| Revision as of 00:07, 19 March 2015 editMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits →Disruptive editing and persistent incivility at Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:09, 24 December 2024 edit undoAnonMoos (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers71,892 edits →Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} | |||
| {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize =800K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 1174 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(72h) | ||
| |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c | |||
| |key = 95f2c40e2e81e8b5dbf1fc65d4152915 | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | ||
| |headerlevel=2 | |||
| }} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{stack end}} | |||
| <!-- | <!-- | ||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | |||
| |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive | |||
| == Globallycz == | |||
| |format=%%i | |||
| {{Atop|This problem was over a few days ago. There's no point in keeping it open.--] (]) 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| |age=36 | |||
| |index=no | |||
| |numberstart=826 | |||
| |archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} | |||
| |minarchthreads= 1 | |||
| |minkeepthreads= 4 | |||
| |maxarchsize= 700000 | |||
| |key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c | |||
| }} --><!-- | |||
| ----------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| As this page concerns INCIDENTS: | |||
| Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header. | |||
| Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| Do not place links in the section headers. | |||
| (Immediately UNDER the header is preferred). | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| Entries may be refactored based on the above. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- --> | |||
| This user has been on disruptive edits and bad faith reviews. I as an bystander can't help with these edits as this user used only mobile phone edits to edit he please and his edit summaries was rather harsh and accusing editors of bad faith. He only joined Misplaced Pages for three months, and this is rather concerning for the accord. Please investigate. ] (]) 04:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == 2015 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates == | |||
| :Have you looked at majority of my edits? Or are you basing your views here of me based on narrow baised view. I offered mg reason for reverting your edits which removed the age content without explanation. You failed to respond adequately and now instead of addressinfmg my feedback on good faith, you dropped a baseless accusation without any proper qualification. Stop nitpciking editors jus because we are a few months. That is irrelevant. And dont abuse the words "good faith". Cite specific examples where there is a basis. Otherwise, i am sorry. It will be disregarded. ] (]) 05:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is ] to the ], and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role. | |||
| ::It is your majority of edits, and two, Your talk page also shows it and so was edit summaries, and you felt like you want to confront readers. ] (]) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Interested parties are invited to review the ] containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination pages or privately via email to {{NoSpamEmail|arbcom-en-c|lists.wikimedia.org}}. | |||
| :::The talk page represented a small percentage of all my edits. Have you considered whether these few editors were reasonable or unreasonable when they brought issues to talk page. Sadly, most were behaving unreasonably or without basis. Some are somewhat like your case; no explanation was given to remove content. I suggest you put away personal feelings. I offered my reason(s) for reverting your edits which primarily removed the age content without any explanation. Again please do not nitpick editors just because they are a few months. That is irrelevant. Quality of edit matters more. Again, i will not defend myself further. I just hope Adnin will be fair and look at the issue broadly and openly. Admin: If this particularly editor using the IP address as his user id continue to edits or remove content without adequate reasons or source, i will try to put them right again. ] (]) 05:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::IP, as the notice at the top of the page says, "please provide links and diffs here to involved pages". Globallycz has made more than 1500 edits in the last few months and we're not going to shift through them all trying to guess which edits you might think are a problem. Give us some examples. See ] if you don't know how to make a diff. ] (]) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, here it is one of them, and even accused that one of irrational behavior. I am not. ] (]) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's the best you can come up with? Globallycz's edit summary is uncivil, as is your retaliatory edit summary where you used the same term in reference to Globallycz. You might want to read ]. The disputed content is simply a matter of a difference of wording, which neither of you has attempted to discuss on the talk page. In general I prefer your wording, but it has some minor grammar and punctuation errors that need correcting, and you introduce the error "0Viet" as part of a reference elsewhere. The more important thing is that both of you are edit warring over this material. You have both broken ]. ] (]) 06:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I just like to highlight that the disputed content was not just a matter of wording. Please review carefully. I dont think i was being rude nor uncivil. The person accusing me of this and that has used strong words like asking me to get a life and daring me this and tbat. On my part, i only insisted that all WP edits should be properly justified. Suggest you reviewed the edits again. | |||
| :::::::i dont wish to add to your burden unless necessary. The irony is that he had earlier removed the space between a full stop and two references along with other age content on the WP describibg serious crimes in Singapore between 2020 and 2024. When i did the same thing to remove the space between full stop and reference, he undid it. That is not rational. Being civil means respecting others by following basic rules like justifying each edit reasonably. I dont see him doing that. You wont hear from me anymore. ] (]) 07:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm assuming that the related edits in the 122.11.212 range are yours too. ] (]) 07:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{tq|You have both broken ]}} - Indeed they have, and thus they've both been blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Frankly if you admin people are more informed or less lazy, you will check the edits by IP user 122.11.212.156 and notice most of his edit were reverted by others due to vandalism or unsubstantiated edits. This is partly why I.dont have any kind of respect to the check and balance system in WP. ] (]) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm not seeing "most" of the IP's edits being reverted as vandalism. In fact, you're the ''only'' person I'm seeing reverting them. Also, lashing out at the admins as {{tq|lazy}} is ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Well, that is not honest. If you are unhappy with being labelled as lazy and deny several reverting of past edits of IP user 122.11.212.156 by other editors, that is not being objective. I cant do anything if you deny them. I only reverted 2 of this edits which involved removals of content without reasons. Your response is the reason I dont have respect for the work Adminstrator do. ] (]) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::], nobody said you're obligated to "respect the work admins do", however you do have to abide by ] and ], which are ] (in fact, one of the ]), and ''not'' some optional motto or decorative set of words. Calling people "irrational" or "lazy" is uncivil, and as an uninvolved observer I would suggest you stop. ] (]) 14:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::It is called criticism and not an attack. WP Administrator needs to do a better job when carrying out arbitration of complaints or disputes. I am fine with being blocked one day for breaking the 3RR rule but Admin should look deeper into the IP user 122.11.212.156's track record. He got off too lightly. | |||
| *:::::Sorry, i disagree that using the words lazy and irrational is deemed uncivil. It is not personal. It is my general observation from this episode. If Admin does a bad job, are we suppose to pretentiously thank or praise them? I can easily cite examples to support my claim about IP user 122.11.212.156 unconstructive edits. I just couldnt understand why Admin let the user off so easily. | |||
| *:::::Of course, I am not obligated to respect the work Admin does. Nobody needs to tell me that. ] (]) 16:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Just giving you advice here, in line with what multiple different people have already told you. | |||
| *::::::Though if you choose ] and dig your hole deeper instead, that's of course your prerogative. I will now disengage, good luck. ] (]) 16:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Globallycz, it's interesting that you think the IP "got off too lightly"" seeing as how you were both given identical blocks for edit warring with each other. If that's the case then it appears that '''you''' also got off too lightly. | |||
| *:::::::Stating that you prefer a block to discussing the contested edits, and doubling down on your incivility/personal attacks does not bode well for you. ] before EducatedRedneck's following call for an indef is accepted. ] (]) 22:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I have repeatedly highlighted to look into the track record of IP user 122.11.212.156. But it seems none of you wish to do so and cant bother to look deeper and beyond just the single snap shot on his edit warring with me over WP on serious crimes in Singapore 2020 onwards. Please do not misinterpret what I said. I am fine with the 24 hours block over the edit warribg incident but 122.11.212.156 has a history of unconstructive edits that were reverted by others. 122.11.212.156 knowingly edited the disputed WP without citing any reasons and still has the audacity to complain about me. His or her action are done to disrupt others. Just check his contributions in the past and you will notice many others were reverted either manually or using undone function. On that basis, he got off too lightly. Well, if Admin refused to check the IP user track record, I cant do anything but label it as lazy. My comments are nothing personal but directed at the actions. Even my comment that 122.11.212.156 is irrational was directed at his or her actions. I dont even know any of you. Why would I be personal? I am just voicing my unhappiness with the way dispute are decided here by Admin which I feel are sometimes too superficially done and decided. I would sign off here on this topic too. ] (]) 05:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I looked at the ] and I don't see anything like the record you are describing. That IP has made a total of 14 edits in the past year, all in the last 2 months, of which only six have been to article space. Five of those edits to article space have been reverted, and '''all''' of those reversions were done by you; no reversions have been done by any other editor. It's not very meaningful to look at edits further back than a year since it's likely the IP address was reassigned so the old edits may not have done by the same editor. But even looking back at the older edits, there were a total of 15 edits from this IP before 2024, of which 5 were reverted. This all hardly shows a pattern of widespread disruptive edits or "many" reversions.{{pb}}I also looked at the edits to ] that Globallycz is so worked up about and is calling disruption. They are very minor, basically the argument is just about whether to include the ages of some people involved in a crime. Ironically, 122.11.212.156's last edit was to restore Globallycz's preferred version, yet Globallycz still can't let this drop and continues to call for sanctions. Given their uncollaborative and uncivil comments here and elsewhere, I would support an indef, or at least fairly lengthy block, especially since they have repeatedly indicated that they are ready to accept a 24 hour block as a price they're willing to pay in order to get their way. ] (]) 07:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::You are not being reasonable and fair | |||
| *::::::::::(1) when you discount the explanation I gave to revert the two edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 pertaining to removal of age content . I had repeatedly asked 122.11.212.156 to explain the age content removal but it was never given. I justified the reversion of his edit by explaining that the sources listed the age of the suspect and victim along with their names. | |||
| *::::::::::(2) when you did not considered that the multiple reversions in 2024 were pertaining to the same WP and same disputed content while those earlier were of different WPs and content. I quote 3 WPs below which had edit by 122.11.212.156 reverted by other editors. Reason given by those who reverted the edits are quoted below too. | |||
| *::::::::::1. WP Osmanthus fragrans: | |||
| *::::::::::Date: Jul 2022 | |||
| *::::::::::Undid revision 1100529442 by 122.11.212.156 (talk)-repeated disruptive edits | |||
| *::::::::::2. WP Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) | |||
| *::::::::::Date: 1 Nov 2021 | |||
| *::::::::::Undid revision 1053014105 by 122.11.212.156 (talk) unexplained removal of material and change of references | |||
| *::::::::::3. WP Wunmi Mosaku | |||
| *::::::::::Date: 17 Sep 2021 | |||
| *::::::::::Reverting edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 (talk) to rev. 1045008960 by 42.188.141.191: unsourced BLP birth date | |||
| *::::::::::In your eagerness to see that I am banned indefinitely, you have conveniently claimed it is not meaningful to look at edits beyond one year since IP may be reassigned and past edits may be done by a different person. This is so convenient since there is no need to provide proof. | |||
| *::::::::::I can also conveniently claim that there are different people manning the IP address and their common objective is to disrupt WP edits. Likewise, I dont have to prove what i say too and there is no way for you to disprove this possibility too. | |||
| *::::::::::He decided to undo the reversion after knowing he has beem exposed for irrational behavior. I have explained why he was irrational. And I dont wish to repeat here again. If none of you wish to take that into account, I cant do anything. Please be objective. ] (]) 13:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::By the way, I have just looked at the edit by IP user 122.11.212.156 in Oct 2024 pertaining to WP Jurong Group Representative Constituency. The content introduced by IP user 122.11.212.156 was illogical and unsupported by any source. As such I have reverted them. ] (]) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Just to add, if we just look at 2024 contributions of IP user 122.11.212.233 involving 7 edits of mainly same content on just 2 WPs (Major Crimes in Singapore 2020 - Present and Jurong GRC), it is hardly representative of the disruptive behavior. A telltale sign that he is possibly from the same person was the evidence that in Nov 2021, he edited WP page related to Singapore MRT and in 2024, his edits were also pertaining to Singapore related WPs on major crimes in Singapore and Jurong GRC. ] (]) 01:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't think Globallycz has gotten the message. Their denial that calling editors (admins or otherwise) "lazy" is a ] seems to suggest ]. On their talk page, they ]: {{tq|q=y|Frankly, i rather get blocked for 24 hours rather than go through dispute resolution}}. They ]: {{tq|q=y| For me, it is fine to be blocked. I rather take that route.}} Finally, they seem to admit to using personal attacks to prove a ] in ] edit, where after being told to not attack editors, they state: {{tq|q=y|I am highlighting a problem here}} If they won't even pay lip service to following community guidelines, I think an indef is appropriate. If they change their approach and convince an admin, they can be welcomed back. ] (]) 17:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| ==Obvious sock threatening to take legal action== | |||
| Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments. | |||
| {{atop|1=VPN socking blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{atop|result=IP 2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range block has been blocked for 6 months. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to ]s . This range belongs to ] and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "{{tq|but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User}}" . - ] (]) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of ] article see his latest revision on ] you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating ] but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this ] who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while ] (]) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015. | |||
| :But wait a second as per ] i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers] (]) | |||
| ::Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention ] and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —''']''' (]) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think it's both. ] (]) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::At least in the South, an American would recognize ] as a pejorative. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<small>Funny thing is you go far ''enough'' south it wraps back around again: ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * Observation: the IP just on the talk page of the ] article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —''']''' (]) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Is there a Dudi ]? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *Noting that this person (Truthfindervert?) has taken to using VPNs. I’ve blocked a couple today. --] (]) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] == | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 06:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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 . | |||
| :''']''' | |||
| 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 alleged == | |||
| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::''(Retitled to "Personal attacks alleged" from non-neutral "Personal attacks by QuackGuru". See ]. --]]] 13:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC))'' | |||
| QuackGuru has engaged in personal attacks. In violation of AGF and misrepresenting me and my edits. Contrary to warning he continues to post links to a closed WP:AN/I section that was closed no consensus in an effort to discredit me. The attacks are not on point, but personal, not directed to the topic, but me. This has no place on the talk pages of WP articles. | |||
| *His latest including a link to the closed WP:AN/I section in the edits comments.<strike> </strike> | |||
| *Previous linking of the section closed WP:AN/I in edit comments. | |||
| *He even uses a user page to hold the information so he can easily paste it. | |||
| *He has placed the link in comments on an admin's user page, and the edit is a pure attack. | |||
| *He has placed the link in the comments and the attack on a request for page protection that I made. | |||
| :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) | |||
| Edit March 10, 2015 (added 5 more diff's below) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| *So not to get lost in the long discussion. QuackGuru on this page made another more serious harassing post towards me on my disability . This is an ongoing pattern. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| *<u>Another link to the section in comments to discredit me | |||
| ::::It's a conduct issue. ] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Another link to the section in comments to discredit me | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| *Another link to the section in comments to discredit me | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| *Links to the old AN/I section and misrepresents the nature of it to discredit me. </u> (note: 4 difs added by {{u|AlbinoFerret}} in and today ] (]) 17:30, 10 March 2015 (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) | |||
| This has to stop, There are serious violations of ] including misrepresenting, AGF, and making the discussion on the other editor and not the topic and ] for the persistently trying to discredit me over old and resolved WP:AN/I sections. Asking him to stop has done no good. Smearing another editor should not be done. ] 03:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::So the first dif is "User:AlbinoFerret claims "You have not discussed one edit in the 19k characters you inserted." But I did discuss sources User:AlbinoFerret deleted. The response was "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion." That is not a specific objection for excluding relevant information. User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve this page IMO. how is deleting numerous reliable sources improving this page? ] (]) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)" | |||
| ::I am not seeing anything ANI worthy there. Sorry ] (] · ] · ]) 03:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::@QuackGuru, thanks for pointing out I had the wrong diff. I have struck out the wrong one and placed the correct one. ] 03:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *This comment "" by User:AlbinoFerret makes me wonder if a topic ban ] would be useful though. See how consensus is that WHO is one of the best medical sources. ] (] · ] · ]) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Bringing concerns to a noticeboard is what they are for ? ] (] · ] · ]) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::That discussion already happened in the WP:AN/I QuackGuru keeps linking to and is now 5 months old. It is a content disagreement, and this focus of this section isnt on content, but the persistent personal attacks by QuackGuru. The noticeboard is only one place out of many, and it was the noticeboard for page protection, not a place to level personal attacks or discuss editors. ] 03:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Can someone please point out the personal attack? I do not immediately see the insult being directed. I think we are nearing 150 days of daily edit warring at this article so I recognize the tension. ]] 04:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd agree BR, I don't see ] here. I do see unhelpful behaviour, not unidirectionally, including ], ] and ]. I fully understand AF's furstration at QG's massive undiscussed edits on a controversial topic, usually I find with reasonable content in them but lots of dross that doesn't add to the article as well. I also understand QG's frustration with AF undoing what is a large amount of work. But QG is persistently trying to discredit AF over old and resolved ANI threads. I don't know what can be done to reduce the tension at the e-cigarette family of Articles but I think some form of sanctions need to be handed out to those making it harder for productive collaboration to happen. ] (]) 08:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think sanctions might be the way to go here since there are multiple problem editors. Many editors left and unwatched the article as it became toxic. Considering how often e-cigs have come up at ] where decent medical sources always seemed to be challenged by the same group of editors, I'm concerned there may be significant POVs running the discussion. The more problematic POV seems to be being critical specifically of sources that are critical of e-cigs. There are behavior issues tied to how editors are dealing with content, so it doesn't seem like it's easily addressed here at ANI where people will say it's just a content dispute and ignore the behavior problems within it. ] (]) 18:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::@Bluerasberry While it is not classically defined ] it is ] and the two are very close. ] 14:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *], it would be better to please keep ] on your own computer, not Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Otherwise, I don't see harassment here, and certainly not personal attacks. I agree with ] there's nothing for admins to do. ] | ] 16:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::{{u|Bishonen}} So, its ok to smear another editor by bringing up old AN/I sections, even those that were closed with no consensus of wrongdoing. Even on article talk pages and others in an attempt to discredit and smear another editor? ] 18:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bringing up what you have stated before is not a smear. Possibly a topic ban of ] would improve things. ] (] · ] · ]) 20:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I do think you may be right, that at least a temporary (perhaps 3 month) TBAN from electronic cigarette articles would be good for AlbinoFerret's equilibrium. This is an issue where advocates are running well ahead of the evidence, and this is necessarily a source of friction and controversy. The Misplaced Pages articles are a classic case of ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'd agree with considering a temp TBAN. I had a discussion with AF on my talk page awhile back about them being too locked-in to the topic and not being able to step back. Looking at the current situation I do think it would be helpful to both AF and the topic if they had a break. The previous ANI on AF specifically said there was no consensus at the time on an action, but that is very different from saying there wasn't a behavior problem. I think AF definitely has the potential to approach things more evenly ( conversation did give me some hope), but they really need to step out of their single topic and get experience in less contentious topics since their posting history looks like a ] right now.] (]) 20:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am not a ], I edit other pages and have other interests. ] 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@Doc James, The whole other section was a smear campaign, started by you. All based on content disputes. Had it resulted in a finding against me, perhaps it could be used here. But it didnt, and talk pages of articles are not the place to try and bring up dirt on another editor. ] 21:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Some of what Albino says is valid, in that this is the proper forum for bringing the list of diffs - not article Talk pages or admin Talk pages. Deploying the list in that way is harassment-y and I think QG should be warned to address behavior issues in appropriate venues going forward. However I don't agree with anything else Albino has written. (particularly his claim that it was not valid ; we all know that many ANIs lose focus and become sprawling, uncloseable messes, as that one did. There was plenty of solid feedback on Albino's behavior in that ANI, however, and linking to it is OK.) ] (]) 21:06, 5 March 2015 (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) | |||
| * it appears that {{u|QuackGuru}} has not taken down the page tracking Albino's behavior yet, despite being advised to do so by an admin, which is not good. QG, it is fine to build such a list but you have to deploy it and then get rid of it. You may have not been ready to use it but your hand is forced now. So - either just delete it, or post it here with a request for admin or community action against Albino, and then delete it. But either way, it should go. ] (]) 20:58, 5 March 2015 (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) | |||
| ], I put for now. Is this or do you still prefer I blank the page. I'm not done with it. This will go to arbcom if admins don't do anything soon. ] (]) 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Quackguru}} see ] - it is OK to compile a list of behaviors in your userspace but you must use it timely. That is why i said that your hand has been forced, and you have to use it and lose it, or just lose it. It seems like you have enough there to request the community to topic-ban, and this is the place to do that. The last one could have potentially succeeded but it was lost in that totally sprawling ANI. But i will get out of the way and let bish answer. ] (]) 21:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Quackguru}}, for you to blank it yourself would be an acceptable compromise, from where I stand, between the hat and putting a speedy tag on it. Blanking isn't a problem, is it? The material would still be at your fingertips via the history. ] | ] 22:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::A short time ago I did . ] (]) 22:34, 5 March 2015 (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) | |||
| ===Proposed Block for QuackGuru=== | |||
| {{archive top|result=There is no concensus for a block of QuackGuru at this time. ]! 20:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| QuackGuru has a long history of blocks and banns including a past block for personal attacks and harassment. He appears to be a ] that focuses on controversial medical articles. Past short banns and blocks have done no good. I proposed a indefinite block or alternately a one year block. He has engaged in harassment ] again. His actions to remove some of the harassment dont go far enough, the edit summaries are still there as well as the attacks on talk pages. ] 13:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :User:AlbinoFerret proposed the same thing before and that went nowhere fast. See ]. A return ] will resolve the issue at hand. ] (]) 17:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I endorse an immediate block for QuackGuru for edit. I note that QuackGuru regards me as WP:INVOLVED per ] of his talk page. It lists a collection of dubious statements and untrue allegations against me, and has done since December 2014 in violation of ]. If QG has issues with me I request that they address them in the proper way. While I do not accept that I am INVOLVED here, I do request that another admin make the block. --] (]) 19:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::QuackGuru has no right to comment on AlbinoFerret's private life whatsoever, let alone assume he's lying about things ''QuackGuru can't know anything about''. I've warned him. ] | ] 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| :::How many warnings will QG get for harassment? ] 13:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Perhaps the same amount of ] you've been given to continue your obvious advocacy. ] (]) 15:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Obvious advocacy? You are incorrect. That is a baseless false charge. ] 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Really, a "baseless false charge"? If that is so, it is one that is accepted as true by a goodly number of very experienced editors who voted in support of a topic ban for you. Your advocacy isn't in the least covert, it is, as several have commented, easily recognizable. ] (]) 21:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't have time to count the total number of past warnings against QuackGuru, so I'll simply list the notices given recently: | |||
| ::::::* : A notice by admin Adjwilley was given for ignoring administrative advice and attacking an administrator | |||
| ::::::* : A notice by admin Rjanag was given for plagiarism | |||
| ::::::*: A warning by admin Shii was issued for edit warring | |||
| ::::::* : A warning by admin Kww was issued to QuackGuru for attacking ] in bad faith | |||
| ::::::I suppose one could give QuackGuru another warning and remind him not to ignore administrative advice or attack editors, as has been done many times in the past, but I don't think such an approach would be helpful to the community (or the administrators). This editor was many years ago for canvassing via email and making misleading accusations, and it appears that with every successive administrative warning, his disruptive behavior continues to worsen and escalate. -] 16:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::In addition I think that https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:QuackGuru may give light into QuackGuru's activities on electronic cigarette in the recent past. It has not gotten any better. Arguing round in circles trying to get a press release used for medical content, making 20000 character edits in private with no notice or discussion on the talk page. ] 16:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, I agree that QuackGuru's ] is highly detrimental to the consensus building process and I note that he had been previously for making edits without first seeking consensus but am not surprised that he continues to ignore all administrative warnings. -] 16:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You folks have a nice little circle going on here, a walled garden of mutually supportive comments, mostly between SPAs with the same objective in mind. Only problem is, every comment just makes the groups' general lack of objectivity even more obvious. ] (]) 22:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I am not an SPA, and I suggest you strike out that comment. -] 13:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Since I'm just back from a sepsis-enforced break I don't want to step in and make what would be a controversial block, especially in a situation where an uninvolved admin decided to just warn you for it, but Quack, that was unnecessary and under different circumstances (and if I'd beaten Bish here,) I probably would've blocked you. If you do something similar in the future, I probably will. You do a lot of important content work, but there's really no reason to make such a comment. ] (]) 13:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support immediate block''' - by QuackGuru was clearly targeted against an editor's personal life. The edit summary was highly inappropriate, inexplicably cruel and plain disgusting. Given that the comment was made on the administrators' noticeboard where editors should be particularly mindful of their own behavior, and that QuackGuru had been previously warned and blocked for long-standing patterns of personal harrassment and disruptive editing (see and recent warnings), I think a much longer block might be necessary. We are not dealing with a new or inexperienced editor, but a disruptive, long-term editor (account created in 2006) who knows enough about Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies but continues to ignore them ''ad infinitum''. ] 13:49, 7 March 2015 (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) | |||
| *'''Strong support''' per A1candidate. That comment from QG was beyond the pale. Considering his long list of blocks for the same type of behavior, I would hope such a block would be longer than a day or two. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 16:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **A1 and WV please pay attention - above an admin has already said they took action for that comment. That incident is done. <u>A1</u> I understand you <s>both</s> would love to get rid of QG b/c he fights quackery<s> but</s><u>. In any case</u> this attempt to pile on and override an admin is ''as unseemly'' as QG's remark. ] (]) 16:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC) (amended per Winkelvi's objection below. my apologies. ] (]) 19:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| ***There's nothing wrong with QG fighting quackery, except that he does it while violating a series of well-established behaviorial guidelines. His does not give me much hope that he will ever change his behavior. -] 22:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***Jytdog, HOW CAN YOU EQUATE A SLUR with a call to sanction a slur?! It's entirely appropriate to debate whether a stronger sanction is warranted given the repugnance of ; it is nauseatingly out of bounds. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 12:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ****{{u|Middle 8}} I'll answer although the question seems more rhetorical than actually looking for an answer. I agree the comment was out of bounds - I was the one who hatted it. I also agree it was foul. I disagree with calling what he did a "slur" as he didn't insult AF based on his disability - instead he called AF a liar. It was a low blow, stupid, personal attack based on nothing; very bad judgement on multiple levels, especially in this context. I do see whipping up hysteria over a stupid comment, and trying to use that to gain momentum for a block, in the midst of a ''very badly'' framed case, as cynical and manipulative. So yeah, as unseemly as QG's remark, on a different vector. You may recall that I voted in favor of your RfC/U, even though it too was malformed. I think QG is very vulnerable to topic or even site banning based on a very clear record of bad behavior. he functions as kind of a "beserker" on fringe topics where you have alt med or other kinds of POV-pushers opposing sound MEDRS usage, and he goes right up to the line all the time, and over it, not infrequently. Just like he does at the e-cigs articles. I don't like to edit where he is working and leave ... but when he shows up things are pretty far gone already. Anyway, if you look at how this thread started, the case against QG is even more badly formed than your RfC/U, and that one failed too. (I said so way above, before you joined the discussion here) This one does not cut it. I am baffled as to why someone hasn't framed a clear case against him already. ] (]) 19:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *****{{U|Jytdog}}, yes, rhetorical. You see it as bad and I see it as terrible. Calling someone a liar about their disability is for sure a slur ("an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation"), and it was gratuitous, dickish and cruel (see my comment below to Ched). We'll have to agree to disagree on the import/properness of A1C highlighting it here; my view is that it's not just about this case: given the well-known context of QG's long and checkered history, it's unacceptable, mean-spirited. In ''any'' context on WP it's an 8/10 on the NPA scale (where 9 is the N-word and 10 is falsely calling someone a pedophile). A line was crossed. One just doesn't do that to people.... especially in a situation where collegiality is expected. I agree with your other comments, and if/when a stronger case is brought, I am pretty sure that will feature. I may bring it to Jimbo's attention anyway. One does not screw with someone over their disability, including accusing them of lying about it ("disability policing" is corrosive); disability is hard enough as it is. Revolting. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC) <small>edited20:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ***''"I understand you both would love to get rid of QG b/c he fights quackery"'' {{U|Jytdog}}, what the "eff" are you talking about? I haven't encountered QC before seeing this AN/I (that I'm aware of) so I have no idea what kind of "quackery" he fights (I'm not even sure what that means). Your accusation is out of line, but certainly not as out of line as QC's comments about AF. He has a long block log that testifies to his history of bullying and harassment. Your comments imply he's performing a necessary service to Misplaced Pages that we should all be grateful for. The truth is, Misplaced Pages is a ] and would do just fine ]. AGF and NPA, however, is not a choice -- it is required. In my opinion, your attempts to dismiss what he said by trying to assign ulterior motives to those who are supporting a block based on those comments are disgusting to me personally. I hope we never have to connect in WP again. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 17:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ****{{u|Winkelvi}} my apologies for lumping you with A1. That was sloppy of me and I apologize. I struck above accordingly. Again, my apologies. We actually have crossed paths briefly. ] (]) 19:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *****Fine, I accept the apology, {{U|Jytdog}}. For the record, the crossing of paths comment was in reference to QG. I appreciate you striking the comments that included me, however, I still am not okay with your defense of QG and the reasons for said defense. It seems there is a suggestion that QC's contributions should outweigh the fact he questioned and mocked someone's disability status. Not acceptable, in my view. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 19:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *****Thanks that is gracious of you. i think you are still <u>mis</u>understanding my perspective - pls see my comment to middle8 above. ] (]) 20:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (oy, forgot a crucial "mis". additional note. i do agree that the remark was disgusting. really i do. ] (]) 03:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| *'''Support''' - I completely agree with weeding out quackery, but there are enough people willing to do it without QuackGuru's uncooperative, bullying style of editing. It looks like he's had plenty warnings and chances to improve his behaviour, but he clearly has no intention of doing so.--] (]) 02:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * <s>'''Support block per John'''</s> '''Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future''' -- making clear my priorities. <small>!vote changed, preceding comment added, QG-specific parts of below comment struck 05:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)</small> <s>Set aside the other complaints;</s> John is right that deserves an immediate block. It's a gratuitous slur, and worse than a lot of people probably realize: is real and corrosive. This cuts deep in ways that perhaps only people affected by disability can fully grasp. <s>While QuackGuru may not have been aware of "disability policing", he damn well should have known his accusation was afoul of NPA, especially with a long block log and eight years of editing. Still, o</s> Our standards should reflect growing disability awareness. <s>Some may dismiss my comments as cynical since I've clashed with QuackGuru, but</s> I find this triggering and it transcends WP politics. I apologize to Bishonen (who declined John's suggestion to block) and others for suggesting below that merely warning QG shows softness and callousness, and am hatting my (largely) hot and ABF comments just below. Still, John is right and we shouldn't tolerate such attacks. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|reason=collapsing excessively hot and ABF comments made in reaction to personal attack}} | |||
