tweaks with Photoshop or whatever, as nobody is given permission by me to upload the copyrighted work. <big>]</big>]] 14:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
::make me question his competence. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 23:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{text diff|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks. Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla. Paul Gleason took the role;...|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;...}} | |||
*'''Support''' a block on all minors, who cannot sign contracts and who should not be exploited by Misplaced Pages. Also, Arbcom has complained about its inability to enforce even its toothless WP:Child Protection and its 20 yearly cases of apparent child-predators, so it's not a safe environment for kids. The US's COPPA and COPA laws prohibit participation by minors under 12 and require parental consent for those 13-17 years old. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 23:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*How, in your view, are minors being exploited by Misplaced Pages? Also, ] <s>hasn't been in effect since 2009</s> never went into effect. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::*@KW: I don't agree with you, but your position is at least consistent. I'm curious if you have put any thought into '''''how''''' editors would prove to WMF that they aren't minors? By clicking a button that says they're over 12? If your concern is protecting children -- and that is my conclusion after seeing many similar comments from you over the years -- how, exactly would that protect anyone? Except, of course, the WMF, which can fall back on the statement to show that it is not responsibe? And if minors can't enter into a contract, or authorize a license, how do they have the ability to make statements about their age which are legally binding? The questions are not entirely rhetorical, the problem of proving one's identity online is a thorny one, and the issue of age is only one aspect of it, so I do wonder if you've put any thought into it. ] (]) 01:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Section 1302(2)(B) of the ] (COPPA) exempts non-profit organizations, such as the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. And as Chris the Paleontologist pints out, COPA never went into effect. ] ] 01:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*A block on all minors? Are you joking? ] (]) 06:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: No, not a joke. If a minor cannot enter into a contract (with ] which do not appear to apply), how can the minor license the contribution, which occurs every time you click save? I believe WMF legal is looking into this, and hope a solution is found, but it doesn't sound like a simple issue.--]] 13:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: Yes, I have read . I'm not fully persuaded (caveat IANAL), and I believe legal is revisiting, which wouldn't be needed if that prior advice were sufficient. I've read title 17 (Copyright Law). It is remarkably silent on the issue of minor, with, if you will excuse the expression, minor exceptions which don't apply. Why, because the law is mainly about granting the authority to people to acquire copyrights. If they considered whether minors should be able to acquire copyrights, my guess is that it took them about two seconds to conclude, why not, so saw no need to address minors separately. However, while the present issue is related to copyrights, it isn't about the granting of a copyright. Minors do not give up the copyright they obtained when clicking save, but they are granting a license, which is a contract, but that is not grating a copyright. So the fact that the law says a minor can acquire a copyright does not tell us whether the minor can enter into a contract which modifies the terms of use of copyrighted material. That would seem to be in the arena of contracts, not copyrights, so we have to look to see what contracts minors can enter into. At the moment, I haven't seen anything that suggests a minor can enter into such a contract. Did I mention that IANAL? I hope there is a soluaiton allowing minors to contribute, but I accept that the question is valid.--]] 13:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''', so what hes a kid. Anyone has the potential to behave in such a manner, its bad I know but his maturity shouldn't lead to a ban or a block, I so'''support''' a topic ban. <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#fff">]]</span> 23:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Um, what topic are you proposing we ban AK from? The CC license applies everywhere. ] (]) 00:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
My accompanying comment was ''(a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim'' | |||
*'''Oppose''' I'm admittedly not familiar with ]'s history on ANI. But it seems odd to impose an indefinite block/ban on a person who hasn't even commented here to clarify what their position is. I think folks should hear from AK first before such a drastic action is taken. Perhaps he/she has come to understand the position of CC and retracts their earlier remarks. ] (]) 00:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
* Just went to see his/her and found ] has been active since Aug. 2012 and done 21K+ edits in the past year. ] (]) 00:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support indef block''' if the user has no intention of following arguably the most important rule on the site. ]]] 00:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' site ban, because as ] says, one of our ''fundamental principles'' is that "Misplaced Pages is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute" and also that "all editors freely license their work to the public". Anyone of whatever age who refuses free licensing of their work simply cannot be a part of this project. ] ] 01:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*(Thanks Kim Dent-Brown, for asking me to clarify my point.) It is not AK contacted the legal team. From Jimmy’s comment, it can be assumed that it is he who forwarded it to The Legal. I too discussed this matter with one in The Office earlier, when the COM:DR was closed as kept and AK claimed there that he is an youngster. The reply was that they usually process such a request only if the request is from the Author. I didn’t see anywhere AK said that he made such a request. Now the Legal has responded on Jimmy’s talk page; and advice us to forgive the matters happened so far. I’ve no problem for whatever action this community taken against him '''if he will not say he understands the licensing terms now and willing to obey it'''. But I agree with Geoff (The Legal) that we can forgive the earlier things and leave the decision to Commons '''whether or not to delete his earlier media contributions, there'''. ]] ]]] 03:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::This has nothing to do with any decision to delete files from Commons. And neither is it a matter of AK agreeing to 'obey' the CC license - it isn't something that can be 'disobeyed', and it would be grossly misleading to suggest that this was ever a possibility. ] (]) 03:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' site ban until editor can document being the age of legal majority (18) and thus able complete a binding legal contract in the United States. ] (]) 04:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment ''Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at ]. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per ]. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.'' | |||
*For those who are late to the party and who are not familiar with the current ban: ''The community has banned AK for three months from the limited field of making decisions (accept/reject) at AfC.'' | |||
:AK is not, and has not been blocked for anything on en.Wiki. | |||
:Commons matters are for Commons to decide. | |||
:'''Oppose''' the nominator's request for a block. | |||
:'''Support''' a ban for six months for uploading, commenting on, or templating of any images on en.Misplaced Pages. | |||
:'''Strongly Recommend''' mentoring of en.Wiki Image Policy while the restriction is in force. | |||
:] (]) 04:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Excuse my ignorance, but how does a ban from AfC deal with AK's issues with CC-licences, which I thought was why this topic came up? -'']'' <small>(])</small> 06:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' for now. I think this proposal may be based on Andy reading too much into what Arctic Kangaroo said, namely "On a side note, all my works are always ''All rights reserved''." They have elsewhere said that they don't see any problem with their text contributions, just with the images. So I wonder if AK realises that (in copyright lingo) the term "works" includes any copyrightable creation, including relatively short texts. I suspect he may have only been meaning his photos. Ideally I'd like some clarification of this from AK. In the meantime, I think an immediate project-wide block or ban would be overly hasty. I'm not aware of AK causing any real disruption here on Misplaced Pages relating to licensing, beyond some intemperate discussion. The licensing problem flared up at Commons, where AK is currently indefinitely blocked. I think that's sufficient admin action at present. Mentoring here could be useful, though. --] (]) 05:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' now per Kudpung and Avenue (an Admin in Commons). ]] ]]] 05:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose'''. He's said he won't be uploading any more images. He's under a restriction in the other problem area, ]. That's enough. --] (] · ] · ]) 06:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support indef''' - I was the Commons admin who closed the AK deletion request as "keep". AK, on Commons, threatened and then followed through with vandalising the project. Here he shows he does not respect the idea behind CC licences, which every contribution to Wikimedia is licensed under. There is no difference between the licensing of an image and of text, and if he is incapable of abiding by the licence then he should not be allowed to make any more contributions under such a licence, which means he must not be allowed to contribute at all. -'']'' <small>(])</small> 06:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*Hope people here will not treat you you treat people when someone from here visits Commons and make a comment. ]] ]]] 07:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::I fail to see the issue, that comment appears to be fair, ] (]) 09:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' Per Kudpung. ] (]) 07:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
* '''Oppose''' any block, in favour of Kudpung's suggestions . ] (]) 09:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
* '''Support''' I'd just thought I'd say a license is not a contract . The legal status of the contributions this editor has made are solid, despite their claims. Rather my support is on the grounds of lack of competence since they do not understand the license they are giving for content. If they want all rights reserved, they should edit elsewhere, ] (]) 09:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of ]. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue. | |||
===Proposed topic ban=== | |||
There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: ''a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself''. | |||
It's not for me to finally decide consensus, as I've already expressed a very clear view above. But it seems possible to me that after an early rush of support !votes for a blanket ban or indef block, there has been a number of opposes more lately. So I'm going to propose an indefinite topic ban on AK uploading images to Misplaced Pages (something s/he has already said s/he will no longer do in any case.) I know some people have expressed support for this above, but thought it would be useful to gauge opinion formally. The last thing I would want to see is no consensus for ''any'' action! | |||
This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment '' How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so ] and ] apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including ]'' | |||
<s>'''Support''' topic ban as proposer. ] ] 15:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)</s> I'm changing my view, because of AK's persistent (wilful?) misunderstanding displayed in the section below discussing an indef block (which I now support.) My attempt to suggest a topic ban here was meant to be helpful to AK but s/he seems to be insistent on making things worse foe him/herself rather than better. I can only extend so much AGF, I'm afraid. ] ] 17:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:This is coming far too early. I haven't even concluded; I'm still trying to understand it and discuss. I ''may'' still upload ''my images'' in future, but with the conditions mentioned at the top of the main thread. Also, I may still upload other unrelated images, even if not mine. For example, copyrighted but free work. <big>]</big>]] 15:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::'''No, you will not upload images in future with "the conditions mentioned at the top of the main thread".''' All material submitted by contributors is required to meet the relevant licensing terms. They are not optional. They cannot be revoked. Just how many times do you have to be told this? ] (]) 15:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:The problem is that he does not understand CC ''at all'', he's still talking nonsense about revoking licenses. He ''still'' fails to grasp it, despite in every edit box there is a well readable "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution". Since as far as I know ''every'' contribution to Wikimedia has to be CC, not only images, he should be banned from every WMF project. Everything else would be moot. --''''' ]'''''] 15:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::{{ec}} @Cyclopia: It appears that you haven't understood my concerns written above when it comes to text and image contribs. Those are 2 totally different things. <big>]</big>]] 15:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::No they aren't. The license is the same, and you clearly don't understand it. '''You cannot revoke the license.''' The images you uploaded are still under CC license, and nothing that Commons can do will alter the fact. Anyone complying with the license terms can use your images, anywhere. Deleting them from Commons has no effect whatsoever regarding the legal status of the license. ] (]) 15:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've (is this ]? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the ] section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even . | |||
*'''Support''' - The editor is troubling with all the issues so far, but it seems premature to indef block/ban at this point. I'd say topic ban from images for now, and then revisit an indef block type thing if issues are still coming up after that. ] ] 15:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*My !vote was lost due to an edit conflict, here it is: '''Oppose current terms''' per Cyclopia's reasoning. The problem is AK's fundamental misunderstanding of the CC-BY-SA, and uploading images is only a part of that. He ''still'' believes that CC licenses can revoked, that he can upload images to Misplaced Pages rather than Commons and expect them never to be used anywhere else, etc. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 11:29 am, Today (UTC−4) | |||
So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like ] at all. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' if it is an alternative to a total ban. I believe that Arctic Kangaroo's actions are a bitter reaction to an unexpected loss of his images. His comments about revoking the licenses are wishful thinking and an expression of frustration. His problems in the Afc were not the result of bad faith, but of overeagerness. —] (]) 15:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive. | |||
:*Anne, you misunderstood the entire image saga. <big>]</big>]] 15:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content. | |||
:::Nice job shooting yourself in the foot by attacking someone throwing you a lifeline. ] (]) 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven. | |||
:*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per ]. | |||
:*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy. | |||
:*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo. | |||
:*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at. | |||
:*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either. | |||
:*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in —take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --]'']''] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''''}} | |||
*:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Followup=== | |||
*Uploading media files to Misplaced Pages? I think it is a bit complicated. See ] example. Even if I tried to protest copying of my files to Commons (in a humorous way); they ], ignoring my protest. They even ]. So my advice to AK is not to upload any media files even here; unless he has no problem for all reuses, including in Commons. ]] ]]] 15:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy. | |||
:*I found it strange too. A bunch of immoral people with no respect for others. <big>]</big>]] 15:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::There is nothing 'immoral' in pointing out that you voluntarily uploaded material according to an irrevocable agreement, and accordingly cannot revoke it. ] (]) 15:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Also there is nothing immoral in uploading a free image to Commons, and what is ridicolous and insane is first uploading something under a free license, and then whining when someone does something with the image which is completely permitted under the free license. If you don't want people messing with your images, '''don't upload them with a free license'''. I wonder if we should include Jkadavoor in the ban -complaining because they move a free image to Commons is ''nonsense'' and indicates a complete misunderstanding of what a free license is about. --''''' ]'''''] 15:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Jee is clean. Don't get him involved. I'm more interested in my images, so let me just declare: The license has '''never been valid''', and I never knew how serious the consequences were, so I'm asking for it to be revoked. | |||
::::No blocks first. Let's discuss before taking any action. | |||
::::<big>]</big>]] 16:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Well, as you can see Arctic Kangaroo is ''still'' under the delusion that licenses can be revoked (by someone else, no less), despite having been told a dozen times. If someone had doubts AK didn't understand licensing ''at all'', that is it. --''''' ]'''''] 16:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::''Never been valid'' is the reason, and mind you, it's '''not''' used as an excuse. <big>]</big>]] 16:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::You can not retract a license after the fact. It is a done thing. ] (]) 17:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
While we're on the subject, recites that {{tq|Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.}} I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a , and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. ]] | |||
* No, if Artic Kangaroo doesn't understand what they are agreeing to, that also applies to text contributions. They should be blocked and talk page access also revoked until he understands that all his contributions even to talk pages is CC-BY-SA. ] (]) 17:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page == | |||
===Proposed indef block=== | |||
Arctic Kangaroo has just posted yet another assertion (above) that "The license has '''never been valid'''". This cannot possibly be interpreted as anything but conclusive evidence that AK does not understand the terms of the CC license, and is therefore ]. Either that, or we are being trolled, which to me looks an increasing possibility. Block/ban, and get rid of AK once and for all... ] (]) 16:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Indef block'''. If the license was never valid in the first place, then it's no more valid here than at Wikimedia Commons, and therefore Arctic Kangaroo should not be allowed to contribute. And yes, the trolling possibility seems increasingly likely. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*You may think I'm trolling, but I never trolled before. Your imagination must be running wild. <big>]</big>]] 16:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*I still have much more '''text''' to contribute. You guys don't want and willing to sacrifice? Great. ''I'm more interested in my images, so let me just declare: The license has never been valid, and I never knew how serious the consequences were, so I'm asking for it to be revoked. | |||
:No blocks first. Let's discuss before taking any action. | |||
:Blocks are for prevention. The competence reason is invalid, actually. Just revoke the licenses, and as long as after this incident(s), I learn from my lesson, then everything is alright. No need to block. I already said, revoke the licenses, and any future license will be valid. Not enough careful consideration this time, and noobiness in this field, should be forgiven.'' <big>]</big>]] 16:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*This is exactly same stuff you posted above, to which I will offer the exact same response: '''''the license cannot be revoked'''''. End of story. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::*''CC said so, so whatever you have to say, I'm '''forced''' to dump my morals into the bin.'' ?!?! <big>]</big>]] 16:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::*I have made many good-faith, good contributions to Misplaced Pages, so I simply don't understand why such a simple request is so difficult. What about take it more positively, as a "token of appreciation"? <big>]</big>]] 16:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::*This isn't a matter of morals, it's a matter of getting you to abide by the terms you irrevocably agreed to. Such a "simple request" is impossible because '''''CC licenses cannot be revoked under any circumstances'''''. How many times do you need to be told this? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::*Please '''stop''' putting words into my mouth. I did not ''irrevocably agreed to (those terms)''. <big>]</big>]] 16:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::See ], and block this obnoxious little brat. ] (]) 16:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Seen. Is it that difficult? Just revoke the license, and the seas are calm again. I don't enjoy being unfriendly, or in a way being seen as "trolling" by other editors, but the situation is forcing me into it. <big>]</big>]] 16:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::"obnoxious little brat"? Wow. Way to treat a kid. I hope Technoquat comes for you again... ] (]) 21:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::And now we have an admission to trolling... ] (]) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC) ] (]) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::You misunderstood. I'm not ttrolling, but I'm seen as doing the action of trolling. <big>]</big>]] 16:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::See ]. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::To all admins with fingers on the "Block" button: Don't block me first. Give me some time to digest above page first given by Chris, then I will get back to you ASAP. Sorry, I need to go sleep now. <big>]</big>]] 16:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Harsh action not needed. <big>]</big>]] 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:{{EC}}Uninvolved lurker here. Either this is a ] issue, or trolling. It's been going on way too long, exhausting the community's patience, and is cyclical in its discussion. Something is not being understood, and until that happens Arctic Kangaroo's actions are problematic at best. ] (]) 16:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
* Can some admin block him already and spare us this nonsense? Most of his edits are vandalism reverts any bot can do. The few actually new text contributions he made (to articles) aren't worth pampering all this egotistical drama. A net negative for the project. ] (]) 16:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*As a matter of fact, I'm starting to shift more towards content gradually, and do all the meaningful stuff to expand the encyclopedia. If you don't appreciate it, :(. <big>]</big>]] 16:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*I have a few articles in my sandbox now, currently writing. I will be adding more. <big>]</big>]] 16:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*Agree with the indef block, sorry. Per ]. This has already eaten up too much time and energy of users who could be doing something useful with their wikipedia time. Arctic Kangaroo would be welcome to appeal the block at a later date, such as via the ]. ] | ] 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC). | |||
:*As mentioned above, it's easy to make the waters calm again. BTW, I have the ] to get busy with. Lots of work that needs to be done. I'm trying to provide the most recent updates, and blocking indef would mean missing '''everything''', even if I were to be unblocked. Even if I were blocked, one condition: revoke the license. However, this does not mean I agree to the block. <big>]</big>]] 16:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::*It's already been explained to you countless times that the license is impossible to revoke. The fact that you continue to demand that it be revoked despite knowing that it's impossible leads us to believe you are trolling. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Indef ban, block, whatever''' but ''revoke editing privileges'' to Arctic Kangaroo please, right now. Either he is trolling, or he is downright mentally incapable of understanding licensing terms. He said it himself: {{tq|I simply don't understand why such a simple request is so difficult.}} In both cases, he cannot contribute. --''''' ]'''''] 16:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support indef block''' - of being 'forced' into trolling? Nonono. Simply not competent/mature enough to be a valid editor. ]] 16:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' indef block per ] concerns. I tried to leave a door open for AK with a limited topic ban proposal, but s/he insists on pushing it shut from the wrong side! ] ] 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' indef block for lack of competence including lack of maturity. ] (]) 17:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support indef block''' -- I wasn't convinced at first, but AK's responses in this thread are disturbing. A block would prevent any further issues and disruptions. ] (]) 17:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' Competence and understanding of these basic issues are a must to edit Misplaced Pages. Until AK understands them and is able to comply with them, there is no place for him here. This is causing more disruption that positive contributions. — ]] 17:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Reaffirm Support indef''' Not sure if this is separate from the first proposal, but I still support indef for reasons of incompetence. This is why there should be clear age requirements to edit wikipedia, ] (]) 17:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support copied from above''' I came here expecting to oppose the indef, but comments like: {{quotation|Let me warn you guys, I'm gonna continue protesting until the file is deleted. This is bullshit. You people at Commons have total disregard and no respect for others who contribute. And no respect for creators' rights too. I'm not gonna give a damn on whatever shame this will cause, and also how embarrassing this can be. I just want it deleted, and after that, nobody is to upload it again, even if you make whatever minor tweaks with Photoshop or whatever, as nobody is given permission by me to upload the copyrighted work. <big>]</big>]] 14:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
::make me question his competence. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 23:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
* '''Support''' - Indef block for reasons of competence, per above. ] (]) 17:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
* '''Support''' block at least until after "Arctic Kangaroo" is of legal age. An indef block would be fine (it could be reconsidered if after "Arctic Kangaroo" turns of legal age the user expresses a more mature understanding of using Wikimedia and a wish to return and contribute responsibly). -- ] (]) 18:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' indef block again. Competence concerns have been confirmed with the above explosions from AK; they clearly don't get that CC applies to images ''and'' text, they're also refusing to get it either, and are attacking people left, right and centre. Arctic Kangaroo, you've only got yourself to blame for this entire farce. ] ] 18:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' Indef block, irrespective of how old he is. Ignorance is not Bliss and claiming it again and again wont help either. <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;">]]</span> 19:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Reaffirm support''' - from section above. ] (]) 19:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' until he will be able to demonstrate a real understanding of our rules. ] 20:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support Indef block''' per ], What part of "''you agree that you will not unilaterally revoke or seek invalidation of any license that you have granted under these Terms of Use for text content or non-text media contributed to the Wikimedia Projects or features, even if you terminate use of our services.''" dont you understand? ..... -<br />]] 20:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support'''. ] ] 21:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Still support''' ]]] 21:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' per this and per the AFC drama last week. --''']]]''' 21:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{archive bottom}} | |||
] is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at ]. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. ] (]) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Can someone close an AfD? == | |||
:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
]; started by you can guess who... ] (]) 17:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:{{done}} Not an admin, but the nomination was withdrawn - otherwise it would have been ]'d. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 17:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on 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> 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Requesting rangeblock of 217.76.68.0/24 == | |||
That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was ]ing as , and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{userip|217.76.68.3}} was just blocked for their edits to ]. Now {{userip|217.76.68.158}} has appeared and made the exact same edits. I checked the WHOIS, and the /24 is "Almaty mobile LTE subscribers dynamic pool #1". Can it be rangeblocked for a few days? ] (]) 16:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:After looking at from the /24 I'd be inclined to block the range for one month. Mostly, the editor has removed sourced content with no understandable edit summary. He has never posted on a talk page. ] (]) 17:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::] and ] message added . I'm just about to make myself thoroughly ] by seeing what I can do about the ] article. ] (]) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Now {{userip|2.133.53.46}} has done it too. I don't see a technical connection. I'm going to leave this here for the block but also request semi at ]. ] (]) 19:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::I've semi'd it. ] (]) 20:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Checking the page history, these IPs have also done the same thing in the past month: {{userip|217.76.68.4}} {{userip|217.76.68.22}} {{userip|2.135.62.50}}. ] (]) 20:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Other possibly related IPs: {{userip|2.133.45.214}} {{userip|217.76.68.14}} {{userip|217.76.79.74}} {{userip|217.76.79.39}} {{userip|37.150.80.159}}. ] (]) 00:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Insults == | ||
Who is forging messages spamming the "Misplaced Pages Adventure". I certainly didn't write , and I gather from ] reaction that he didn't write . | |||
I'd like to report an incident related to ]. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) . Please also see . I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. ] (]) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
As for "what's the admin action", whoever has figured out how to forge a contribution under the name of admin accounts needs to be dealt with. The integrity of an account's contribution list is critical.—](]) 17:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Hi folks, that was me. Those message were sent using the API as part of ]. I created and signed the original message. Part of the game simulates interactions with other editors by sending messages to yourself. This all happens in userspace. I'd be happy to add a note about that early on in the game. Please remember that TWA is designed for extremely novice users. They will benefit from having easy links on their talk page, and the 'forged' messages all link back to declared legitimate alternate accounts that are clearly part of TWA. I'm happy to answer questions and try to clear up any confusion. Keep in mind that the onboarding game is not even ready for alpha-testing yet, so a lot is in flux. ]<sup> ]|]</sup> 17:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Normally this starts with warnings on the user's Talk page, but it seems you two have already hashed that out. So unless this account does it again, there's no further action to be taken. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions === | |||
::This looks like a really interesting training tool you're developing for new editors, can't wait to see the finished product. To allay concerns can you confirm that no account has been compromised? Also, is it possible to put some sort of check in your code to make sure that no account other than your own runs the product while you're developing it? Thanks... <code>]]</code> 17:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
:::Thanks Zad. No account is compromised, promise! If you check the page history you can see the exact mechanics. I'm going to write some very clear up front opt-in language about how in the onboarding game editors send messages to themself using the API. Anyone can 'test the game' even now, but the messages that it sends are all locked in the mediawiki namespace. So, this ''cannot'' be and ''is not'' used to just secretly send any messages to anyone at any time. It's only specifically for the game. ]<sup> ]|]</sup> 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::: is not signed as coming from a "declared legitimate account", it's signed as coming from ''me''. That's ''forgery''. Stop whatever software you are running ''immediately''. As in ''now''. You ''cannot'' run anything through the API signing messages as if they come from other people. How on earth did any part of the API even allow you to sign a contribution as coming from me or from Floquenbeam? How many other forged messages have you sent?—](]) 17:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Checking the diff now Kww. That message was sent by you because you were participating in The Misplaced Pages Adventure. I will make it abundantly clear that doing so means you will send messages to yourself using the API. It's my name on the message, but I'm happy to remove that and just use a datestamp instead. I'm working on clearing this up now. ]<sup> ]|]</sup> 17:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::<s>This is not the fault of Ocaasi but, if I'm understanding it right, it does seems to be a pretty awful security hole in the API that it's possible to construct a page that will send a message from the account of an editor without their knowledge or specific permission. <code>]]</code> 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)</s> I see from the other responses here that code that accesses the API can only be developed by trusted users and there's plenty of precedent for it, so this isn't a problem. <code>]]</code> 18:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::No one ever can or does send a message from someone else's account. An editor sends a message to themself, that's it. Anyone can 'fake a signature', that has nothing to do with the API. In the game the 'faked' signatures are from legitimate alternate accounts that are clearly marked as part of TWA. Does that clear up your concern? Or is there a component I'm not getting? ]<sup> ]|]</sup> 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Yes I understand. Once it was pointed out that Twinkle makes edits for you using your credentials, and this uses the same mechanism, I understood this isn't anything different. <code>]]</code> 18:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::{{ec}}x2 shows usages of one of the templates, and shows most examples. ] (]) 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Possibly not the best idea. If this were used to post messages on another user's talk page, it might not be noticed by the person "sending" it. I can only imagine how vandals might make use of such a mechanism. ] (]) 17:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::This 'mechanism' is locked away in the mediawiki namespace where only admins can edit it. It's not for outside use outside of the guided tour. And clearly, from the feedback here, only with a clear disclaimer. ]<sup> ]|]</sup> 18:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Precisely. If you are going to send messages as a part of that page, you have to clearly identify that hitting the button (or whatever) is going to cause a message to be generated. Making contributions by running Javascript under a logged-in account is permitted, but it can't be happening unexpectedly. Users are responsible for everything that goes into their contribution log, and javascript should not be used to send out messages without a user's knowledge.—](]) 17:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::Kww, thank you for raising this concern. I've just added the following text to the very beginning of the tour: '''As part of the adventure, you will send some messages to your own Misplaced Pages pages automatically, just by advancing through the tour'''. How do you feel about that language? Clear enough? ]<sup> ]|]</sup> 18:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::What is an API and why is whatever that is allowed to make edits in the name of other editors? --] (]) 18:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::] (API). ] (]) 18:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Thanks. I am afraid that article is gibberish to me, but I was also only mostly concerned about why it is allowed to make edits in the name of others. Even if it is admin-controlled only, I don't see the reason for such an allowance. We don't have any policies about such things? --] (]) 18:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I agree what Saddhiyama said. I know lots of things about lots of things, but the ] may as well be gibberish for me too. There appears to be an unwarranted but implicit assumption of technical knowledge of this feature by all users. I dare to suggest that this is analogous to the unwarranted but implicit assumption of technical knowledge by all users of the much-vexed Visual Editor roll-out. --] (]) 15:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::No one is making edits in the name of other editors. By advancing through the tour, ''editors send messages to themselves', and only in their own userspace'. The messages are 'ghost-signed' by characters in the game. If you click through to their 'fake' userpages it's very clearly just legitimate alternate account that's part of TWA and nothing else. To be sure, I have just added a bolded opt-in disclaimer to the first steps of the tour and am happy to place the same elsewhere around the game. ]<sup> ]|]</sup> 18:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::: Precedent allows that (see my comment right under this one) ] (]) 18:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::: It's certainly allowable, it's just that there was no warning. I didn't even ''remember'' that I had gone to look at the page, which is why I freaked out so badly when I saw the contribution in my history. It didn't trigger a message bar, so I found it an hour later. Any particular action that is going to cause an edit needs to be accompanied by a warning.—](]) 18:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::And how does these "precedents" comply to policy? Or where is the documentation to editors with no knowledge about this? I for one was not aware of any API making edits in my name until this thread. Despite Krenairs misguided attempts at chilling, it is indeed an issue that needs more coverage, especially for non-technical minded editors (which I assume is the majority of editors). --] (]) 22:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::We have so much JavaScript that API edits on behalf of the user (TW, CSDH, AFCH, etc.) that I don't think one more will suddenly show all of the vandals how to do it. And non-admins can't even add JavaScript that anyone else will run, right? ] (]) 18:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::Correct. Adding JavaScript that runs directly on other people's accounts (without them copying anything) requires admin rights. ] - ] 18:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Out of curiosity, why do admins have this right? ] (]) 20:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I don't have a clear answer, but technically it's only because the tour lives in the mediawiki namespace. It might partly be a legacy issue: The first Guided Tour was ]. If you're curious i'd ask Steven Walling or Matthew Flaschen, on the ] team. ]<sup> ]|]</sup> 22:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::So they can publish tools for the community, such as ], changes to files like ], and in this case tours. It's similar to why admins have access to make other ] changes when appropriate. ] - ] 03:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Out of curiosity, what happened at ]? ] (]) 18:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::That's a bug if someone advances to step 9 of mission 1 but isn't logged in (step 7 is registration). I will look into fixing it. Thanks for pointing it out. ]<sup> ]|]</sup> 22:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::Probably something like . Sorry, I'll let myself out. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Dear admin, | |||