| <strike>*'''Great -- now Misplaced Pages is going all callous about NPA and slurs based on disability.''' Apparently NPA means nothing as long as the attacker is well-liked, the attackee is not, and the attack is on a relatively invisible, disadvantaged group. Quackguru just insinuated . Are you people that tone-deaf? | |||
| ** If ANY editor had said what QG said about race or sexual orientation or gender, they'd be blocked or banned in a heartbeat. The only thing worse is outright stereotyping. Disability rights, as a movement, isn't taken seriously compared to other rights movements; we see this everywhere, great job Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ** If SOME of the other editors here had said what QG said -- especially to a "favored" editor -- they'd be at least blocked, even though QG has a longer block log than the large majority of editors whose conduct comes up for review. And should know better, has edited for over 8 years. | |||
| ** WP's double standard on NPA is now de facto policy, as is the "ends justify the means" attitude. As if the antidote for "civil POV pushing" is incivility, no matter how offensive it gets. </strike> | |||
| ** Yes, I've been on the other side of content disputes with QuackGuru but this goes way deeper than that because it's about disability. I have direct experience with it (in multiple ways; it's intense, exhausting, takes away opportunities every day -- it is what it is but at least show some respect). And I've seen how damaging it is when self-appointed "disability police" challenge others' disabilities. Being disabled is hard enough without all the cluelessness and bullshit people lay on you.<strike> | |||
| ** Nauseating hypocrisy: a warning is all that's given despite the magnitude of NPA violation, and in spite of the block log and years of editing. (And as usual, QG removes the warning right away .) At least User:John gets it; from your comments, most of the rest of you admins don't. | |||
| * OK, enough. The double standard is sickening, and the tone-deafness to disability just makes me numb with rage. Great job, people.</strike> --] <small>(] • ])</small> 12:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC) <small>copy-edited 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)</small> <br><small>Striking; my intent with hatting was to strike the whole thing, but now that I'm striking so as to be exactly clear about my intentions, I'll leave one part.01:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC) </small> | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ::I agree. QG partakes in low-level and/or borderline transgressions on a regular basis, then occasionally, often when he '''thinks''' he can get away with it he ups the ante and completely oversteps the mark. The fact that QG went and made that comment kind of vindicates AF's original claims that QG was personally attacking him. QG thought things were going his way and that a ] was heading towards AF so he chanced his luck with more blatant attacks. Looks like he'll probably get away with it as well. I'm not going to recommend anything is done with QG, I'll leave that up to less involved editors but I do know from experience that QG is an impossible editor to work with and that he is not interested in consensus, never has been, probably never will be. People say he fights quackery, but there are plenty of editors that fight quackery that do not have long block logs for personal attacks, harassment, disruptive editing, edit warring, etc. Unfortunately many of these editors, whom I have a reasonable degree of respect for, seem to support QG.] (]) 14:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm == | |||
| ::: FWIW comment. QG has been around for a long time. I think there's a huge "WP:IDHT" issue with them, but I don't think it's deliberate. Anything related to "disabilities" is a very sensitive topic, and with good reason. Yes, QG is very tendentious by nature, and it can be very exasperating. Personally I had a few ''very'' long conversations with QG long ago, and I came to one conclusion: I don't think there's an ounce of intent to hurt anyone in his efforts here. Yes, .. he tends to go through things here with blinders on - but I don't think there's any intent to do harm in him. If you told QG "you hurt my feelings", he would spend hours digging up diffs and links to prove that he didn't. QG is doing his best to help the project, but I doubt is has ever crossed his mind to NPA/attack anyone. Just IMO. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 16:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Indefed until communication improves. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::::I too, tried to have a conversation with QG long ago. That apparently did not work out, and he eventually acknowledged the futility of such an approach by stating in the edit summary that he was to listen. His most recent right after I opposed his attempt to ban AF is disingenuous, to say the least. -] 16:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Vazulvonal of Stockholm}} | |||
| ::::: I do understand your frustrations, and I wish I had an answer for you - but I can't think of one. There's a huge resistance to anything "fringe" related on wikipedia. The project secures itself in fact. Until you can actually prove that the earth is round - it will remain flat. That's just the nature of the beast. The best I can offer is this: don't tilt at windmills, recognize brick walls when you see them - and don't beat your head on them, and take comfort in your own beliefs - even if other's don't share them. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 17:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I recently came across the edits of {{U|Vazulvonal of Stockholm}}, who seems to be very stubborn in his editing. The user doesn't seem to understand the basic rules and policies of Misplaced Pages (such as the use of reliable sources and no original research), even after being . Problems include self-promotion; e.g., at ], , have tried to push the inclusion of 5 non-notable persons, of which I suspect "Lars Laszlo Schüszler" to be related to the user, as Vazulvonal seems to have created the article , which was deleted later. Other major issues include the use of very poor quality sources (e.g., ), poor grammar and spelling (e.g., ), pushing nationalist POV (e.g., ). At ], the user keeps reinstating poor quality text and sources, and even had the nerve to call me . At ], some Swedish IP Addresses (which are ), have created . Per ], I'm not sure this site is the right place for someone who doesn't take advice, warnings and policies very seriously... ] (]) 12:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Appreciate your comments there Ched, I probably shouldn't have brought intent into it since its the conduct issues that ultimately matter.] (]) 17:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Update: The user keeps ignoring all manuals and rules of Misplaced Pages, and keeps adhering to his own rules, despite being reverted and/or warned almost every time ( ). I don't know if it is a case of serious incompetence or just trolling. I would appreciate it if someone would take a look, because it does not seem that he is stopping with these shenanigans. ] (]) 13:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: @ {{U|Ched}} - I too had the impression that QG was fundamentally benign for some time until I saw his mean side. For example, WP:DICK, mocking other editors: Mallexikon: ; Quackguru: . He's also held a grudge toward me that started after I co-signed an ] on him (which was concurrently brought with a ]). Since then it's been POKE and BATTLEGROUND (below) despite multiple olive branches attempts (which he just deletes from his user talk). | |||
| :::::* Wikistalking: 10 petty examples | |||
| :::::* GAME-y/KETTLE accusations: characterizing edits I made as bad when he did the same thing | |||
| :::::* Repeated, baiting, disingenuous "questions" about COI despite an explanation right in my signature line (] <small>(] • ])</small>) and multiple good-faith answers: (<small></small> | <small> </small>); (<small></small>); (<small> <small>|</small> </small>). | |||
| ::::: The above is not innocent. <strike>But it doesn't matter; NPA and CIVIL are to be applied only selectively, apparently.</strike> | |||
| ::::: So, no, I don't accept that QG's slur against AlbinoFerret was anything other than an attempt to mock and discredit them. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (struck sentence 02:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::Yes suppression of legitimate discussion regarding QG's conduct on their talk page to avoid detection is yet another issue, I have an example of that: . Edit: Another, better example, of plain deletion this time: ] (]) 18:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I have also had problems with this editor, on a specific BLP (]), to which they insist on adding unsourced details (for instance on December 14 ) after a 3rd-level BLP warning on November 27 ). They also appear to be somewhat indiscriminate about putting ethnically-Hungarian people of other nationalities into Hungarian-nationality categories (such as in this case, where we have sourcing for Fülöp identifying as Hungarian but being born in Romania and emigrating to Sweden). I would be unsurprised to find that these issues are more widespread than this one article. —] (]) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose here (for now) and take to ArbCom instead.''' Given that QG's behavior is so heavily tied to other editors and their actions in the topic, his behavior would seem better evaluated at ArbCom instead along with the suite of e-cig issues. The case below this seems to be much more standalone, but QG's actions are so intertwined with other editor's actions and mired in controversial topics it would seem a more methodical look by ArbCom would be more appropriate than a knee-jerk reaction here. People end up dealing with a lot of crap when dealing with fringe or advocacy type editors, so some of that does need to be disentangled in the topic. That being said, I do think QG can go too far sometimes. We don't afford people with disabilities any special privileges over anyone else here, and talking about AF's situation is going to be tough no matter what. ] has been brought up in that regard, but that's really as far as any conversation about disability should have gone. Since action has already been taken with regard to QG's comment on whether AF is disabled or not, are more systemic look at behavior at the article and with users is needed to really discuss the appropriateness of a block. I don't see that here at this time. ] (]) 17:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The excessive additions to ] and ], based on original research and overbroad definitions of what it means to be from one country (Hungary) have continued unabated despite this thread. I see no sign that VoS has ever replied to anything on their user talk. They have made a lot of contributions on ] but it is of a piece with their article-space edits, broad original-research-based categorization of people as Hungarian and not much listening to other editors. | |||
| ::He has been previously banned by Arbcom for similar behavioral issues and POV-pushing patterns. The Committee concluded that there was . That was back in 2011. We are now in 2015, but has anything improved after four years of leniency and good faith assumptions? -] 18:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is it perhaps time for a block to try to prod them into participating here and not continuing down the same path? —] (]) 22:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Chastising QG for a lack of progress in an area where essentially no progress has been made is a little one-sided, though. If everyone that attempted to warp our articles in favor of pseudoscience was simultaneously and indefinitely banned, wouldn't that do far more good?—](]) 20:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::They may not be aware of their own talkpage. I have blocked them indefinitely for persistent addition of unsourced or badly sourced content despite warnings, and for non-responsiveness on their page, adding a note in the log linking to their talkpage and encouraging them to communicate there. ] | ] 18:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC). | |||
| ::::That would do far more good if you take into account QG's repeated attempts to claim that mummified tattoo marks . How is that not a blatant act of pseudoscience advocacy ? -] 22:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| * {{U|Levelledout}} .. understood. I think perhaps given the scope of all of this, that it is beyond what Ani is tasked to do Perhaps the ] route is the best option. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 19:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive editing by ] == | |||
| *'''Oppose''' ArbCom action should be undertaken. There has been much contentious editing from all sides. Blocking isn't going to resolve the issues. ] (]) 21:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Comment: The question of why this has not been elevated long before this... ] (]) 22:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' I said it above and I will say it again here. I think a good, PAG-based (not emotion/rhetoric-based) case could be pretty easily made, with about a couple hours of work finding difs. This case, is not that case, and thinking about a closer looking at !votes above, it does not appear that there is PAG-based consensus for a block here. In my view, the notion of punting his case to arbcom is just that - punting. The same work would have to go into it then, to make the case, so why not just do it here? (Arbcom cases don't happen by magic - diffs have to be brought, etc) So withdraw the mess above, and start a new, clean, well-formed thread, if it really matters to any of the supporters. ({{u|AlbinoFerret}} is the one who brought this: I believe he is the only who can withdraw it) ] (]) 03:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you agree that there is reason to block him but it needs to have a pretty bow on it. ] 12:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|AlbinoFerret}} your reply is of a piece with your general lack of alignment with, and understanding of, how WP works. The community doesn't take action based on emotion, and we don't edit or resolve content disputes, based on what somebody likes or doesn't like. This isn't facebook. We have policies and guidelines that express the community's consensus on things, and we strive to edit based on them, behave based on them, and resolve disputes through reasoned discussion based on them. Reasoned and discerning ] is the very heart of this place. Hand-wavy "he's a dick" complaints don't go anywhere, and don't deserve to go anywhere - they don't provide a basis for rational discussion of the issues.] (]) 14:49, 10 March 2015 (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. | |||
| * '''Oppose''' Agree with Doc James and Jytdog. And I'm not asserting Quackguru has done nothing wrong! But yes, this is whipping up hysteria over a stupid comment. ] (]) 05:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::A stupid comment? It was an attack. A low blow, and it follows attempts to discredit and harass me elsewhere. I should be surprised that anyone could come up with a defence of his actions, especially the one here on this page. You and the two editors you mention want a slap on a wrist, but only for an editor who edits with you, and who's edits you agree with. Had this been a first time, perhaps but we are way past first time as shown by QuackGuru's extensive history of harassment, edit warring, and other violations. ] 12:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Has been warned And has acknowledged. ] (] · ] · ]) 05:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I can get as annoyed as the next person with QG, but this does not merit a block (at least not one more than 24 hours); a warning (if anything) would suffice. ] (]) 12:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: 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) | |||
| *'''Support''' Any derogatory comments about a person's health, or accusations that a person is lying about their health, is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. As such, a block ''of some sort'' is clearly warranted - though I would find a lengthy one to be draconian, a moderate one is likely in order here. ] (]) 12:50, 10 March 2015 (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. ] (]) 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) | |||
| == User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus == | |||
| *'''{{Non-administrator observation|admin}}''' I am heavily ] in the topic at hand having spent a long time editing the e-cigarette article pretty heavily and having clashed with QG and AF. I think in the case of both editors the battleground that e-cig has become has brought out a negative side to their WP editing, in AF it's leaning towards ADVOCACY and leaning towards SPA as it becomes more and more a focus of attention, in QG this is found in WP:OWN and IDHT. The regularity with which QG makes edits without discussion on the Talk pages of e-cig articles, even though he knows that any edit on that page is likely to be contentious, makes it clear he's not looking for consensus but the article as he sees it. I also see competence issues in many of QG's edits which could do with a bit of copy editing for structure and repetition before they go live. A topic ban, in the short term, may make things better. I certainly think the page cannot improve with QG there. But the root problem is that e-cig, and the daughter articles, are battlegrounds where a lot of people are shouting, and nobody's listening. I don't know whether ArbCom can do something to help in this matter but while banning QG from the page will reduce the amount of problems there it won't solve the root. ] (]) 12:37, 11 March 2015 (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)}} | |||
| 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 --> | |||
| * '''Support indef block or send to ArbCom'''. QuackGuru continues to make personal attacks, despite being warned as recently as a few days ago. In of a couple of days ago QG attacks the conduct of several editors including myself and demands that answers be provided to them. ] is quite clear that this is not allowed and that article talk pages are not the place for conduct accusations and smears. However, the worst thing about QG's conduct is the that they are not interested in consensus. Building 20k edits (about 1/3 of the article size) in relative privacy and then dumping them into articles without notification let alone discussion is consistent with this. Attempting to discuss matters with QG on their user talk page generally results in them suppressing the discussion by archiving or deleting it (or parts of it that they don't like), e.g. ] ]. QG of course has a very long block log and has also had been in the past so has been given numerous chances to improve their conduct and shows little signs of doing so. I considered whether to make this post at all given that I am a highly involved editor. However this doesn't seem to be an issue for other editors, some of which have supported QG. As I have indicated I would have no issues with ArbCom taking a look at the wider picture.] (]) 13:57, 11 March 2015 (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. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **<s>really baffling to me. The first dif you provide is just a Talk discussion (QG arguing against the bizarre claim that MEDRS says only reviews can be used and excludes statements by major health organizations); the 2nd is fine (per TPG it is OK to delete others' comments from your own Talk page) as is the 4th (people can archive their talk pages as they wish). The Arbcom diff is old history (that ''should'' be brought up in any carefully brought case and has already been mentioned above). I really don't understand why folks are not framing a clear case showing violations of behavioral policies and guidelines. ] (]) 14:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)</s> (striking, should not be commenting like this. ] (]) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (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) | |||
| :::The case against QG is rather clear cut in my opinion Jytdog and I respectfully disagree with you. Yes the first diff is an article talk discussion, that's my point. Content is irrelevant here as is whether QG is right or wrong about any content claims he makes. QG makes conduct allegations on the article talk page such as accusing editors of disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point. Some of the language they use is just plain rude and actually borders on a breach of ]. Whether or not QG is technically allowed to delete individual comments from their talk page is hardly the point. Remember that they do not own their user talk page and that part of its purpose is for legitimate discussion of their conduct. I have only ever had two discussions (as far as I can recall) with QG on their talk page and on both of those occasions they have either deleted or archived the discussion or parts of it in order to prevent it from continuing. I was fully aware that the ArbCom diff had been mentioned, doesn't mean that it isn't relevant to the point I was making.] (]) 15:34, 11 March 2015 (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) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - '''Summary:''' QuackGuru made an extremely '''''stupid''''' remark that he should '''''never''''' have made, he was roundly chastised for it repeatedly by parties '''''from all sides''''', and an admin warned him not to do it again on pain of being blocked. The End.<p>The rest of this is just advocacy-driven hysteria, obvious e-cig advocates and fringe science advocates trying to take out one of their opposite numbers in a content dispute, in retaliation for the suggestion of a topic ban for one of them. (That suggestion of a topic ban, incidentally, came '''''before''''' QG's remark or this sub0section, which AlbinoFerret shoved in here '''''above''''' the topic-ban section, out of chronological order, so that people reading the thread would get to it first -- an extremely good example of the kind of ] tactics being carried on by the e-cig advocates. ). No admin is going to override the original admin's warning with a block, that would be, in effect, double jeopardy, so this entire section is just useless and should be closed by an uninvolved party. ] (]) 20:23, 11 March 2015 (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) | |||
| :*Just to clarify, not everyone who !voted "support" is a e-cig advocate or a fringe science advocate, obviously, but the campaign to ban QG and the hysteria surrounding his remark is indeed the work of those advocates. No collusion is implied concerning the actions of those advocates - I'm certain there's no need for them to discuss between themselves taking out one of their primary antagonists. AlbinoFerret started the ball rolling, and his colleagues joined in. ] (]) 20:37, 11 March 2015 (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 original complaint was made by Albino Ferret against QuackGuru alleging personal attacks. Therefore that's what was being discussed at the top of the thread and would seem the natural place to put the Proposed Block for QuackGuru. To claim that the thread not being in exact chronological order is going to affect the way that people vote is well, ridiculous. People might see one or the other first but it doesn't matter. Also, you argued particularly passionately that the proposal for AF was not driven mainly by involved editors and yet apparently QG's block proposal is an "advocacy-driven hysteria" "campaign". Strange.] (]) 21:36, 11 March 2015 (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) | |||
| ::::Each of your responses in this section and the one below adds to the clear conclusion that you are not the neutral party you claim to be. ] (]) 22:33, 11 March 2015 (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) | |||
| :::::OK well that is a baseless accusation that uses weasel words (I'm not the neutral party I claim to be because... just because). It's one way of neglecting to respond to reasoned argument of course, but not one that I appreciate or that I will be engaging with.] (]) 23:06, 11 March 2015 (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) | |||
| :::::::Any open-minded uninvolved editor will see '''''precisely''''' what I mean, despite your Wikilawyering. ] (]) 00:38, 12 March 2015 (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). | |||
| ::::::::You need to provide evidence for serious accusations, not unsubstantiated insults. You should probably also read ] and ].] (]) 15:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::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. | |||
| :: is real, and damaging, and an issue on Misplaced Pages: see the from an editor concerned about that exact thing. For obvious reasons, I wish someone other than me had posted about it (or that someone other than QuackGuru had made the offensive comment). I'm done commenting in this thread on the merits of a block but "disability policing" needs to be taken seriously on WP. ... P.S. Just to make my intentions clear I've changed my !vote above to {{tq|"Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future"}}. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC) <small>added P.S. 05:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| :::Editors are blocked when bad behaviour needs to be ''prevented''; editors are ] when there is very little chance of a problem being repeated. QG has ], albeit not very clearly, and there is no reason to debate the issue—if there is a repeat, QG will get a lengthy block; if there isn't, a block for a single bad comment is not warranted. The comment is not part of a series of similar issues. ] (]) 05:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading. | |||
| ::::Hi ] -- I read ] specifically before commenting. In a case like this, per ], #3 would apply: some offenses are so bad that we block automatically. (#2 could also apply when an editor has a tendency to push the envelope: they may not make ''this'' mistake again, but a block may get their attention. But #3 is the main thing.) --] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :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. | |||
| :::::Is that your considered opinion as an independent editor with a good understanding of Misplaced Pages's procedures, or as an acupuncturist who is very keen to have QG removed so you can promote your product unimpeded? ] (]) 09:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::::::Very much the former, which I think should be obvious in light of my !vote change to: {{tq|"Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future"}}. . Look just a little bit above and you might even see that I mentioned this previously. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 11:34, 12 March 2015 (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) | |||
| :::::::], I'm not sure if you've seen the conversation starting after this comment by AlbinoFerret , but it does appear that AlbinoFerret is trying to justify their focus on e-cigs because of their disability (or extremely misunderstanding BMK's point). I'd prefer the topic of disability never even entered the conversation and focus solely on behavior here, but this kind of justification really concerns me. This is very different from questioning whether someone actually has a disability, so are you suggesting we shouldn’t question this kind of behavior I’m describing, or moreso not do what QuackGuru did specifically? This becoming a really strange situation. ] (]) 13:07, 12 March 2015 (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) | |||
| ::::::::@Kingofaces43: Not all that strange, really. The case against AlbinoFerrett as a SPA and ] is quite strong, and he's feeling the need to counter it with whatever he's got. So, even though he called for sanctions against QG for bringing up his physical disability, he obviously feels no compunction about using that physical disability as an explanation for the amount of editing he's done on e-cigarettes. What he seems not to understand is that by comparing oranges to oranges -- i.e. by dealing with percentages of his own edits as opposed to comparing the count of his edits against those of other editors -- that factor is eliminated, and has no bearing on the question. Whatever his physical disabilities are is irrelevant, because they exist when he edits an e-cig article and still exist when he edits an article on any other subject. So when I report that 67.07% of his article edits and 85.08% of his article talk page edits are on the subject of electronic cigarettes, there's no way in which any disability enters into those stats. ] (]) 16:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::No, I just dont like numbers and innuendo being used to discredit me. ] 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Hi ] - QuackGuru's that AlbinoFerret was lying about being disabled was completely gratuitous. All AF had said was, essentially, that their post count in the e-cig area is high partly because they're disabled and thus at home and in front of the computer a lot. There was no reason to dispute this and it was dickish and invasive to do so. | |||
| ::::::::::Note: I think AF's volume of posting by itself doesn't require apology, so their disability is actually irrelevant in terms of examining their edits. What matters are the kind of edits and where they are made. Re the kind of edits, I've expressed concerns over AF's persistently not grokking MEDRS. Re where edits are made, ] is correct that what is germaine to SPA and WP:ADVOCACY is not how many total posts AF has made about e-cigs, but rather what percentage such posts comprise of his total mainspace edits. ... That said, even if AF's disability is ultimately irrelevant to this inquiry, the baseless accusation that they lied is still wrong. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::P.S. Meta-comment, seed for possible essay: Disability among editors on Misplaced Pages needs to be addressed with common sense and respect; it should neither be used for ]s nor as a way to discredit people in any way -- including suggesting that a person is lying about it. As lie-accusations go, this is an especially bad one. When a person is simply asking for a ], and not attempting to justify ] -- or is simply mentioning their disability by way of explanation of their editing style (as AF was, in above case) -- the burden they are imposing is low. Therefore it would be stupid to demand proof, and more stupid (and dickish as well) to accuse that person of lying about their disability, with no basis and with such low stakes; cf. (which may be one of those things, like getting called an epithet, that sounds bad but which you have to experience to know what it's really like). I hope that our norm becomes one of rejecting "disability policing" in any form. Demands of proof are bad and outright lie-accusations worse. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Thanks for clarifying, I pretty much agree with you entirely. No reason to ask of actual proof, but in cases like these I'd prefer not to even worry about disability and just chalk up relatively innocuous editing quirks as just that, and if something truly disruptive, it's disruptive. ] (]) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' ] questioned a personal comment made by ] which he should not have done. But, in my judgement, this comment does not rise to the level of a block/ban. For the record, QG did not reveal or attempt to out AF in any way. Counsel him to use caution and move on. ]<sub>]</sub> 12:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose block''', but QG should face some admonishment for the disability-questioning comment. This is probably something that should be referred to ArbCom. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 20:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as it looks like QuackGuru was fairly neutral in what he added, and all of it was well cited. I agree that that was a very offensive comment he made, but he already received an admin warning for it, so I would consider it closed. If, however, QG does continue with personal attacks, especially of that nature, I would support a block or a referral to ArbCom. ] (]) 23:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| : 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) | |||
| ===Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret=== | |||
| ::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) | |||
| {{archive top|result=] has agreed to voluntarily walk away from the topic area for 6 months after a discussion on my talk page. AlbinoFerret can still engage in legitimate dispute resolution (eg. the Arbcom request) but will otherwise be taking a break from editing anything related to e-cigarettes. I feel this is an acceptable compromise to the differing views expressed in this thread, and it will give AlbinoFerret time to gain editing experience and perspective in less controversial areas. <p>I have left the primary thread open for now because I'd like to let the discussion about Discretionary Sanctions run for another day before closing to make sure the community really wants that. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 05:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| <!--archive top|result=I am archiving the thread I started for the following reason. This discussion has gone on for a very long time and this appears to be going nowhere since no action has been taken. So, I started an ArbCom discussion. See ]. Note. If an admin wants to act on their own discretion regarding this matter then this closing does not affect that, as always they are accountable to the community. If no admin chooses to act on this then it is not an admin matter. If any admin thinks this close is premature they are welcome to revert it. ] (]) 23:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)--> | |||
| User:AlbinoFerret is making a lot of comments and edits to e-cig related pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/AlbinoFerret&offset=&limit=500&target=AlbinoFerret See ] for previous behaviour issues. AlbinoFerret tried to hide Environmental impact section from a . He eventually tried to delete some of the text. AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources. AlbinoFerret claims "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion." But AlbinoFerret has not given a specific reason to exclude relevant information about safety. ] is not the issue IMO. AlbinoFerret has turned the e-cig pages into a ]. AlbinoFerret is not the only problematic editor at these pages. Some of the e-cig enthusiasts are not here to improve the e-cig pages. See ] for background information on this. Something needs to be done to prevent this from happening over and over again. ] (]) 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Those were edits in a content dispute. Some of them over 2 months old. This is not about content, but your actions on talk pages. ] 21:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is also about you deleting relevant content you find offensive. AlbinoFerret has a repeated pattern of trying to delete pertinent information about safety. AlbinoFerret is unable to formulate a logical reason for excluding the text. ] (]) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is a misstatement. There are valid reasons why the content was removed all covered under talk page sections.. But this isnt a content dispute, this is a discussion of harassment that happened because you decided to smear me on talk pages. As for ], I think you have done enough with building over 19000 character in edits , not discussing any of it on the talk pages, and then adding it, and reverting it back in. On such a contentious article, that should never have happened ] In fact looking at the pages history, you are still planning more because of recient additions, but none of them have been brought to the talk page. ] 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Albino you are digging your hole deeper by making spurious complaints. per the userpage guideline ] it is totally fine to draft article content in userspace. ] (]) 22:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Its not spurious, but the basis of WP, Consensus. But there is no consensus in building 19000 character edits in private, and making one 16k edit at once. There was no discussion on the addition, no post on the talk pages directing the other editors to it to look over. This has been done before on the main e-cig page. Granted there is nothing wrong with building edits on a sandbox, but a edit that is 1/3rd the size of the page should have been discussed. ] ] 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} QG, you should request some specific action that you would like the community to take - make a proposal and let folks react. You have been around long enough to know that just saying "something must be done" (passive voice) will get you no where fast. ] (]) 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I think an is most appropriate rather than a '''short-term topic ban'''. It is clear that ] is ] to improve the e-cig pages. ] (]) 23:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really, and what evidence exactly do you present in support of that? Other than the fact that you have disagreements with AF over content which is neither here nor there, I can't see that you've stated any whatsoever.] (]) 23:24, 5 March 2015 (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) | |||
| *'''support indef topic ban''' AlbinoFerret is ] and is ]. And this has been going on for a long time. And I see no reason to believe it will improve. Many chances have been given and few have been taken. It's time for this to stop. ] (]) 23:26, 5 March 2015 (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) | |||