There is nothing wrong with the API (And FFS don't bother making accusations about the security or abilities of the API if you don't even know what it is or how it works!!!). A wiki administrator has set up code that is run when you start a GuidedTour. It is run in your (the user's) browser, and therefore is authenticated as you. The code is at ], and Ocaasi has added a notice about the edits it makes. --] <sup><span style="font-family: Ubuntu;">(] • ])</span></sup> 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform. | |||
:Please point me to the policies regarding APIs making edits in the name of an editor. And please refrain from any further chilling attempts about who need not make objections about APIs. And you can keep your code to yourself, thank you very much . --] (]) 22:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Hey, I'm a developer on the overall GuidedTour extension, and I've talked with Ocaasi some about this tour. However, he is the main developer of the particular tour, which implements the message-sending functionality. First, as people said above, there is no compromise of admin accounts. It is only making an edit to the tour-taker's user talk page than simulating a signature by Ocaasi. Although Ocaasi (and the tour-taker in some cases) is admin, the tour is not taking any admin actions. The API is also not compromised, as it is intended to let users edit under their own account through the API. I would also note that the link points to the Misplaced Pages Adventure, so it is clear the message is connected. I would suggest a few things to make things clearer: | |||
:# Consider using the /TWA subpages, as it do. | |||
:# Make a more prominent notice of what's going on (as Ocaasi already said he would) before the message is left. Ideally, this would be on the step where the button click causes the message to be left. | |||
:# In the message itself, explain that it is a simulated message left by The Misplaced Pages Adventure's tour. Add something like "Although this edit is made by <nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}</nowiki> it is made automatically by The Misplaced Pages Adventure as part of an introduction to tour editing" Either don't faux-sign it, or faux-sign by a different account, with a link to a user page explaining things further (]?). | |||
:# In the message summary, also note that it's an automatic message sent as as part of the tour (it mentions TWA, but not that it's an automatic message). | |||
-- I hope this helps. ] - ] 18:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for your response. Yes, this is useful feedback. All of the talk messages besides the first one and last one indeed go to a /TWA subpage of the talk space. There are also some userpage edits for completion of certain steps in the game and skill acquisition. I am updating the edit summary now to say that it's a simulated, automatic message that's part of WP:TWA. I will also make sure there are clear notes on the userpages of all message signatures that this this is part of WP:TWA. I'm also going to add an icon on any tour step that sends an automatic message so users are informed before that happens. I'll introduce the icon on the first step of the game. ]<sup> ]|]</sup> 19:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future. | |||
::Here's a mockup of the disclosure in game: | |||
::And the disclaimer before the game: ] | |||
::The new edit summary is: ''New Message (simulated automatically as part of ])'' | |||
::Message signature userpage disclosure example: ] | |||
::I hope this is addressing the issue clearly. -- ]<sup> ]|]</sup> 19:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed. | |||
::Thanks, Superm401. However you seem to make an assumption that the problem in this thread was that the API (whatever it is) was "taking any admin actions". That was not the issue. The issue was that some function was making edits in the name of another editor. This has nothing to do with "admin actions". A function that can make edits in the name of an editor seems to be compromising the account of that editor. It doesn't really matter for what reason this occurs, it matters how it can occur, and how this is not a big deal. --] (]) 23:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
When I was experimenting with this I also was surprised that the message on my talk page failed to clearly identify the source of the message. The message is signed WillKomen, but the user:WillKomen's contrib history doesn't show that it's the source of the message. I hope attribution can be made clearer so it's easy to follow what the source is of the TWA messages, since like other users I was trying to find the source and found it more difficult than necessary. I also think that the disclaimer and the note that VE is required should be in the black box at the start of the game rather than above it, preferably placed directly above or below the "start the adventure" button. --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]]</font> 05:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ] ] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* Heh, it wouldn't be called an adventure if you didn't get pwnd a little... ] (]) 08:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{Abot}} | |||
* Note: I moved this retaliatory post to be a sub-heading of the original issue. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Help about images == | |||
==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots == | |||
] removed all of the pictures I uploaded to the articles of the singles I contributed to. Including the single cover for the cover versions. What I don't get is why he had to delete the single covers too.--] (]) 00:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*{{Noping|Nlkyair012}} | |||
: Hi Hotwiki. Extraneous images are against the ] (an official Misplaced Pages policy with legal implications) that calls for minimal use of images. Specifically, including a second non-free album cover violates MFCC Policy #3a - Minimal usage: multiple images are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. In order for a second non-free image to be included in the article, the image itself would have to be discussed in the article. And the image would have to convey information that it's not possible to provide using words alone (NFCC Policy #1). -- ] (]) 01:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism. | |||
Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just ] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about ] and ], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - ] (]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This is just a repeat of ] User does not understand ] ] (]) 01:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Hello @Ratnahastin, | |||
:Hotwiki, I am going to give you a more detailed explanation of why this is not allowed, because yeah, I think you do not understand this policy. Normally our articles about songs and albums have one non-free image only, and it's the cover, and it's in the info box. Extra images, sound clips, or stills from the video are only permitted when these additional non-free files are extensively discussed in the article. A good example of acceptable use of multiple non-free files can be found at our Featured Article, "]", which contains three non free files. In addition to the cover in the info box, there's a snippet from the song; the musical techniques illustrated in the sample are the subject of sourced commentary in the article. And there's a still shot from the video (the best video of all time! ''Of all time!!''), the styling of which is extensively discussed in the article. To sum up, adding a second image or other non-free file without it being the subject of sourced discussion in the article violates our non-free content policy. -- ] (]) 01:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC) So that's why he removed the extra images from your articles. Sorry. -- ] (]) 02:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program. | |||
:I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources. | |||
:As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress. | |||
:I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure. | |||
:In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from , although GPTzero said this is human input. - ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses ] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. ] (]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Man you still wanna do this? @] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - ] (]) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::You know what I think this is getting to the ] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. ] (]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are ] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - ] (]) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I don't think that's better. ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. == | |||
::So a single cover for a cover version can't be uploaded like for these articles anymore: | |||
{{atop|1=Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
*] | |||
This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
::] (]) 02:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::And by the way, the cover versions of those articles are discussed in the article and has its own sub-sections. So its necessary to include a single cover.--] (]) 02:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::There is nothing discussed about the images themselves. ] requires sourced discussion of the image. Take a look at ] for a good example of where the different covers are discussed. ] (]) 02:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::: Werieth is right; the <u>packaging itself</u> has to be the subject of discussion, not the cover version. It is not necessary to include an image for each cover version. In fact it is against our policy to include the additional images. -- ] (]) 02:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Right, as there's a requirement to discuss the "single cover" for a cover version just so it won't be deleted. Let me just say this that I always contributed those articles to make them better, not just by uploading pictures and for you to just remove them all in one-day is quite frustrating. And cover versions can have a single cover, those files have a license tag. If you think your contributions are helping those articles, then you're wrong.--] (]) 02:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:<del>This sounds a '''lot''' like the same edit warrer I dealt with on ], down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.</del> I've asked RFPP to intervene. ] | ] 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::My actions are supporting the ] of wikipedia to create a free content project and minimize non-free usage. ] (]) 02:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. ] | ] 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::It seems that the only thing you are doing in this website. Most of those files have been around for a while, and even though they aren't described that perfectly, nobody tried to remove them all except for you.--] (]) 02:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
:::::::::Just because something has slipped through the cracks for a long period of time doesn't mean that there are not issues. ]. ] (]) 02:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Right, I'm not gonna continue this argument anymore. It seems like no one is going to stop you from removing music video still/single cover for cover versions/audio samples.--] (]) 02:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::: Of course we will not stop him, because he is right and you are wrong, so sorry. -- ] (]) 03:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::: Hotwiki, please indent your comments when you reply here. Thanks. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 04:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ] inaccurate edit summaries == | |||
== User:AfricaTanz refusing to engage in talk page discussions while engaging in edit warring == | |||
] is refusing to engage in any talk page discussions at ] while engaging in systematic edit warring including reverting of edits. When I talk to him on his user page I get abuse. This is not the first time he has been reported for this behaviour. Can an admin please take a look. Thanks, ♫ ] ] ] 00:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:You should still have notified AfricaTanz of this discussion. I've now left them a notice. On the other hand, you too are actively edit warring at this article. As to the use of quotations , there is no problem with using larger chunks of quoted text, but "the copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information (])." The current article though relies heavily on verbatim quoted text, and this should in fact be remedied. ] (]) 12:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. ] (]) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== IPs making strange, disruptive edits to ], et al. == | |||
== Lil Dicky Semi-Protection == | |||
Hello! For the past week, I (and a few other editors) have been constantly reverting edits made on ], ], ] and ] by IPs who have removed chunks of info, edited the PERSONDATA template, and adding information that is downright strange. | |||
{{atop|1=] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
] was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? ] (]) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
For example, shows one change, which added two unrelated personalities to the page as "controlled female's (sic)", and shows where this IP thinks Gosengfiao and Park are the same person (which is patently untrue) where the IP inexplicably vandalizes the PERSONDATA template, and where the IP adds marginally related people to the See Only page. I'm not sure if these are connected, but the editing patterns are really strange considering it's all happened within the past week. | |||
{{abot}} | |||
== Disruptive behavior from IP == | |||
The following IPs are involved: | |||
For the past month, {{ip|24.206.65.142}} has been attempting to add misleading information to ], specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including that {{u|Fnlayson}} is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on ] to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*{{ipvandal|180.191.62.212}} | |||
*{{ipvandal|120.28.125.13}} | |||
*{{ipvandal|120.28.127.148}} | |||
*{{ipvandal|120.28.122.218}} | |||
*{{ipvandal|180.191.165.6}} | |||
*{{ipvandal|180.191.103.75}} | |||
I |
I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; {{ip|24.206.75.140}} and {{ip|24.206.65.150}}. 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
:"777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that ] was okay with . I feel that ] is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== IP user forging the signature of another editor == | |||
::It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. ] not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). ] (]) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your ] to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::None of those are ] suitable for sustaining the edit you want to make. #1 would only support that airline claiming to have that kind of plane. #2 is a model manufacturer, and #3 is a blog. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. ] | ] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Semiprotected ] for two days. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Rude and unfestive language in my talk page == | |||
{{archive top|This is an open-and-shut case of impersonation repeated despite warnings and blocks. IP blocked for another year. ] (]) 20:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
*{{Userlinks|221.244.40.2}} | |||
The above IP editor was warned repeatedly and ultimately blocked for one year back in April 2012 for repeatedly including the signature of another editor in comments added to the talk pages of various articles over a period of months. The user is now back and has promptly started doing exactly the same and . For the record, I contacted the user (]) whose name keeps getting used when this first started back in September 2011, and he confirmed (]) that he has no relation to the IP editor and has no idea why his user name keeps getting copy-pasted like this. As the IP editor simply blanked his talk page in the past when I asked him to stop, and subsequently received two blocks for continuing, I haven't bothered to warn him again, and am bringing it straight here. While it may not be malicious vandalism, the user does seem to have serious language-related ] problems. --] (]) 11:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{archive bottom}} | |||
== User:Bagworm engaging in grave-dancing/harassment == | |||
Hey, Hijiri88/Konjakupoet here. As some of you may know, I was run off Misplaced Pages by a disruptive user who contacted my office and started incessantly hounding me on- and off-wiki between January and April. (If you want details please ].) I came back under a different name in April but when another user (now also blocked) reported on me the off-wiki harassment continued. | |||
My esteemed editor collegue ] just left on my talk page, on Christmas Day no less. Not really in the spirit of the season, I'd say. Considering that he was sagaciously advising me on the importance of tact and etiquette in the very same thread, he should be held to the same standard. ] (]) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I have since been editing intermittently on various short-term accounts and IPs, not so much to "get revenge" or right old wrongs, but just when I was reading Misplaced Pages and noticed a mistake somewhere. I have no interest in returning to actively editing Misplaced Pages under a stable account at least as long as that user is (probably) still watching. | |||
:{{u|Vector legacy (2010)}} and {{u|Marcus Markup}}, you both should stop that childish behavior and disengage from one another. ] (]) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
However, I have noticed something disturbing since leaving. ] has been "grave-dancing", apparently having found that I had retired and would be unable to defend my old edits. He had been disputing content and/or edit-warring with me a few times between September and December of last year. It got to the point where he attempted to unilaterally ban me from editing poetry articles, probably so he could undo all my previous edits to these articles. | |||
(No specific evidence that this was his intention, but when I posted on my user page, it took him only seven hours to a "citation needed" tag I had added to one such article, based on the flimsy excuse that his other primary sources were adequate.) | |||
After Bagworm realized he wouldn't be able to get rid of me (in all of our disputes I was the one with the better sources, and I was always ready to patiently discuss on the talk page, even if he wasn't), he apparently retired from Misplaced Pages, not making a single edit for almost four months. About 30 minutes after coming back, Bagworm undid an edit I had made under my second acocunt. | |||
I had removed a questionable citation of an online poetry mag (when he retired, we still had not reached any kind of consensus as to whether these were acceptable citations). I had not added any citation needed tag, since the statement is one of the most easily verifiable in all of Japanese literary scholarship, and could be checked in any good book on the subject. It therefore seemed inappropriate to include a link to an online American poetry magazine with little general relation to the topic of the article (waka and haiku are different genres). | |||
{{collapse top|title=Evidence of harassment is provided below. I tried to be VERY thorough so the post is LONG.}} | |||
'''NOTE:''' The following is a LONG explanation of Bagworm's grave-dancing. I hope not to be ignored based on TLDR, so I'm separating the specific details (with all the diffs) by asterisks for those interested. | |||
* * * | |||
He also undid several edits I had made months earlier to the article ], which is about a Japanese ''style of painting'' ("hai-ga" means "haiku picture" or "picture in a haiku style", or some such), but Bagworm and one other user (who has since been indefinitely TBANned from Japanese literature) were insisting that haiga is ''any'' picture that is combined with a haiku. | |||
Ironically seems to imply that English-language refs are inherently superior to non-English refs, even Japanese refs when writing about a Japanese topic, which is a gross misunderstanding of ]. But added a German-language ref to an article on Japanese painting. And given that this was added directly in response to my , it would have been nice if he stuck with ones in languages I can understand. | |||
At the article ], I had removed a number of other not-necessarily-reliable online poetry mags. Meaning no insult to Associate Professor Crowley, who , it just seemed very odd to me to be quoting an website that mainly deals in modern American poetry for the dictionary definitions of Classical Japanese words, especially when we already cited a reference to a book by the exact same author, through . This is why I stated in my edit summary "unnecessary <nowiki></nowiki> used when other, valid sources were already in use". In my opinion if we are going to add a second reference, it should be to one that is ''better'' than Crowley's book (a Japanese dictionary used by native scholars, and probably also by Crowley herself, for instance), ''not'' an online English-language poetry magazine. This did not stop Bagworm from undoing me, though. | |||
The redirecting of ] was a potentially controversial issue, and one that if I were still active on Misplaced Pages I probably would have been ready to compromise on if challenged and if presented with reliable secondary and/or tertiary sources. But in this case the redirect was ''not'' challenged for almost three months, and when it was it was done by an obvious ] user whose username indicates that he is the owner of the website in question. The only other users who opposed the redirect were Bagworm, in yet more gravedancing and with an ad hominem remark about how I am (given how much bull I had to put up with from Bagworm and other users like him, can you blame me for being suspicious of articles like that?). | |||
When I reverted this gravedancing under my cellphone's IP, as no reasonable evidence had been advanced to justify the reversion of a redirect that had been stable for three months, he reverted again. I was reverted again by the COI user. | |||
I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about "edit-warring" or "sockpuppetry": ] obviously applies, and the three-month old redirect, when BOLDly removed and then REVERTed, should have been DISCUSSed on the talk page before being reverted back. Further, Bagworm knew perfectly well why I was using a shifting IP, as when he first ] me under one of my temporary accounts I had e-mailed him explaining the circumstances and the danger of his trying to connect my new account with my old one. Further, more than one admin had told me by e-mail or by reverting outing attempts on this and other forums that it was okay under my circumstances to keep maximum anonymity. | |||
Anyway, regardless of which side was "right" in the ensuing edit-war (I'll apply that terminology if no one tries to shift the blame inappropriately onto me -- the incident took place because Bagworm was engaged in a grave-dancing campaign to begin with). | |||
Also, obvious meat-puppetry was taking place, as before long a third user showed up completely out of the blue to revert me again, this time a Romania-based IP (who I can't contact off-wiki to give the complete explanation of why I was editing under IPs) and as their ''first edit'' decided to with the aggressive edit summary "Revert repeated article deletion despite objection of others conducted by IP hopping and edit warring IP from "retired" editor". It seems obvious that either the COI user or Bagworm contacted a friend of theirs off-wiki in order to help in the reversion campaign. | |||
And this Romanian IP has in fact continued to seize as many opportunities as possible to harass me and attempt to out me, even going so far as to hijack an ANI thread in an apparent attempt to use a clear-cut POV/source-abusing/edit-warring issue as an excuse to out the good guy who reported it. The Romanian IP has since registered as ]. | |||
My edit to the ] article was another in the series of removals of questionable online poetry mags, and Bagworm's reversion was another in his series of grave-dancing personal attacks. | |||
Other users can disagree with me on the substance (the issue was, as noted above, never resolved), but no one can argue that reverting a bunch of my edits after I was hounded off Misplaced Pages isn't slimy at best. | |||
The ] reversion is another. | |||
Again, saying absolutely nothing about 's credentials or reliability, I just don't think that we should include information that has only ever appeared in an online poetry mag published by an ] and someone whose doesn't mention any qualifications in Japanese language, literature or history, and if it has appeared in more trustworthy sources, then we should be citing those instead. | |||
He has become more aggressive recently, constantly reverting my IP on the article ] and insisting (bizarrely) that there was "consensus" at ] that the defunct online poetry mag ''Simply Haiku'' is a reliable source, completely ignoring my argument that a modern American haiku magazine is not an appropriate reference for an article on classical Japanese waka. | |||
In fact, the only user other than me who posted on the talk page section in question was Icuc2, who that online poetry mags were inferior to books and academic journals, and only need be used when better sources are not available. In this case, another, better source was already in use, a fact which I pointed out several times. | |||
Bagworm, however, has reverted my removal of the inappropriate link some four times. | |||
He also keeps trying to change the subject, by insisting that the author of the piece is a renowned Japanologist, even though my problem is that the we shouldn't be including links to haiku magazines in articles on waka unless there is some necessity to do so. | |||
* * * | |||
{{collapse bottom}} | |||
I have mentioned a few times in this post that I have been engaging in "sock-puppetry". It needs to be noted that I have never cast more than one !vote or anything of that ilk, and have only been doing this to protect myself from the off-wiki harassment of a certain user. | |||
I know, given the circumstances, that this may be a little difficult to accept, so I'm taking the liberty of contacting a few users (Lukeno94, Cuchullain, Yunshui, In ictu oculi and Drmies) who are more familiar with the background of why I retired initially than most Wikipedians, and can verify my claims regarding "sockpuppetry". | |||
I am also, of course, contacting Bagworm, Dtweney and Someone not using his real name to allow them to explain themselves if they so choose. | |||
What I request from the Misplaced Pages community is a TBAN on Bagworm from "Japanese literature", broadly construed, similar to the one that was placed on his co-edit-warrior Tristan noir for similarly slimy actions. | |||
This may seem somewhat extreme, but the user has done little for JLit articles, as far as I can see, other than remove verifiable information under the flimsy excuse that a "citation needed" tag had been on it for a certain length of time, add questionable sources to statements that either don't need them or need ''good'' sources, and edit-war with me/dance on my grave. The one or two semi-decent articles he started in this area don't stack up against the contributions I made and he is preventing me from continuing to make. | |||
(I already provided evidence of Bagworm's practice of removing information under flimsy excuses .) | |||
] (]) 11:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:''']'''. Care to give the short version? — '''''] ]''''' 12:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::TL:DR ] (]) 12:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Same here. ] (]) 12:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::*Didn't y'all go to real schools where they make you read real books? Or did you use TLDNR in class as well? ] (]) 14:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::<small>{{ping|Drmies}}, I take it you're too old for ]? ]] 14:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) </small> | |||
::::'''Abridged version''': I am a secondary account of a user who was forced off Misplaced Pages by ]. After my main account retired, another user (Bagworm) started reverting a large number of my edits that he had failed to undo while I was still active. The user's disruptive edits are all in the area of Japanese literature, an area to which he has not contributed anything of note in at least a year. I would therefore like a TBAN imposed. ] (]) 12:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::the link you provided is for a banned user...] (]) 12:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{ec}} The harassment was, as I recall, . - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 12:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::''That'' user is banned, but ] ( by the already-banned user's ]) is still at large. ] (]) 12:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
I reject the paranoid accusations of conspiracy leveled at me by the latest incarnation of Hijiri88/Konjakupoet/Coldman the Barbarian and his other "alternate accounts"/sockpuppets in the collapsed section above. I simply told him that if he wants the ] article deleted, he needs to follow procedure and take it to AfD, instead of edit warring with multiple IP socks. See the ] where he failed to participate, while edit warring from IPs. ] (]) 12:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Fine. I'm not here to argue with you. You've made decent contributions since then, and I have no serious beef with you. I merely brought you up to provide a fuller context to what was ''obviously'' part of a larger harassment campaign by Bagworm. ] (]) 12:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{ec}} See also ] where I asked admin ] to open the AfD, but he did not think it appropriate. ] (]) 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::: Am I missing something here? Coldman/Jubei the Samurai/Hijiri88/Konjakupoet/182.249.241.* wants me TBanned because some of my edits have run contrary to his? Cos that's all the above seems to me to add up to. Pinch me, someone. --] (]) 12:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::It's a pretty huge chunk of your edits, and it's likely well over-half of your Japanese literature edits since you came back in April. And going around misrepresenting talk page discussions in order to revert the edits of another user who you just don't like is extremely disruptive. You have misrepresented the discussion between Konjakupoet and Icuc2 as forming some kind of "consensus" in favour of ''Simply Haiku'', regardless of context, numerous times. You clearly feel that because my original account has retired you are free to go around undoing all of my edits you don't like, and not provide any valid justification. ] (]) 12:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::''"You clearly feel that because my original account has retired you are free to go around undoing all of my edits you don't like"''. Please don't pretend you have some special insight into what motivates another editor; your wholly subjective assertions do not count for anything. Yes, some of my edits have been to text you previously edited. So what? Remember what it says at the top of every edit window at WP?: "Work submitted to Misplaced Pages can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". Just because you edited articles in an area in which I've long been active doesn't give you OWNership. Please get real here. --] (]) 14:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
As for hounding, it is Hijiri88/Konjakupoet/<u>Coldman the Barbarian</u>/<u>Eh doesn't afraid of anyone </u> who followed me to a UAA report, trying to prevent one of his POV pushing Japanese nationalist wikially and spammer from being rightfully blocked ] (]) 12:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Dude, you followed me to ANI first, solely in order to make a completely off-topic attack against me. And I already said I have nothing against you. What's the deal? ] (]) 12:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Wait -- Japanese nationalist wikispammer allies!? Do you know ''anything'' about my edit history?? ] (]) 12:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: I did not ''follow'' you to ANI. I participate on ANI regularly. Do note that I supported the topic ban on the Korean POV pusher you reported to ANI. Do you participate in UAA regularly, "dude"? ] (]) 13:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*I've been referenced here, and I'm going to make my comment. There is no question that JoshuSasori hounded Hijiri88, and that they continued to do so a long time after they were community banned. Bagworm gives every hint of engaging in identical behaviour to JoshuSasori (bar the disruption to Hijiri's workplace) - which is to say, that they stalk Hijiri's edits (if a little more sporadically than Sasori usually did) and revert them because of who made the edits. As to the exact topic dispute, I can't profess to have any knowledge whatsoever about who is right; this is most certainly not my area of expertise. I don't know much about the Romanian IP/"Someone not using his real name" part of the debate. I will say this, with regards to the ] edit referenced here (about the reference, ironically) - why the hell are people edit warring over whether to have one or two references for this? One should be sufficient, unless the other one is needed to try and further prove notability of the topic (which isn't an issue here) or the statement is controversial (which I'm assuming this isn't; again, I lack knowledge on this area, so feel free to correct me.) ] ] 13:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
** Thank you for your input, Lukeno94. However, your sweeping assertion, "''Bagworm gives every hint of engaging in identical behaviour to JoshuSasori (bar the disruption to Hijiri's workplace) - which is to say, that they stalk Hijiri's edits (if a little more sporadically than Sasori usually did) and revert them because of who made the edits.''" appears to show a complete lack of AGF. "'''revert them because of who made the edits'''" - that is deeply offensive and absolutely groundless, and I would urge you to offer supporting evidence or withdraw the offensive remark. I most certainly do ''not'' stalk Hijiri/Jubei. A glance at will immediately confirm that he edits a whole host of articles that I have no interest in and no history of editing. I have no personal quarrel with Hijiri, and only in the last day or so did I become aware that the IP edit-warring at Talk:Waka (poetry) was actually him. If you're looking for real evidence of harassment, it can easily be found: Hjiri/Jubei/124 has in the last two days twice removed my posts to ], and He seems to be confused and is claiming that ''I'' edited ''his'' comments, which I certainly did not. --] (]) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
***No, you knew from the get-go (it was obvious) that Jubei and the IP were both me. I accidentally posted an unfinished comment while logged in to an account that I was keeping separate ''primarily to avoid accidentally outing an unrelated user''. My phone is not the ideal way to edit Misplaced Pages, but thanks to JoshuSasori it's the only way I can do so without either setting up another named account for him to harass, or giving away my home IP. None of this was a justification for you to constantly revert my tweaking my own comment. I had no way of reverting your editing of my comment without also deleting your reply (again, phone), but I made it clear that you could restore your comment if you wished. Your continuing to claim that you have a right to revert my finishing my own comment is essentially claiming that it's OK for you to edit my comments, but not for me to edit my own. | |||
:::Plus, your assertion that Luke is violating AGF is made without evidence. I provided ''probably too much'' evidence that you were harassing me, and you have yet to provide any evidence at all that this is ''not'' what you were doing. Can you explain why almost all of your Japanese literature edits since April (or last November?) are direct reverts of edits I made? Can you explain why you consistently avoid directly addressing my arguments, and instead focus on straw-man issues like whether such-and-such author knows what (s)he's talking about? It's obvious that you are looking for flimsy excuses to go around reverting my edits, and you think that since the account that made all those edits between 2005 and 2013 is now permanently retired you will be able to get away with it. ] (]) 14:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::"''you knew from the get-go (it was obvious) that Jubei and the IP were both me''" - How could that possibly be "obvious"? Though the IP's behaviour was reminiscent of yours, I had no way of knowing Jubei was you until you owned up. That's yet another irrelevance anyway, since I'm not questioning your motives in using multiple accounts here. What I ''do'' know is that you are the one repeatedly deleting my Talk posts in direct contravention of ], and whatever technical straws you clutch at doesn't alter that. You keep making the accusation that '''I''' edited '''your''' posts. '''Please show a diff or withdraw this false accusation'''. | |||