| *'''Support''' I would support a one year topic ban. Hopefully in that time evidence will become more clear and the topic less controversial. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:38, 5 March 2015 (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) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Doc James. ] (]) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' one year topic ban for Albinoferret. There are many issues here and AF is disrupting any genuine attempts to improve the articles, so much that it is bordering on ]. AF has previously done good work on other articles and I believe AF's and everyone else's time could be spent much better. -- ] ] (]) 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This is nothing more than a content dispute. With diff's gathered over months showing a content dispute. All of which have talk page sections dealing with the content . The only thing this will accomplish is silence a active editor from the article that disagrees with some content, that press releases should not be used for medical content or problems with the sources. In fact one post above me, Doc James, lists a reason for banning me is that "Hopefully in that time evidence will become more clear and the topic less controversial.". ] 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Albino "the evidence" that Doc James is referring to, is medical evidence about risks of e-cigs. I know that a huge focus of yours, has been reducing the amount of ] in the article... but what is, in fact, statements about the unfolding medical consensus on risks. What he meant is that when the science is more solid and the scientific debate settles, there will be less controversy, and that in a year you should have even weaker grounds on which to be disruptive. ] (]) 00:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, it is speculation. From the Chang, H. (2014). "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes" source, the topic of the section you linked to "No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing; issues related to use of resources, assembly, nicotine source, tobacco cultivation and global production". Unfolding evidence? More like a lot of opinions to me, not based on anything, and the lone "review" of its kind. Because apparently it didnt review any studies as it says none exist. Its given its own section? Huge ] issue here. Being the only source of its kind, what it reviewed is, basically nothing. This is a perfect example of a content dispute, and diffs 157-161 in QuackGurus post above, which are about three months old. ]13:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would say that ''the fact that you wrote the above'', is a perfect example of your persistence in objecting, repeatedly and over a long period of time, to the inclusion of reasonable and well sourced content about health risks being added to the articles, by editors who are very experienced in dealing with health matters in WP. That you bring this up ''again'', even here and now, is exactly why I support the topic ban. You know, I looked and looked, but I couldn't find a diff for this, but didn't you write somewhere that you care about this so much because your wife really needed to quit smoking and tried and tried and couldn't, and it was e-cigs that finally helped her do it? If I have that wrong, I apologize. ] (]) 15:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would say to that, that everyone is entitled to their opinions. But consensus is how WP is edited. Others have reasons to include this in the article, where it has stayed for the last three months or so. That does not mean I dont think its a ] issue. It means that its included even though I think it has a weight issue. What you dont have is actions pointing to advocacy. You have a difference of opinion on content. ] 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think DocJames can likely speak for himself but anyway Jytdog, the "unfolding medical consensus" is basically that the short term risks are pretty low and that the long term risks should theoretically also be low. The only "speculation" is exactly how low the long-term risks are. If you are saying that in a years time it will be proven that e-cigarettes are more harmful, well that is just basically crystal-ball stuff. We shouldn't really be discussing content here, but since it seems to be being used as evidence so it seems somewhat necessary. Just demonstrates that this is a content dispute really.] (]) 14:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::nope you are missing the point; this ''is'' about Albino's behavior. i won't belabor this. ] (]) 15:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' in my view to topic ban AlbinoFerret (which I supported) would have succeeded, except it turned into a sprawling mess and was closed out of hopelessness. This one is squarely focused. AlbinoFerret is a ] who wages an ] campaign favorable to e-cigs, and has been relentless in opposing the addition of well-sourced content about health risks. That pattern is clear from difs above and in the prior ANI. I do not intend this to be cruel, but he is housebound and edits WP to keep himself sane (which I am ''very'' sympathetic toward) but still, ] - and especially not when, combined with advocacy, his editing is disruptive. ( directly before.) He is the paradigm of disruptive advocacy on this article. ''WP is vast - let Albino edit elsewhere and not disrupt this topic any more.'' ] (]) 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **I am far from a SPA, I am a member of WikiProject Citation cleanup and also edit Bitcoin. As for ], sane as in keeping active, you can only watch so many daytime talk shows or soap operas. ] 00:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|hatting personalization of the discussion. Out of bounds and distracting from focus of Albino's behavior ] (]) 19:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ***User:AlbinoFerret say his motivation is to That is contrary to the . ] (]) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Your leaving out the part "My motivation is to help bring what is known about tobacco harm reduction to the article". Bringing out what is known about something is (through reliable sources), I hope, the goal of every WP editor. ] 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***], User:AlbinoFerret claims he is but he previously said Does anyone really think he is disabled? ] (]) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I do get out every so often, and helping short term as a election judge is something I try to do. You would be surprised at the number of disabled people who work as election judges. I would be happy to send to an uninvolved admin a letter from Social security stating I am disabled. ] 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban per Jytdog. <s>I don't have a strong opinion about the duration, but a year seems about right. </s>] | ] 00:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::Changed my mind about the duration, per Kevin Gorman below. I support an indefinite ban with the option to appeal after a year. ] | ] 13:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The situation has to be understood in the context of the protracted, bitter content dispute that is e-cigarette articles. It has already been said several times that topic-banning AF would help. Yes it would help, it would help those editors that have been in a content dispute with AF for months on end. I think almost everybody who has supported this proposal so far is either moderately or highly involved in the said content dispute. I think that AF has raised some genuine issues here, did in fact originally raise some genuine issues on the article talk page with QG going about things in a covert way and dumping 20k edits into articles without so much as notification. QG attacked AF on the article page which according to ] is not allowed. For this to be turned back round on AF is very harsh and unjust I think. It also seems to be almost entirely without substance.] (]) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Considering that 57% of your edits (257/450 - with '''''<u>233</u>''''' to ]???) are to articles or talk pages about electronic cigarettes, it seems not impossible that you are a SPA as well, perhaps one with a COI. ] (]) 03:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Since when is a roughly 50/50 (haven't been bothered to check the exact amount) split between e-cig and other articles considered a single purpose account? What about editors that edit medical articles far more than I actually edit e-cig articles? Or is that perfectly OK I take it? Your COI accusation is spurious, groundless and you have no right to make it. Helps deflect some attention and blame though I suppose.] (]) 12:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So, you don't think that 57% of your edits going to '''''one very specific subject''''' – electronic cigarettes – and 43% going to a variety of other topics is an pretty good indication that you're here primarily to edit about that one subject? I would beg to differ, I think it's a '''''damn''''' good marker. It's not like your 57% is going to some broad area, like military history, or New York City or films, it's going to '''''electronic cigarettes'''''.<p>Like Bishonen, whose comment is just below this, I don't believe that '''''any''''' of my edits has been to articles on that subject (but I could be wrong, with over 150,000 edits you do lose track of a few in the course of almost 10 years), but I know '''''advocacy''''' when I see it ... and I've got pretty good radar for SPAs and socks as well. 16:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've already told you what I think so I'll leave it at that for now. I'm not sure what you having made 150,000 edits and being on Misplaced Pages for 10 years has got to do with anything either.] (]) 16:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You "think" almost everyone who has supported the topic ban is involved in the content dispute? Please don't hazard tendentious guesses about things that could be checked with a little research. Here, I'll help you with one item: I for my part have barely heard of e-cigarettes. I'm supporting the topic ban because I can recognize ], at least when it's as obvious as this. ] | ] 12:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| :::::I did not do an in depth analysis before I posted of course, nor can you reasonably expect me to before every post. But I do know that of the posters above QuackGuru (the proposer of the ban) and Doc James are highly involved and Cloudjpk, CFCF and Jytdog have all contributed to e-cig articles and have tended to be on the opposing side of the content dispute to Albino Ferret.] (]) 13:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, actually, we '''''can''''' expect you to do some due diligence before you make claims about other editors' motivations. ] (]) 16:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As I said clearly enough for you to understand I knew with a reasonable degree of certainty that 5/7 editors were involved all along. I thought it was probably 6/7, hence "almost all" which was an approximation. Nobody was mentioned personally and it turned out to be 5/7. Big deal. Can we move on from this nonsense now please?] (]) 21:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If it's "nonsense", it '''''your''''' nonsense, not mine. Are all the supporting editors below also sworn enemies of AlbinoFerret? If not, doesn't that change your !vote, since it was based on the supposed involvement of the supporting editors? And since you're on the other side of the debate as an SPA, should we discount '''''your''''' !vote as you would like us to discount those editors above who you say are involved?<p>No, what was nonsense was your initial comment, which appears to me to have been disingenuous. ] (]) 23:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Despite the fact that you obviously do not accept this, I am entitled to my original opinion. I stand by it and with all due respect, do not care what you think.] (]) 00:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock ] (]) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ''comment removed per WP:EVADE'' | |||
| **@InfiniteBratwurst: So, you took your 56 edits and your vast 9 weeks of Misplaced Pages experience and went looking into other editor's block logs in order to come here, !vote oppose, and poison some wells with the dirty little secrets you uncovered there? (How does an editor with 56 edits find out about block logs, anyway? I was here for quite a while before I heard about them.) You complain that the editors supporting the topic ban are involved in a content dispute with AF, but you don't mention that the article '''''you''''' have edited the most. with more than double the edits of the next-most article, is ''']''', that its talk page is the one you've edited the most, the seoncd-most being ''']''' -- but I assume you'll tell us that, unlike the other editors commenting here, '''''you''''' are uninvolved, '''''you''''' are totally neutral, and '''''your''''' vote is in no way influenced by your personal views. Everyone else's is, of course, but not yours. ] (]) 03:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***''comment removed per WP:EVADE'' | |||
| ****Wow!!!! 9 weeks here, less than 60 edits, and you cite an obscure '''''essay''''' from Meta. The closing admin should note with pride '''''what an extremely knowledgeable newbie InfiniteBratwurst is!!!!''''' ] (]) 12:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *****''comment removed per WP:EVADE'' | |||
| ******Oh, I think pointing out your very interesting, if short, history is quite constructive indeed. ] (]) 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *******], InfiniteBratwurst is actually CheesyAppleFlake. See ]. ] (]) 17:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ********''comment removed per WP:EVADE'' | |||
| *********{{u|QuackGuru}} if there is a case to be made, please make it at ] and post here. Otherwise please don't add distraction. Thanks. ] (]) 19:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***********Yup once you have SPI confirmation you can discuss. ] (] · ] · ]) 19:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *******BMK, you've been around since 2009 (aren't you an admin, and weren't you an Arb?) At any rate why are you still this rankly clueless about commenting on content not contributors? Is NPA just deprecated? You've done this before -- what is your problem? You know very well that some editors make CLEANSTART accounts and that is their business. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 12:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ********@Middle8. Wrong on every count. I've had an account here since June '''''2005''''', started editing shortly before that as an IP (see for the thumbnail of my history). I've never been an admin (perish the thought!), don't '''''want''''' to be an admin, will almost uncertainly never '''''be''''' an admin, and would be an absolutely '''''lousy''''' admin if someone forced me to do it. And, of course, I've never been an Arbitrator. I have no idea who you are thinking of, but it ain't me.<p>Comment on content, not contributors? Sure, in general, great concept, but '''''<u>this</u>''''' is the place where the community examines behavior, and not just the behavior of the subject of the thread. If someone pops up to comment with an editing history that looks very much like they're a SPA, or have a COI, edit with a distinct POV to push, are someone's sock, or were canvassed on- or off-Wiki to participate, those are facts that need to be brought forward, because they can (and should!) mitigate the value of that user's comment. It's completely valid to point that stuff out, and as long as people continue to take advantage of Misplaced Pages to promote whatever it is they're promoting, whether or not they're paid for it, I'm going to keep pointing it out. ] (]) 01:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ********BTW ] may be one of the most abused Misplaced Pages policies around. Any user who is making a clean start should be obligated to say so when questioned with good reason about their editing, and to report to a CU of their choice the name of their previous account to be checked to be sure they aren't evading a block or are a sockpuppet of a banned editor. A clean start should never be a license for serial misbehavior, which is what I'm afraid it most probably is utilized for. ] (]) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ********:I must have you confused with some other editor, sorry. Yes, an editor's history matters to an extent if counting !votes, but otherwise their comments rise or fall on the merits. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| *'''Support''' Whatever good AlbinoFerret does tending the electronic cigarette articles is outweighed by the persistent puffing-up of e-cigs as safer than apple pie. Since September 2014, AF has made 2000 talk page comments at the three e-cig articles, and 250 comments here at ANI—it's time to look for other topics. ] (]) 07:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please provide the diffs where I said they are safe as apple pie or any place where I said they were completely safe. As for edit counts, anyone who looks at the logs knows I rarely make complete edits, I always correct them or add to them, on average taking 4 edits to make a comment. I have tried to preview more, but total edits show nothing. ] 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - '''Send to ArbCom''' - This has been going on from time to time for months. This is the sort of content dispute compounded by conduct issues (]) for which a full evidentiary hearing by ArbCom works better than letting the loudest editors at a noticeboard establish consensus. ] (]) 15:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Robert McClenon}} i hear you that this may end up at Arbcom but that is a step of last resort. The way this place is set up we are meant to handle what we can at lower levels. I think there is a reasonable case for a topic ban for Albino - this is not about "loudest" but rather based on a clear focus on the behavior of one user. Focus (hard to maintain here, I know) is essential. Please reconsider. Thanks. ] (]) 12:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' (Disclosure: AF has supported sanctions against me in another ongoing RFc. But I have supported a topic ban for AF on this topic on several previous occassions). The problem here is that many of the editors on this article are here to advocate for electronic cigarettes rather than being here to build an encyclopedia. I think AF is basically a good guy, but it is not healthy for the encyclopedia to have editors who spend 8 or more hours a day focused on making sure that a single article projects a specific POV. I'll add that I would support a similar topic ban for any editor for whom edits to electronic cigarette articles comprise more than 60% of their total edits over the last 3 months. Its not personal, its just that this article has attracted too many editors who are there to promote a specific POV. ] (]) 15:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per the reasons stated by {{U|Levelledout}}. This is part content dispute and part piling on by those with a particular POV. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 15:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Not involved in the articles themselves or the content dispute aside from commenting on a few posts brought to ]. I wouldn't suggest any longer than a year for a ban though as it's generally better to give people a chance. The idea that this is just a content dispute so the behavior issues should be ignored is extremely disingenuous. There are also involved editors here who oppose the ban on grounds of it being a "content dispute", but behavior problems are behavior problems whether there is a content dispute or not. It's apparent there is a problem here with AF considering how much they focus on the topic. One could argue whether they fit the criteria of an ] or not with brief edits in a couple other articles, but there is definitely advocacy apparent here. Uninvolved editors here are seeing that problem, so I'd highly suggest weighing that when determining community consensus. I do agree with Robert McClenon that the topic will probably need to be considered at ArbCom at some point, but this is one user that keeps coming up and seems like it could be handled here. ] (]) 17:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Very weak support''' There are probably enough behavioral problems amongst many editors that an arbitration case would be the best way to settle this. Otherwise, I think a topic ban is an acceptable bandaid, though I'd argue for a shorter duration, like 6 months, and revisit a more long term solution if the behavior resumes. ] 20:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a topic ban of one year for Albino Ferret from discussing the subject of ]s on any page in the English Misplaced Pages. The reason is largely the one given by Bishonen (overly intense advocacy). Possibly one or more other users will need a topic ban too. ] (]) 22:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban of 3 months (preferred) or 1 year from articles on electronic cigarettes, broadly construed, but not indefinite. AF shows some signs of wanting to edit other articles, let's see some evidence of constructive contributions outside this topic area. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - This is clearly a content dispute with both sides unwilling to reach a compromise. The "evidence" presented by QuackGuru isn't very strong. One could also take Bishonen's argument of ] and apply it to QuackGuru, since his recent contributions suggest that he has been engaging in a campaign ''unfavorable'' to e-cigarettes. As far as I can tell, none of the diffs violate any of Misplaced Pages's policies. I do see a strong case for banning QuackGuru though: by QG is clearly targeted against AF's personal life, and the edit summary is not just inappropriate, but also inexplicably cruel and disgusting. -] 11:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: !vote above doesn't deal with Albino's behavior but rather attempts to focus on QG's- classic rhetorical move. This is a proposal about Albino's long term disruptive behavior as evidenced in the prior ANI (which lost focus) and additional diffs above. ] (]) 12:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: None of the diffs presented violate any of WP's policies, as far as I can tell. -] 13:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|again hatting squabble between 2 main antagonists here ] (]) 03:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::No, this is not clearly a content dispute as A1candidate suggests. A1candidate is repeatedly making blanket reverts of reputable organizations and reviews. This disruption of blanket reverts by A1candidate should not be allowed to continue. A1candidate, I recommend you take a voluntary short-term topic ban from the page. A1candidate, are you going to continue make blanket reverts? ] (]) 17:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::One might want to look at the size of the edits (18,711 characters) trying to edit in sources that were the topic of . That at the time was almost 1/2 the size of the existing page. The comments on the edits were directing people to the talk pages. This wasnt blanket removal, this was a few editors (QuackGuru, CFCF, and Cloudjpk) trying to force a mammoth edit on the page during a discussion of the sources used. Looking at makes it all the more clear. This is purely a content dispute. Where one side wants to discuss things, and others just want to get it in. ] 18:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Remember the talk page discussion? I wrote "User:AlbinoFerret, you were asked "Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources?" So far you have not specifically explained which new sources are a concern to justify your and there is a clear consensus for the ]." You repeatedly deleted a number of sources including reviews without any logical reason. User:AlbinoFerret, do you agree you are going to stop making blanket reverts? ] (]) 18:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@], please stop making these baseless accusations against me. I'm surprised that you would want to enforce a "voluntary short-term topic ban" on me, given that I have made minimal contributions to this the article so I am not sure what that would achieve. -] 18:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*@QuackGuru, This is a constant problem, ]. I answered you why I thought a <b>press release</b> was not usable. and that sources that are ] should not be used for medical content. These sources (the subject of your second set of diffs) were already on a sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they are appropriate, this isnt removing content and blocking, but a discussion on the location ]. This is a fine point of WP, and I dont think you get. Your link to a blanket revert is part of the mammoth edit I posted on a reply ago, You made an almost 20000 character edit to a controversial page with no discussion, after planning it for almost a month in a sandbox without discussing it at any time. Again taking ] sources from the sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they have never been removed. If you look in the edit comments, you will see I quoted ] and noted that no discussions have happened. There is even started by me on the topic. ] 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' having reviewed this whole mess over the last half hour. My only 'involvement' with e-cigarettes was thinking someone's looked hilarious at Wikimedia DC's GLAM bootcamp. As is generally the case with tbans, Albino would still be able to raise the situation before arbcom if desired. I don't think a time limit has a purpose since plenty of people just take an editing vacation until their tban expires and come back just as problematic as they were before, but AF could appeal it in the future after spending time productively contributing elsewhere on WP. ] (]) 13:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*Good point. I agree, indef with the option to appeal is better. ] | ] 13:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::*Could you show me a single diff (as presented by QuackGuru) that actually violated an established guideline? -] 13:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*See ] for a start. My own view is that ''both'' editors should be topic banned. You, yourself, could stand to read and reflect upon ]. ] (]) 15:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Just because two people are involved in a battle doesn't make both of them are aggressors. I do not see any single edit by AF violating a policy or guideline. -] 14:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' witchhunts and general attempts to silence opponenets. Someone needs to stand up to this nonsense.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 16:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<s>distraction; not focused on Albino's behavior. ] (]) 16:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)</s> (striking, should not be commenting like this. ] (]) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| :::::How is resisting the POV-pushing by QuackGuru a form of advocacy? Please explain. -] 14:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban of at least a year. I am uninvolved with the topic. To the best of my recollection, I have never edited anything to do with electronic cigarettes, but I can recognize disruptive behavior in support of a POV when I see it. ] ] 18:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I'm not convinced there have been any policy violations, or BF editing, or PAs that would constitute firm measures for behavioral issues. I see disagreement, and certainly hope disagreement or an opposing view doesn't warrant a block or ban these days. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 23:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::the difs for long term behavioral issues are clear. I do understand, Atsme, why you be sympathetic to someone opposing the application of MEDRS, since you would support having positive content on the cancer-fighting powers of ] in WP, using sources like naturalnews, per . You, at least have been doing that only on Talk, and have not been editing warring over it for months now, as Albino has. ] (]) 02:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::The only warring originates with you Jytdog, as demonstrated by your behavior here and now with a PA against me for expressing an opinion where I'm supposed to be expressing an opinion. Unfortunately, your biotech POV is imposed on editors wherever you go. Please try to understand WP:FRINGE is a guideline, not a policy. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 13:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' for the same reasons as the last forty-'leven times this topic-ban proposal has come up. Closing admin should pay careful attention to whether some of these !votes are from SPAs or near-SPAs and are possibly voting on subject matter as opposed to behavior. <code>]]</code> 03:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support, perhaps a month''', then another chance on a short leash. Per and others, does not (or will not) understand MEDRS; should by now. Not the only disruptive party but disruptive nonetheless. <s>(Note also , where he accused AF of lying about their disability. Should be an instant block for that, lengthened by aggravating circumstances: block log, experience).</s> <strike>'''Oppose'''> - Looks mainly like a content dispute to me, with the conduct issues on both sides -- no way can just one side of the e-cig wars could be accused of ] and ]. And lest process trump content, from what I can see the dangers are being exaggerated ''unduly and relative to conventional cigarettes'' by QuackGuru et. al., and AlbinoFerret and others are correct in trying to limit this POV-pushing. No, I don't like some of AlbinoFerret's exaggerations and misunderstandings of policy here (re which e.g. Jytdog has commented). But </strike> However, I see that at least two of the editors calling for a topic ban (and among the quickest to do so) are also heavily involved in the impasse/polarization in this topic area. All the kettles need to simmer down; suggest 1RR/week for all concerned or something like that. Mentorship/probation for AlbinoFerret on the stuff mentioned (especially MEDRS and WP:OPPONENT) when they come back. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 15:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC) <small>changed !vote, added a bit 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::{{u|Middle 8}} this thread is focused on AlbinoFerrets' behavior. Things like this end up at Arbcom when the community fails to manage them. The most common way the community fails is that it '''loses focus''' when discussing complex issues or disputes. (you have seen that happen, as when you brought an RfC/U against Quackguru). There is no doubt that AlbinoFerret has been a key participant in the longterm battleground. Many, many diffs showing that. The community ''can'' handle disputes like this, ''if it focuses''. If you want to start a thread on some other individual involved, please do so. But please do not distract from the issue at hand. Thanks. ] (]) 16:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I understand what you're saying, {{U|Jytdog}}. (And it's interesting how many of the editors who contributed so tenaciously to the loss of focus in the QG RfC are suddenly so able to stay focused on AF, yet lose focus when it comes to QG. One would ''almost'' think there was systemic bias afoot.) Looking at the merits: Which diffs? Going from QG's thread-starter, the two links to ANI threads are weak Re QG's other diffs: Just because AF removes stuff QG added is not prima facie evidence of misconduct -- far from it; I see a lot of UNDUE. AF's removing the WMA however is not good. And I see a pattern of OWN in both QG and AF, worse in QG. Is that it? Where can I find a good, concise summary of the most obvious diffs? Or maybe you or someone could just paste in the five worst ones? --] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::update: OK, although the evidence in the thread-starter is weak, I see more that you and others provided in the comments (yours: scrolling to: "Support topic ban - Albino has gone on a tear now..."). Having a look now. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: {{U|Jytdog}}, your example (of AF writing about pharma companies lobbying to have e-cigs treated as medical devices) would indeed be a compelling instance of twisting a source (just as Mallexikon showed QG did with GERAC, which you were one of the only editors to grok). Except: AF explains (supported with diffs) that the passage they wrote was originally sourced to a different source that the passage indeed summarized accurately. (I don't care for his ABF-ing and calling your characterization "twisting" of what happened, but they wouldn't be the first to run hot under pressure on a drama board.) I'll keep looking. If there's a smoking gun -- besides fighting over including WMA, which is bad, but alone not imo worth a ban either -- I'm not seeing it. I see general TE (which is at least as bad with QG); I don't see it as over the top: is this a situation like QG where those who know AF well gnash their teeth in frustration but have so far failed to build a strong case? If not, can you help, and point me to the good evidence? It's a lot to go through. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ec}}Thanks for considering more carefully. QG's first link above - Albino's contribs, demonstrate he is a SPA on e-cigarettes; this is not ambiguous. Per ], SPA editors are often agenda-driven. The next link is the old ANI case, and I see you are digging through that. I'll just pick one diff from there (of what are many) namely , where AF's edit notes was "emove older study that newer ones find answers to", but what we did, was remove a source (a review of the literature) that described the lack of good evidence for harm reduction and risks of e-cigs, dated 2013, and moving up 2 practice guidelines, one dated 2014 and the other dated 2013, which each recommend e-cigs for harm reduction. (note he left the 2013 ref... why, in his reasoning?) but in any case these are different kinds of sources (and there has been tension in project Medicine about how to WEIGHT practice guidelines vs reviews of the evidence) and they don't cancel each other out. The reasoning was bogus or incompetent, but the effect was to eliminate what AF calls "speculation" about the risks. That is the crux of his agenda in those articles. That ANI case was back in November. If you look at the next difs provided by QG, you will see that agenda being enacted in each edit. the "Environmental effects" section (mostly about risks) with edit note that "it is trivia"' removing facts about risks stated in WP's voice on the basis that they must be attributed (that is how ''pejoratively'' he has come to view discussion of risks - that it is so perjorative that it must be attributed)... etc. He is a disruptive and persistent presence. Hence the topic ban. Which looks like it will succeed, so far. I think it is objectively on point. ] (]) 20:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::yeah the thing about lobbying was really frustrating. his original source] was an opinion piece and of course we prefer straight reporting over opinion pieces (he could have cited the opinion piece, attributing it, yes). but what we really got my goat was that the NYT reporting (the more reliable source) was unambiguous in emphasizing the victory of the e-cig lobbyists. so twisted. and adding the rhetorically self-righteous stuff about the COI of pharma with their lobbyists... when all lobbyists are nakedly self-interested. just... argh. on that whole thing. But of a piece with the pattern of relentless pro-e-cigarette editing. its the pattern. ] (]) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::OK, AF clearly doesn't/can't/won't grok MEDRS and there is a pattern. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|side discussion that went sideways and has become distracting in-fighting ] (]) 03:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::::::::{{u|Middle_8}} Am I perfect, No. Have I made mistakes, yes. Have I learned from them, I think I have. What you have here is two examples Jtydog has found. What he doesnt have is a pattern of me repeating those mistakes. The first diff is from October 2014, I had taken almost a year off from editing wikipedia, and almost 6 years since I was active. I had never editied a page with medical rules. I made a mistake and replaced a source and edited out a comment. I learned from that experience and have not done that again. As for using ] In November of that year, well the reason Jtydog can find it so quick is he was the one on me first. Was it a mistake to not research its use first? Yes, have I done the same things again? No. ] 23:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::But there is a pattern, cf. the diffs QG has at the top, and they're not only undue weight (though I agree this has been a problem and commend you for pushing back, within reason). QG's first diff after "AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources": ; those are MEDRS, and you really should know that by now. Sorry, but MEDRS is one thing I don't IAR on. Take a break (short I hope) and come back, and grok MEDRS and try to take to WP:OPPONENT to heart and lung. Wishing you well. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{u|Middle_8}} You may want to look closely at the World Lung Federation, at the top of the page is a gold bar clearly labelling it a press release. I am not that was against using ] sources for medical claims. There is even a ongoing . Until that edit they had only been used on the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes sister page, both of which were one time part of the Health section of Electronic cigarette, split off at the same time by Doc James. Up until QG's edit there was a defacto standard/agreement of only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages (read the first link), thats why the RFC was started. ] 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::There '''NEVER''' was a consensus to use only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages. We don't have different rules for e-cig pages. There is a long standing ] to include other sources including WHO, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the World Lung Foundation. See ]. Also see ] for other sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that are not reviews. ], claiming that only reviews can be used for medical claims runs against ]. The RfC resulted in ]. See ]. | |||
| :::::::::::You also deleted other sources including a . After you could not delete the reliable source you then added context that was inappropriate. See ]. You, ], and ] appeared to be against using the formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal for medical claims. See ]. Your last edit to the safety page was to delete even more sources including a . So what is your reason to make a back to an old version while delete a number of sources including reviews? We want to know the ]. ] (]) 02:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::The facts are clear as can be, if anyone looks at the article when it was . Before you started editing it on your own because of the activity on the main page kept us busy. You started adding non review quality sources for medical claims. You will notice that reviews and formal policy statements in peer reviewed journals (review quality) are all that existed. ] 02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Let's review according to your diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625 | |||
| :::::::::::::See WHO: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-WHOPosition2014_8-0 | |||
| :::::::::::::See US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-FDA_nitrosamines_13-0 | |||
| :::::::::::::See The UK National Health Service https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-nhs_17-0 | |||
| :::::::::::::These sources are not reviews but they are reliable according to ]. ] (]) 03:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| * '''Support''' indefinite topic ban from e-cig related articles. Per Bishonen, I see obvious advocacy. Assuming good faith, I feel that both the articles and AF would benefit from him spending his wiki-time on other topics for the foreseeable future. --] (]) 00:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose action against AlbinoFerret or QuackGuru via ANI''' - This should go to Arbcom. Considering the e-cigarette dispute keeps popping up at ANI and has apparently gone on for so long now, and also considering there have been concerns raised regarding conduct of multiple users, this should go to arbcom where evidence can be carefully evaluated by those uninvolved. Seems binding solutions are needed at e-cegarette.--] (]) 23:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::<s>This thread is focused on AlbinoFerret's behavior. We ''can'' manage this at ANI if people bring clear cases and responders focus on the question at hand. Here, it is AF's behavior. Thanks. ] (]) 03:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC) </s> (striking, should not be commenting like this. ] (]) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| *'''Procedural oppose''' There are two main culprits in this current shitstorm. If the community lacks the ''cojones'' to sanction QG, who is the main culprit, and is content to let him off with a weak "warning" (how many warnings is that now?) it is against natural justice to sanction AF. I tend to agree with the view that arbitration will be the way forward here. A lynch mob at AN/I probably won't do it on this occasion. --] (]) 07:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''': I see several people opposing a topic ban on the ground that the whole QuackGuru – AlbinoFerret thing should go to RFAR instead. Is anybody actually planning or working on an RFAR submission? ], ], ], for instance? This question is not meant as criticism, as nobody is obliged to spend time on anything on Misplaced Pages beyond what they want to, and filing RFAR's is a bugger, with the diffs and so on. Just, it would be convenient to know, and may affect the outcome of this thread. ] | ] 12:09, 10 March 2015 (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) | |||
| ::I have the same question, and I don't think any of the "procedural opposers" have any intention of filing on ArbCom. I do not think this issue is a QG/AF issue, but rather the immensely problematic editing history of AlbinoFerret, whose entire edit history since September 2014 is the most egregious example of relentless disruptive ] advocacy I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:03, 11 March 2015 (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) | |||
| *: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.] (]) 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. | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban for at least six months to a year. His edits and endless disruptive discussions on the subject are simply far too POV and tendentious, disrupting the progress of the entire subject and the articles it encompasses. It does seem like blatant advocacy. ] (]) 12:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :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). | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This is a draconian solution at this point - especially since the air is rather full of smog because of misbehaviour by QG at this point. Suggest that such issues at that point be addressed to the Arbitration Committee, which will slow down everything in all likelihood. ] (]) 12:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::<s>The diffs are all presented and the question is clear, with respect to AlbinoFerret. Please take the time to focus on AF's behavior, which is the topic of this discussion. Thanks. There is a separate (malformed) section for QG above. ] (]) 14:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC) </s> (striking, should not be commenting like this. ] (]) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (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) | |||
| *'''{{Non-administrator observation|admin}}''' I am heavily ] in the topic at hand having spent a long time editing the e-cigarette article pretty heavily and having clashed with QG and AF. I think in the case of both editors the battleground that e-cig has become has brought out a negative side to their WP editing, in QG this is found in WP:OWN and IDHT, in AF it's more ADVOCACY and leaning towards SPA as it becomes more and more a focus of attention. The large proportion of AF's edits being on the Talk pages of e-cig articles rather than the article themselves reflects, in my eyes, his attempt to bring some form of consensus to article improvements rather than riding roughshod over the opinions and policies of WP. A topic ban, in the short term, may make things better. I certainly think AF taking a vacation from the article may be good for AF's stress levels. But the root problem is that e-cig, and the daughter articles, are battlegrounds where a lot of people are shouting, and nobody's listening. I don't know whether ArbCom can do something to help in this matter but banning AF from the page will not reduce the amount of problems there. ] (]) 12:33, 11 March 2015 (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) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per InfiniteBratwurst. I used to be involved, but haven't edited any of the articles in several months. I've been slightly active on their talk pages, though. ] (]) 19:41, 11 March 2015 (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. | |||
| :::<s>Infinitebratwurst's !vote was not based on looking at the diffs of AlbinoFerret's behavior and thinking about them in light of PAG, so that !vote should not count for the closer, and neither should this one. ] (]) 20:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)</s> (striking, should not be commenting like this. ] (]) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| *'''Note.''' It's been a problem previous times that this has come up that those involved in the dispute separate into obvious camps but are pretty vocal. Out of curiosity I checked the history of the users posting in this section and their edit count on whatever e-cig talk page had the highest edits (doesn't indicate time of involvement): | |||
| ::::{{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) | |||
| ::AlbinoFerret: 1641; QuackGuru: 630; Cloudjpk: <s>Not available but has edited at the article a bit</s> 141.; Doc James: 490; BMK: 0; CFCF: 151; Jytdog: 91; Bishonen: 0; Levelledout: 233; InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits); Johnuniq: 13; Robert McClenon: 0; Formerly 98: 148; Winkelvi: 0; Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies); AniMate: 0; Cardamon: 0; JzG: 0 ; A1candidate: 22; Kevin Gorman: 0; Two kinds of pork: 0; Cullen328: 0; Atsme: 0; Zad68: 203; Middle 8: 0; RexxS: 0; BoboMeowCat: 0; John: 0; Softlavender: 0; Collect: 0; EllenCT: 84. | |||