::::"''It's obvious that you are looking for flimsy excuses to go around reverting my edits.'' No it is not "obvious" because it is simply not true. Please desist from making such purely subjective non-AGF assertions. --] (]) 14:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::You are trying to ] by sticking to the letter of TALKNO and ignoring the actual purpose of the guideline. "I am only able to edit from my phone, and I can't copy or paste" is a good enough reason to blank-revert when ''''. Slyly sticking in a separate comment in the same edit as altering my comment is ''your'' fault, not mine. I you were free to re-add your own comment, but I asked you several times to stop altering my comment. You refused until you were left with no other choice, and even then continued to that I was "repeatedly removing" your comments. | |||
:::::I have given the evidence that you are taking flimsy excuses to undo my edits (" that " is another glaring example). Please address this evidence directly or admit that you have been hounding me. Your friend Tristan noir tried a similar strategy to your current one ("I don't need to explain my actions because of AGF") back in January, and he wound up getting TBANned. ] (]) 15:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::Exactly how is my asserting the broader definition of haiga by Haruo Shirane, Shincho Professor at Columbia University, ''probably the top scholar in Japanese literature in the U.S. at this time'', a "flimsy excuse"? It is becoming increasingly clear that you've raised this ANI because my edits impinge on your sense of ]ership of these articles which I've been editing since long before you took an interest in them. Not because of harassment (because there isn't any), not because of grave-dancing (as pointed out by DrMies, there isn't any). What a waste of administrators' (and my) time. --] (]) 15:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Taking a quote from a well-known scholar out of context, in order to make it appear that this scholar supports your POV when ''is'' a flimsy excuse. You failed to respond, but your above comment indicates that you clearly still think you were in the right in reverting my edits. ] (]) 16:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Not true. What you have evidenced is simply a disagreement between us over the interpretation of a respected scholar's statements. That is nothing more than a '''content dispute''', and your bringing it up here clearly supports my contention that your only motive for this ANI is a sense of impingement on your ]ership of articles which I've been editing much longer than than you. --] (]) 18:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::No, it's not about different interpretations. You misrepresented the citation, and then when I pointed out to you that Shirane clearly doesn't mean what you want him to you ignored me. Clearly you ''want'' Shirane to agree with your online poetry mags, when in fact he agrees with the actual definition of the Japanese word as given in Japanese dictionaries. I.e., he agrees with me. ] (]) 05:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
** Let's just cut to the chase here: nominate the article for AfD instead of this proxy war by trying to determine who "hounded" who in an obvious content dispute. Bagworm is a fan and editor of Japanese-style literature in American venues. It's pretty transparent that Hijiri88 & co. have been campaigning to delete such articles. ] (]) 13:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
** Bagworm first edited that article in 2008 . When did the many accounts of Hijiri88 edit it first? The earliest I could find was 2013 , but it's possible he used another account name before. ] (]) 13:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Please read the comment you are replying to. This thread is not about ''tinywords'', and I already specified that that's a sidenote here. The article Lukeno is commenting on is ] -- an article I . I never said Bagworm "followed" me to the tinywords article, merely that he only reverted me for the same reason he reverted all those other edits -- he could. Now can we please get back on topic? This thread is not and never has been about ''tinywords'' in particular. ] (]) 13:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::: No it's not. It's a bulk, specious complaint from yourself claiming you are being hounded by a conspiracy of editors, among which you have named me. I have never edited ]. So why did you choose to name me in your complaint then and allege I conspired with others if it's all about waka now? ] (]) 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*Quick comment: "gravedancing" implies you're dead. You're clearly not dead, so technically there can be no gravedancing. And typically we take that to mean things like making fun of a "dead" editor on their talk page, etc. Edit-warring (if that's what it is) with a retired account the editor of which is still active is not the same as gravedancing, and it's not necessarily harassment. Correct me if I'm wrong: we're really talking about possible ], no? I noted one more thing in clicking through the diffs: Hijiri's opponents have a knack (and, historically, have had a knack) for using minor publications and webzines, to the point of promotion. That tinywords article is one of them--but that's by the by.<p>I don't have all the time and attention in the world right now, but I'll get back to this. ] (]) 14:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
**DrMies, the only other contributor to suggest hounding is Lukeno94 (without a shred of evidence), and I have roundly provided evidence to the contrary above. <s>What is your motivation in persisting with this groundless accusation?</s> I most certainly do ''not'' stalk Hijiri/Jubei. A glance at will immediately confirm that he edits a whole host of articles that I have no interest in and no history of editing. I have not expanded my editing areas into Hijiri/jubei's. This is 100% clear. So, if I'm not grave-dancing, and not hounding, what exactly are we doing here? --] (]) 15:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::*Eh, at the risk of sounding like a school teacher, where did I accuse you of anything? Will you care to actually read what I wrote (I didn't think it was too long to read), or are you just going to open your spout and vent baselessly? (Hint: note the word "possibly".) ] (]) 15:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::My experience is gravedancing on wikipedia is much more commonly taken to mean harassing or continuing to comment on, make fun of or try to shine a spotlight on an editor who is indef blocked or banned, or even simply temporarily blocked where it serves no useful purpose. Sometimes also a topic banned editor in relation to their topic ban. It may also apply to a retired editor in some cases. A key point is generally whether or not the actions are perceived to serve any useful purpose as when they are not, continueing to pursue the issue which has already gone against the editor on some way, is seen as pointless and harmful when the editor is either unable or justifiably has no reason to respond. See for example ] or do a search for grave dancing on the ANs archives. While it' s true this isn't quiet the same as gravedancing is generally defined and used elsewhere outside wikipedia processes, and it's true doing the same for a dead editor is likely to be also seen as a different very serious form of grave dancing, the other use is not something that comes up very often. ] (]) 15:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Nil Einne, please see ] for the reason why my main account is no longer able to defend its edits. Bagworm has known about this since at least early May, when I e-mailed him. He has, however, persisted in undoing a significant number of my edits that he disagreed with, and when I try to revert on my phone, he dismisses me as some kind of IP-hopping vandal. He has not provided any valid arguments for his removals, because he apparently thinks he can get away with it now that my original account is retired. I considered this to be "grave-dancing", but I'm happy to use "hounding" instead. (If you want to know why I can't just set up another account or go back to my original one, I would be happy to e-mail you. Revealing it here would be self-outing.) ] (]) 15:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::I most certainly have ''not'' been hounding Hijiri/Jubei/Coldman. A glance at will immediately confirm that he edits a whole host of articles that I have no interest in and no history of editing. I have not expanded my editing areas into Hijiri/jubei's. This is 100% clear. Neither have I been grave-dancing even by Nil Einne's definition, since (as pointed out by DrMies) Hijiri/Jubei/Coldman is manifestly still active on the general topic. So please, someone tell me, what are we doing here, apart from wasting each others' time? --] (]) 15:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::*So the fact that your first edit in four months was a revert on something Hijiri wrote is pure coincidence? Hmm. And I'm the King of Turkmenistan. ] ] 19:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::**What are you even talking about? My first edit in 4 months (April 2013) was to ] where AFAIK none of Hijiri/Coldman's sockpuppets have ever edited. I then made , all clearly constructive, to ], where Hijiri was the last previous editor. Did I make any attempt to revert his efforts there? No, because they were constructive and helpful. What does it take for you to get that I am not interested in reverting his work for the hell of it? Please check your facts in future before making baseless allegations, and note that your ] is entirely inappropriate to this discussion. --] (]) 20:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::**You made a few small edits to that and ''one other'' article and then went straight ahead to undo one of my edits that had ''already'' been discussed, with my POV coming out on top. As far as I can see, almost all of your edits that were not reversions of me were ''not in the area of Japanese literature''. ] (]) 00:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::**Allow me further note, as a rebuttal of the spurious claim of hounding/harassment/personal vendetta, that I have had substantial, productive interaction with Coldman's sock, Sarumaru the Poet, as recently as mid-June at ] (which I created), as evidenced by the article and ]. --] (]) 23:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::**One semi-good edit should not be used as an excuse for you to go around reverting all of my edits that you disagree with. I have made probably ten times as many ''good'' edits in this area as you, and we both no the reason for that: I am fluent in Japanese and have a serious academic qualification in this area, while you ... do not. When you disagreed with me and I was still active under one account, consensus was on my side in ''every single one of our debates'', and the reason for ''that'' is that I always had a better case than you in consideration of Misplaced Pages policy and reliable sources. However, since my main account retired, you have been going around undoing several edits I made, apparently based on the assumption that I would be unable to revert you (or that I wasn't still watching those pages.) ] (]) 00:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*Note, this is neither here nor there (well, it's actually both here and there), but I nominated ] for deletion. This as a kind of disclaimer, maybe, for whoever needs one. ] (]) 14:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{unindent}}I'm not going to comment on the content dispute as it's not an admin matter, but it's obviously complicated by the banned user's continued harassment of Hijiri88. The harasser finds him with every new start he tries to make, precluding his ability to edit normally. That's not going away until Misplaced Pages finds a way to deal with it and Hijiri can return to normal editing.--] ]/] 17:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Cuchullain, I'm sure you're right, but can we please be careful to keep a clear distinction between the subject of this ANI (i.e. me Bagworm) and the entirely unconnected "harasser" you mention above. Sorry to be pernickity, but the entire above is so long that I'd forgive an admin or other editor for getting the characters a little confused. --] (]) 18:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*I've just had my entire recent post deleted by DrMies with not even an edit summary. Perhaps a word of explanation for what looks like a rather high-handed approach? If it's because I've broken some protocol, then I apologise for my ignorance. Nevertheless, it should surely not be too much to expect an explanation. --] (]) 22:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
**It's an edit conflict, Bagworm, and I apologize. ] (]) 03:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Footwiks == | |||
*{{user|Footwiks}} | |||
*{{la|List of FC Seoul players}} | |||
What started off as a minor content dispute has not become a more serious conduct dispute. Quick background - there was a ], initiated by myself. The result was 'keep', though there were a number of comments that the article was in need of a clean up. I attempted to do so by removing unreferenced/unencyclopedic content and basically trying to bring it into line with many other similar articles, some of which have been featured lists. However, I was immediately reverted by Footwiks, the article creator, who has severe ] issues. In total he has reverted {{user|PeeJay2K3}} and myself seven times in 3 weeks. He has not really engaged on the article talk page, and when he has he has simply accused me of being a "vandal" - and his English-language skills are poor which is making. I attempted to raise the matter at ], but was advised it was more conduct than content (though the two here are related), and so I am bringing it here as this kind of behaviour cannot continue. ]] 12:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:As an interested party, I probably don't need to comment here, but I have to agree with GiantSnowman. I've been aware of Footwiks' contributions for quite some time, and the guy just doesn't seem to understand that he has to abide by Misplaced Pages protocols. The ] issue is the most pressing at the moment, but I really resent being called a vandal by someone who simply doesn't like what we're doing to "his" articles. – ]] 12:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*I remember this AfD, even though I didn't participate. Footwiks' weak English was evident in the AfD, and, being blunt, they don't appear to give a shit about consensus or Misplaced Pages guidelines. Labelling constructive edits as "vandalism" is always a bad sign. "Here is wikipedia. Why are aritcles regarding club's list of players same format? Who set a standard? Don't suppress the freedom of editing. Is Snowman owner of Misplaced Pages?" is an example of a poor grasp of English, a poor attitude, and someone who doesn't understand how Misplaced Pages works (and, arguably, doesn't care) ] ] 13:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*As a semi involved party (I closed the DRN as unsuitable) I support GiantSnowman's assessment of the situation and Lukes assessment of the situation. While some of the issues can come across from a language barrier I think it's mostly due to the poor attitude and understanding of the policies of the editor in question. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font> <sup>(]•])</sup></font> 13:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
**Yeah, if you have to ask "why are the articles in the same format", that's not a language barrier... - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 14:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*I concur with GiantSnowman and Lukeno94. I looked at the AfD, the talk page, the page history, and DRN. It's absolutely clear that Footwiks has ] issues. The accusations of "vandalism" are completely ridiculous, as well. I'd potentially support a topic ban from ] and other list articles until Footwiks can demonstrate thorough understanding of the article ownership policy and realizes that there must be specific inclusion criteria for a list. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 15:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*If there's talk of a topic ban, then I'd suggest from ''all'' articles related to ], broadly construed. ]] 16:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::*Agreed. The user appears to deem themselves the sole arbiter of FC Seoul content here, so I'd say they should be banned from contributing to any article related to that topic. – ]] 16:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*Just a procedural note: The DRN did not "fail" but was simply closed for lack of extensive discussion with a recommendation that it be filed here by the closing DR/N volunteer.--] <sub>]</sub> ] ] ] 19:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*Apologies; clarified. ]] 20:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
===Topic ban proposal=== | |||
Per GiantSnowman and PeeJay, I propose that {{user|Footwiks}} is ] from any and all articles related to South Korean football club ], broadly construed. The topic ban may be lifted when it's clear that Footwiks understands and is willing to abide by ]. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose topic ban''' I'm sorry, but just block him or ban him out right. We are way to liberal with all these specific topic bans, and it's already nearly impossible to keep track of who can and can't edit about whatever subject. It's not like this guy is being constructive elsewhere on the project, and just can't get over his POV about this one topic. He either "gets it" or he doesn't at this point. ] 17:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*These are valid points. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Not really. Just because you can't keep track doesn't mean the editors involved can't. Not an argument at all really.--] <sub>]</sub> ] ] ] 18:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, I can see where he's coming from when he says that it's pointless to topic ban him from one thing if he's not going to be constructive anywhere else. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::I'd support a lengthy block if that's the only other alternative. He does seem to contribute fairly regularly, so a shorter block might work, but if we want him to properly get the message, it needs to be at least a couple of weeks, maybe even a month. A ban seems a little harsh since he's not been particularly abusive, he's just been bandying "vandal" around (which I have to admit gets used far too often around here). – ]] 18:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support topic ban''' - he seems to do decent work on football and South Korean articles in general, and banning him outright is a massive over-reaction, so a topic ban from ''all'' articles related to ], broadly construed (that means editing articles about current players, past players, results, matches, seasons etc. etc.) seems like a good solution. ]] 18:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support topic ban''' - At the end of the day, this is the first step. If the user becomes disruptive elsewhere, we can block them; this is currently the only area of disruption, so let's remove them from it. ] ] 21:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Tabarez = Reza.Piri == | |||
Hi everyone. I think it is obvious that ] (banned indefinitely on 11 June 2013 for ]) returned with ] as his newest sockpuppet. It just takes to look at their contributions (mostly about Iranian politics and sport) to see they are the same person (]). It really looks like ] to me, so I guess an admin should look at this case. Cheers! --] (]) 14:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:As can be seen, ] appears to plan to engage in an edit war at ], in the same fashion as Tabarez did with his main account, and after its indef blocking with his socks. Its a clear ] IMHO. --] (]) 19:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Jorm == | |||
{{archivetop|Jorm has behaved appropriately; Jerappelle is warned to avoid adding uncited information to articles in the future. ] (]) 15:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