| :::::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. | |||
| :Obviously I'm not suggesting to ignore those involved, but I always lose track of who's actually been involved in the article whenever this comes up here, at RSN, etc. Figured it might be helpful for others trying gauge the situation too. If not, just more text and numbers for the wall. ] (]) 22:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::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. | |||
| ::Here's the same data presented in a different way: | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| ::{{col-begin}}{{col-break}} | |||
| :::::::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) | |||
| ::*AlbinoFerret: 1641 | |||
| ::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of ], which is always appropriate. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*QuackGuru: 630 | |||
| :::::::::# 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. | |||
| ::*Doc James: 490 | |||
| :::::::::# 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. | |||
| ::*Levelledout: 233 | |||
| :::::::::# 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. | |||
| ::*Zad68: 203 | |||
| :::::::::] (]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*CFCF: 151 | |||
| ::::::] ] ] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Formerly 98: 148 | |||
| :::::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. | |||
| ::*Cloudjpk: 141 (note: fixed) | |||
| :::::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. | |||
| ::*Jytdog: 91 (note: fixed) | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| ::*EllenCT: 84 | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| ::*A1candidate: 22 | |||
| ::::::::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) | |||
| ::*Johnuniq: 13 | |||
| :::::::::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) | |||
| ::*InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits) | |||
| ::::::::::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) | |||
| ::*Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies) | |||
| :::::::::::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"). | |||
| ::{{col-break|gap=4em}} | |||
| :::::::::::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) | |||
| ::*AniMate: 0 | |||
| ::::::::::::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) | |||
| ::*Atsme: 0 | |||
| :::::::::::::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) | |||
| ::*BoboMeowCat: 0 | |||
| ::::::::::::::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) | |||
| ::*BMK: 0 | |||
| :::::::::::::::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) | |||
| ::*Bishonen: 0 | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| ::*Cardamon: 0 | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::*Collect: 0 | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::*Cullen328: 0 | |||
| :::What? I never started an RfC. — ] (]; ]) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*John: 0 | |||
| ::::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." | |||
| ::*JzG: 0 | |||
| ::::Did that not actually happen? ] (]) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Kevin Gorman: 0 | |||
| :::::] is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. ] (]) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Middle 8: 0 | |||
| :::::That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... ] ] 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*RexxS: 0 | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| ::*Robert McClenon: 0 | |||
| :::::::I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. ] ] 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Softlavender: 0 | |||
| ::::::::], is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Two kinds of pork: 0 | |||
| ::*Winkelvi: 0 | |||
| ::{{col-end}} | |||
| :: | |||
| :: ] (]) 22:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks, I wanted to try to keep it as condensed as possible, but I normally don't tinker with tables here, so I didn't think of that. ] (]) 22:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wonder why you left Cloudjpk's data out? They have 112 edits (80.576% of mainspace edits) to e-cig articles and 176 edits (100% of talk space edits) to those articles talks. In total 83.965% of Cloudjpk's edits have been to e-cigarette articles. Significantly more than even AlbinoFerret. ] (]) 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The edit count cool was acting really wonky when I tried to search Cloudjpk's history. It essentially said the user had no edits whatsoever yesterday, which I knew was incorrect. Today it looks like it is working now. No idea what causes that, but I've heard to tool can act funny sometimes. I've updated the info on my post and made the minor change to ] table as well. ] (]) 12:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am involved in the articles, but not to the extent the raw numbers show. On average it takes 4 or more edits on a comment for me to get it right. I seldom make a perfect edit or comment and leave. Any view of the histories will show this. I think that numbers only tell part of the story. ] 22:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are not "involved" in the articles, you are '''''<u>***INVOLVED***</u>''''' with the articles. Articles on e-cigarettes make up the first (] - 466 edits, 55.47% of your total article edits), second (] - 82 edits, 9.7%} and fifth (] - 23 edits, 2.7%) in the list of articles you've edited most, making up a total of 67.97% of your article edits. The list of article '''''talk''''' pages you've edited has ] as #1, with 1641 edits, 69.35% of your talk page edits, ] as #2 (293, 12.38%), ] as #5 (72, 3.04%), for a total of '''''85.08%''''' of your talk page edits (that includes 7 other edits on the subject in archives.)<p>These numbers -- 67.07% of article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits -- most certainly live in SPA territory. It's clear what subject you're here to edit, and crystal what your position is on it. '''''That's''''' the "obvious advocacy" that several very experienced editors have commented on, and '''''that's''''' why a topic ban is appropriate. ] (]) 01:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I disagree with your label as a SPA. I tend to post more to articles I'm interested in, nothing strange there. Your raw numbers tell nothing and I disagree with the spin. I would also like to point out that slightly over half of my editing is on talk pages. Discussing and trying to make the articles better. If you take into account the number of edits I make to a specific edit or comment, it isnt that large. You seem to have some attraction to this section, and seem to post an awful lot here. ] 01:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::My calculations show that AlbinoFerret has made over 2890 edits on the topic of e-cigs to '''talk pages''' (or noticeboards) since 30 September 2014—over 17 talk-page edits per day for 164 days. That is beyond ''enthusiasm'' and is unhealthy for other editors, particularly in a contentious topic. ] (]) 01:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::How many of those were to the same comment or edit? How many editors you are comparing me to are disabled and sit at their computer because they cant easily leave the house? ] 01:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::@AlbinoFerret: If QuackGuru cannot, and '''''should not''''', bring up your physical status in his arguments, then '''''you''''', also, should not cite it as a mitigating factor -- not that it makes any difference, really. Presumably you have the same difficulties while editing an article or talk page on e-cigarettes as you do when editing an article or talk page on some other subject, so the '''''<u>percentages</u>''''' I cited above, which are '''''not''''' "raw numbers" -- '''67.07% of article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits on the subject of electronic cigarettes''' -- have '''''nothing whatsoever to do with your physical state'''''. Please don't bring up that red herring again. ] (]) 02:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Thats wrong, QuackGuru made harassing statements about my disability. But its a fact of life, one you obviously dont want discussed because it shows that your numbers have no basis for comparison. What you have are large numbers and innuendo. Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make. | |||
| ::::::::::They are raw numbers because they dont take into account the number of edits I make to the same comment or edit. Your comments are bordering very close on harassment if not going over the line by trying to say that my physical status has no bearing on my editing here. It is something you cant possibly have knowledge of. | |||
| ::::::::::Number of posts do not equal advocacy. ] 02:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Do you not understand percentages? Unless you edit e-cig articles differently than you edit all other articles, the numbers are '''''<u>not</u>''''' raw, they're relative to your overall output. ] (]) 04:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Since you ignored this, I will ask a second time. <b>Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make.</b> Number of posts do not equal advocacy ] neither do percentages. ] 12:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Actually, percentages are a good measure of advocacy (and SPA) by showing that an editor is focusing too much on one topic. Using a percentage would account for your tendency to make copy edits and simply show what area you edit the most relative to your total contributions here. There's really no arguing with those numbers. Physical disability should be playing no role in this specific conversation because it should not be making you focus so much on one topic like this. It's one thing to have a lot of time available (which we've discussed ), but it's that your time is concentrated into one area that is the problem people have repeatedly brought up here. Maybe you're not seeing that, but BMK is actually being pretty well reasoned above. ] (]) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I see that I am editing an article that is interesting to me, and that some people want me to edit other articles more. Where might I find the policy or guideline that says you must edit x number of articles? I dont think editing articles that dont intrest me is something that should be forced. When I find a subject I find interesting, I edit the article. But I think you are misapplying advocacy. Advocacy isnt posting to much to one article. ] 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Gimme a break, {{U|AlbinoFerret}}. A lot of my edits consist of correcting my own typos or copy editing my own comments to make my thoughts clearer. That is common. But any objective uninvolved editor can look at the totality of my edits, and they will conclude that I am a generalist editor. Then, they can look at the totality of ''your'' edits, and they will see with crystal clarity that you are here to advance a certain point of view about e-cigarettes. Please do not try to deny what is obvious to any intelligent objective person. ] ] 02:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No, they show I post a lot. I have been editing Bitcoin for a month and have made 216 edits to the page and talk page. About 7 a day, when I am interested in a topic, I post and discuss it and try and improve the article. I am not here to advance a specific point of view on e-cigarettes, and the number of posts doesnt prove that. (added afterwards - This no intelligent person is starting to sound like No True Scotsman argument) ] 02:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm really not interested in marginal topics like e-cigarettes and bitcoins, so I don't feel like reading this ''megillah''. Can you show me a link where QuackGuru harassed you about your stated handicap? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Since you asked, its easly found under his topic with plenty of discussion on the topic, but you can find it . ] 03:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@Bugs: See the section above this. My synopsis: QuackGuru make a remark that he absolutely shouldn't have, was roundly criticized for it by editors from all sides, and got warned by an admin who told him if he did it again he'd be blocked. The End.<p>Oh, wait a minute... the e-cig and fringe science advocates seized on it as a sideshow to distract everyone from the proposed topic ban against AlbinoFerret, inserted a new section calling for QuackGuru to be blocked '''''above''''' the topic-ban section, out of chronological order (so innocent editors would come across it first) and have been trying their best ever since to whip up a frenzy to block QG, not only because he is one of the stalwart editors preventing fringe science from infecting WP, but because it helps keep people from focusing on the topic ban necessary to prevent AlbinoFerret from continuing his advocacy for e-cigarettes. Up there (the section above) is a sideshow, down here is the real deal. ] (]) 04:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::QuackGuru's comment was rude and condescending, and shouldn't have been said. But it's possible he's thinking back on some users we've had who claimed to be handicapped (ItsLassieTime comes to mind) and it was one of that prolific sockpuppeteer's many lies. So it's not unreasonable to have suspicions like that. But it's best to keep those suspicions to oneself until or if an appropriate time arises. However, disabled users shouldn't expect any special treatment, and in fact they probably ought not even bring up the subject. "TMI". ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 08:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, it's better for people to keep unsavory information like that in the closet.<sup>''<nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki>''</sup> Or, wild idea, we could afford people with disabilities ] (as is done in many civilized places to varying degrees) and not be dicks to them, including not engaging in "". --] <small>(] • ])</small> 12:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's not about keeping "unsavory" information "in the closet". It's about not using one's handicap as an excuse. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If I recall correctly, {{U|AlbinoFerret}} didn't bring up his disability in such a way as to suggest he should be excused for anything. If I recall correctly, QC did bring up AFs disability, and did it in a manner that was intended to discredit AF, distract, and wave a red herring like a giant flag at a sporting event. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I'm not saying that, that's just an example or scenario that can happen and it's why users ought not be bragging/complaining about their handicaps. QG seems to have seen something in Ferret's comments that suggested he might not actually be handicapped, and the memories of abusive users like ItsLassieTime may have overwhelmed QG's good sense at that point. There are better ways to explore that question than QG did. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I saw what happened when it happened. QG did it to discredit AF. What's more, AF has never "bragged" about having a disability. It doesn't matter what QG saw/thought/or had a memory of. His comments were beyond the pale and WAY out of line. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 18:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Actually, AF has been mentioning their disability in what appears to be justification for the editing habits not too far above. . ] (]) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|reason=off-topic discussion of User:QuackGuru; belongs in subsection above}} | |||
| :{{tq|Oh, wait a minute... the e-cig and fringe science advocates seized on it as a sideshow to distract everyone from the proposed topic ban against AlbinoFerret}} Have you actually read the discussion above? QG is a problem editor. People seized the discussion of a problem with QG to advocate trying to fix the problem with QG, some people leapt on the one comment (That I personally think should have been a straight 48 hour block but it's now dealt with) Others are discussing his edit history and while there may be some fringe science and e-cig advocates in there, there are also editors who want to see articles present accurate sourced information in readable English rather than garbled walls of repetitive text. The original post was about QG. QG tried to use boomerang to distract from the issue of his own editing behaviour.] (]) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: I've concluded that the best way to have any productive discussion of QG's conduct -- or that of any disruptive editor who is perceived as being on the "right" side of content disputes -- is for '''''anybody perceived as being a fringe-sympathizer to refrain from calling for sanctions'''''. <small>(Sorry for shouting in bold itals; I didn't want BMK to feel alone in using that style ;-).)</small> Go ahead and collect diffs and present them; just keep it as uncomplicated, neutrally-presented and red-herring free as possible, and let others decide what to do with it (and needless to say, let someone else initiate the process: this needs to be done properly and not rushed). That will pre-empt the incorrect/disingenuous/GAME-y objection that "it's just fringe-pushers who want him sanctioned". | |||
| :: AFAIK this has never been tried before. There are, IMO/IME, just enough objective editors on WP that ''some'' will still look at the evidence fairly and !vote accordingly. And if none do, it can be fairly assumed that it really ''is'' only fringe-pushers who want sanctions. In QG's case it has always, from the very beginning, been about 50% perceived-fringe editors and 50% perceived-neutral ones calling for sanctions. | |||
| :: It really is true that the louder perceived-fringers complain, the stronger QG's position becomes, and this will only get worse with time (as will QG's shenanigans as he becomes emboldened: we're already seeing this with five warnings in three months). The community really should have learned this in the past from similarly disruptive/woo-bashing editors (whom I'm not going to mention by name now because they're more or less behaving themselves). The philosophically-inclined should ponder ]. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 13:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ===Request for closure=== | |||
| *Just a reminder, '''''this''''' section is about '''''imposing a topic ban on AlbinoFerrett''''' due to his obvious advocacy in the '''''67.07% of his article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits''''' on the subject of electronic cigarettes. ] (]) 16:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::Since you ignored this above, I will ask a third time. <b>Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make.</b> Number of posts do not equal advocacy ] neither do percentages. But since you like percentages, the edits above that QuackGuru posted to try and show a problem <b>account for only 0.02% of my edits to e-cigarette articles.</b>. Those edits were reasoned, discussed, and not the product of advocacy. ] 17:18, 12 March 2015 (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) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban. Even ] that AlbinoFerret's conduct is not advocacy, the edits linked above and conduct in this discussion suggest that some distance from this topic may have a healing effect on someone with a lot of energy and dedication to give to editing Misplaced Pages. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 20:00, 12 March 2015 (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) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban as a clear example of persistent advocacy. Moral support for whoever has to read all the way to the end of this whole huge mess of a thread. ] (]) 20:15, 12 March 2015 (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) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''', for a month at minimum, for advocacy and so that AlbinoFerret can move on from this and contribute to the project. All the time we are wasting arguing here is time that we are not spending helping Misplaced Pages expand. Based on his actions and the personal attacks made over this, I don't think that AlbinoFerret can contribute in a neutral way to the E-cigarettes article, for now at least. ] (]) 22:54, 12 March 2015 (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) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' (involved editor) Originally i intended not to comment, because the pile-up of involved editors was already bad. But now it seems that i have to: By !voting to topicbanning AF, on the premises presented, we are creating an environment where editors will not dare to disagree with editors like QG, no matter how wellfounded the arguments to disagree are, or how little QG actually responds to good faith objections on the talk-page. We are also sending the signal that: Do not dare to only edit areas that you are interested in, because you will get banned. Do remember that being an SPA is not against policy, being interested in a topic is also not against policy..... Because no matter how we slice and dice it, the main argument here is not that AF is breaking our editing policies, or his POV, but instead that he is not conforming to some editors view of how multifacetted you must be to pass the bar. This is not the encyclopedia that anyone can edit anymore ... it is the encyclopedia for people who conform to certain characteristics. --] 11:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::To clarify: I do not see policy violations to back up a ban. --] 11:42, 13 March 2015 (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. | |||
| {{hat|hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock ] (]) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :::''comment removed per WP:EVADE'' | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| ::::You've only been here since December. How do you know anything about someone's alleged "long history" of ''anything?'' Unless you used to edit under a different ID? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:50, 13 March 2015 (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) | |||
| :::::''comment removed per WP:EVADE'' | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::::::Since you have no more than 100 edits in your two-plus months here, many of which appear to be advocating for e-cigarettes, I assume the rest of your time here has been to try to figure out how to get rid of a user who stands in your way? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::''comment removed per WP:EVADE'' | |||
| ::::::::I'll take that as an affirmative. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::''comment removed per WP:EVADE'' | |||
| ::::::::::Keep telling yourself that. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::''comment removed per WP:EVADE'' | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| *] repeatedly added nowiki tags to the 9 times. The first nowiki tag was on . The last nowiki tag was on . Not sure why this happened. ] (]) 18:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::You might There is a bug in the visual editor. One of the reasons I stopped using it was because it was so buggy on my Linux distribution. If you look at the history instead of doing a date to date search, each of those edits comes up with the "Visual editor" tag on the edit comments. There is nothing between those tags, its basically a tag and another closing tag with no text. This is a AGF problem, nothing between the tags, not asking me about it anywhere, and it the result of a bug in the editor, but right away jumping to negative motives. ] 19:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{out}} Here's something interesting. If we accept for the moment, for the sake of argument, the premise that "involved" editors, from both camps, are too prejudiced to cast a !vote in a neutral fashion, then we should look more closely at the opinions of the presumably '''''uninvolved''''' editors, the ones who have no or very few edits to the e-cig talk page. | |||
| == user Stan1900 and the films of Shannon Alexander == | |||
| As our data source we can Use Kingofaces43 list above, and add to it the four !votes which have been posted since: Mendaliv (0 edits), Opabinia regalis (0), Iwilsonp (0) and Kim D. Petersen (780). We throw out all the high-numbered editors, which leaves us with thisL | |||
| {{atop|1=Right, we're done here. {{User|Stan1900}} is indef blocked for ] and ] among many other issues. Four !votes for topic ban below, four !votes for indef ''ban'' below - with all of the most recent !votes being for indef overall - so splitting the difference while bearing in mind ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| I'm posting here in an attempt to get admin oversight on a situation playing itself out over threads at COIN, NPOVN and the relevant article talk pages. | |||
| ] is a ] dedicated to producing articles on the films of Shannon Alexander, an individual who they admit to having had dealings with . The user previously made a small group of edits back in 2017/18 on the same subject, but the account was then dormant for 6 years until recent activity commenced. Recent activity seems to coincide with the US release of one of the films. | |||
| {{col-begin}}{{col-break}} | |||
| ::*A1candidate: 22 - Oppose | |||
| ::*Johnuniq: 13 - Support | |||
| ::*<s>InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits) - Oppose</s> (struck per ]) | |||
| ::*Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies) - Support | |||
| ::*AniMate: 0 - Very weak support | |||
| ::*Atsme: 0 - Oppose | |||
| ::*BoboMeowCat: 0 - Oppose via ANI | |||
| ::*BMK: 0 - Support | |||
| ::*Bishonen: 0 - Support | |||
| ::*Cardamon: 0 - Support | |||
| ::*Collect: 0 - Oppose | |||
| ::*Cullen328: 0 - Support | |||
| {{col-break|gap=4em}} | |||
| ::*Iwilsonp: 0 - Support | |||
| ::*John: 0 - Procedural oppose | |||
| ::*JzG: 0 - Support | |||
| ::*Kevin Gorman: 0 - Support | |||
| ::*Mendaliv: 0 - Support | |||
| ::*Middle 8: 0 - Support | |||
| ::*Opabinia regalis: 0 - Support | |||
| ::*RexxS: 0 - Support | |||
| ::*Robert McClenon: 0 - Oppose - Send to ArbCom | |||
| ::*Softlavender: 0 - Support | |||
| ::*Two kinds of pork: 0 - Oppose | |||
| ::*Winkelvi: 0 - no !vote | |||
| {{col-end}} | |||
| Concerns were first raised when the user opened multiple threads trying to hurry the articles through AfC and talking about when the articles would appear on Google searches (raising concerns about a possible SEO motivation). | |||
| *Oppose - 8, including three based on procedure or venue | |||
| *Support - 15, includng one "very weak support" | |||
| The articles created have been consistently identified as being of a promotional nature, primarily due to being composed primarily of quotes from positive reviews. See for example , and . | |||
| So of the presumably uninvolved editors who !voted, 65% (15/23) are in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. If you want to throw out all the editors with any edits at all, that takes away 2 supports and 2 opposes (13/19) for a 68%. True, one of the supports is "very weak", but bear in mind that three of the opposes are based on procedure or venue, and not on the merits of the case. Throw those out (the "very weak" and the procedurals) and you've got 80% (12/15). | |||
| COI templates were added to the articles, which the user has created multiple threads in an attempt to remove, clearly forum shopping looking for a different answer. | |||
| So it seems anyway you slice it, the uninvolved editors are in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. | |||
| The lengthy (and promotional) Reception sections were removed following talkpage discussion sufficient to indicate that there was no consensus for inclusion. However, it is clearly inappropriate for an article to be composed primarily of reviews (good or bad) so removal was noncontroversial in any case. Nonetheless the user has argued at great length for reinclusion in various locations. | |||
| But what about an overall state of the discussion, counting '''''all''''' editors whether they're involved or not? Then you've got 21 support !votes and 13 oppose !votes. That's a 62% majority in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret, not all that different from the percentage of the uninvolved editors. | |||
| The user is now proceeding in a highly confrontational and argumentative fashion in multiple different threads (diffs for which above) and does not seem capable of accepting that wherever they take their concerns they routinely receive the same response. Users including ] and myself have raised concerns that the user is a promo only account dedicated to the promotion of the films of Shannon Alexander. | |||
| Of course, the closing admin -- and I really think it had better be an admin in this case -- doesn't count the votes (or, at least, doesn't '''''just''''' count the votes), they evaluate the strength of the various arguments as well. I'm well aware of that, so there's no need to remind me. But the count is still helpful as it gives a thumbnail representation of the state of play at this moment. ] (]) 11:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*InfiniteBratwurst has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of FergusM1970. Therefore, these results change: | |||
| ::*All uninvolved editors: 68% (15/22) in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret | |||
| ::*All editors commenting: 64% (21/33) in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret | |||
| ::With no new recent comments, I believe it's coming to the point where an uninvolved admin should closely evaluate this sub-thread and determine whether a consensus exists for levying a topic ban concerning electronic cigarettes on AlbinoFerret, due to his obvious advocacy in favor of a pro-e-cig POV. ] (]) 19:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I’d be grateful if an admin would take some action here. ] (]) 07:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| There is '''strong support for a topic ban'''. Numerous editors support a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. For example, please read the comments above by ], ], ], ], ] , ], ], ], ], ], ] ], ], ], ]. Only a voluntary break from the topic area is against the community consensus. See ]. ] (]) 21:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Stan1900 has also initiated two lengthy and similar threads at the Help desk, one of which has been archived. ] is the other and taken together, these multiple discussions show bludgeoning in defense of a highly focused promotional editing campaign. I have interacted heavily with this editor in recent days, and so I prefer that another uninvolved adminstrator read these conversations and take appropriate action. I want to admit that I made an error in evaluating the copyright status of three movie posters, and I apologize for that. ] (]) 07:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@QuackGuru, You've had your say. Please don't ]. I took the liberty of removing the <nowiki><big></nowiki> tags from your comment. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 21:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Some further background here… | |||
| ::The user has claimed that {{tq| My account was created to edit Katherine Langford's article, completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander}}. However, all of the 2017/18 edits were actually directly related to Shannon Alexander, e.g. here . Note also that the 2017/18 activity coincided with the release of the Shannon Alexander film mentioned in those edits. | |||
| ::The user has also claimed: {{tq|I have a history of editing articles related to notable figures from Perth, Western Australia on Misplaced Pages}} . | |||
| ::However, at that time (and now) the user had only made a small number of edits (all related to Shannon Alexander), so if true this would have required the use of an alternative account. Similarly, as pointed out by Cullen328 (here ), the user claims to have {{tq|been an active editor for 8 years, with contributions spanning a variety of topics}}, but their edit history indicates 6 dormant years since 2018. | |||
| ::The user states here that they have only contacted Shannon Alexander for {{tq|fact verification}}, although what purpose that was intended to serve is unclear given the requirements of ] and ]. However the degree of association between the two individuals would clearly appear to be greater than that given the persistency of the activity and the apparent interest in, for example, urgency of publication and search engine optimisation around the time of a film release, as per ]. | |||
| ::The user has also used a great deal of very obviously AI generated posts (as pointed out in various of the threads that the user has started). The user consistently denies AI use, despite the fact that one subset of their posts consistently scores "100% likelihood AI generated" on GPTzero while the rest of their posts show up as "entirely human generated", clearly indicating two different origins. The user claims they have a very formal style of writing that GPTzero mistakes for AI, but if that were true GPTzero would consistently produce results suggesting "part AI/ part human". They then claim that GPTzero is not 100% reliable, which is correct, but that does not invalidate the very clear cut evidence above. | |||
| ::So, it does seem to me that there is a consistent pattern above of statements which seem inclined to mislead. ] (]) 08:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Responding to these allegations which contain several misrepresentations: | |||
| :::1. Regarding contact with Shannon Alexander: As previously stated, my only contact has been for fact verification - a standard practice explicitly allowed by Misplaced Pages policies. The obsessive focus on the filmmaker rather than the articles' content is concerning. These are independent films that received critical coverage from reliable sources - their inclusion on Misplaced Pages should be evaluated on those merits. | |||
| :::2. The claims about 'promotional' content are misleading. The removed content consisted of properly sourced reviews from reliable publications, following standard film article format. No specific policy-based issues with the content have been identified. | |||
| :::3. The "forum shopping" accusation misrepresents proper use of Misplaced Pages venues: | |||
| :::- Talk pages for content discussion | |||
| :::- Help desk for process guidance | |||
| :::- NPOV board for neutrality issues | |||
| :::- Each serves a distinct purpose | |||
| :::4. Regarding GPTZero claims: The logic here is flawed. Different types of Misplaced Pages contributions naturally require different writing styles - technical documentation vs. talk page discussion being obvious examples. Using unreliable tool results to dismiss properly sourced content violates core principles. | |||
| :::5. Note that Cullen328 has admitted to error regarding the improper deletion of properly licensed images, which demonstrates the pattern of hasty actions being taken without proper verification. | |||
| :::The core issue remains: properly sourced, policy-compliant content about notable films is being removed based on unsupported accusations rather than specific policy-based concerns. The apparent determination to suppress well-sourced information about these independent films is puzzling. Misplaced Pages exists to document notable subjects based on reliable sources - which is exactly what these articles do. I remain committed to improving them more than ever ] (]) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::At the end of the day this is all very simple... | |||
| ::::Other users have interpreted your work as promotional in intent. Therefore COI/PAID tags have been added. | |||
| ::::Also, articles on Misplaced Pages do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews, so that material has been removed (and perceived again to be promotional). | |||
| ::::You have attempted, over and over again, in various threads to get the tags removed and the removals overturned - but no one in any of those threads has ever agreed with you. | |||
| ::::The appropriate course of action is therefore to accept that you are in a minority and that the changes you wish to make have no community support. | |||
| ::::Continuing to argue in multiple different places is not an appropriate response. ] (]) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also see ] and ] that every editor and group is here to improve Misplaced Pages—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. ] (]) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I was correct about the fact that Stan1900 falsely claimed on Wikimedia Commons that the three movie posters in question are their "own work" and that false claim remains on the Commons file pages for those posters. ] (]) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Stan1900 is currently arguing that the words 'own work' actually refer to their 'work' clicking the upload button. I'm not sure if this is all covering up for what looks more and more like an obvious COI, or a simple inability to admit to making a mistake. I think either is incompatible with the collaborative work needed for this project. I'm also very concerned about obviously dishonest statements such as , there they claimed edits were unrelated to Shannon Alexander when they were clearly about a film of Alexander's . | |||
| :::::::I think a topic ban from the subject of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed, would be the best thing here. ] (]) 17:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Your characterizations here fundamentally misrepresent both the situation and Misplaced Pages's purpose: | |||
| *:1. "Articles do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews" - Misrepresents standard film article format. Well-sourced critical reception sections are common in film articles. The removed content followed established patterns for film articles, with proper citations from reliable sources. | |||
| *:2. "Interpreted as promotional" - No specific policy violations have been identified. Proper sourcing from reliable publications isn't "promotional" simply because the reviews are positive. This seems to reflect a bias against independent films receiving positive coverage. | |||
| *:3. Regarding the "own work" designation on Commons - As DMacks confirmed, proper licensing documentation was verified through official channels. The template language about authorized uploads is being deliberately misinterpreted to justify improper deletions. | |||
| *:4. The underlying issue here seems to be a systematic effort to suppress coverage of certain independent films. My interest is in documenting underrepresented works that meet notability guidelines through reliable sources. Many editors focus on their own areas of interest - the hostile reaction to well-sourced content about independent films is very surprising and concerning. | |||
| *:5. Claims of "forum shopping" misrepresent proper use of established channels for different purposes (talk pages, help desk, NPOV board). Each place serves a distinct purpose in processes. | |||
| *:The suggestion of a topic ban for contributing properly sourced content about notable subjects is inappropriate. This appears to be an attempt to use process to suppress legitimate content rather than address specific policy-based concerns. | |||
| *:I remain committed to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of notable but underrepresented subjects through proper sourcing and neutral presentation. The aggressive opposition to this goal raises serious questions about systemic bias. ] (]) 18:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::* '''Support''' topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. User is clearly ] and is bludgeoning the same flawed interpretations of policies over and over again. User also refuses to acknowledge that every other user in various threads disagrees with what they are trying to achieve, which is clearly contrary to collaborative work. Alternatively I would support a site block for what is obviously a promo-only account (but given their narrow focus on a single subject a topic ban would effectively be functionally identical to a site block). ] (]) 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::*:Your accusations and push for a ban are baseless personal attacks that ignore policy and precedent: | |||
| *::*:The articles were already reviewed and the paid tags were removed. Restoring them without cause is disruptive. | |||
| *::*:The image licensing was properly vetted via official channels, as confirmed by a Commons admin. Claiming otherwise is misleading. | |||
| *::*:I've consistently engaged on content and policy, while you resort to vague claims of "promotion" without evidence. That's not collaboration. | |||
| *::*:Consensus is not "everyone disagreeing" with sourced additions. It's built through policy-based discussion, not mob rule. | |||
| *::*:WP:HERE is about constructive editing, not battle lines. My focus on notable films in my area of knowledge is entirely appropriate. | |||
| *::*:A topic ban would unjustly exclude neutrally written, reliably sourced content about verifiable subjects. That's a heckler's veto against core policies. | |||
| *::*:If you have specific concerns, raise them on article talk pages so they can be addressed. But unsubstantiated aspersions and ban threats are the real problem here. | |||
| *::*:Stop edit warring against consensus to remove properly vetted content. If you can't engage productively, step back and let those of us who actually want to improve the encyclopedia get on with it. ] (]) 18:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::*::The user is now claiming over at COIN that {{tq|Acting as an authorized representative doesn't constitute as COI}}. I'll leave that comment for others to consider at their leisure. ] (]) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::*:::Note here that the user had previous claimed repeatedly that they had only engaged in {{tq|fact verification}} with Shannon Alexander while operating in what they described as a journalistic capacity. That is not what any reasonable person would describe as being an {{tq|authorized representative}}. ] (]) 19:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. "As an authorized representative" the conflict of interest is crystal clear, despite the ] denials. ] (]) 19:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:1. Yes, I acted as an authorized representative specifically for verifying poster copyright/licensing. This was a limited, transparent interaction done through proper Misplaced Pages channels to ensure images were correctly licensed. | |||