User jorm is censorship pages. At least three different authors (I am the third on and unrelated from the other two) have modified the dissidents page. Jorm keeps undoing those changes with ludicrous motivations. His censorship is clearly politically motivated and he is ridiculing me. Can please somebody reinstate the changes, politely ask Jorm to stop undoing changes that three independent, different users have made, and if necesssary open a discussion page? Help from an administrator would be helpful since he hs now undone changes three times, which is another violation of Misplaced Pages rules. ] (]) 14:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Jorm's edits at {{la|Dissident}} look to be in order. {{user|Jorm}} appears to have properly removed the changes that violated ] because of lack of reliable sources. Jorm has only edited the page once in the last three weeks or so, so there's no edit warring issue. And while the suggestion that you "get your facts straight" may not have been overly polite, it was not a personal attack or ridiculing, in my opinion. —''']''' (]) 15:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:First and foremost, if you're going to open an ANI thread, you ''must'' notify any users you are discussing. I've notified Jorm for you, but please don't make the same mistake in the future. Furthermore, I've just looked at Jorm's edits to ], and they seem in line with ] and ]. If you wish to restore that information, then the burden of proof is on you to provide sources. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 15:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:*So, Jerappelle, you hadn't edited since until today, and yet your first edit back was a reversion of Jorm? Suspicious. There are definitely two separate people though, given the WHOIS reports on the IPs. The edit is absolutely appalling; it's uncited, it reads like a mini soapbox piece, and it may not even be factually correct. Jorm is absolutely spot-on to remove it again. Unless this BOOMERANGs on the OP, I think this should be closed sharpish. ] ] 15:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{archivebottom}} | |||
== Blocked sock created multiple poorly referenced stubs == | |||
], a sock of ], created several stubs before being blocked. The stubs are BLPs about athletes and reference the same foreign language sports statistics website. According to Google Translate, the references do not establish subject notability. Here's a partial list of articles: | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
Would these merit a bulk-AFD, PRODs, or should I just leave them alone? Thanks, <span style="color:orange">]<sup>]</sup></span> 15:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Technically these qualify for CSD G5 (created by a blocked user), but then the subjects seem in fact to be notable per ] as members of a fully-professional league. But since the references are apparently not from the official ] site, I think you should go for a bulk-AfD. ] (]) 16:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for the information, much appreciated. <span style="color:orange">]<sup>]</sup></span> 00:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Jorm and Lukeno94 and Fred == | |||
{{archivetop|NAC i.e. I'm not an administrator so this can't be admin abuse. No evidence of wrong doing or anything else requiring administrative intervention so the closure of the original discussion was reasonable. Please take content disputes to an ]. ] has not been edited since February 2012, you can't say people have refused to discuss if you have not initiated a discussion. ] (]) 16:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
I don't mean to be a nuisance, but I thought Misplaced Pages was a collaborative effort, not a place where people are told to shut up. This is how I feel. I thought there would be a discussion, not a decision in 10 secs regarding the previous issue regarding ] that was immediately closed. I see no sources for the other part of the article. It looks like there are serious double standards here. I re-modified it, and added sources, instead of just copying what somebody else had done, and still people completely took everything off. I find this experience so utterly negative. If you don't want people to add/edit pages, let me know, I will stop now, I do not want to be a nuisance, I am trying to help, and yet I am treated like I am the one causing damage. I hope there can be a discussion, if you are going to close this immediately, fine, I will stop now being part of Misplaced Pages, I don't need to spend my time here. But if you are genuinely interested in people participating, can we have a civil discussion instead of telling me I am wrong, shut up, and go away? Can other people chime in? I find that the way administrators decide to edit articles is totally arbitrary, and often motivated by their own ideas. My last edit was well articulated, with sources, and it was still refused. I find that all of you, Lukeno94 and Jorm and Fred have refused any discussion whatsoever, and I feel this is not acceptable. I find you're abusing your position of administrators. I hope this can be discussed, because I feel it is a Misplaced Pages problem when administrators abuse their position, and that is why I am opening this thread. And if you are not interested because I am a moron who disagrees with you, but you are an administrator so can do what you want, and I am not, then let be it, thank you and good luck to all of you. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
*The ] is strong in this thread. ] ] 16:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{archivebottom}} | |||
== Administrator circumventing a AFD result == | |||
{{Archive top|status=No Action|result=There was no misuse of the admin tools and no circumvention of the AFD process. The article was deleted and remains deleted. ] ] 22:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
{{userlinks|The Rambling Man}} | |||
**Note- I will use TRM when referring to him below. | |||
***<small>How presumptive! ] (]) 17:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
{{userlinks|Jax 0677}} | |||
] was deleted per this discussion. Shortly after the article was deleted, Jax0677 made the page into a redirect. Redirect was never discussed at the AFD. It was discussed at the article's talk page, but the editors there decided they rather try to keep the article than make it a redirect. | |||
I G4d the article and alerted the closing admin. TRM came along and undid the G4. He wrote " Is this "substantially identical to the deleted version". | |||
At his talk page, TRM questioned my competence and admits that a redirect was the ideal solution. He is overstepping his administrator by deciding what should be a AFD result. He also continues to insult(While I raised this before at ANI about TRM's remarks towards aviation members and got shot down, I can point to other aviation members besides myself who took offense with his comments) any aviation member who disagrees with him. | |||
Please note Jax0677 in September 2012, recreated as a redirect ] after it went through both a AFD and DRV. When the redirect was G4d, it was deleted. I pointed this out to TRM. He's ignored it so far.] 17:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:My only comment here: the redirect is not "substantially identical to the deleted version". It's also useful to the ]. It was pointed out to WilliamJE that he had not read the notes on the template he himself was adding. He ignored this. That's why I questioned his competence. If we have to be dragged to AN/I to discuss trivialities like this then god help the project. Incidentally, the "other redirect" created by Jax0677 is irrelevant here. | |||
:I'm sure there's an axe or two to grind, here's your opportunity, I won't respond further. ] (]) 17:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::I think TRM is in the right here. The redirect is substantially different to the deleted version (it's completely different), so G4 doesn't apply. Take it to ] if you're that bothered. ] ]] 17:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Why was there even an AFD discussion if one administrator can overturn it?] 17:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::What harm is the redirect doing? ] (]) 17:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::What did we have an AFD discussion for if an administrator can unilaterally override it with his own result? As I said redirect was never discussed at the AFD and rejected at the the article's talk page by those who wanted to keep the article.] 17:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::]? I don't recall overturning the AFD, I just allowed a redirect to be there which is not "substantially identical to the deleted version". Please. Are we done here? ] (]) 17:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::So when are you restoring the ] redirect that I repeated pointed out? Your inconsistent behavior and personal attacks say alot. Where were you when the AFD was taking place? Will you be redirecting every Aviaton related AFD? Please tell us?] 17:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::Again, please show a level of ]. You know ], right? You read the G4 criterion, right? where it says it applies but only if the recreated article is "substantially identical to the deleted version"? So let's deal with this so-called abuse of my "admin" powers (which is fallacious, I used "undo" which most editors have, right?) and sort it out once and for all. Let's go! ] (]) 17:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*If someone was circumventing the AfD, they would have simply restored the article in its pre-AfD form. Just because an AfD results in a delete verdict doesn't prevent anyone from re-creating the article as a redirect, or even from re-creating the article in a significantly different form than the one that was deleted, ''unless'' there was a specific consensus at the AfD that a redirect would also be inappropriate. If you don't like the redirect, you should start a discussion at ]. ]] 17:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*It's a redirect. It's not a recreate or even a merge. It's a redirect. I've created numerous redirects that wouldn't make sense as a standalone article and would easily be deleted in any AFD. Also, where's the admin abuse? I don't see any use of the tools. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::All of you are forgetting two things. 1- TRM's repeatedly stated dislike for Aviation crash AFDs and 2- His attacks on me an task force members. The rejection of the G4 wasn't done in good faith. It's his attitude and again an administrator is going to be allowed off even when multiple editors have voiced their displeasure at his attacks not just me.] 18:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Aha, they're "all" forgetting you're a mind reader? I reinstated the redirect because I think it helps our readers, and is in no way related to the article that was deleted at AFD. It's a plausible redirect. So that's that dealt with. As for "multiple editors have voiced their displeasure at his attacks", bring your cohorts, let's debate it. It's probably not related to this incompetent attempt to use (and re-use) speedy deletion templates incorrectly, but we'll see. ] (]) 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Forgetting what? This is your first mention of your first point with no diffs to support it. Even if you do have diffs, so what? As to your second point, in your only diff above, I see no "attack". <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::If editors disagree with the redirect there is a route to discuss it for deletion of keep at ].--] <sub>]</sub> ] ] ] 18:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''redirect is perfectly acceptable''' for anyone to create at any time, regardless of prior AFD outcomes. If it is a plausible search term to get people to the "real" article, whatever that may be at the time, then there is no good reason not to have the redirect. ] (]) 18:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
* Redirect is fine in a situation like this. --] (]) 18:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
* Yep, the redirect is totally OK, and also not an administrative action -- any registered editor could have created this. --] (]) 19:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
* ] anyone? WilliamJE's most recent post shows that this is simply his attempt to take a swipe at an admin he dislikes, in the most petty way possible. TRM's comments about competence appear to be more and more valid by the second; claiming a redirect can't exist due to an AfD discussion is utterly ludicrous, as is the suggestion that it is G4 worthy. For what it's worth, the previous deletion of a redirect via G4 is also going to be incorrect, unless it went to RfD as well. I remember WilliamJE demonstrating ] on other aircraft-related things at AfD and ANI... maybe it's time they get a topic ban for a few months to prevent this? ] ] 19:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
** Neither Jax 0677 nor The Rambling Man did anything wrong here, but I can see how a newbie may be confused by the subsequent creation of the redirect. Too early to propose any drastic sanction. Everyone needs to take a step back and a deep breath. ] (]) 20:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*** Going to agree with this assessment of the situation until proven otherwise. ] (]) 20:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
****] has been editing Misplaced Pages since mid-2006 and has over 35k edits, any claims of him being a newbie are lame; he's just ] in this issue. For the second time. ] (]) 20:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
***** Indeed. I was confused for a moment by the red links all over , but I see now that the editor complaining has a long wiki history. ] (]) 20:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*Not seeing a problem with the redirect, but even if the redirect were bad/inappropriate it still wouldn't be an ANI issue. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 20:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*Given the mention of the accident in the main Southwest article there's no reason why there shouldn't be a redirect to that text. If we put this redirect through the deletion process there's no way that it would be deleted. AFD is not some sort of legal formalism where a "delete" outcome forbids any later act of dealing with the material. ] (]) 20:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
** Furthermore, I see no problem with even adding the appropriate, air-crash-related categories to the redirect, per ]. ] (]) 20:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
* It seems WilliamJE is judging this case from the perspective of the ] saga. In that case, the redirect was indeed deleted after being tagged with G4, but only after the redirect had been previously discussed at DRV as an option, and rejected. This is far from the usual scenario however. Redirects being created after the article is deleted are fairly common in my experience. One relevant guideline is ], which says that a topic not being notable enough by itself for an article does not prohibit its mention/inclusion in another. The other is ], which has among the allowed purposes "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." So while the crash is mentioned in the main airline article, the redirect is quite kosher. (In contrast, ] does ''not'' mention Murdock.) ] (]) 21:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Okay''' think we're done here, ] perhaps doesn't quite get it yet, but the pile-on "nothing to see here" has now reached terminal velocity. Perhaps some other admin can close this omnishambles down and maybe remind WilliamJE what to do when considering nominating articles for G4? ] (]) 21:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{Archive bottom}} | |||
== TheShadowCrow == | |||
I don't believe I have interacted with this editor before, so excuse me if the chronology is not perfect. I also suggest people look through this diff of the editors talk page: | |||
On the 28th TSC posted this message , which included unnecessary attacks on admins: | |||
{{quote|''Here's something new: You said ''It doesn't work that way.'' about how the appeal works. What more needs to be said? EdJohnston and Gatoclass are two more names added to the list. It's only Wilkins, who's just thrown his credibility out the window, and Snowy. You guys keep coming up with this bull about how he couldn't have known about the sport exemption, but he simply didn't even know what the ban was. And considering he doesn't now see the need to remove it, means he can't be forgiven in that case anyway. There's no conspiracy, he's just a shitty Admin. ... What the fuck more do you need? Everyone says it should be lifted. When is it going to be?''}} | |||
On the 29th TSC posted on {{user|Bbb23}}'s page and then followed him to another editors talk page to complain that Bbb23 hadn't answered: . On the 31st of July, TheShadowCrow (TSC), made this faulty request at AE against the admin {{user|GiantSnowman}} . Yesterday TheShadowCrow made this vindictive comment to {{user|Bwilkins}} . Today, TSC filed an AE request in which he attacks several admins . During the AE he has tried to delete or change the comments of other editors: , despite several warnings not to do , TSC continued and was blocked. Rather than accept his mistake, TSC has instead decided to argue in a ] way about the definition of "remove or change", and blamed the blocking admin {{user|Sandstein}} . I expect that if I look further back in time through the diffs I will be greeted with more problematic behaviour. Considering the path of disruption this editor is taking in these recent incidents, the lack of ] and the ]ness I think an extension of the 24 hour block is called for. Thoughts? ] (]) 20:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
: Normally I'd AGF, given this post pre-block at Sandstein's page, I'd assume ignorance over malice. It was very quick from warning to block and the user may not have had a chance to see it as given. However, another altering edit was made after that post, so I don't really know what to think at this point. CIR maybe?] (]) 20:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: An increasingly problematic editor, I'm sorry to say. ]] 20:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::ChrisGualtieri, yes, the block was made after that edit, which was subsequent to the second warning, to stop TheShadowCrow from continuing to edit the statements made by others concerning the appeal. I don't think that any further admin action is needed. IRWolfie-, I don't see the point of this thread. If after the expiration of the brief block further problems occur, they can be addressed at that time, but discussing it now is just a waste of time on the part of all involved, notably the several people you still need to notify for mentioning them here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::: I know Sandstein, but let me clarify. Normally one doesn't go "Wait don't block me I didn't see the warning" and a few minutes later actually make ''another'' problematic edit. The first one I could see, but not the 17:59 edit which moved the content a full five minutes ''after'' the "don't block me" post at 17:54. He went ahead and did it again - after acknowledging it was wrong and after you made the clear warning. Either way, this editor has some problems that would be best worked out during this 24 hour block. ] (]) 21:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::The specific block was to deal with a specific issue, which the editor is still arguing over. I see a pattern of behaviour here that has continued over several days. ] (]) 21:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*My preference would be to let the 24 hour block stand, watch what happens when it expires, and escalate quickly if it resumes. (I'd also prefer people stop throwing pebbles at him to get him to blow up again, but I understand that's hard when he's been busy throwing rocks himself.) --] (]) 20:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*With the exception of BWilkins's outburst, any "pebbles" thrown at TSC have been deserved. And I would not describe TSC's conduct as "throwing rocks" but more like "throwing boulders". I think there are broader and more important issues that need to be aired. My intention, before seeing this thread, was to consider posting a proposal at ] for a community ban, or, second choice, an indefinite block. I'm throwing that out here, not as a formal proposal, but just to get a sense of the community's reaction. Without supplying diffs, which I know I have to do, what has become very clear to me in the last few days - and it seems like longer - since TSC was unblocked at ], is that TSC wants to do what he wants to do, regardless of how many editors tell him he can't. His principal goal is to remove the topic ban, even though there's ample evidence the ban should continue. As he has put it to me, if he can't edit the articles he's prohibited from editing he might as well be indefinitely blocked. Worse, when he ], he retaliates in a variety of ways, including requesting the de-sysop of ], saying absolutely hateful things on BWilkins's talk, which I do not believe were provoked, and attacking any editor or admin who dares to disagree with him. Unless TSC does a 180, which I think is highly unlikely, I see nothing of value he has to offer the project.--] (]) 22:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::I share that assessment, and see little hope of improvement. Deleting and altering other editors' posts was low. Would vote for a community ban if one were proposed. ] (]) 22:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*This user comes across as an unhinged provocateur honestly, lashing out at anything and everything they perceive as an attack or an enemy...rather reminiscent of one ChildofMidnight, a name that'll ring a bell for some here. My opinion of people dips extremely quickly the more they try to nickel and dime their way around the edges of topic bans, sanctions and the like, and the more they scream at the drahmah boards when people weigh in on said problematic behavior. Absolutely just ]. ] (]) 22:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ] making multiple personal attacks == | |||