| *:2. However, this narrow administrative role for image licensing does not extend to content creation. My article contributions are based entirely on reliable, independent sources, maintaining neutral POV. | |||
| *:3. I have been transparent about fact verification contacts (dates, releases, etc.), which were conducted in a manner similar to how any Misplaced Pages editor might verify facts with a primary source. | |||
| *:4. The suggestion of a topic ban seems unwarranted given that: | |||
| *: - All content is properly sourced from independent publications | |||
| *: - Image licensing was handled through proper channels with full disclosure | |||
| *: - I've engaged constructively in discussions and made requested changes | |||
| *: - No promotional content has been demonstrated | |||
| *:I remain committed to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of independent films while following all policies and guidelines. Being authorized to handle image licensing does not prevent me from making properly sourced, neutral contributions to related articles. ] (]) 20:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *On December 15, at the Help Desk, I said to Stan1900 {{tpq|You are now behaving effectively like a one person public relations agency for Shannon Alexander on Misplaced Pages}}. Stan1900 denied that, criticized me for saying that, and ''repeatedly'' denied any conflict of interest. Now that we have learned that Stan1900 is an "authorized representative" of Shannon Alexander, it is clear that my December 15 assessment was correct. This editor has been ''repeatedly'' deceptive. Accordingly, I now '''Support''' an indefinite sitewide block. ] (]) 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I need to address what has become an exhausting cycle of repeated explanations: | |||
| *:1. For what must be the 50th time: I served as an authorized representative SPECIFICALLY AND SOLELY for image licensing/copyright verification - a standard Misplaced Pages process that requires verification of rights. This was handled through proper channels and is documented. The images were challenged, reviewed, and officially reinstated. | |||
| *:2. Every single piece of content I've contributed: | |||
| *: - Is based on independent, reliable sources | |||
| *: - Follows NPOV guidelines | |||
| *: - Has been properly cited | |||
| *: - Includes balanced coverage | |||
| *: - Has been verified through proper channels | |||
| *:3. This constant need to repeat these same points, which are documented across multiple discussion pages, is preventing productive work on Misplaced Pages. The evidence is clear: | |||
| *: - Images reinstated through proper process | |||
| *: - Paid editing tags removed after review | |||
| *: - Content properly sourced | |||
| *: - Constructive engagement documented | |||
| *:The suggestion of an indefinite block for following Misplaced Pages's proper processes is both disproportionate and concerning. At this point, the repeated disregard for documented evidence and proper procedures seems more disruptive than any of my contributions. | |||
| *:I suggest we move past this circular discussion and focus on actual content improvements. ] (]) 20:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I agree that the specific phrase "authorized agent" in the specific context of file-upload license release does not necessarily mean they are generally an agent (for PR, general employment, or other representation) in the general sense. Here, they might merely have specific authorization or act as a conduit limited to those images. However, they have explicitly stated that they actually are the license holder themselves, which is quite different from acting as the conduit between the license-holder and the Wiki world. And that contradicts all assertions they might make that they have no COI or similar tight relationship with the subject, or are anything more than the conduit. ] (]) 22:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Stan1900 is the undisputed champion of repeating themselves over and over and OVER again, under the mistaken notion that repetition is persuasion. The three movie poster files on Wikimedia Commons ''still'' falsely state that the posters are Stan1900's "own work", denying credit to the designer or designers who actually created the posters. ] (]) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::1. DMacks: You've misinterpreted my role. I have consistently stated I am an authorized representative for licensing verification - NOT the license holder. This distinction is important and has been explained repeatedly. In fact, many production entitles who haven't created Misplaced Pages entries for their work are happy to authorize agents to handle public information and image licensing, as evidenced by this very situation. Film artwork is regularly made available through multiple channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits) - having an authorized representative handle Misplaced Pages licensing is neither unusual nor suspicious. | |||
| :::2. Cullen328: Your comment about "repeating over and over" is ironic given that you and others continue to repeat the same disproven accusations despite: | |||
| ::: - Images being officially verified and reinstated through proper channels | |||
| ::: - Confirmation by administrators | |||
| ::: - Clear documentation of my limited representative role | |||
| ::: - Proper sourcing of all content | |||
| :::The fact that you're still focused on image claims that have already been resolved through official Misplaced Pages processes suggests you're more interested in casting aspersions than improving content. These posters were challenged, verified, and reinstated - continuing to dispute this is what's actually disruptive to Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :::I'm happy to update template language to be more precise about representative status, but let's be clear: the licensing has been verified and confirmed. Repeatedly questioning this doesn't change the facts. ] (]) 23:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Stan1900}}, the file information pages for the three film posters STILL falsely state that they are your "own work". Why is that? ] (]) 01:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your continued fixation on this already-resolved issue is becoming tiresome. Nevertheless, I'll explain one more time: | |||
| :::::The "own work" designation indicates upload process handling as an authorized representative - not artistic creation. This has been explained repeatedly, the images have been verified, and administrators have confirmed their reinstatement. | |||
| :::::To spell it out yet again: | |||
| :::::- Not the creator | |||
| :::::- Not the copyright holder | |||
| :::::- Authorized for licensing verification only | |||
| :::::- Images officially verified | |||
| :::::- Reinstatement confirmed | |||
| :::::Your insistence on rehashing this same point, despite official resolution through proper channels, suggests you're more interested in finding reasons to object than improving Misplaced Pages. If template language is truly your deepest concern, I'm happy to update it. Otherwise, if we could focus on actual content improvement rather than this circular discussion about already-verified images would be great! ] (]) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This isn't a thread about content, it is about your conduct. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::My conduct has been straightforward: Basically creating properly sourced articles while following guidelines. The burden of proof lies with those making repetitive and outlandish accusations, yet you've been unable to demonstrate any policy violations. Instead, you're repeatedly removing verified content and making unsupported claims. | |||
| :::::::The real disruption and misconduct here is the constant interference with legitimate article creation. ] (]) 01:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{u|Stan1900}}, ''correct that false claim'' that those posters are your "own work" and give credit to the actual poster designers. ] (]) 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I've updated the file pages to properly reflect copyright attribution and clarify roles. The changes align with the documentation in OTRS ticket #2024113010007335, which covers all three posters. This removes the "own work" designation while accurately reflecting the licensing chain. ] (]) 03:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Support''' the topic ban, on Shannon Alexander, and her films, broadly construed. Stan1900 is clearly here for only promotional activities, and given the change from "only contact has been for fact verification" to "authorized representative but ''only'' for this thing," makes me even more skeptical that we're currently getting the whole truth, as opposed to what they were forced to admit when called out on conflicting evidence. The doublespeak about "own work" just confirms to me that this editor would present a great time sink on anyone trying to collaborate with them effectively, which is a bit of a death knell on a collaborative project. ] (]) 04:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Thank you, {{u|Stan1900}}. ] (]) 03:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Stan, I appreciate that you're keen on repeating yourself, but getting others to repeat themselves is rather unfair. The reasons that multiple users have considered you to be a promotional only account are given at the top of this thread, but to jog your memory: | |||
| *'''Notification'''. I started an ArbCom discussion since this is going nowhere. See ]. ] (]) 23:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Since 2017, your account has been dedicated solely to editing around the films of Shannon Alexander. | |||
| * QuarkGuru archived this sub-thread, but I have re-opened it. Although he started this, it is not his property, and the views of many editors, both pro- and con- have been expressed, and should be evaluated collectively by an admin. Also, QG has a conflict of interest in that he opened an arbitartion request, which is unlikely to be heard as long as these threads are open. ] (]) 00:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You have an obvious conflict of interest because you've admitted to having dealt with Alexander and being their authorized representative. | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| :You've created articles which other users have identified as promotional (mainly due to the articles consisting primarily of quotes taken from positive reviews). | |||
| :You've set up multiple threads to try to get the articles fast-tracked through AfC, with the stated motivation of getting the articles on to Google searches (presumably it isn't coincidental that this is at the same time that one of the films has its US release). | |||
| === KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret === | |||
| :You've then spent an inordinate amount of time, across multiple threads, unsuccessfully attempting to remove tags and reinstate the elements that others have found to be promotional. | |||
| {{hat|1=Not helpful <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 04:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| :That is all the textbook activity of a promotional account. Indeed, whether this activity is being done directly on behalf of Alexander or simply off your own back, it is still promotional. | |||
| :Of course . That's because ] has also made many controversial edits to the ] page. Let's review some of KimDabelsteinPetersen's recent edits. | |||
| :However, if we look beyond all that, the continual ] of multiple threads, the ] behaviour and various deceptions have worn out the patience of those who have interacted with you. Hence we now have 4 users calling for you to be topic banned from the films of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed. Unfortunately that would seem to be the only way to get you to ]. ] (]) 04:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : This edit deleted text and sources from two reputable organisations. See ]. The sources are reliable per ]. See ]. The sources are reliable per ] according to the current discussion. | |||
| ::Who are you to question editors' personal interests or timing of contributions? Many filmmakers haven't created Misplaced Pages entries for their notable works, and having authorized representatives handle public information and image licensing is completely normal - as evidenced by the very processes Misplaced Pages has in place for this. | |||
| : This edit deleted text and sources from two reputable organisations again. | |||
| ::Of course I want these articles to be visible and indexable – the same way you want everyone to see your contributions and the articles you've edited. If visibility was suspicious, why do any of us contribute to Misplaced Pages? The whole point is to document notable subjects for public access. | |||
| : This edit mainly deleted text from a formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal. | |||
| ::Film artwork and information is readily available through multiple public channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits). Creating properly sourced articles about notable films, regardless of timing or subject matter, is exactly what Misplaced Pages is for. | |||
| : This edit mainly deleted text from a review and text from reputable organizations. | |||
| ::Your continued attempts to paint standard Misplaced Pages processes as suspicious suggests you're more interested in finding problems than improving content. ] (]) 04:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ]. | |||
| :::Your tally of "4 users" consists of the same individuals who have repeatedly removed properly sourced content without policy justification. Tags were removed and images reinstated through proper channels because they met Misplaced Pages's requirements - that's not coincidence, that's following process. | |||
| : This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''. | |||
| :::Your "coincidental timing" argument falls apart considering I'm writing about films from 2018 and 2022 in late 2024. If this was promotional, why wait years? | |||
| : This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''. | |||
| :::I'm not getting others to repeat themselves - I'm providing the same answer to the same baseless accusations because you refuse to accept documented evidence. The fact that multiple administrators have verified and reinstated content you've removed suggests you're the one being disruptive, not me. ] (]) 05:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''. KimDabelsteinPetersen . KimDabelsteinPetersen, aren't you also deleting a lot of sources against ]? shows AlbinoFerret is making many counterproductive edits and deleting of a lot of reliable sources. KimDabelsteinPetersen is also deleting a lot of reliable sources which suggests he/she is promoting a certain favorable ] for e-cigs. Should KimDabelsteinPetersen also be topic banned? KimDabelsteinPetersen has earned a topic ban from the e-cig pages IMO. Does the community prefer a topic ban for KimDabelsteinPetersen for '''6 months or one year''', an '''indef topic ban''', or '''just a warning''' or '''no action'''? ] (]) 20:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually it is now 5 users calling for a topic ban. | |||
| ::Can I assume from the title, that is "KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret", that the intention is to punish KDP for voting the wrong way by topic banning them? There is no wrongdoing in the diffs you've provided I'm afraid, most of them appear to be reverts on the basis that ongoing talk page discussions, RFCs, have not yet concluded or principles such as ], all valid ones of course.] (]) 20:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure when you are referring to admins reinstating material I've removed, but I work pretty much solely on conflict of interest cases and it's fairly normal for material to be removed and reinstated on those sort of cases as discussions develop. I don't take that personally, it's just an occupational hazard that happens to everyone in that field from time to time as articles work towards a stable version. I'm not aware of having been reverted by any admins on the articles under discussion in this thread. In other situations I'd have thought it was a rare event for me to be reverted by an admin although no doubt it has occurred. | |||
| :::KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret because he/she is also making a number of controversial edits, including deleting numerous reliable sources that he thinks was okay to delete at the time. But it is not reasonable to continue to delete pertinent information about of the safety of e-cigarettes. Both and are the main problem editors IMO. There is also a discussion at ]. No reasonable argument has been made to delete so many reliable sources after over a week. ] (]) 21:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My work in the COI area is, I suspect, fairly well known to a good number of readers here. I am a user in good standing who has contributed to the removal of much COI and promotional material from Misplaced Pages. All of my work on Misplaced Pages for the last year or so has been done on forums with significant administrator oversight and if my conduct was generally disruptive that would have been pointed out to me by an administrator at some point. | |||
| * Kim stated her "involvement" at the very beginning of her "oppose". I don't see what's to be gained by this sub-thread. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 22:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I opened this thread in the clear knowledge that my own conduct might be placed under the spotlight, but instead it is 5 users who are calling for you to be topic blocked. | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ::::For you to suggest that I am the problem here only serves to demonstrate your lack of self-awareness. ] (]) 05:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also, re: {{tq| want everyone to see contributions and the articles 've edited}}... No, actually I have no particular feelings on that score - probably because I resolutely avoid editing any article where I might be perceived to have a COI. With the exception of a few very minor edits I've only ever contributed to obscure articles (so hoping that "everyone will see them" would be a vain hope indeed). ] (]) 05:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Community authorized discretionary sanctions for Electronic cigarette articles === | |||
| ::::::{{u|Axad12 }} {{u|CoffeeCrumbs}} | |||
| ::::::1. The paid editing tags were reviewed successfully. Their reinstatement without new evidence defies this original determination. | |||
| ''Proposed:'' The community authorizes discretionary sections for all articles related to ]s, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working within this topic if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to: page banning, topic banning, semi-protection, pending changes protection, or blocking any editor so warned. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. | |||
| ::::::2. All images have been properly verified through Wikimedia VRT process and have valid licensing. Their deletion and reinstatement of them shows proper process was followed. | |||
| ::::::3. I have already addressed all questions about authorized agent status through official Misplaced Pages channels. This matter is resolved. | |||
| * '''Support''' as proposer, and thanks for Hasteur for the verbage. This dispute has devolved, and would benefit from some extra attention to get it sorted out. DS should expedite this process, and, in my mind, is sorely needed. ]! 20:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::4. I have consistently followed every procedure to a T: | |||
| ::Does Hasteur support this too? I would think so, given that he edited it for you, but I would like to check. ] (]) 21:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::- Using talk pages | |||
| :::No, no. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I just cribbed his wording from the Gamergate community sanctions. I didn't intend to imply his endorsement. ]! 21:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::- Providing reliable sources | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as this is not the solution to the ongoing deletion of reliable sources. Admins don't need this to topic ban an editor anyhow. ] (]) 20:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::- Following dispute resolution | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposed, as E-cigs are in any case a contentious enough subject that this kind of dispute is liable to flare up between another few editors (not just QuackGuru and AlbinoFerret) in the future, and this would let an admin deal with it without this sort of mess all over ANI. ] (]) 21:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::- Getting official review of tags | |||
| *'''Support'''. Although I suspect it will end up at ] before it's over. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 22:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::- Verifying image licensing | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Unfortunately this is unlikely to lead to anything substantial. There are a number of ] or near-SPA accounts involved and this would only limit the time needed to address issues, but the problem would still remain. -- ] ] (]) 22:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::- Addressing repetitious concerns transparently | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - The proposed discretionary sanctions could be avoided with an immediate block of QuackGuru for multiple counts of disruptive behavior in the above sections. If discretionary sanctions are authorized, it is likely that QG will look for a new topic area to disrupt and antagonize a new group of editors before being brought back to this noticeboard, as has happened countless times in the past. -] 22:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::5. The suggestion of a topic ban - what topic exactly? Arts and culture coverage? That would be an unprecedented scope based on properly sourced contributions. | |||
| *'''Comment''' We have proof of meat puppetry among these articles. We know that the e-cig manufacturers are unhappy with the medical community's position on the known and unknown health effects and safety of e-cig. One advocacy group has contacted my university to attack me personally. We need to make sure that we uphold high quality sources. Not sure if this will make that easier or harder since some involved are using throw away accounts / SPA. ] (] · ] · ]) 22:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::6. Regarding CoffeeCrumbs' claims of 'promotional activities' - I have several drafted articles about artists with similar encyclopedic gaps in coverage that I've had to delay working on due to this ongoing situation. The fact that a few users are trying to discredit me simply because I focused on documenting 3 films that had no Misplaced Pages presence is, frankly, pathetic. | |||
| ::Do you have proof that AlbinoFerret, or any of QG's perceived opponents, have engaged in meat puppetry? Most probably not. -] 22:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::All of my edits are fully sourced, neutral, and follow policy. Each accusation has been officially reviewed and resolved through proper channels. If there are content concerns, they should be raised with diffs and policy citations, not broad accusations. ] (]) 17:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes ] linked to his twitter feed which include his efforts at meat puppetry ] (] · ] · ]) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Please see ]. You've said all of that stuff time and time again but other users still fundamentally disagree with you and find your conduct problematic. You just need to drop the stick now. ] (]) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' - I only recall discretionary sanctions being put in place by ArbCom, I can't recall a solo admin or the community doing it. Can someone provide a precedent where the community placed discretionary sanctions on a subject? (Not that the lack of precedent necessarily means it can't be done, but it would certainly make it easier to stand up, should this receive a consensus.) ] (]) 00:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Citing WP:BLUDGEON is ironic given you repeatedly make the same accusations after they've been officially resolved through proper channels: | |||
| ::Sure thing! You're looking for ]. ]! 01:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::1. (Some) paid editing tags - officially reviewed and removed (then slapped back on) | |||
| :::Thanks! That was very helpful. ] (]) 04:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::2. Image licensing - verified through VRT | |||
| *<s>Oppose</s> per CFCF. ] (]) 05:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::3. Authorized agent status - addressed through proper process | |||
| :*'''Support''' - After careful reconsideration of the issue, I am changing my !vote based primarily on the comment of Robert McClenon and some of the information provided by Bishonen. I still believe, though, that a topic ban for AlbinoFerret would be the best first step in guaranteeing that the e-cig articles are balanced and NPOV, which to me is the primary concern, more so than the "atmosphere" of the editing environment. ] (]) 23:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I've responded to concerns as they arise and made improvements based on constructive feedback (see discussion with Gråbergs Gråa Sång). Yet you continue repeating claims without new evidence. | |||
| *'''Question''' - if editors misbehave despite warnings, then uninvolved admins can sanction them anyway, right? -- so what does this add? Is it a way of saying "don't worry, sanction as needed, it won't be seen as controversial"? --] <small>(] • ])</small> 14:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Repeatedly making resolved accusations while telling others to "drop the stick" is bad form. ] (]) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not exactly. For example, without discretionary sanctions (DS), administrators lack the authority to topic ban editors, and may only block editors in a limited set of circumstances outlined in the blocking policy. Once DS are authorized, administrators are given much more latitude to enforce community norms around a particular topic. Furthermore, sanctions placed under DS cannot be undone without a clear community consensus (or a motion of the Arbitration Committee), while ordinary blocks can be lifted by any uninvolved administrator. I think that about sums it up. ]! 14:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Sorry, how have the issues in this thread {{tq|been officially resolved through proper channels}}? This is an open thread and 5 users have called for a topic ban. The issues have not yet been {{tq|officially resolved}} by any definition of the term. ] (]) 17:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ], for my money the big difference discretionary sanctions make is that they allow a single uninvolved admin to ''topic ban'' an editor (on their own ''discretion'', hence "discretionary" sanctions). Much easier than schlepping the person to ANI and trying to raise consensus for a topic ban, indeed perhaps a bit too easy in this case. I'm dubious about instituting DS here. Admins should probably be more ready to ''block'' disruptive editors in the area, something they can do without DS. (Take that as a weak '''oppose'''.) ] | ] 22:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::::::::::The tags WERE successfully removed through proper review | |||
| *'''Support''' - There have been too many threads about ], and community discretionary sanctions will work as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions to get a few contentious editors off the article. If the community doesn't do this, the ArbCom eventually will, because this will eventually go to the ArbCom if the community doesn't impose general sanctions. ] (]) 14:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The images WERE successfully reinstated through VRT verification | |||
| *'''Support''' per Robert McClenon's arguments above. I still think that ANI is a fine place to bring clear, well-formed cases for anything related to these articles, but these sanctions should help calm things down. Good thinking! ] (]) 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The authorized agent status WAS officially resolved | |||
| *'''Support''' it can only improve the environment. All too often things are reremoved or readded without discussion, and discussions are being ignored or answered with non-arguments. And i'm not talking about a particular "side" in this. If the article is to be improved, then it will require editors to cooperate, and seek consensus, instead of acting on their own, and a strong oversight may just force editors to do so. May end up in some blocks/bans - but if that is what it takes, then that is the way forward. --] 02:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::These are documented facts with clear outcomes through proper Misplaced Pages channels. See: | |||
| *'''Oppose'''<s> Weak support partially agree with KimDabelsteinPetersen. I also think that anything is likely to be better than some of stuff that has been going on at ANI recently which doesn't reflect well on any of the involved parties. However</s> Striking my initial weak support for an oppose in light of comments from ] and ]. Was never quite sure about this, but in light of those comments I agree and don't think that this would be the best way to proceed. Whilst there are probably one or two problem editors out there that no doubt need dealing with, I'm no longer convinced that ANI does not remain the better method for doing this. I also would have thought that getting the involved parties to work together would be just as important. Which would perhaps mean article restrictions in addition to editor restrictions such as a 1RR rule for instance.] (]) 16:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::- VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583 | |||
| *'''Notification'''. I started an ArbCom discussion. See ]. ] (]) 22:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::- Discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång showing constructive collaboration | |||
| * '''Support''' E-cigarette is a battleground. It will remain so for a long time because of content disagreements and lack of discussion. The main article has been protected multiple times. When its protected very little discussion happens, and edits are stockpiled for the next round of problems. ] 03:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Your reference to "5 users" is misleading when multiple official processes have already concluded in favor of the content and proper procedures were followed. A handful of editors repeating already-resolved claims doesn't override completed official processes. | |||
| *'''Support''' per {{U|AlbinoFerret}}. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 04:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::If there are new concerns, they should be raised with policy citations rather than attempting to relitigate resolved issues. ] (]) 17:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Comment''' - Unless the tide changes, it looks as if this thread is moving towards a consensus in favor of community-imposed discretionary sanctions. I would like, however, to address '''''the closer of this thread''''': please do not be tempted to think that closing this in favor of that consensus -- if that is what you find -- obviates the results of the sub-thread above concerning a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. That is, if there is a consensus in that thread for a topic ban -- and I believe there is -- it should be enacted, whether or not discretionary sanctions are approved or not in this thread. Failing to impose a topic ban if there is a consensus for one simply puts off the problem to another time, and possibly yet another repeat of this discussion. True, discretionary sactions would allow an individual admin to impose a topic ban on AlbinoFerret if the admin thought it was required, but the mere '''''possibility''''' of that occurring in the future should not negate a community consensus for a topic ban for AlbinoFerret here and now. ] (]) 05:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::::::::::The thing is that the tags, the images and the authorised status issues aren't the matters under discussion in this thread (and they weren't resolved by "official processes" anyway). This is a thread about conduct, not about content. If you find it {{tq|misleading}} that 5 users have called for a topic ban in relation to your conduct then there is no helping you. ] (]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*Moot, since the topic ban thread was closed first. ] (]) 10:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Your attempt to separate "conduct" from the actual documented timeline is misleading: | |||
| *'''Support'''. The difficulties with these articles are intractable at the moment and the editing environment is uncollaborative. Community-authorised discretionary sanctions will be insufficient, because of all the AGF and second chances and other handwringing that drives away editors with good judgment and maintains our high levels of Dunning-Kruger effect across the encyclopaedia, but they're probably better than nothing.—] <small>]/]</small> 13:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::1. These issues ARE relevant because they demonstrate consistent proper conduct | |||
| *'''Question'''. Where do editors report an editor who is causing problems when the community-imposed discretionary sanctions are enacted? ] (]) 18:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::2. You claim these 'weren't resolved by official processes' - this is factually incorrect: | |||
| :*My understanding is that '''''any''''' admin can impose sanctions under DS, so I suppose you can either bring it to an admin of your choice, or you can post a thread on AN/I. ] (]) 20:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::- See VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583 | |||
| ::*Maybe this question was asked before about sanctions in general. There might be some specific guidelines to follow. ] (]) 20:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::- See constructive discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång leading to content improvements | |||
| :Notifications & sanctions will be logged on a subpage of ]. Since any uninvolved admin can impose sanctions, you can bring it up here or ask an admin directly. ]! 23:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::3. My "conduct" has been consistently focused on improving Misplaced Pages through proper channels while facing repeated unfounded accusations and content removals without policy basis. Your Vague allegations while ignoring documented proper process is itself problematic conduct. ] (]) 17:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. This has been a battleground for months, and both sides are entirely convinced that they alone bear The Truth™. Add the toxic influence of ]s and a combination of vested financial interests, an intersection with pro-cannabis activism and outright craziness out there in the real world, and you have a perfect recipe for never-ending drama. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yeah, I read this the other 15 times you said it. Getting you to follow procedure is like pulling teeth. There's no credit in disclosing things on the 10th opportunity after stonewalling the first nine. And it's clear what the topic ban would entail: Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. My only question is if this is enough, but I want to ] that the conduct won't continue in the event you actually make edits not related to Shannon Alexander somehow. ] (]) 17:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I don't see a way around this. we can move quickly to quality editing of the articles and put some of this bureaucracy behind us. ]<sub>]</sub> 00:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Your accusations are baseless and contradicted by the record: | |||
| *'''Support''': The articles related to electronic cigarettes are basically a ]. There are simply too many disputes without speedy resolution related to this topic, and disputes are not being resolved ] in this topic area. '''] <sup>]</sup>''' 23:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have engaged transparently and promptly through proper channels at every stage: | |||
| *'''Comment''' – I'm not sure whether sanctions will be established or not, but I've created a template page for you guys to get them up and running if it they are. The page is located at ]. If the sanctions are not approved, simply delete the page. Otherwise, fill the information as appropriate. ] — ] 23:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::- Used talk pages consistently | |||
| ::::::::- Responded to concerns promptly | |||
| ==Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.== | |||
| ::::::::- Had tags officially reviewed and removed | |||
| ::::::::- Had images verified through VRT | |||
| {{user6|Wtshymanski}} is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. This is behaviour that was previously addressed by a in 2012. | |||
| ::::::::- Resolved authorized agent status | |||
| ::::::::- Made improvements based on constructive feedback | |||
| Since that time, Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert ''any and all'' edits made by IP address editors. Many are vandalism (no problem), but many are ] edits. There are far too many examples to document here, so I have restricted examples to just those ''from the past three weeks''. | |||
| ::::::::2. A topic ban on is a solution in search of a problem. The articles are properly sourced, neutrally written, and part of addressing gaps in coverage. It's absurd to suggest banning someone for documenting notable films following policy. | |||
| ::::::::3. The relentless accusations regarding these 3 simple articles that previously had no coverage must stop. The paid editing and COI tags are demonstrably untrue based on the official resolutions through proper channels. | |||
| '''17th Feb''' | |||
| ::::::::I will continue to refute these baseless allegations because they are false. Please stop making unfounded accusations and let those of us who want to improve the encyclopedia do so. | |||
| ::::::::The documentation exists. The proper processes were followed. The official resolutions are clear. These constant attempts to relitigate resolved issues are what's actually disruptive to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| IP edit: | |||
| :::::::::I think it would be productive here for an administrator to review the contents of this discussion and take action based on the views expressed by multiple users. Further discussion is not going to advance matters any further (unless other users would like to add their voices to whether or not a topic ban would be appropriate). ] (]) 17:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{u|CoffeeCrumbs}} Your proposed topic ban is arbitrary and unjustified. If you're concerned about my editing conduct, why limit it to Shannon Alexander specifically? Why not ban me from writing about films in general, or movies from the late 2010s? | |||
| Wtshymanski revert: | |||
| :::::::::The fact that you're targeting a single filmmaker whose work I've documented following policies and guidelines exposes the lack of logic behind your argument. It's a transparent attempt to shut down coverage of notable topics simply because you don't like that I'm the one writing about them. | |||
| :This was a good faith and basically correct edit. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds of being 'ungrammatical and out of place'. It could easily have been made gramatical and was exactly where it needed to be. | |||
| :::::::::Misplaced Pages's mission is to encompass all of human knowledge, not to censor editors who are working in good faith to expand that knowledge in accordance with site policies. If there were legitimate issues with my conduct, they would apply across topics, not just to one filmmaker. | |||
| :::::::::The reality is, there is no evidence of policy violations or misconduct on my part. The paid editing and COI tags were reviewed and removed through proper channels. The images were officially verified. My role as an authorized representative was documented and resolved. | |||
| '''18th Feb''' | |||
| :::::::::Your continued efforts to relitigate these settled issues and impose baseless sanctions are the real disruption here. If you have specific concerns about the content of the articles, raise them on the talk pages with policy-based arguments. But stop trying to game the system to get rid of content and contributors you personally disapprove of. | |||
| :::::::::Misplaced Pages is not here to indulge personal vendettas. It's here to provide free, reliable information to the world. That's why we're all here and love the platform greatly. ] (]) 17:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| IP edit: | |||
| ::::::::::I proposed it, not CoffeeCrumbs. And I proposed a ban limited to Shannon Alexander because that is the only area you have been disruptive - in fact it is the sole focus of 100% of your activity on Misplaced Pages. I proposed a limited topic ban in the hope that you could move forward and show us you could work collaboratively elsewhere on some other topic that interests you. But if you think we're better off just banning you from more, or even from everything, that is certainly workable as well. ] (]) 18:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::This is getting absurd. Let's be clear - you're escalating from topic ban to broader bans because I defended properly sourced contributions with documented evidence? | |||
| Wtshymanski revert: | |||
| :::::::::::Sure, I focused on documenting films that had no Misplaced Pages coverage - that's called filling a gap in the encyclopedia. I have other articles about artists in development too, but this constant barrage of unfounded accusations is preventing that work. | |||