{{archive top|Handled by {{U|Ponyo}}. ] (]) 22:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
] is very clearly unwilling to act in a civil manner. First, the user posted , then vandalized my userpage with derogatory comments: . Also, note this response to me on the user's talk page . ] <small>]</small> 22:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Tell tat ] (]) 22:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*Quick block, please, and then decide if it's 24 hours for acting like an ---- or indefinite as a possibly compromised account. ] (]) 22:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{archive bottom}} |
Latest revision as of 18:38, 25 December 2024
Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administratorsNoticeboards | |
---|---|
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 and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
- Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- 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- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
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) | |||||||||
1155 | 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 |
1165 | 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 |
481 | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 |
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 | |||||||||
Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos
The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of WP:TALKNO and failure to get the point. Issues began when this editor removed 5000+ bytes of sourced material. They did it again and again and again.
Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to my talk page to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I started a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article, the user edited my signature and changed the heading of the discussion I started according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to WP:TALKNO, both in that discussion and on their talk page, they responded on my talk page stating ever since the stupid Misplaced Pages Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Misplaced Pages at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it
, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading again and again and again. I finally explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and changed it again anyway.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by إيان (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The other user in this case is User:AnonMoos? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. Secretlondon (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "
Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.
" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)- Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "
- It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does not in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- @AnonMoos: I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of WP:TPOC since the signature was perfectly valid per WP:NLS. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to WP:SECLakesideMiners 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011LakesideMiners 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
- Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced within HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you don't know when it happens, you shouldn't be editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since
2011and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. LakesideMiners 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. LakesideMiners 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. LakesideMiners 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
None of this matters
I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. AnonMoos shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. EEng 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I was in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That was six years ago, which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMiners 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist User talk:AnonMoos. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. EEng 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMiners 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. LakesideMiners 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. LakesideMiners 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Misplaced Pages broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meh. None of this matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- While true, it's still a violation of WP:TPO, and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what else it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Misplaced Pages's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart a behavioral discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. Zaathras (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not inherently about the signatures. It's that he's stubbornly insisting on using an outdated system that introduces errors into other content. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- agree on this. Incidental changing of signayures due to the tech issue is not a small problem itself but that clearly has potential to impact a much wider range of mainspace content. I have a hard time believing that there is not a browser that supports https and can run on a decade old computer (something like Opera even). Claiming inability to switch or upgrade needs to be explained in detail or otherwise this has potential to be a bigger problem. Masem (t) 17:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192
IP blocked 24 hours, and then kept digging and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.
Moroike (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Moroike: It looks like you both are edit warring on Kichik Bazar Mosque. That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the article talk page as to whether you should include the Talysh language name for the article in the lead/infobox. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CMD: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that Moroike isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at their last 50 contributions where they have mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of Azerbaijan, Baku. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? Nuritae331 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. Moroike (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as User talk:Ibish Agayev in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. Moroike (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus
There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user User:Sxbbetyy (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at User talk:Sergecross73, where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. BusterD (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed here is problematic, this editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a WP:STONEWALLING tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxbbetyy (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor appears to be PerfectSoundWhatever, based on the link under the word "this" as well as this notification. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: WP:STATUSQUO). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. RachelTensions (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content
Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles RachelTensions (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
- As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "Proof by assertion" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
- On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
- Myself and the editor had a content dispute at Team Seas (1) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per WP:STATUSQUO, I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a third opinion, which was answered by @BerryForPerpetuity:, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, @Sergecross73, Oshwah, and Pbsouthwood:. The Sergecross73 discussion can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of SYNTH". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on their talk page, but @BusterD: did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on Pbsouthwood's talk page about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
- Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept that they may be wrong, and WP:BLUDGEONs talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis per se, it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") unless there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the latest version that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have some pretty serious WP:IDHT concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking me when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple no consensus means no change outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion is right here, if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of sour grapes responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of synthesis, it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not assume good faith, it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73:
"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)- Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to talk circles indefinitely. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
- Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
- The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
- This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
- This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. WP:ONUS is directly on point, and I'll quote it here:
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)- Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
- I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. Here is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and WP:STATUSQUO. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
<--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this WP:IDHT insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: @Pbsouthwood:, what say you? MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)- This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
- And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
- So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- No matter how much you insist otherwise, there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. Drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an admin told me otherwise. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The other admin told you nothing about the removal of WP:SYNTH, which is always appropriate. Back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
- The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
- If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
- Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The other admin told you nothing about the removal of WP:SYNTH, which is always appropriate. Back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an admin told me otherwise. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Come on, how many people need to tell you you're wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No matter how much you insist otherwise, there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. Drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but plausible content before removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
- Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
- At the risk of being hoist with my own petard, I also refer readers to
WP:Don't be a dick(looks like that essay has been expunged, try Meta:Don't be a jerk). · · · Peter Southwood : 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its compulsory, and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen that discussion, but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that PSW did engage in extensive discussion already. You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that you're equally guilty of edit warring, as you're responsible for every single counter-revert in the situation. I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
- And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
- Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). Sxbbetyy (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen that discussion, but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that PSW did engage in extensive discussion already. You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that you're equally guilty of edit warring, as you're responsible for every single counter-revert in the situation. I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its compulsory, and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. WP:ONUS is directly on point, and I'll quote it here:
- Have you considered starting an WP:RFC? The fact is that you made a WP:BOLD addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus for your addition. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:QUO, etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed were on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That is a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually is such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to WP:SATISFY you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just checked and on 12/9/24 at Serge's talk page you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from WP Internet Culture and WP YouTube about 2 weeks ago."
- Did that not actually happen? Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:RFC is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard WP:Civility. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cunningham's Law, is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard WP:Civility. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Request for closure
Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO and WP:NOCONSENSUS, which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. PerfectSoundWhatever has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @PerfectSoundWhatever has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! RachelTensions (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "Avoid reverting during discussion", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages,
{{under discussion inline}}
is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- In what way is that your read of the consensus in the discussion above? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
- Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. Sxbbetyy (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version without the new content. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- In what way is that your read of the consensus in the discussion above? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits
Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to this change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters. After the "cleanup" by User:Tom.Reding (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists.
I tried to get him to stop at User talk:Tom.Reding#Cosmetic edits, to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. Fram (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss {{WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell.
- As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "
when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries
": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "no change in output or categories
", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic. - Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did not have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. Fram (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "
- You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This was discussed in detail on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the
|blp=
and|living=
parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Edits like these should always be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. GiantSnowman 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (phab:T11790, 2007, unassigned). Users AnomieBOT, Cluebot III, Lowercase sigmabot III, Citation bot, et al edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing. (Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "must" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue. Folly Mox (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, like, if only one of
|blp=
and|living=
gets updated
, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction. Folly Mox (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, like, if only one of
- Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is it just me or are talk pages like Template talk:WikiProject banner shell just perpetual WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)? Silverseren 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Fram, Tom.Reding, Kanashimi, and Primefac: I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- yay! —usernamekiran (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Fram: this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". Like Silver seren mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Augmented Seventh
User:Augmented Seventh is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with WP:CAT and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. Nate • (chatter) 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- And you are now required to cite how your edits meet WP:CAT; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. Nate • (chatter) 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
- After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
- Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
- Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- 43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- 43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Editors should not blindly revert. They should be required to understand the guideleines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- And you are now required to cite how your edits meet WP:CAT; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. Nate • (chatter) 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens.
Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP.
I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits.
WP could be sooo much better. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. Remsense ‥ 论 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. Remsense ‥ 论 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. You brought this here. The WP:ONUS is on you to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also
How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"
- because that's exactly what you said. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. Remsense ‥ 论 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. You brought this here. The WP:ONUS is on you to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also
- GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at WT:CAT. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at WP:VPP. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at WP:CFD. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- When a content dispute involves several pages it is often though not always best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate WP:DR when that happens. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their removal of Category:Corruption from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. Rotary Engine 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2
- ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed they were previously reported for.
Instances such as ordering IP editors to stop editing articles, hostilely chastising them, making personal attacks in edit summary on several occasions, etc. Users such as @Waxworker: and @Jon698: can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
On December 10, I noticed on the article Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with bad faith assertions about my intelligence and asserting they'd engage in edit war behavior. For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless "bite me". I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, asking it not to be reverted. Zander reverted anyway, and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit add nothing to the discussion threads they're added to, and now that I am putting said comments behind collapsable tables for being offtopic, Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as this and this.
This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. Rusted AutoParts 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've given them a warning for canvassing: - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And more personal attacks here - The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. Rusted AutoParts 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff
Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA User:Tikitorch2, who's been POV pushing on the Martin Kulldorff article since June. A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be back at it. They've already been notified about the CTOP status of COVID-19, and have received an edit-warring warning--to which they were less than receptive. Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Michael.C.Wright? 173.22.12.194 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like a duck to me. I'm sending this to SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPI says unrelated, so might just be generic disruption. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like a duck to me. I'm sending this to SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
- For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. Tikitorch2 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used
to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible
because that is original research. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is not an accident. Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Tikitorch2, your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. Liz 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used
User talk:International Space Station0
Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. Liz 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized Spore (2008 video game) by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. jolielover♥talk 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a WP:DUCK, and I just reported to AIV. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. win8x (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. Liz 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
- Or is that just something that isn't done? – 2804:F1...A7:86CC (::/32) (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are talking WP:SELDEL, there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean WP:REVDEL see WP:CRD and WP:REVDELREQUEST. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know I'm not going to try!). - The Bushranger One ping only 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you are talking WP:SELDEL, there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean WP:REVDEL see WP:CRD and WP:REVDELREQUEST. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...
User User:Longislandtea has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing alternative pop simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. Pillowdelight (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.
- Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. Longislandtea (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Longislandtea: I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read Template:Infobox album it states — genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included. The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sources need to be legitimate and relevant. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. Longislandtea (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources Misplaced Pages:Acceptable sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
- Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.
- A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
- Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.
- Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
- Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. Longislandtea (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTVAND. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a personal attack, so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this
Comment. Liz 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.Longislandtea (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this
- Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTVAND. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a personal attack, so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Longislandtea: How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic does not call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
- https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
- Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. Longislandtea (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sources need to be legitimate and relevant. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. Longislandtea (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Longislandtea: I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read Template:Infobox album it states — genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included. The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). Schazjmd (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd: I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. @The Bushranger: you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? Pillowdelight (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. Longislandtea (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pillowdelight, you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. Liz 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd: I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. @The Bushranger: you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? Pillowdelight (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on When the Pawn... (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
On October 22 2024, User:Pillowdelight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too. Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
Thank you. Longislandtea (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. Longislandtea (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
- Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. Longislandtea (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is very highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) Ravenswing 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. Longislandtea (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. Longislandtea (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article
Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on Gilman School, with both Counterfeit_Purses (talk · contribs · logs · block log) breaking 3RR 1, 2, 3, 4 and Statistical_Infighting (talk · contribs · logs · block log) being right at 3 Reverts 1, 2, 3.
This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it here and here, again on the 17th, 18th, and then being at the above today.
- E/C applied. Star Mississippi 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins
In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.
I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
We don't include all notable alumni in these lists
Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- @The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins
- @Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Vandal encounter
This IP seems to be a vandal who seems to be ready to start an edit war. I have reverted their disruptive edits, and they have begun to add them back.
I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not done - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –Davey2010 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Glenn103
Glenn103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: ''']''' (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: Draft:Yery with tilde). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: Draft:Tse with caron & Tse with caron). Immediate action may be needed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... ''']''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... ''']''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) Oddwood (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
- I mean you might have a point, but wow. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Similar behavior to PickleMan500 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and other socks puppeted by Abrown1019 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been WP:G5'd, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. Since these socks have been banned (WP:3X), I haven't notified them of this discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good catch, and looking at the contribution histories it Looks like a duck to me. Changing the block to indef as a sock accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion
The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.
Key Points:
- Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:
- The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
- The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
- The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
- Ongoing Disruption:
- Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
- This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
- Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:
- Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
- Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
- Impact on the Community:
- The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
- These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.
Request for Administrative Action:
I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
- Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
- Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
- Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.
This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Misplaced Pages's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter. UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. Rc2barrington (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at WP:AN rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. Liz 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to post it at WP:AN but it said: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.
- If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you."
- I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute Rc2barrington (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. Axad12 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated
– Well, I just put it through GPTzero and got 97% human. Might be best if you don't just make up random "evidence". EEng 17:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
- At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
- There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
- You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than your words. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
External videos | |
---|---|
Rc2barrington's appearance on Jeopardy |
- Rc2barrington's user page says
This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring
, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant majority of readers). It really is that simple. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Putting the use of LLM aside, however you compose your message you should comply with the basics of ANI. This includes not making allegations without supplying evidence. This would normally be in the form of diffs but in this case just links might be fine. But User:Rc2barrington has provided none.
Probably because this is because their initial complaint appears to be unsupported by what's actually happening. They claimed "
Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editor
". But where is this? I visited the talk page, and what I see is here Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Post RFC discussion there was a request for clarification from the closer, something which is perfectly reasonably and which the closer followed up on. The OP then offered an interjection which frankly seemed unnecessary. There was then a very brief forumish discussion. To be clear, AFAICT no one in the follow up discussion was suggesting any changes to the article. So while it wasn't he most helpful thing as with any forumish discussion; it's hardly causing that much disruption especially since it seems to have quickly ended and also cannot be called "the same arguments" since there was no argument. No one in that discussion was actually suggesting changing the article.Then there is Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#North Korea RFC aftermath discussion. There was again some forumish discussion in this thread which again isn't helpful but wasn't that long. But there was also discussion about other things like the name of the article and whether to restructure it. To be clear, this isn't something which was resolve in the RfC. In fact, the closer specifically mention possible future issues in a non close comment.
Next we see Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Follow up to the previous discussion (Request for comment, can we add North Korea as a belligerent?). Again the main focus of the discussion is in how to handle stuff which wasn't dealt with in the RfC. There is a total of 2 short comments in that thread which were disputing the RfC which is unfortunate but hardly something to worry ANI about.
Next there is Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Can we add a Supported by section for Ukraine in the infobox?. DPRK was briefly mentioned there but only in relation to a suggestion to change the infobox for other countries. No part of that discussion can IMO be said to be disputing the DPRK RfC. Next we have Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Remove Belarus from the infobox. Again DPRK was briefly mention but only in relation to other countries. No part of that discussion can be said to be disputing the RfC. AFAICT, the only threads or comments removed from the talk page since the closure of the RfC was by automated archival. The only threads which seem to be post close are on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 20 and none of them seem to deal with North Korea.
So at least on the article talk page I don't see what the OP has said is happening. The tiny amount of challenging of the RfC is definitely not something ANI needs to worry about. Even the other forumish or otherwise unproductive comments aren't at a level that IMO warrants any action IMO. If this is happening somewhere else, this is even more reason why the OP needed to provide us some evidence rather than a long comment without anything concrete, however they composed it.
- Rc2barrington's user page says
Concern About a New Contributor
Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kriji Sehamati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dear Wikipedians,
I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @Kriji Sehamati, despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your response has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
- Perhaps if you supplied evidence of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor and are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
- By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a possible UPE template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am concerned that User:Kriji_Sehamati’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
- She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, here but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
- Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
- •
- •
- •
- •
- and many more
- Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under WP:NPOL, a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Kriji Sehamati: hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits are problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. Liz 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) BusterD (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @BusterD,
- It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
- Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Remsense,
- I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. Seriously. That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of WP:NLT and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Simonm223,
- I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. Remsense ‥ 论 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page of Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".Remsense ‥ 论 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good call, I'll retract the above. Remsense ‥ 论 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that is not what I am implying. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been patrolled does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You can't both criticize someone for
lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL
, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
- In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD process but not criteria that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. Remsense ‥ 论 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- S-Aura, how did you make the determination
User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages
? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) - S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). BusterD (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. C F A 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. Remsense ‥ 论 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support BOOMERANG - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and VESTED mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. EF 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. Daniel (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake making aspersions
The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. Liz 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. — Hex • talk 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute.
Trading Places is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.
The article states that G. Gordon Liddy demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. The citation for this claim is a listicle on Indiewire, which contains the sentence
- Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks becomes a gorilla’s mate.
Reportedly by whom is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.
The content dispute began when I changed it like this (diff) with the comment Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs:
− | Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks | + | Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla. |
This was reverted (diff) by Darkwarriorblake with the comment not what the source says.
After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.(diff)
− | ...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks | + | ...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;... |
My accompanying comment was (a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim
That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per WP:BRD. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.
This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of casting aspersions. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.
There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself.
This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including WP:EDITWARRING
At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've reverting changes to for years (is this ownership? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the critical reassessment section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even search Google for "Trading Places gorilla rape".
So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like assuming good faith at all. — Hex • talk 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
- I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
- The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
- When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
- The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
- The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
- I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not really be something you can fling ownership at.
- Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
- Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. — Hex • talk 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in 1000s of articles—take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with one revert each, and ended on the talk page. --SerialNumber54129 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.
One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away.
- Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. — Hex • talk 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.
Followup
I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.
While we're on the subject, our article on Liddy recites that Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.
I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a drinking problem, and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. EEng
User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page
User:Stationmanagerskidrow is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at their station. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. Pyramids09 (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User is now editing using User:159.196.168.116 Pyramids09 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. Liz 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was WP:LOUTSOCKing as this IP, and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." ⇒SWATJester 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:USERNAME and WP:COI message added here. I'm just about to make myself thoroughly WP:INVOLVED by seeing what I can do about the Radio Skid Row article. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Insults
I'd like to report an incident related to this discussion. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) suggests that I may need psychiatric help. Please also see this comment. I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. Psychloppos (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? Liz 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should assume good faith ? It would also be nice to remind them about Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. Psychloppos (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Normally this starts with warnings on the user's Talk page, but it seems you two have already hashed that out. So unless this account does it again, there's no further action to be taken. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should assume good faith ? It would also be nice to remind them about Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. Psychloppos (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions
This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear admin, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.
I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.
Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed. Hazar HS (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Hazar Sam, whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – 2804:F1...26:F77C (::/32) (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, we have less tolerance for AI-written arguments than the American court system. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I moved this retaliatory post to be a sub-heading of the original issue. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the Kamaria Ahir caste using unreliable WP:RAJ era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and WP:SEALIONING generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as WP:RSN and WP:DRN and including here , accusing me of vandalism.
Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by @ActivelyDisinterested:) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just hallucinations that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA, I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Ratnahastin,
- To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
- I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
- As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
- I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
- In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. Nlkyair012 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience Nlkyair012 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. Nlkyair012 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This ain't getting anywhere Nlkyair012 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction Nlkyair012 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are not here for building an encyclopaedia but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's better. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". Liz 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's.
Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in Tampa. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JrStudios The Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy link Frisch's. Knitsey (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
This sounds a lot like the same edit warrer I dealt with on Redbox, down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.I've asked RFPP to intervene. wizzito | say hello! 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. wizzito | say hello! 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Nadeem asghar khan inaccurate edit summaries
All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. Spike 'em (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Lil Dicky Semi-Protection
WP:RFPP is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lil Dicky was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? 174.93.89.27 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Disruptive behavior from IP
For the past month, 24.206.65.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been attempting to add misleading information to Boeing 777, specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including baseless claims that Fnlayson is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on their talk page to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ZLEA T\ 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; 24.206.75.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.206.65.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ZLEA T\ 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- "777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that User:Fnlayson was okay with . I feel that User:ZLEA is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. 24.206.65.142 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ZLEA T\ 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. They have been told before by Fnlayson not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ZLEA T\ 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). 24.206.65.142 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your failure or refusal to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ZLEA T\ 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- None of those are reliable sources suitable for sustaining the edit you want to make. #1 would only support that airline claiming to have that kind of plane. #2 is a model manufacturer, and #3 is a blog. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). 24.206.65.142 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Relevant range is 24.206.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), in case somebody needs it. wizzito | say hello! 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Semiprotected Boeing 777 for two days. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Rude and unfestive language in my talk page
My esteemed editor collegue Marcus Markup just left this rude message on my talk page, on Christmas Day no less. Not really in the spirit of the season, I'd say. Considering that he was sagaciously advising me on the importance of tact and etiquette in the very same thread, he should be held to the same standard. Vector legacy (2010) (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Vector legacy (2010) and Marcus Markup, you both should stop that childish behavior and disengage from one another. Cullen328 (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)