| :This was a good faith edit and technically correct. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds that the output is not light despite infra-red often being described as "infra-red light" as indeed it is throughout the rest of the article. Further: infra-red light emitting diodes are described as precisely that - "''light emitting'' diodes". The revert actually made the article worse because it no longer told the reader what the 900 nm output is (could be an electrical signal for example). | |||
| :::::::::::At this point, an admin needs to review this situation. The escalating threats of bans over properly documented contributions has become farcical. This isn't how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::No, that is a Straw man argument. I proposed a topic for the reasons I explained above. Kindly don't put words in my mouth. ] (]) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''25th Feb''' | |||
| :<s>'''Support T-ban at least'''</s> the continued ] and ] per the above bludgeoning by said user. ] (]) 17:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your comment perfectly demonstrates the circular logic being employed: | |||
| IP edit: | |||
| ::1. I defend against unfounded accusations with documented evidence = "BLUDGEONING" | |||
| ::2. I refute false claims about resolved processes = "BATTLEGROUND" | |||
| Wtshymanski revert: | |||
| ::3. I provide proof of proper conduct = "continued bludgeoning" | |||
| :The article was PRODed by Wtshymnski. The IP editor challenged the PROD by deleting it ''as he is perfectly entitled to do''. WTS simply reverted the deletion doubtless because he believes that IP address editors should not be allowed to challenge PRODs even though they are. (The ] procedure clearly states that a PROD is aborted if the tag is deleted and it must not be rePRODed.) | |||
| ::Supporting a topic ban while misapplying WP:BLUDGEON to silence defense against false accusations is what actually creates a battleground atmosphere. I will continue to refute untrue claims with evidence because that's not "bludgeoning" - it's maintaining integrity. ] (]) 17:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::After that response I strike my support of a t-ban and move to '''Support an indef''' it is clear that the behaviour will not change. I have never interacted with you before or even edited in the area and you are immediately attacking me. ] (]) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''25th Feb''' | |||
| ::::So you've never edited in this area or interacted with me, yet you're calling for a T ban/indefinite ban? Because I defended my contributions with evidence? | |||
| ::::I've had images verified through VRT, tags reviewed and removed through proper channels, and consistently improved content through collaboration. Check the documentation if you don't believe me. | |||
| IP edit: | |||
| ::::Why exactly are you proposing to ban someone you've never interacted with? That seems contrary to collaborative spirit. ] (]) 18:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The purpose of this board is to get additional input from previously-uninvolved editors. If all you want to do is keep saying the same thing to the same people repeatedly, you'll keep getting their same response no matter where you say it. The fact that the new participants look at what's happening and still don't agree with you should tell you something. The fact that you object to their participation and reject their input because it doesn't say what you want definitely tells us something. ] (]) 18:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Wtshymanski revert: | |||
| ::::Regardless of any ], the inability, or extreme reluctance, of this editor to: | |||
| :The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the ] policy to be a ] edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism', and has done so by copy-pasting back an old version of the article (intermediate edits preventing a stright 'undo'). In his haste to revert yet another IP address editor, WTS also pasted back a spelling mistake and a 'coauthors' parameter to a CS1 template which is deprecated. Thus WTS corrected one error but reintroduced two. | |||
| ::::* ] such basic site policies as ]; | |||
| ::::* ] wrongdoing, or error, or even merely recognize the concerns of other editors as potentially valid ''in any way''; | |||
| '''2nd Mar''' | |||
| ::::* ] any sort of feedback on board, with ] only managing to get them to correct necessary attribution only after '''4''' long, tedious and frustrating exchanges (not even counting Cullen's related replies, or others' similar remarks on it, or even the original complaint raised on other pages); | |||
| ::::* ] hammering their own viewpoint repeatedly in response to every dissenting view; | |||
| IP edit: | |||
| ::::leads me to, unfortunately, also '''support an indef ban''', at least until the user can show they understand how their behavior has not been collaborative, as well as commit to improving and also ''properly'' responding to other editors' concerns, while ] to what they're actually saying. | |||
| ::::To be clear, this is only based on the behavior observed here. I am making no comments about the original report. ] (]) 19:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Wtshymanski revert: | |||
| :::::I must firmly correct several serious mischaracterizations with documented facts: | |||
| :Again a potentially ] edit from an IP address editor . Once again, WTS makes no pretence at assuming that the edit is good faith and it is dismissed as vandalism. Another editor, {{u|Andy Dingley}} independently made the same point on . Nothing can be inferred from the editing history as the IP address resolves to a college in India so it is anybody's guess how many real users are behind it. | |||
| :::::1. Re: "4 tedious exchanges about attribution" | |||
| :::::This completely misrepresents what occurred: | |||
| It is known that Misplaced Pages is always wanting to recruit productive editors for the project. Inevitably, many potential editors will start as IP address editors before creating an account - provided they find the environment welcoming. Wtshymanski has long held the view that IP address editors should not be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages and has said so (see RfC referenced above for more). This may be Wtshymanski's view but it is known that it is ''not'' the view of the project and Wtshymanski has no right to impose his view in the face of the project's | |||
| :::::- The extended exchanges were NOT about attribution changes | |||
| :::::- They were days of me defending against unfounded COI accusations and false claims about my identity | |||
| IP address editors can be productive and offer quality editing to the project. Deliberate wholesale reverting such edits does not provide the welcoming environment, that such editors need if they are to be encouraged to staty. | |||
| :::::- When attribution format was finally raised as an actual issue, and I convinced them of my legitimacy, I implemented changes immediately | |||
| :::::- The record clearly shows this timeline | |||
| As evidence: a quick scan produces this IP address's contributions . This editor has made good quality contributions on UK parliamentary procedure; seems to understand the subject and the contributions have been well referenced. I suspect this may be an experienced editor, but if it is, I have not been able to link the address with any other or an account. ] (]) 16:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::2. Re: "inability to take feedback" | |||
| :::::The evidence shows consistent implementation of suggested changes: | |||
| ::Totally agree with {{u|DieSwartzPunkt}} The diffs shown, show the removals called vandalism and they're not, further when he's challenged by a non-ip user, he's been letting the edits stand. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 17:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::- Gråbergs Gråa Sång's wiki-voice improvements implemented promptly | |||
| :::::- Article refinements based on additional verified sources | |||
| :::18 Feb IP edit was absolutely correct and Wtshymanski revert is an error, because what it emits is light (everything that involves photon is light). Some part of the entire light band is visible, but other invisible parts are also called. | |||
| :::::- Format changes adopted when specifically requested | |||
| :::I agree with DieSwartzPunkt's observation for all other instances too. – ''] ] ]'' 17:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::- Image licensing properly verified (now restored through VRT after repeated proof requirements) | |||
| :::::3. Re: "not understanding WP:CONSENSUS" | |||
| * What's the point in this ANI post? Is this an "incident"? Maybe. What ''administrator action'' is desired here though? | |||
| :::::- I fully understand and respect consensus processes | |||
| : Once upon a time we had ] and ]. Neither of them were likely to be effective (] wasn't), but at least they were an attempt by WP to have a means of resolving such issues. Admins won't act over such issues - it would involve making value judgements about other editors and that never happens. Even when it's not a popular editor who can rally their clique of supporters. | |||
| :::::- Current disputes involve content removals without proper consensus discussion | |||
| : WP needs to restore WQA, RFC/U or something else in that line. This ANI post won't achieve that much though. Wtshymanski will, as always, back off for just long enough to dodge the bullet (see the RFCU closing comments) and then will be back, just the same as before. ] (]) 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::- I have actively sought broader community input through appropriate channels | |||
| :::::4. Re: "hammering viewpoint" | |||
| * '''Not proven''' The accusation is: | |||
| :::::What's being characterized as "hammering" has actually been: | |||
| :: ''"Wtshymanski is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering-based articles that he routinely watches."'' (typo and punctuation corrected) | |||
| :::::- Defending against continuous unfounded allegations (false claims about my identity as Shannon Alexander/affiliates, paid editing, COI, AI use etc.) | |||
| : and, doubling down, just in case we might have thought the meaning was open to interpretation: | |||
| :::::- Having to repeatedly correct misrepresentations | |||
| :: ''"Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert ''any and all'' edits made by IP address editors."'' (emphasis was in the original) | |||
| :::::- Responding to new accusations after previous ones are disproven | |||
| :::::- Protecting properly sourced content from removal | |||
| : But a quick perusal of the history of each of the pages diff'd above will show many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski. Therefore the claim of "any" is specious. Some were let stand, some were reverted by others, "others" not excepting Andy Dingly and DieSwartzPunkt. There are also many edits by IPs that were reverted by W. with completely defensible reasons and edit summaries. | |||
| :::::- Having to repeatedly prove already-verified image uploads | |||
| :::::5. Re: "not being collegial" | |||
| : Perhaps W. is too quick to assume that IPs' edits are wrong. (From my own experience, given the number of IPs' edits I've corrected that ''were'' wrong, this would not be an unreasonable bias on W.'s part.) I believe AD and DSP are similarly too eager to find fault with W.'s edits, and this patently absurd accusation of "any and all" is a result. ] (]) 20:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The record shows I have maintained professional discourse while: | |||
| :: ''"many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski."'' | |||
| :::::- Following every proper procedure | |||
| :: So because he didn't get ''all'' of them, his behaviour over the ones that he did revert should be discounted? | |||
| :::::- Implementing requested changes when actually specified | |||
| :: This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits. It's about his assumption that for any anon edit he reverts (frequently a justified revert) ''he assumes that it's deliberate vandalism'', and he assumes this because of who made it, not the quality of the edit. ] (]) 20:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::- Using appropriate Misplaced Pages venues | |||
| ::: ''"This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits."'' That's odd, because that's ''exactly'' what <strike>you</strike> DSP said it was about. If it's really about his over-use of the vandalism charge, then <strike>you</strike> DSP should have said that from the beginning. And then ''every'' one of <strike>your</strike> DSP's your diffs needs to show an edit summary by W. with a demonstrably unjust accusation of vandalism, or they don't support your position. If it turns out that a clear majority of W's edits to IPs' edits do not include an unjust accusation of vandalism, your case gets rather weak. ] (]) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::- Facing repeated unfounded allegations | |||
| :::: Jeh, I know that you're just about the only friend Wtshymanski has round here, so it's not surprising that you've rushed to defend him. However please actually read this post first. I didn't raise this. I haven't posted ''any'' diffs, so I don't know which diffs you're complaining about. Mind, it would have to be very blinkered to not see the problem with what he's doing. ] (]) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Suggesting an indefinite ban based on my defense against continuous unfounded accusations, while ignoring my documented policy compliance and willingness to implement actual requested changes, is deeply concerning. ] (]) 20:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Correct you are. I missed the correct attribution among all the rest of the periodic Wtshymanski pile-on. I have edited my above accordingly. But as for your "I don't know which diffs" claim, there is only one set associated with the complaint. So I think that if you were to hazard a guess as to which diffs in this talk page section I'm referring to, you'd either be correct, or you'd have to pretend to be a complete idiot. And we all know you are not that, so please drop the "I don't know what you're referring to" act. You're smarter than that, and I'd thank you to assume that I'm smart enough to not buy it. ] (]) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Can an uninvolved admin please implement the obvious consensus before Stan digs himself into an even deeper hole? And, if they are not using an AI chatbot, give them a job impersonating one, because they do a very good impression? ] (]) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You claimed that Wtshymanski had allowed some IP edits to stand, but failed to provide any diffs. In the short discussion that I had on this at Wtshymanski's talk page, he made the same claim. He then obliged with a single diff that supported that position. ''But he had to go all the way back to 2007 to find it.'' There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand, but as they are obvious corrections of errors, reverting them would be vandalism in itself (though as in case four above, that is not always an obstacle). ] (]) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think a chatbot might explain why Stan hasn't answered my question about where he found a 9-year-old definition of COI. ] ] 20:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Oh, please. You took that "2007" bit seriously? | |||
| :::{{u|Phil Bridger}} {{u|Schazjmd}} Accusing me of being an chatbot for thoroughly defending sourced content is a baseless personal attack. Disagreement is not grounds for abuse. | |||
| ::::: So. "There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand." Your words. Doesn't that rather contradict your accusation? Do I have to quote it yet again, to remind you of what it was? Do you understand what it takes to disprove a universal claim? It takes one counterexample. One. | |||
| :::After countless policy citations and talk page discussion research over these last several days I don't recall where I found that outdated COI definition. I am only human. But it doesn't change my core arguments about content. Even if I were a cyborg (sadly I'm not), compliance is what matters. | |||
| ::::: The first diff above is from ]. From the first page of 50 edits, working from the bottom (I am not counting IP edits that were clearly vandalism, either reverted by W. or otherwise): | |||
| :::The reason I've had to repeatedly defend my work is the endless stream of unfounded allegations I keep facing. If there's an upside, it's that I've gained an even deeper knowledge of Misplaced Pages guidelines - knowledge I'd prefer to use improving articles, not battling more false claims. ] (]) 21:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: IP made stylistic wording changes to picture caption. W. did not revert. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else. | |||
| :::::: IP wikilinked ]. W. did not revert. | |||
| :::::: IP made minor grammar correction. W. did not revert. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else. | |||
| :::::: minor word correction by IP. Nobody reverted. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP. Rv by Wtshymanski. | |||
| :::::: IP added redlinks. Rv by Andy Dingley. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP (added blank lines). Rv by someone else. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP. Rv by ClueBot. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by ClueBot. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP. rv by someone else. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP. rv by ClueBot. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by someone else. | |||
| :::::: IP removed a blank line (non-rendering edit). Not reverted that I could find. | |||
| :::::: Wtshymanski edit. Unrelated to previous IP edits. | |||
| :::::: vandalism by IP (blanking). Fixed by ClueBot. | |||
| :::::: IP added an ungrammatic sentence: "It has very high starting resistance so that it would use in that kind of equipments which needs a very high starting torque." Wtshymanski reverted with comment "out of place unclear and ungrammatical" (this is the rv DSP complained about). | |||
| :::::: minor grammatical correction by IP. Wording improved by me. | |||
| ::::: Counts: | |||
| ::::: 19 edits by IPs total (I am counting successive edits by the same IP, with none intervening, as just one). | |||
| ::::: 11 of these were vandalism. Of those, ONE was reverted by Wtshymanski. | |||
| ::::: 6 were good edits. Of those, W. reverted NONE. Two of them were significant changes to content. | |||
| ::::: 1 was a good faith but erroneous edit, reverted by Andy Dingley. | |||
| ::::: 1 was what I would call "legitimately problematic". Wtshymanski reverted it. Yes, it could have been improved. | |||
| ::::: It seems clear to me that W., far from reverting "any and all" edits by IPs as you accused, was far more selective. He in fact reverted only one of 11 IPs' vandalism edits, one problematic edit, and none of six good edits. I would say that the evidence from this article, one of those you complained about, refutes your accusation rather soundly. The evidence does not even support a claim of "W. erroneously reverts ''most'' IP edits", with or without an accusation of vandalism. (I would also say that it shows there is ample reason to view IP edits with a particularly skeptical eye.) | |||
| ::::: But you are the one making the claim, so you are the one who should be providing '''complete''' summaries of recent diffs. Not just a few cherry-picked examples. ] (]) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The above is non-evidence. 12 edits were reverted by others. That proves nothing except that someone beat Wtshymanski to the punch in each case. Even Wtshymanski presumably sleeps and works from time to time. As already stated, Wtshymanski usually does not revert an edit, if it leaves the article wrong (6 edits). And the last 'legitimately problematic' one, is similar to case 1 of this complaint. 'It could have been improved'. Yes, and Wtshymanski is as capable of improving it as anyone else, but if the edit had been left, someone would have improved it. | |||
| ::::::I have not 'cherry-picked' evidence as you claim. I have listed ''every'' IP address revert since 17th Feb. If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled. But this was stated in the original complaint. ] (]) 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: So, I provided the diffs you asked for, and you moved the goalposts. But then you want to stick by the original complaint? The original complaint was: | |||
| :::::::: ''"{{user6|Wtshymanski}} is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. "'' | |||
| ::::::: That has been disproven (with great ease, just as most generalizations can be). You listed "every IP address revert since 17 Feb"? And you found a grand total of five? W. has made 'prox 700 edits since 17 Feb. So less than 1% of W's edits in the last three weeks were reverts of IP edits that you think were unjustly described as vandalism? You're going to have to find much more compelling evidence than that. | |||
| ::::::: ''"If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled."'' So you can find a few examples out of several hundred edits, not mention that they're picked out of seven hundred edits, and you think that makes your case? This has all the earmarks of a witch-hunt. Makes me wonder if the evidence in W.'s other ANI, etc., cases, at least the ones brought by DSP, AD, and GM was as tenuous? ] (]) 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Yes, the "problematic edit" by the IP (severe grammar problem) ''was'' the one you listed. Yes, it could have been improved. The fact remains that W.'s revert of the IP's edit left the article better than it had been after the IP. So we have a justified edit by W., and your complaint is that he should have done more. Got it. ] (]) 18:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Andy, above you asked (?) what the point is. I think you or someone should ask for something specific. I looked at W's and this seems to be an annual affair (that somehow skipped last spring). The first block for this in 2012 was a day; the block for this in 2013 was a week. There is a clear pattern of the same behavior continuing, which is a violation of AGF and is DISRUPTIVE. So you should propose a longer time-limited block (say 2 months?) or perhaps an indef. It would probably take community consensus for either, and this is indeed the place to propose that and get consensus for it. But in the block proposal you should make a good, concise, ANI-ready statement of the case, if you want it to succeed. That is my advice anyway. ] (]) 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I have better things to do than to read and memorise Wtshymanski's block log. If he has been formally warned not to behave just like he's doing here, and he's been blocked for doing it previously, then I'd agree that it might be useful for an admin to follow that precedent and act accordingly. ] (]) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You questioned whether this was an incident. With the demise of the RfC/U system, the only avenue now available to address user's behavioural issues is here at ANI (and the defunct RfC/U procedure says so). If nothing happens as a result of this, then I can only assume that the admins are granting open season on reverting other editors' posts. That may not be there intent, but it will certainly be the message. ] (]) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | {{od}} | ||
| IN THE NAME OF JESUS, MARY, JOSEPH, AND ALL THE SAINTS AND APOSTLES, WILL SOMEONE BLOCK THIS PESTILENTIAL TIMEWASTER? ]] 21:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support CBAN''' of this bludgeoning ]. They are a clear ]. ] (]) 22:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:This thread could be Exhibit A for the recent proposal at VP that LLM-generated posts be banned from talk pages . ]] 22:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:To take an example of Stan1900’s serial misrepresentations… | |||
| *:Initially PAID tags were added to the articles. Stan objected and another user replaced them with COI tags. Later 2 further users expressed an opinion that PAID would be more appropriate so the tags were switched back to PAID in accordance with the developing consensus. Those PAID tags have remained in place since that time. | |||
| *:Stan1900 has since claimed on several occasions, above and elsewhere, that the PAID tags were “removed following official review” (or similar words to that effect) and has presented this as a success for his point of view. | |||
| *:Either the user is exceptionally deluded or is attempting to misrepresent matters to those without the patience to read through all the documentation elsewhere. Further evidence of the user's serial misrepresentation can be located here . | |||
| *:And breaking news.. the article that was still in AfC was recently turned down for reading like an advertisement . ] (]) 22:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Gender-related arbitration issue? == | |||
| I would only ask that the admins look at the pattern of behavior here: | |||
| {{atop|1=Removed from editing (indef'd). - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|Masquewand}} is removing "gender" from {{pagelinks|Sexual orientation}}. First {{diff||1264041220|1261563622|02:48, 20 Dec 24}} which I reverted then on {{diff||1264051379|1264041261|04:12, 20 Dec 24}}. Masquewand was left a gender-related contentious-topics notice and has been blocked for this issue on 7 Dec 24. The article has a hidden comment that explains the reason "gender" is in place. ] (]) 11:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : makes me think ] applies. ] (]) 11:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| :The whole of that user talk page is a study in ]. Someone for whom the concept of consensus is incomprehensible -- and throw in his charming assertion that a source as much as five years old is invalid -- is not going to be deflected from His! Mission! ] 12:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *] | |||
| Take note of comment they made. Seems to imply a threat of socking? ] (]) 05:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| == Mgtow definition == | |||
| Please note that some incidents that would no doubt have ended up as blocks ended up instead as page protection because Wtshymanski's latest opponent (typically a new user) behaved worse, so the block log does not tell the whole story. | |||
| {{atop|1=Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow". | |||
| The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". ] (]) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@], you should discuss this at ]. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. ] ] 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. ] ] 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@], you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Where do I find the talk page? ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], I linked it for you in my comment above. ] ] 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of indicates to me that they are here to play games, not ]. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —] (]) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Also note that when Wtshymanski faces the possibility of sanctions, he typically does not defend himself but instead stops editing for a while. The old "he hasn't edited since X, so nothing to do here" trick works every time -- his RFC/U was closed with ''"Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required"''. Please don't fall for it again. --] (]) 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits == | |||
| :Guy's post above underlines a very major problem. The administrators are (unwittingly) exacerbating the problem. A running feature in the long history of these behavioral disputes and complaints is that whenever the administrators decline to take any action, Wtshymanski regards it as an endorsement of his attitude and behavior towards other Misplaced Pages users. I have lost count of the number of times, that some editor has criticised Wtshymanski on his talk page only for Wtshymanski to respond that his attitude has already been taken to ANI (or wherever) with no action and therefore it is acceptable . This was covered as long ago as the 2012 RfC/U. ] (]) 13:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::Ah. Found it! | |||
| 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) | |||
| {{Quote|quote= "... and yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." - ''Wtshymanski''}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| * 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) | |||
| * again, {{u|DieSwartzPunkt}} and {{u|Andy Dingley}} you have presented a bunch of evidence, which is great. But just coming here and making a complaint about a pattern of behavior generally leads no where here; the discussion will just go on and on and will eventually peter out as everyone gets exhausted. If you want something done '''you should make a concrete proposal for action''' ] (]) 14:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's ] who posted this, not me. I have no expectations of ANI ever acting usefully, so wouldn't have wasted the ink. ] (]) 14:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::well there is self-fulfilling prophecy if i ever saw one. OK I will do it, just so I don't have to watch this follow the sad pattern. ] (]) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::As for what action is required? Wtshymanski's battleground attitude to other editors (both registered and anonymous) has been going on for several years. Guy Macon's very comprehensive listing above is testament to that. What is required is some action to force Wtshymanski to co-operate with other editors in the manner that Misplaced Pages intend. This means either a series of escallating blocks until he falls into line (though this has not worked so far). Alternatively, I would suggest the proposal that was made at the 2012 RfC/U, where a set of rigourously enforced sanctions be applied against Wtshymanski. There was a good list discussed ] which would be a good starting point. ] (]) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{archivetop|withdrawn as proposer ] (]) 01:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC) }} | |||
| ===Proposal 1: 3 month block on Wtshymanski === | |||
| {{userlinks|Wtshymanski}} | |||
| * '''Support''' - as proposer. W has a well documented, long term pattern of ] editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits. Demonstrated by block log and diffs above. ] (]) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' - as complainant. Previous block for this behaviour was one week and achieved nothing. A longer block is needed to try and get the message across. ] (]) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Heres a better idea: block or interaction ban Dingley from bringing Wtshymanski to ANI again. Hes the one who has the problem. There are just three editors here who keep complaining about Wtshymanski: DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley. Theyre the ones who are causing this. Wtshymanski reverts bad edits - whats even wrong with that? To find things to complain about they dragged up a RFCU case from three years ago. No one else has trouble with Wtshymanski so leave the guy alone. ] (]) 15:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*Re: "DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley": ...and Binksternet, and Bratland, and Deucharman, and Dicklyon, and EdJohnston, and Floydian, and Hasteur, and Jytdog, and N5iln, and NellieBly, and North8000, and Northamerica1000, and P-Tronics, and Rdengler, and RichardOSmith, and too many IP editors to count... --] (]) 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * <s>'''Support'''. As Wtshymanski himself said, ''"And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."'' --] (]) 16:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)</s> The new proposal 2 is better. --] (]) 02:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' Sadly. The evidence speaks for itself. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' The complaint states that ''"W has a well documented, long term pattern of ] editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits."'' But the "evidence" posted by DSP shows only five such incidents "in the last three weeks". That's five edits out of over 700 made by Wtshymanski in that time. That's quite a standard W. is being held to. Regarding the list of previous incidents so painstakingly compiled by GuyMacon, many of those were closed without action. Since the current proposal is unsupported by sufficient evidence, this turns into "let's punish him '''more''' for the past 'pattern of behavior', even though we've provided no evidence that it's continuing." That's not how AN/I works. ] (]) 18:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Interesting that you are prepared to cite 700 more or less mechanical edits adding a "no" to the "living=" parameter on biographical talk pages (that do not actually seem to change anything), as justification that Wtshymanski can revert IP address editors, contributions. Unless, the is, that you yourself do not approve of IP address editors editing. Guy answered the conclusions in his missive. ] (]) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I won't comment on past history, but those 5 diffs at the beginning of this section are problematic as evidence. For example, the Feb 25 edit does not refer to the IP edit just before it, but to an earlier IP edit. The Mar 2 edit was clearly subtle vandalism from an IP whose only edits have been vandalism. --] (]) 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::This point was addressed. The IP resolves to a ''whole'' college in India. These have been problematic for a long time. ] (]) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Per difs provided by Jeh which refute the accusation. ] (]) 19:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::And have been shown to be non- evidence. ] (]) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' I see the case as clearly proven. I see Jeh's posting of diffs ''of other peoples' edits'' as not proving anything about Wtshymanski's behaviour at all (How was that even supposed to work?). | |||
| : However I don't want to see Wtshymanski long-term blocked (or ], where something similar and equally counter-productive happened). We have several clear policies, one of which is AGF, others are about crediting merges, discussion with others etc. and Wtshymanski has a long, long history of ignoring any of them he feels like. However what I want to see happen instead is for him to just start bloody well behaving himself, same as the rest of us have to. I don't want this to be at the cost of excluding him altogether (if at all possible). Maybe over-optimistic, but I hope something is possible. | |||
| : As an imposed action today, I'd be much more keen on some narrowly worded restriction. "Not describing non-vandalism as vandalism" would be a start. Simply not reverting IPs ''at all'', if that's the smallest that can stick. I can't support a three month block on an editor though, even Wtshymanski. ] (]) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Per Andy above. Just because Wtshymanski does not assume good faith doesn't mean that we should not give him a chance to correct himself. A temporary ban from reverting any IP edits may even be better than this. ] (]) 22:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oddly, I proposed this as an alternative to the 3 month block, but got shouted down. (See edit history for more). ] (]) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not reasonable. I to withdraw a competing recommendation; and suggested I delete the whole 2nd proposal; which . You just lost all credibility with me. ] (]) 01:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| ::::{{replyto|Jytdog}} Since I neither reproposed the option 2 nor added a vote of support for it, what exactly is your problem? ] (]) 11:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal 2: revert restriction === | |||
| :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) | |||
| {{userlinks|Wtshymanski}} is indefinitely prohibited from reverting an edit without a content based edit summary. In addition, they are prohibited from referencing the original editors lack of registration status in the summary. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| *'''Support''' addresses the specific concern without unduly interfering with editing of the encyclopedia. <small>]</small> 23:10, 6 March 2015 (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. | |||
| *'''Strong Support'''. As I indicated with the examples I gave in ], it can be very difficult to figure out who was reverted and why from Wtshymanski's edit summaries. --] (]) 02:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories. | |||
| ** '''Comment''' That's a completely valid concern, and goes with the "content-based edit summary" requirement, but I don't see how it's related to "can't refer to anon status". Will the WP default edit summary for reverting an IP edit be changed for Wtshymanski? Or will he be required to remove it? That would seem to me to make it even harder to figure out who was reverted. ] (]) 02:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hopefully, this is easily resolved. | |||
| ***He is (often but not always) removing the standard "Undid revision X by Y" (which does not refer to a users registration status, although you can infer it if it list an IP) now, and instead using edit summaries such as "rv anon v" that ''do'' refer to a users registration status. Leaving in the default edit summary would not violate this proposed restriction. --] (]) 19:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::] (]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Oppose'''. First, this proposal is not matched by a specific complaint that the proposal will address. (Which btw is why the following lengthy screed is here under my vote, instead of in the "discussion after complaint" section where it belongs.) DSP's original complaint was that W. reverts "any and all" IP edits; that is obviously false. Subsequent discussion was all over the place, but I don't see any specific complaints that are complementary to this proposal. | |||
| ::::43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : I suppose we can infer that <strike>the goalposts have now been moved</strike> the complaint has been changed to "W. frequently does not provide content-based edit summaries, and refers to IP edits disparagingly in edit summaries." But no evidence has been presented to support those complaints. A report of an "incident" here is supposed to be supported by diffs that are clear illustrations of the problem behavior. The only clear evidence here is {{user|DieSwartzPunkt}}'s five diffs, but those were originally compiled to support the "W. reverts any and all IP edits" complaint, not this. But those are all we have. So, taking them in order: | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| :* 17 Feb: Edit summary of W.'s revert was content-based ("out of place unclear and ungrammatical") and did not mention "lack of registration status" outside of WP's default summary for a revert of an IP edit. (Re the quality of the revert, though that does not seem to be anything being addressed by this proposal: I would note that "high starting resistance" does not sound like a positive attribute for any electric motor under any circumstances. Granted that W. could have reworded instead of reverting, W's revert nevertheless left the article better than the IP's edit did.) Score: Zero support for the supposed complaint. | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :* 18 Feb: This is the "not visible so it's not light" revert. I agree that W.'s revert was a mistake, but the edit summary was content-based ("IR not visible") and only used the WP default wording for a revert of an IP edit. Score: Zero support for the supposed complaint. | |||
| :::Editors should not blindly revert. They should be '''required''' to understand the guideleines. ] (]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* 25 Feb: This is the "restored deleted PROD" case. In this case W. did write "rv anon". But the WP default summary text was also present, and it also shows that the edit being reverted was by an IP. Score: one for "edit summary not content-based" but I cannot see that this unduly refers to an "anon" editor, not when WP's default message does the same. | |||
| :* 25 Feb: This is the "unijunction transistor" case. W.'s edit summary is "rv anon v". Granted that this is not "content-based", but how much do we have to "content-base" a summary to defend a rv v? | |||
| :: DSP writes ''"The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the WP:AGF policy to be a good faith edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism'"''. | |||
| :: But the "no evidence to the contrary" part of that assertion is absurd. Changing "unijunction" to "junction" in '''one''' place in an article ''titled'' "Unijunction transistor", and which has the word "unijunction" all over it, is pretty tough to assume to be an honest mistake. It is, rather, sadly typical of IP drive-by petty vandalism. If the IP thought the correct word was "junction" then ie should have made the change everywhere. Hence "rv v" is justified, and no further "content-based summary" is required. Score: No support for either supposed complaint. You may not agree with my conclusion, but I don't think you can say that I have no case at all. At worst, it's arguable. | |||
| :: n.b.: I have adopted the pronoun "ie" as a parallel to "he" or "she", to be used to refer to IPs of unknown gender. | |||
| :* 02 Mar: This is the "two phase electric power" edit. Edit summary: rv v with WP standard rv of IP text. The IP changed "90" to "180". On first glance this too could be seen to be an honest mistake, since the very common split phase power used in the US has a 180 degree phase difference. But this edit was in the "this article about" section of a SeeAlso, ''contrasting'' the 90-degree "two phase electric power" with split phase power. Moreover, there's a nice diagram in the lede, which clearly shows a 90 degree phase shift; and 90 degrees is also mentioned in the lede text. The IP didn't change any of that. Further, the IP's edit history shows a clear pattern of petty changes, nearly all of which were reverted. DSP says that the IP locates to a college in India, so there might be several different people using it and no conclusion can be drawn. I would agree if there was a pattern of mostly good edits. But not here. If the IP is being used by a group of people, then it's a group of people who collectively are vandals. I would also argue that expecting an editor to do a geolocate on an IP is an unreasonable length to expect anyone to go to. It looks more to me like a desperate quest for a reason to AGF, despite evidence to the contrary. No, "rv v" is appropriate and sufficient. Score: No support for supposed complaint. | |||
| 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. | |||
| : So in my opinion, only one of those diffs clearly supports the complaint that I'm assuming this proposal addresses, with one or at most two more arguable. | |||
| : But even if all of them supported the complaint, do not, by themselves, demonstrate a general pattern of problem edit summaries by W. They show five edits, for which DSP apparently had to scour W.'s edit history for ''the last three weeks'', a period during which W. made over 700 edits. Proposers need to provide evidence showing that these are more than isolated cases. | |||
| 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. | |||
| : Furthermore, I really wonder how many other editors' history would stand up to this level of nitpicking? I also wonder how many of W's past AN/I and other cases were made on equally flimsy grounds? | |||
| : Lastly, regarding ''"prohibited from referencing the original editors lack of registration status"'' part: When you revert an IP edit, WP automatically supplies a default summary of "Undid revision (number) by (IP address)". Are we going to require that W. change that? If not, how does the word "anon" call any undue or disparaging attention to the anonymous nature of the edit being reverted? If you do, do you really want to ''require'' W.'s reverts to not reflect the IP of the edit being reverted? That would only make it more difficult to figure out who was reverted and why, a result {{user|Guy Macon}} could be expected to object to, based on his statements above. ] (]) 12:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unfortunately, I have to agree that the proposal above is too broad given the context. I am about to support the proposal, but with a scope restriction. ] (]) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (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. | |||
| :: @Jeh - so your thesis here is that Wtshymanski's categorisation of these reverted edits as "vandalism" was ''correct''? | |||
| :: Both of these edits (unijunction transistor and two phase power) were (to agree with Wtshymanski) ignorant and careless. They were obviously contradicted by the articles themselves, so any "careful" editor, not even a subject expert, should have had cause to question them. However a vast number of our IP editors on electrical topics are Indian college students with the confident ignorance of undergrads worldwide and an oddly (but obvious) Indian fixation on somewhat obsolescent electrical topics (I don't know what their biomedical students are learning, but their electrical engineers are taught about what the West tends to regard as museum pieces). I would lay money that these edits came from either an Indian technical college, or a bulk ISP such as BSNL. Look at ] and the perennial factor-of-two numerical errors introduced over "poles" and "pole pairs". We are waist-deep in this garbage and as someone who reverts far more poor edits to electrical topics than even Wtshymanski, I'm sick of it. | |||
| :: However ignorance and piss-poor teaching still isn't vandalism. Per AGF, none of us are allowed to treat it as such. As WP editors we are ''required'' to display infinite patience with clueless edits against basic common sense. Wtshymanski is no longer doing this. To be honest, I can't blame him for it. We should forgive it. However we shouldn't (as you're doing here) construct convoluted excuses for why it's "correct" to do so. ] (]) 22:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ''"so your thesis here is that Wtshymanski's categorisation of these reverted edits as "vandalism" was ''correct''?"'' Yes. I said so. I don't think I was at all unclear. Personally I am often a little more hesitant to use the "v" in an edit summary for an IP's first edit and first mistake (e.g. the "unijunction" edit). But with the pattern seen in the history of the IP of the "two phase electric power" edit? That seems very clear to me. | |||
| ::: Your thesis is that I'm supposed to AGF even when an edit is of a pattern very commonly used by petty vandals, even when it's from an IP with multiple previous similar edits. I think that, and your requirement of "infinite patience", is absurd. That is an absolute, a universal, and I see no support for such in ]. Please note that ] begins with a disclaimer: ''"It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."'' A requirement of "infinite patience" is not at all "common sense", particularly not when the encyclopedia is being damaged repeatedly from the same IP. | |||
| ::: I don't think I used "convoluted excuses" either. I think that was done by the apologist who noted that the IP locates to a school and therefore the IP's history of other erroneous edits is irrelevant. How is that idea consistent with WP's use of schoolblocks? Hey, in our effort to bend over backwards while touching our toes to AGF, why don't we just always assume that even if an IP goes to a private home, different family members might be using it, therefore an IP's history is always irrelevant? r-i-g-h-t. | |||
| ::: Assuming I agree with your position here (I don't, particularly the "infinite patience" part): How do you reconcile "I can't blame him for it - we should forgive it" with your support for DSP's "reworded" proposal below? | |||
| ::: Even if we accept that both of those edits were not v., there still is no evidence for a ''pattern'' of problematic edits. DSP says he went back three weeks in W's history and found ''two'' AGF failures. Oh my ghod, the sky will fall. Again, I ask: How many other editors' histories would stand up against this level of nitpicking? I think DSP is just a little too eager to bring ANI cases against W. ] (]) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: ''"with the pattern seen in the history of the IP"'' | |||
| :::: ''What'' "pattern"? They've made a dozen edits in total. This year they've made the two phase edit and a self-reverted. Neither of these are vandalism and there is no pattern of vandalism from them. Even Checkuser regards IP data as stale after three months, but you're seeing a pattern of confirmed vandalism from it. | |||
| :::: Do you believe in some form of demonic possession? Do you think this router has become inherently evil, and so any editor connecting via it is now forced to turn into some sort of vandal?! | |||
| :::: Your failure to accept AGF as applying to IPs is as bad as Wtshymanski's. ] (]) 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Yeah? Feel free to bring an ANI case if you think you can make it stick. ] (]) 01:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: More constructively: If incorrect use of the "vandalism" charge by W. is what you're really concerned about, why not make a Proposal 3: "Wtshymanski is forbidden from using 'v.', 'vand.', 'vandalism', or other similar accusations of vandalism in edit summaries"? Now, as I said, even if I accept those two IP edits as not-vandalism, there is still a failure to make a case that these are anything but isolated incidents. And I think that, although a few incidents of of AGFFailure could be worthy of a warning from an admin, any long-term restriction on editing behavior needs far more proof. But at least this is a nice clean proposal with clear boundaries for what is and isn't being proposed. If you do this, be sure to make the new proposal separate from the others, unlike what DSP did. ] (]) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support with reword''' : The scope is too broad as it apparently attempting to address issues not raised here as {{u|Jeh}} observes. My support would be for a sanction worded, ''"A prohibition on reverting any edit from an IP address editor. This includes any that are vandalism''". The latter because Wtshymanski labels good faith edits as vandalism. Any genuine vandalism will get swept up by others in the usual way. To be enforced by escallating blocks if breached. ] (]) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' : One, I call a procedure violation. This is not a "support with reword"; in particular, this is not a "reword". It is a different proposal completely. You need to make a new proposal for this. (Should the closing admin assume that the previous "support"s apply to your new proposal? Why? They're for a different proposal, one that still allows W. to revert IP edits, among other differences.) | |||
| :: Two, I guess now the "problem" has morphed into "Wtshymanski's reverts of IPs' edits are bad, and Wtshymanski labels good faith edits as vandalism". Let's see: Out of the five diffs you posted, only two showed W. accusing of "vandalism". Re the article content, those were completely justified reverts. And in each case there is completely sufficient reason to not AGF. | |||
| :: That leaves two actual problem reverts by W.: One was a revert against policy (restore PROD after IP deleted it). In talk page discussion W. made clear that he was surprised that IPs were allowed to block PRODs. The first time I ran into that, I was surprised too. The other was the "IR not visible so it isn't 'light'" revert, which is a factual error on W's part, not related to reverting of an IP nor to any accusations of vandalism. | |||
| :: But even if we accept those, that is still only two problem edits in three weeks. You haven't shown that such problems only occur when W. reverts IPs, you haven't shown any unjustifiable charges of vandalism, and you haven't shown that any problems that ''are'' demonstrated by these edits are anything but isolated incidents. | |||
| :: And your attempt to cast it as a "reword", attempting to roll "support"s for the original proposal 2 into "support"s for this, is particularly egregious. ] (]) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' - but don't these "restrictions" apply to every editor anyway? ] (]) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** '''Question''' What are you supporting? The original Proposal 2, or DSP's so-called "reword"? ] (]) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** In concept. Decent edit summaries are a "best practice," not something that's generally enforced; this would make them enforceable. That's why it's not an unreasonable measure. <small>]</small> 10:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *''' Support''' the reworded (and it is re-worded) restriction. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 11:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support but take to ArbCom''' - ] is seem to not understand ], which concerns a lot of new users who decide to make some edits logged out before making an account. However, I don't think ANI is the place for this, consider taking this to ]. --] (]) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' the reworded restriction. This kind of wholesale reversion is the worst kind of ]y behavior. {{ping|NE Ent|Guy Macon}} could you two please weigh in and indicate if you support the reworded restriction as well, or exclusively what was originally proposed? ]! 20:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Question''' ''What'' "wholesale reversion"? Five reported reverts in three weeks? Only two of them factually invalid? ] (]) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' the original (not reworded) proposal. I wanted to stay completely uninvolved, but the user convinced me at their talk page that the topic ban is needed.--] (]) 21:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** '''Comment''' I nee no proposal for a "topic ban". What "topics" is W. to be banned from editing? ] (]) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **: You are right, I did not word it in a good way. I support the proposal to restrict W from reverting edits without a content-based summary. This is indeed not a topic ban.--] (]) 10:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I fully agree with Jeh's analysis of the diffs submitted as evidence, I was about to write something very similar myself. WTS ''is'' a problematic editor and ''has'' demonstrated a prejudice against IPs in the past, but there is no justification on the evidence given here for any kind of adminstrative action against WTS. The last two diffs in particular, I would likely have reverted them myself without comment. They are obviously wrong and very possibly deliberately disruptive (and by the way, the last one is precisely WTS's area of expertise and is thus certainly not blind reversion). I wouldn't be opposed to a ban on WTS making ''any'' edit with any kind of sarcasm in the edit summary (where it cannot easily be replied to), but that would be a different thread altogether to the one here. ]] 15:55, 16 March 2015 (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) | |||
| ===In the absence of action it continues...=== | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 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". ] (]) 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) | |||
| '''8th Mar''' | |||
| == Excessive range block == | |||
| IP edit: | |||
| {{atop|1=IP-using sockmaster complains that their IP range is blocked. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] has been blocked for 3 years. For anyone unfamiliar please read ]. You can also click on the contributions to see that this block affects editors literally all over the United States. I am not saying that no disruption ever came out of this range but this range is so massive it blocked countless editors who never did anything wrong trampling on the rights of far too many IP editors. Please unblock and in the future just block the 64. ] (]) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :And yet, since May there has only been a single unblock request, one which did not use the template so no one responded, doesn't seem like a lot of collateral. It's an anonymous only block, so accounts (created in other ranges) can be used to edit from that range without issue. | |||
| Wtshymanski revert: | |||
| :Secondly, this should probably be at ], or better yet the blocking admin's user talk page, as this is not an incident nor anything requiring urgent admin attention, seen as the block has been like that since May, and blocked for long lengths of time before that as well with no apparent issue. – ] (]) (]) 20:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. And a new editor would be unable to create an account thanks to this block. We’ll never know how many would be wikipedians we lost. I don’t know why the fact that this range block is problematic needs to be explained. It affects way more people than the editor(s) they were trying to block. Literally the entire United States can fall on that range. ] (]) 21:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{xt|Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request.}} Right, that's factored into the calculation that only one request means there isn't a lot of collateral damage. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, a total of one filing wouldn't be small, but minuscule collateral. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That doesn’t make any sense. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, we wouldn’t have a total of one filing. No one even responded to the unblock request, so we likely lost a would be wikipedian. The collateral damage is not small and can be minimized by blocking the 64 instead of a 40 range. There have been far too many editors that didn’t do anything wrong blocked. ] (]) 00:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We can't facilitate absolutely every case unfortunately. Every block might lose someone we could've known and loved in a perfect world. With experience, the evidence indicates that the trade-off here has been acceptable to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No one has any "rights" to edit this website. ] (]) 00:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is actually a rather complicated subject. Firstly number of addresses ≠ number of affected users. Some very broad ranges are little used, some rather narrow ones are extremely busy. Secondly there's a tricky calculation involved with broad range blocks, but much as we want to limit collateral to as little as necessary, there are some extremely nasty sockmasters who have no qualms about abusing large ranges to their advantage, so that large rang-blocks really are the least bad option. As just one example the entire T-Mobile range has been repeatedly blocked. In fact blocks as wide as /29 are not as unreasonable as you may think. | |||
| :Getting back to this specific case, it's a Verizon Business range, and it wouldn't surprise me if individual users floated within a /40 making the block of smaller subnets of less utility. I don't know all the specifics of why {{U|Widr}} blocked that range, but then again you don't either since you didn't ask them first which you really should have done before bringing this here. That range has in fact been repeatedly blocked including for BLP violations and sockpuppetry. Ideal? no. Least bad option? Almost certainly. Those are experienced sysops; I would trust their judgement. ] (]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::FYI, OP is a block evader, latest socks and . ] (]) 07:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Figures, at least they were kind enough to bring their block-evasion to everyone's attention here; to the limited extent I have time available I'll try to keep an eye out. ] (]) 15:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Blocking a /64 on this IP range would be pointless. Admins can do blocks like this without disabling account creation, though. Unless there's logged-in disruption, such as the creation of sock puppets, vandals, or trolls, account creation can be left enabled on wide IP ranges like this. Personally, I'm not so sure that Mediawiki should make it so easy to perform range blocks. I think maybe there should be a user right required, like ]. ] (]) 04:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I came across similar thoughts a few days ago. Because of bot reasons, and others, a lot of the times I am in incognito mode - without logged in. I often need to see the source. And all this time (in last 2-3 years), all of the time my IP/range was blocked with ACB. Is it possible to block the IP ranges only from mainspace? or something similar? —usernamekiran ] 12:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * This is, I think, a mobile network with dynamically assigned IP addresses. It may be necessary to block a range if there is disruption by people whose IP address change frequently within that range. --] (]) 12:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *: regardless ISP (mobile/DSL/fibre or anything), the default IP system in India is dynamic. Static IPs are provided upon request, which are done only by hosting service providers and similar people. So it is safe to say that 99.9 home users/individual in India have dynamic IP address which change a lot. —usernamekiran ] 13:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::] is in the United States, not India. — ] (]) 19:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I believe {{U|Usernamekiran}} was referring to their own experience <small>mentioned in their first comment</small> rather than this specific case. Regardless, this thread was started in bad-faith by a sockmaster unhappy their favorite range was blocked and should now be closed. If I hadn't already involved myself by weighing in here I would have done so already. ] (]) 20:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I think this is a sockmaster that is just unhappy with Widr in general, seeing the accounts Widr mentioned - may or may not make this report an attempt at harassment. | |||
| *::::Should be closed either way. Also on you closing it, IPs shouldn't really close threads, even when uninvolved - reverting a sock's unresponded post is probably the most an IP might do, closing just shouldn't happen. – ] (]) (]) 20:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::There is, or perhaps was <small>the last decade or so has been a bit of a blur</small>, a complex etiquette governing such closes, but if sentiment has turned entirely against them that would be news to me. At one point I might have ventured on essay on that and other many other facets of unregistered etiquette, but now I don't have the time and would probably just wind-up dating myself badly anyway. ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j == | |||
| :This was a challenge of provided information by asking for a supporting reference. The IP editor did not use the correct <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> template - most likely due to inexperience as this is the IP editor's first edit. Wtshymanski just mechanically reverted the IP edit as usual. He could easily have been helpful and inserted the correct template, but driving away IP address editors is more important than being helpful. New and inexperienced editors often need to be assisted to become good editors. ] (]) 12:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| The user {{u|Rereiw82wi2j}} was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per ] their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) ] (]) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Could we revoke TPA per ? ~ ] (]) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. ] (]) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::User has created another account {{u|Human82}}. ] (]) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also now blocked. ]] 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There's also ] now. ] (]) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Blocked by PhilKnight. ]] 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 == | |||
| ::Let's see. A proposal with only one oppose !vote, and that one from someone who appears to be OK with siding with Wtshymanski in a content dispute where there are ''zero'' citations supporting Wtshymanski and where the chairman of that IEEE 1159.1 Power Quality Measurements wrote a paper specifically to correct Wtshymanski's claim. This should be interesting. I will make some popcorn. --] (]) 17:18, 10 March 2015 (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. | |||
| :::What? I didn't side with anybody in that content dispute. I watched it, but I didn't express an opinion either way. Recently, I just asked a question, a considerable amount of time after the dispute at the article page (unless it's still going on; I haven't looked for a while). But either way, the question was just for my information, not meant to "side" with anyone—if I'd wanted to do that I'd have done it at the article talk page. And anyway, what does that have to do with anything here? Does the fact that I was unclear on how PF is calculated and what negative values would mean make my arguments here less valid? Come on, Guy, you're better than that. ] (]) 10:15, 11 March 2015 (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 . | |||
| ::::Nonsense. You spent the entire thread attempting to rubbish everyone else's observations on the matter and attempting to justify what Wtshymanski was doing. You even tried to claim that Wtshymanski's actions in some cases were due to his ignorance of the subject in question. Like when you tried to claim that Wtshymanski might have believed that Infra-red light wasn't light. Wtshymanski is sufficiently familiar with the technology to know that 'LED' stands for "''Light'' Emitting Diode" and that 'infra-red light is as much light as any other variety. ] (]) 12:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: You know, DSP, posting carelessly is completely within your rights. But when you do so, you should keep in mind that everything I posted is right here for everyone to see. When it is so ridiculously easy to show that you're off base, I really have to wonder what your motivation is. | |||
| :I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == there is wrong information on the article shia in iraq == | |||
| ::::: There is no support here for a blanket charge of my attempting to "justify what W. was doing". (You have a real problem with speaking in generalities; do you realize that? Do you understand what the problem is with making such claims?) I pointed out that in a couple of the whopping total of five diffs you'd provided, W's. reverts were justified. I pointed out that the five diffs you posted did not support your accusations, that the behavior they did show would not be countered by the various proposals, and that the proposals did not match up with the accusations. Nor did I try "to claim that W. might have believed that Infra-red light wasn't light." I wrote . I later wrote, referring to the same edit, . Get your facts right. | |||
| {{atop|1=Content dispute. ] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| in this article the editor saying that the shea in iraq 65% and Sunni in iraq is 25-30% this is totally wrong statement in Iraq we never have census established based on sect all the census was established based on Male and female please see the reference below, please remove this false information and corrected, wekepedia shouldn't publish Article backed by weak source the, the editor used the world factbook that belong to CIA , i cant believe this, how the hell that the CIA conducted a Census overseas and get the number of Sunni and Shia people in Iraq, this is the same fake information that the CIA told the world that Iraq have mass destruction weapon which leaded to occupied Iraq, so please edit and remove these false info . below are links showing Iraq Census database showing all the Census that been conducted since 1950 till 2024, was based on male and female never have Census based on Sect. | |||
| https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population/iraq?year=1978 | |||
| ::::: I even suggested a proposal that actually would fit the complaint - W. would be forbidden from referring to "vandalism" in edit summaries. Did you miss that? | |||
| https://www.populationpyramid.net/iraq/1978/ | |||
| https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/IRQ/iraq/population | |||
| https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/iraq-population/ | |||
| https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iraq-hold-first-nationwide-census-since-1987-2024-11-19/ | |||
| https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-11-25/iraqs-population-reaches-45-4-million-in-first-census-in-over-30-years | |||
| https://cosit.gov.iq/ar/62arabic-cat/indicators/174-population-2?jsn_setmobile=no <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Hello, {{u|Freeman7373}}. This noticeboard does not resolve content disputes. Please discuss your concerns at ]. That being said, estimates of religious affiliation do not require an official census. The ] is considered a reliable source for this type of information, as is the ] which is also cited. ] (]) 01:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::how you gave population rate based on sect without Census, what you said doesn't make any sense and showing the ignorance, your CIA is not a reliable source they lied about the mass destruction weapon in IRAQ which leaded to the occupation and many people died from both side , i know people life doesn't mean anything to the evil side, so this is one example of your reliable source. see links below | |||
| ::https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/the-iraq-invasion-20-years-later-it-was-indeed-a-big-lie-that-launched-the-catastrophic-war/ | |||
| ::https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims | |||
| ::https://www.quora.com/Was-the-CIA-dumb-to-conclude-that-Iraq-has-WMDs | |||
| ::Shame on your reliable source ] (]) 02:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Quora isn't reliable, and please be ]. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent == | |||
| ::::: You may be thinking of my comment re. the revert of the IP's deletion of a PROD. I was thinking of this comment by W.: Now, maybe I am naive for interpreting that as honest unawareness of the rules—I don't think so, since W. rarely lifts a finger to answer critics; I can't imagine him lying to do so, that would be too much trouble—but it wasn't something I just dreamed up. ] (]) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent was warned to cease this conduct. ] (]/]) 02:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User|MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent}} has been warned by several users about their improper ] but has not changed their behavior.{{Diff2|1263492476}}{{Diff2|1264201007}} It unfortunately appears to be a competence issue. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Jeh, with all due respect, I believe that the record shows that I have been bending over backwards to give Wtshymanski the benefit of the doubt, convince him to engage in a serious discussion about his behavior, and to recommend the minimum level of sanctions that I think will reduce the ongoing disruption to the engineering articles. My perception of your approach is that your are a staunch defender of Wtshymanski, that whenever anyone posts a criticism that is flawed in any way you dissect it analyze it in great detail (which is good), but when a criticism hits home (my response Wtshymanski's continued snarky comments about how right he is about negative power factor despite the reams of citations showing him that he is wrong, for example), you go silent and move on to your next talking point. In my opinion, you are an advocate, not someone who tries to support Wtshymanski when he is right (as he often is) and criticize him when he is wrong. Nothing wrong with that, of course. --] (]) 14:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like they . I'd be inclined to take a wait and see approach here. ] (]) 02:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Guy, I am glad you posted that. I was working on a lengthy reply to the thread over at W.'s talk page when he blanked it (as he is wont to do). Now I have another place, a better place, to put it. But I have real work to do today, so I'll get back to this later. For a short answer, though: I see many things wrong with W.'s behavior; it is just that there are so many people eager to bring AN/I cases against him that it seems superfluous for me to mention them. Meanwhile, it is puzzling to me that you read me as an "advocate" when I don't think I've done much if anything beyond calling for hewing to the standard ''you'' . ] (]) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Consistent unsourced changes by IP 2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329 == | |||
| :::::: You make good point, and looking back at my comment I see that I was too harsh and aggressive. We are clearly both here to improve the encyclopedia, and I apologize for my tone. Sorry about that. --] (]) 12:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = the /64 for one week. ] (]/]) 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{userlinks|2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329}} has been changing composer fields across various movie articles with no sources. All of them have been plain wrong. ] • ] • ] 01:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Note:''' The user has persisted after I issued a level 4 final warning for continued deliberate insertion of incorrect information on the user's talk page Yutah<sup><span style="color: #D19FE4;">1</span><span style="color: #373A77;">2</span><span style="color: DeepSkyBlue;">3</span></sup>|]|]✶ 02:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Thank you. ] (]) 19:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems to be purely an ] issue - especially since it's an unregistered user. <span style="color: #0f52ba; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: 0px 0px 1px #111111;">]</span> (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good timing, I've opened a report on AIV just a few minutes ago Yutah<sup><span style="color: #D19FE4;">1</span><span style="color: #373A77;">2</span><span style="color: DeepSkyBlue;">3</span></sup>|]|]✶ 02:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == SPA ] back at it on ] == | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| {{ping|Guy Macon}}: Ok, here's the long version. First: I pretty much agree with what you wrote . Same with Dennis Bratland's "outside view" . | |||
| :]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Personally, I do think he has mellowed some in the last year or so. Still, whenever an edit of mine conflicts with one of W's I groan a little, because I'm expecting a fight. The times I haven't gotten one, I've been pleasantly surprised—and that isn't how it's supposed to be here; as was pointed out to me rather firmly in my first months, "AGF! This isn't USENET!" So even I wish he could be persuaded to take the attitude down a few notches, not to mention interact more on his talk page. It would be better for the encyclopedia, and it would be better for him: some positions he takes that I agree with (like ) would have a better chance of being heard if there wasn't such a crusty curmudgeon behind them. | |||
| ::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 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. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] 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) | |||
| :::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 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 . 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) | |||
| == Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 == | |||
| But I don't like dogpiles, and I don't like witch-hunts. More specifically: I don't like zealous efforts to dig through piles of old evidence to find actionable edits, followed by trying one proposal after another to see if something sticks... even though the evidence doesn't support the complaints and the proposals don't address the real problems. | |||
| {{Atop|Blocked for one month.--] (]) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|The Iron Giant|prev|1264168891|1}}, {{diff|Joker (2019 film)|prev|1264169891|2}}, {{diff|Candyman (2021 film)|prev|1264170248|3}}, {{diff|Spirited (film)|prev|1264235847|4}}, {{diff|Sausage Party: Foodtopia|prev|1264237619|5}}. ] (]) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == Disruptive editing ] == | |||
| Look at DSP's flip-flopping: from his first paragraphs, which included obviously-wrong universals like ''"W. reverts any and all edits by IPs"''; then switching from one proposal to another when the first collects objections... and branding his own as a "reword" when its intended results had very little in common with what it was supposedly a reword of. ~''"We found five problem edits (out of 700) in the last three weeks! Surely there's enough here to get him blocked, or banned from doing SOMEthing!"'' It really makes DSP look desperate, and since DSP, AD, and GM almost never disagree with each other where W. is concerned, the appearance of desperation is shared around. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = I've protected the page for 24 hours. @] and @] are both warned against edit warring, including during the course of this discussion. RR, HR, and .82 should follow ] processes. Further disruptive editing or edit warring after page protection expires will result in blocks. ] (]/]) 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| ] has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox. An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user ] and me, continues the disruptive editing. Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion. | |||
| And look at some of the reactions to my objections. AD dismisses me with an ''ad hom:'' ~''"Well, you're W.'s friend, so of course you rush in to defend him."'' (Dare I suggest AGF, in a complaint thread that's ''about'' AGF?) DSP re the "IR not visible" edit. (I notice that he's "gone silent" on that point.) Similarly, over at W's talk page, an admin claims I said that ''all'' of W's reverts were justified! Just how un-carefully do you have to read to conclude such things? Perhaps something that could be called is involved. I'm partly serious there. I suggest that Wtshymanski's generally... let's call it ''brusque'' attitude leads those who are most offended by him to scrutinize his edits far more closely, and find fault far more often, than they would with most other editors. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300 | |||
| I see it again in DSP's jumping on W's rv of an IP's edit to the ] article. Yes, at first glance it looks like the IP was correct and that W was wrong to revert. Another bogus revert of an IP by Wtshymanski! Throw another log on the pyre! Oh wait. At second glance it looks very much otherwise; see ] for further discussion. Editors there have carefully examined the refs and decided for now at least that W's revert was correct. There is still more evidence to be looked at, but the point here is that it looks to me as if DSP jumped too easily to the conclusion that W.'s revert was wrong, motivated as he was to add more weight to this complaint. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy | |||
| In short, I raised objections to this complaint/series of complaints/series of proposals against W. not because I think W. is beyond reproach, nor because I'm his "friend", but because I don't think the complaints or proposals are justified by the evidence, and I don't think the proposals address the real issues (those being a pattern of general, but generally mild, incivility, and near-complete refusal to engage in discussion). And I don't think anybody should be the target of the sorts of tag-teaming, lets-get-him-on-something campaign I see here. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again | |||
| Yes, of course "Everybody knows" W. is hasty to revert IPs. That's what the complaint was here, and he's been taken to ANI a lot before (though not for a pattern of being hasty to revert IPs), so of course it must be true. But a few point examples don't prove it. Nevertheless an admin showed up and seemed only too eager to take up the banner. That admin even that it was legitimate to conclude that any given revert of W's was likely erroneous just because W. has been taken to ANI, etc., more often than most. ("This guy's had three tickets this year; let's write him for speeding again even though we haven't so much as clocked him!") This is the same revert I mentioned DSP jumping on above, and the sources show that W.'s revert was correct. The admin mentioned "statistics," but cited no numbers, only personal impressions. As Guy Macon said ], a lot of things that "everybody knows" turn out to be not true. Bottom line: If we're supposed to take it as proven that Wtshymanski is overly revertful of IP edits, then let's see some numbers that prove that charge. I don't agree that general impressions shared by the hive mind are sufficient, particularly for someone who edits as much as Wtshymanski does. And especially when someone is calling for a three-week block. | |||
| The current complaint started out with "not even wrong" universal claims ("W. reverts any and all edits by IPs") and did not improve after that. What we're left with is "W. has misbehaved a lot in the past, and here are a tiny handful of problem edits; let's make up some proposals that address some very specific issues with these edits." That's not the way to bring an AN/I case, and the proposals made here are not going to do anything for the real problems. | |||
| ] (]) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| That is all. I've spent way too much time on this. Last words are everyone else's. I'm banning myself from the next three W.-related ANI threads, at least. ] (]) 09:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow ] processes, such as seeking guidance at ] or ], or going to ]. ] (]/]) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely ]. ] (]) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. ] (]) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| (nac) ] is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to ]. ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am in agreement with Jeh. In particular, the "W. reverts any and all edits by IPs" claim was stupid, and we all -- myself included -- need to work harder on only supporting claims where there is solid evidence, and objecting whenever claims are overreaching. Jeh, I still feel bad about going off half cocked in my first reply to you. That was wrong, and again I apologize. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks == | |||
| :This is my final comment here, so in closing I am going to repost something I wrote to Wtshymanski in response to his writing "Suddenly I'm the biggest threat to Misplaced Pages since Essjay", and which he deleted without response. | |||
| {{atop|1=/24 blocked for two weeks. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{rangevandal|166.181.224.0/19}} | |||
| *] | |||
| Using the IP range ], Sugar Bear has returned to Misplaced Pages to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP ]. Can we get a rangeblock? | |||
| ::"No, you are not the biggest threat to Misplaced Pages since Essjay. What you are is someone who refuses to simply engage in a dialog about your behavior, forcing multiple frustrated editors to take to to ANI in the hope that an admin will intervene. Your every interaction drips with sarcasm and disdain for anyone who dares to disagree with you, and you never admit defeat, even in cases such as negative power factor where you have never, ever been able to produce a single cite supporting your position after it became clear (the author himself told you so) that the IEEE standard had an error in it. You piss people off, and not just a few of them. Some withdraw in frustration, some misbehave in retaliation, and a few keep trying to reduce the disruption to the encyclopedia. Your actual level of disruption is actually rather mild compared to most cases, but it drives people crazy when they cannot get you to simply talk over your differences like adults. But of course you know all of this." --Posted by ] (]) to Wtshymanski's talk page on 20:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username ]. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. ] (]) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I can only hope that Wtshymanski decides to be more cooperative and collegial with other editors, realizing that at least some of us have the same goals of improving the Encyclopedia that he has. --] (]) 14:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| .I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm going to break my self-imposed exile here because I'm not replying to an argument (I honestly think I've said all I will ever have to say in this thread). Rather I'm just saying "thank you". Guy, you had apologized previously and I was completely satisfied with that. My missive above was not intended to elicit more of the same, simply to explain further why I've been following the path I've been following. In any case, thank you again for stopping to "listen" to my POV. ] (]) 14:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following: | |||
| ===Still no action and the problem continues=== | |||
| ::*] was blocked in 2018 and 2019. | |||
| ::*] was blocked in 2018 for one month. | |||
| ::*] was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear. | |||
| ::*] was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks. | |||
| ::*] was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. ] (]) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''13th Mar''' | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Comments by Locke Cole == | |||
| 1st IP edit: : 2nd IP edit: | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. ] ] 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| '''Involved''': {{userlinks|Locke Cole}} | |||
| Wtshymanski revert: | |||
| So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at ]. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include: | |||
| * {{tq|Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.}} | |||
| ::I replied to this with {{tq|What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.}} | |||
| * {{tq|Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.}} | |||
| ::And I replied to this one with {{tq|Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.}} | |||
| This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including '''six '''civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the hammer. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently ]. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-] (]) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This was a case of two for the price of one. {{u|Wtshymanski}} got to revert ''two'' good faith edits from ''two'' different IP editors at the same time. The first IP added a co-creator of ] to the article. A definitely ] addition because it was entirely correct. The second IP linked the added name to the Misplaced Pages article (so also ]). Wtshymanski, in less than an hour, reverted both edits. He was more interested in reverting the IP edits than whether what they had added was correct. Had Wtshymanski, followed the added link to the Misplaced Pages article, he whould have discovered than not only that ] indeed had co-created BASIC but that it was reliably and verifiably referenced. ] (]) 13:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from ] in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tqq|bolding policies I've added at the end}} - I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar ], where I'm pretty sure you wanted ]) goes to ]. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay ''on'' policy. There's a difference. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. ] (]) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: I put a fairly strong warning and I feel that the next revert should result in a block. <s>Since I am not involved (in fact, did not hear about this user until today), I will have no hesitation to block them myself, but of course any uninvolved administrator can do it.</s>--] (]) 15:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. ] (]) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :::Related: (PDF). --] (]) 15:10, 13 March 2015 (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) | |||
| :::Thank you! Some action at last. I have taken the liberty of copying the reference from the ] article to the ] article so it is unreferenced no longer. It should not have been necessary for someone else to do this, as Wtshymanski could easily have been helpful to the newbie IP editors and done the same. ] (]) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have just found yet another reversion of a ] edit that was perfectly valid. But since the edit was made before the warning was posted to Wtshymanski's talk page, I shall demonstrate some good faith and let it go. ] (]) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (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? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::We have admin eyes on the issue, so I think it is time for me to stop commenting and let this either be closed or time out and be archived. I still think that some admin should look at the totality of Wtshymanski's behavior (ANI ''was'' touted as the replacement for RFC/U, after all) instead of playing ] as a slow but steady stream of ANI complaints are filed. --] (]) 11:06, 14 March 2015 (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) | |||
| *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) | |||
| *: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? – ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (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) | |||
| *:::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) | |||
| == POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes == | |||
| :::"Working on" some project under the direction of the two acknowledged inventors did not make Sister Keller the "co-inventor." Kemeny and Kurtz are stated to be the inventors /developers of Basic in countless reliable sources, which say they supervised a team of students who did the implementation. Apparently Keller was one of those students, probably a graduate student. The refs provided only show her to have been one of the worker-bees. It is O.R to list her as a third, co-equal developer of Basic. There is a discussion on the talk page of the article on the Basic language as to Keller's role. ] (]) 03:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::::This does not belong here. This is a discussion of the editing habits of one editor. Regardless of whether ] co-invented BASIC or not, this is a discussion on whether Wtshymanski was correct or not to revert the edits adding her to the inventors of the article. He may (or may not) be factually correct, but the IP address that added the information can definitely be assumed to have acted in good faith because the ] article contains the very claim supported by a reference where it has stood unchallenged since the article was created back in June 2012. I am not in a position to say if Wtshymanski has any knowledge of the inventors of BASIC, but he certainly provided no evidence to support his reversion of the edits. His edit comment acompanying the revert of, "no, not really", is, at best, nothing more than a statement of personal knowledge or possibly ]. | |||
| This engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this and this , and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this , in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with . I believe this person is ] to build an encyclopedia, and also the ] article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. ] (]) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh also . ] (]) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{an3|b|72 hours}} (]) and pages protected ] 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Promotional content about Elvenking (band) == | |||
| ::::Looking at this as an uninvolved user, who is right and who is wrong about Mary Keller is entirely beside the point. Two IP address based editors made what must be regarded as good faith edits from the points made above. Their edits were reverted based on nothing more than personal knowledge or original research. To my outside view, that means that this example fits with the general thrust of this ANI complaint. If the good faith edit was wrong, then it requires correction, but that requires supporting references and evidence. A reversion without such evidence, given the referencing at the linked article, is wrong - and that is exactly what happened. I grant that several editors are now questioning the reliability of the referencing, but that discussion was not available to the two IP address editors at the time of their good faith edits so that is entirely moot. –] ]</font></span> 11:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| ::::: I tried to make exactly the same point at the user's talk page, without much success: My opponents think that per ] these edits MUST be reverted.--] (]) 12:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| | result = There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. {{ping|Elvenlegions}} please be mindful of musical notability and what Misplaced Pages is and isn't for. ] ] 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: So WTS was wrong to revert unsourced information on the basis that the same claim is made in another Misplaced Pages article? Come on, we repeatedly tell newbies they can't use Misplaced Pages articles as references. And whatever happened to WP:V and the principle that it is the responsibility of the challenged editor to provide a source? I cannot agree that "who is right and who is wrong about Mary Keller is entirely beside the point". The entire complaint here about WTS is that he is alleged to revert IPs without regard to the quality of their edits. An example where he is shown to be right, or at least knowledgable editors in the subject believe him to be right, absolutley does not count as evidence towards that behaviour. Nor should it be taken as a breach of any previous warning. ]] 19:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| ::::::I think you are missing the point. This is not about one reversion of an IP edit. This is about a policy that {{u|Wtshymanski}} has toward all IP address editors and their edits. Wtshymanski has freely admitted in the course of this ANI that he does routinely revert all edits from IP editors with the exception of ''one per year''. It would seem that the one per year is solely so that any claim that he revets ''all'' IP edits can be refuted - which in fact he has tried on. However, it seems to not be impressing many people except the gullible. The admin who posted the statement to Wtshymanski's talk page telling him that he will be blocked if he does it again has apparently researched the history and found that it is true. ] (]) 18:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I am not missing the point at all and I take exception to the implication that I am gullible. I realise this thread is not just about one IP edit, but you have utterly failed to provide the evidence by way of multiple credible diffs that there is a current and ongoing problem. The claim that Shymanski has admitted to reverting all IP edits is preposterous. You are referring to which is proof by counterexample with a heavy dollop of typical WTS sarcasm. The one per year are counterexamples to the claim that all IP edits are reverted, not an admission of it. ]] 10:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This has already been researched. You certainly are gullible if you believe that Wtshymanski's 'one-per-year' list are 'counter-examples'. Not one (none, zip, zilch) of the examples given in that post are counter-examples of routine reversion of IP edits in any shape or form - it's a standard Wtshymanski smoke-screen. All of the edits provided are just routine addition of information; copy-editing the article to make it clearer or correction of grammar and usage - all of which are legitimate edits (even if originally introduced by an IP editor) and are ''not'' the subject of this ANI. As said: not one is an example of a failure to revert a good faith edit (or any immediately preceeding edit) by an IP editor. | |||
| ::::::::A counter-example (for the purposes of this ANI) has to be a good faith edit made by an IP editor to an article that Wtshymanski regularly watches (basically all the engineering articles), that was ''not'' reverted. You can go through Wtshymanski's edit history but you won't find one - it's already been done. | |||
| I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely ], with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg. | |||
| ::::::::However, this is all academic as sentence has been pronounced. This ANI is ready for archiving. ] (]) 13:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] and ]) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{tl|Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by ], which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. ]).<span id="Est._2021:1734845816539:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :::::::::It's funny that you can't actually provide diffs of this alleged routine reversion. And I don't see any "sentence" having been pronounced. ]] 18:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. ] (]) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO == | |||
| :*If these musicians are not notable, you can always tag the articles CSD A7. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top|result=The law of diminishing returns clearly applies; the only consensus to be found is that this needs closing. Allow me some general observations, real quick, and let's not get too particular. a. Jytdog has on occasion a bit on the gruff side, and a few editors point this out. (That he'd be biting an editor who's been here since 2008 is not agreed upon.) b. In the absence of an etiquette board and RfC/U, it's probably best to try and focus on small things, not big things; clear evidence for that comes from the very length of this thread.<p>But this was not about Jytdog or ANI, so: c. There is a measure of agreement that David Tornheim's editing is problematic; individual edits (such as , cited by a number of editors) are ''incredibly'' problematic and the removal of them is warranted by all kinds of policies. There is also some agreement that Tornheim seems to regard Misplaced Pages as a battleground where there's always a pro and a con side, and partisanship rules. I find that there is enough reason to warn to Tornheim to '''seriously'' regard WP:RS and WP:NPOV in their edits. Pointing out a lack of neutrality can be seen as biting, hounding, or whatever--unless, of course, it was correct in the first place. In addition, this admin finds that almost everyone here uses too many words, and this admin wonders why adults can't handle these problems in a more mature fashion--but then, when I was young people were more polite and the ham tasted better too. In short, {{U|David Tornheim}}, there is some consensus that your edits are problematic, and you should be careful. There is not enough consensus for a block, but please consider that this was ''not'' laughed out of court, but it was taken seriously by a number of longterm and knowledgeable editors. Thank you. ] (]) 23:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::Understood, Elvenlegions, but ]. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the ], then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. ] 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|David Tornheim}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Disruptive editor on ] == | |||
| '''short story''' | |||
| :OK, I have a stalker, userlinks above, who is accusing me of bad faith actions and COI across multiple Talk pages, so the issues are ], and ]/]. He is also ] about the "biased POV of the GMO articles". ] he makes it clear he is a community activist, and it appears to me he is using such tactics here in WP and is violating ] via ]. | |||
| 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) | |||
| At this point I am '''seeking a 24 block for canvassing, and a strong warning''' for this inexperienced editor to stop these behaviors and to focus on content, not contributors. If David persists after a formal warning, I will seek a topic ban. I believe he is well-intentioned but ''does not understand WP.'' He appears to be ] but I am not bringing that case, at this time. | |||
| :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. | |||
| '''longer story''' | |||
| :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) | |||
| :<u>]</u> | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| : David entered the GMO topic by canvassing 4 editors on their Talk pages. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::*08:51, 13 February 2015 | |||
| ::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}. | |||
| ::*08:54, 13 February 2015 | |||
| ::::''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.'' | |||
| ::*09:02, 13 February 2015 | |||
| ::::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. | |||
| ::*09:08, 13 February 2015 | |||
| ::::''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...}} === | |||
| :These messages are identical, are on pages of dissenters from the consensus on the GMO articles, and are decidedly not neutral, citing a "a pattern of corporate manipulation" and other bad behavior by "small group of watcher with a particular slant on the subject" and discussing the "bogus" and "blatant falsehood" of the scientific consensus statement. (Note: the scientific consensus is that currently marketed food from GM crops is as safe to eat, as food from conventional organisms. That was subject to that upheld the content with the consensus statement and its sourcing. That statement in the GMO articles really bothers anti-GMO activists. Continual problem with drive by editors, and some editors who are active here.) | |||
| :I provided David formal warning of canvassing . I also on the ] Talk page and a recruiting template to the article. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::*After the canvassing warning, in ], David used his concerns about my removing a personal attack (see below) to again vent his general concerns with the POV/COI going on at the GMO suite and my behavior. (again, with an editor he thought would be sympathetic) - <u>which is canvassing, in my view.</u> | |||
| 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 | |||
| :David's canvassing led directly to a posting on Jimbo's talk page by one of the canvassers. Thread is , which grew directly out of ], one of those already linked above. | |||
| ::* David contributed to the discussion there, discussing "COI problems that are happening with pharmaceuticals, and are now an equally big problem with GMO articles which lack of NPOV." This is just a continuation of the community activist campaigning and canvassing. | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* And then, David on another editor's Talk page tonight '''that I consider to be canvassing''', that started with said "Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this." and discussed more below), and is what prompts me to call for a 24 block for canvassing. | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Bunch of racist IPs/account == | |||
| * <u>] / ]</u> | |||
| {{atop|1=Sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :*David has now twice added content to article Talk pages, to "introduce" new users, with POV and attacking messages about contributors, not content: | |||
| Article: ] | |||
| :::, which i removed per NPA and with a warning on this Talk page | |||
| * {{user|GREEKMASTER7281}} | |||
| :::and just now, , which was also removed per NPA by another editor. | |||
| * {{ip|112.202.57.150}} | |||
| * {{ip|186.154.62.233}} | |||
| ] (]) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. ]] 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*Most recently, a new editor came to the articles wanting to add UNDUE content with messed up referencing to the ] article, which i reverted. I , and informing the editor in a neutral way, about how the suite of articles is set up and explained how to add a reference. That editor used what I taught him to edit war the content back in (with proper reference formatting), without talking back at all, so . (am not going to do all the editing diffs in this part. they are if anybody wants to see them) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Urgent need for page protection on BLP == | |||
| Today, David followed my note and warning with two messages on that editor's page. started with "Don't let these threats scare you off. Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this." Which is a '''continuation of ]''' and violates NPA... and is also bad advice, because the editor ''was'' edit warring. David then on that editor's page, critiquing my introductory note. This is just hounding, and this, along with the canvassing, is what prompted this posting. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. ] ] 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| There is currently a content dispute going on at ] involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- ] (]) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * In the two or three weeks since all this started, David has engaged in '''only two''' real discussions about content. | |||
| :Looks like ] got it. ] (]) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*one about "substantial equivalence" which is here: ] | |||
| ::{{reply to|DMacks}} Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- ] (]) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*the other, trying to add content about a 14 year old primary source discussing cellular engineering (not genetic engineering) to the genetic engineering article. Discussion is ]. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::In both cases, he was wrong about the topic (law/regulation in one and science in the other), and ''after he actually read the sources or had them explained to him'', he acknowledged he was wrong. All this agita appears to be based on a very strongly held position that "GMOs are bad". He does not appear to be ] in the subject matter. | |||
| == Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article == | |||
| * The behavior is all, classic ]. I deal with a lot of editors like this in the GMO suite and do not bring them here or create drama. | |||
| I am bringing this case, because David is different. With him, there is a new stalking element and really wrong focus on ''motivations'' and on contributors (namely me) not content, that is, to me, really icky, and a set of "community organizing" activities that is ''very'' unwikipedian. | |||
| {{hat|deeper background here, for anyone who wants it ] (]) 02:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| 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 | |||
| *Closing. David believes he has The Truth here and that his behavior is justified, and I reckon he will try to turn this into an examination of my behavior. I know that and expect it. I had a very long interaction with David in the leadup to this, (which was prompted by my noticing one of his canvassing messages b/c it was written on a page I watch; I became aware of the others only later). <u>In that interaction I explained how the GMO articles came to be as they are, discussed how COI is and has been discussed and dealt with by the en-WP community, discussed how concerns about behavior are handled in WP, and urged him many times to focus on content, not contributors, nor their motivations - that this is what we do in WP.</u> I grew increasingly worried by things that David wrote in that interaction, and my worries were realized in on my Talk page, which to be honest, freaked me out. I realized I had a stalker who a) does not understand how WP works ''at all'' (we identify reliable sources, craft content from them based on PAG, and discuss them - we do '''not''' speculate endlessly on what motivated this or that editor to do or say what... and that message was the fruit of, and 100% committed to, analysis of (guessed-at) motivations of contributors, all explained with great confidence. yikes.) and b) was really, really committed to his conspiratorial, convoluted POV <u>about me</u>. I (and I meant it) that I would be more careful to welcome new editors going forward. I then my interactions with him on my Talk page, apologizing for having bothered him (which I meant). And I my Talk page and to a minimum. And went to his Talk page and likewise my remarks there and apologized to him again. I have never had a stalker before; it is a weird feeling. | |||
| , , . | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| * I ask that, if this turns into an examination of my behavior, that this be done in a separate thread. '''This thread is focused on <u>David's behavior</u> demonstrated above, which is out of line.''' | |||
| ] (]) | |||
| *Anyway, as I mentioned above, '''I am seeking a 24 block for canvassing and a warning for David to stop these behaviors.''' I would like the warning to include instruction to '''discuss content, not contributors.''' | |||
| *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) | |||
| == Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again == | |||
| Thanks. ] (]) 01:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (added a bit per note below ] (]) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| {{atop|1=Genre warrior sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Have you first tried to engage with David in a meaningful discussion? If so, why did initial attempts to solve the issue fail? I'm asking this only because I can't make any clear inferences about that from your long post, so it may be a good idea for you to state that clearly. -] 01:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September (], ]) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|You Could Be Born Again|prev|1264637321|1}}, {{diff|Kites are Fun|prev|1264637435|2}}, {{diff|Heaven/Earth|prev|1264641723|3}}, {{diff|Stars/Time/Bubbles/Love|prev|1264642096|4}}, {{diff|...Sing for Very Important People|prev|1264642646|5}}. ] (]) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::yes, as i did describe above. added some ] (]) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, ].) ] (]) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see lots of accusations thrown against ] for allegedly stalking you, and that may indeed be occurring, but if you don't want him to come to your talkpage, you may wish to tell him to stay away from your talkpage (in clear language) and see if that works. You said that you ''apologized'' to him, but I don't consider that a good way to deal with unwanted attention. -] 02:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . ] (]) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::thanks for your advice but you are distracting from the point. I have not disinvited him from my Talk page, as that is the first place for him to bring concerns about my behavior. Per ], this board is next, as . | |||
| :::/64 blocked for six months. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But this is about '''david's behavior.''' I believe the canvassing is sanctionable and the discussions of content, not contributor, need a warning. ] (]) 02:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::I'll also chime in and say that Jytdog seems to try to help out new editors relatively well. However, some terseness is needed in controversial topics when someone comes in with a strong viewpoint of their own. This seems to be a case more so not of a new editor being bitten, but someone coming in from an advocacy perspective with a fringe viewpoint and coming in a bit too hot to really realize the problem with that. ] (]) 16:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User:NoahBWill2002 == | |||
| *'''Support warning. <s>Support temp block and warning.</s>''' I'd weakly support a temp block, but it's really the warning that would hopefully help the situation. I've been involved in some of the content in this case, but haven't been targeted by David Tornheim like Jytdog has with this hounding behavior. There's really no excuse for this behavior and it's just poisoning the well at the related articles. The canvassing is very apparent (also to a t as described by ]) as Tornheim has been selectively recruiting from editors who appear to hold his viewpoint or have been trying to further ] viewpoints in the article. If it was just a new editor reaching out to one of those folks, that could be construed as someone just learning the ropes, but not this many people. The ] behavior seems very apparent where Tornheim came into the article hot as a new editor and just doesn't seem to get ] in this topic (similar to climate change, evolution, and other science articles where other editors with fringe POVs run into trouble). Overall, this just seems to be lashing out for not understanding how Misplaced Pages works (not for a lack of others trying to help) from trying to move too fast with a certain POV. The advocacy is tricky to address at this point here and ''maybe'' could be resolved without need for ANI, but it does seem to be leading towards the personal attacks and hounding that is not appropriate in any case. ] (]) 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=NOTHERE blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::I'll also tack on there has been some battleground behavior/edit warring: | |||
| *{{userlinks|NoahBWill2002}} | |||
| ::* David adds content, removed due to sourcing issues by Jytdog. | |||
| It looks like there's a pretty severe ] issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/, (), or . Lastly and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this. <br> | |||
| ::* David reverts content back in " please do not undo without presenting your reason on the talk page. "not accurate" is not a reason" | |||
| (As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)<br> | |||
| ::* Reverted by Jytdog asking, "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page." | |||
| I think admin action is warranted here. ] (]) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* David reverts again directly copying Jytdog's edit summary "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page." | |||
| :I 100% agree with ] on this. ] appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially ] and ], despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy , followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* I reverted David's 3rd revert asking him to justify his new addition on the talk page at this point. | |||
| ::They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* At which point, David posts a 3RR warning on my talk page after my single revert. | |||
| :::Given ], I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This shows a tendency to edit war rather than come to the talk page and seemingly not understanding that if you make a change and it gets reverted, you then need to gain consensus for it on the talk page. The snark involved in copying Jytdog's edit summary about BRD is also problematic and the warning on my page seem pretty retaliatory in nature. This user is still relatively new, so I do hope changes occur, but this is looking like a difficult case that isn't just due to being a new user. ] (]) 18:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::They added ] grossly inappropriate religious screed to ] on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with ]. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made ] non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) ] (]) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Vandal encounter == | |||
| * '''Oppose temp block and warning.''' I am working on a response, which I intend to post tonight. I would appreciate a chance to respond before any action is taken. ] (]) 21:45, 8 March 2015 (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. | |||
| * '''Comment''' - Calling for a block based on a single incident involving canvassing of four editors which occurred nearly a month ago seems on its face unreasonable. Jytdog is an involved editor in this issue, and as such, Jytdog's behavior in this lengthy interaction should be subject to scrutiny as well; "this isn't about me, this is about them" arguments are specifically discussed and dismissed in ], and "anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny."] (]) 03:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for commenting {{u|Dialectric}}, I am sorry my complaint was not formatted more clearly and that I missed your response. I am not making this report based on the 4 initial canvasses. I warned him for that. I am seeking the block because of the subsequent canvassing that I bulleted above, ] and , with that post on Jimbo's page in the midst. He shows no sign at all of stopping and appears very committed to continuing to "community organize"?canvass around these issues. And I am seeking the warning for his continued comments on contributors (me) in, inappropriate venues, and following me around. ( on another editor's talk page... just ick. I hope that clarifies. I wouldn't have brought the block request based on the initial 4 canvasses - I agree that would not be reasonable. ] (]) 03:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] | |||
| ::Some of this would be for Jytdog to clarify, but I didn't see a clear it's not me it's them demarcation in his post, but rather him asking that if someone really wanted to discuss his behavior, it be brought up in a different section so there could be some clarity rather than a jumbled mess. The canvassing though is only one of the problems experienced at the articles (though maybe the most actionable). Advocacy really seems to be the core problem here though, so this isn't based in a single incident. ] (]) 04:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * I'd say there is nothing to do at this stage but it's clearly important to watch David Tornheim's input in relation to these articles, as he seems to be of the school that believes that anything not anti-GMO is pro-GMO, an easy mistake to make but not one that Misplaced Pages should fall for. For example, states in Misplaced Pages's voice that an experiment that led to genetically modified human children in the US was unethical and illegal "there" and in other countries (in fact it should say "in the UK" as it is ''not'' illegal in the US, where ti happened); this is attributed to "British scientists" but the story makes it clear that the criticism comes from ''some'' British scientists and is nto a considered corporate view of any British scientific body. It would have been much better to attribute the actual quotation in the source by Lord Winston, whose criticism was much more measured. But in any case this is a 2015 edit based on a 2001 story about a technique (ooplasmic transfer) that has been covered much more recently, and is intimately bound to the three-parent baby debate. As a criticism of ], it represents nothing more than a random interjection. In short, the edit represents a simplistic and partisan view of a complex topic, within a mature article. many of David's edits are similar. I think David now understands that he needs to discuss such edits in advance and achieve consensus before making edits that may be controversial. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <small>*note, created separate section for comments on my behavior below. ''this section'' is for David's behavior. I imagine this is going to get separated as new comments come in. This is the point in the thread where his comments below. ] (]) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| ::Hi {{u|JzG}} I am not making this report based on the 4 initial canvasses. I warned him for that. I am seeking the block because of the '''subsequent canvassing''' that I bulleted above, ] and , with that post on Jimbo's page in the midst. He shows no sign at all of stopping and appears very committed to continuing to "community organize"?canvass around these issues. And I am seeking the warning for his continued comments on contributors (me) in, inappropriate venues, and following me around. ( on another editor's talk page... just ick. ] (]) 11:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Don't support'''. DavidTornheim has indeed attempted to inject content that was not supported by RS and has been looking for support. I'm not enough of a WP policy maven to weigh in on whether he's been violating the many policies cited here. However, he has in some cases responded appropriately to specific criticism and backed down. I think attempts to continue working with him are appropriate. I do wish he'd stop with the allegations. ] (]) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * <s>Regarding a block: '''Oppose''' (will not solve the issue); regarding a warning: '''support'''; regarding a topic ban from GMO and organic subjects: '''support'''. I have first hand experience with the rather bullying way Jytdog applies to get things his way with the effect that the neutrality and reliability of articles is impaired. That, and his behaviour, needs to be stopped. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)</s>Wrong place <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::This section is about David's behavior. Thanks for your support the warning. Blocks are meant to be educational, and I think David has no concept that his canvassing/campaigning is wrong. if you want to comment on me, you would probably best do that below. ] (]) 14:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * It is my opinion that the allegations raised against me by Jytdog are a direct result of my attempts to address Jytdog's behavior. Please see my response and reply to the allegations incorporated into the discussion below about Jytdog's behavior. ] (]) 22:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *** yes it is clear that you believe you are doing The Right Thing. The problem is that you do not understand WP nor its behavioral guidelines. This is not a place for the tactics of community activism. It's just not. In any case, this thread has zero traction. All three of our posts are TLDR and we are not going to get community feedback nor admin action. Ah well, I screwed that up. ] (]) 23:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places == | |||
| ===Jytdog's behavior=== | |||
| {{atop | |||
| (note - created separate section so this has its own focus, separate from the above, which is David's behavior ] (]) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| | result = GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. ] ] 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{user|GDJackAttack1}} has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland (]), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal (]), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at ]. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are ]s. | |||
| * <b>Response to Allegations</b>: I have been on Misplaced Pages since July 2008 and have worked on a number of different articles. I have never been taken to an ANI board before and have never been blocked. I have never taken anyone else to an ANI board or any other notice board. I am used to working things out on the talk page of the relevant articles. | |||
| There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their ] consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">] ] ]</span> 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I do understand Jytdog has put quite a lot of effort into revising all of the and so it is not entirely suprising there is resistance to new people making changes. However, Jytdog's treatment of new users does not follow ], especially those that raise ] concerns, which I explain below. In 2004, Jytdog said: | |||
| :I will stop creating these articles. ] (]) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: "There is a suite of related articles on GM matters. A few years ago these articles were a complete mess, with much overlapping content (most of negative anti-GMO stuff). A group of us went through and cleaned them up ..." | |||
| :I tagged one as '''CSD A7''' to see if that would work. ] ] 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{replyto|Bgsu98}} Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">] ] ]</span> 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. ] ] 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:Glenn103 == | |||
| :Unfortunately, during this massive rewrite, as indicated above, the voices of GMO critics/consumer advocates (renamed pejoratively "anti-GMO") were compromised and the revised articles took on a Pro-GMO slant. "Anti-GMO" is an unfair label for the consumer groups, because people can be conerned about GMO's and want more testing before widespread release, without being opposed to all GMO's. This is an example edit where GMO critics' concerns are watered down to be almost unrecognizable . | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 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... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 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. — ] ] 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==TPA for 83.106.86.95== | |||
| :Jytdog is correct that I believe there are serious issues with lack of ] for all of the GMO articles, and my good faith efforts to address them and work with Jytdog and the others are met with these kinds of accusations--just look at my talk page. | |||
| {{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|83.106.86.95}} | |||
| Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? ] (]) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The 'scientific consensus' issue is simple--there is none, and other editors have pointed this out: | |||
| :* ] (]) | |||
| :* ] (]) | |||
| :* user:Arsenal lb | |||
| :* ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> . | |||
| :English language Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect a worldwide view of the subject, and there is widespread mainstream diversity of opinion in Europe, at least, especially ENSRR . Reliable sources explain the lack of 'scientific consensus' and . Jytdog and others insist that reliable sources that do not conform to their view of the subject are fringe/advocacy groups . This is POV pushing. | |||
| :Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. ] (]) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Jytdog, especially, but also Kingofaces43 and others have shown owernship behaiors ] (or ]) towards the GMO articles, especially when changes are proposed that might address the NPOV concerns. For example, | |||
| ::User LesVegas identified the ] problem and put an NPOV tag on an GMO article and the tag was removed only 5 minutes later by Jytdog . The user attempted to put it back , and again Jytdog removed the appropriate NPOV tag only 2 minutes later , despite the fact that the user <i>did</i> discuss the NPOV problem on the talk pages () and had good reason to tag the article that continues to have ] problems. | |||
| :Shorly after Jytdog engaged me on my talk page and I explained my concerns about lack of NPOV, he wrote, "You appear to be charging full steam into things that you don't know much about. If you don't move more carefully, this is going to be much uglier than it needs to be..." . | |||
| :] (]) wrote about this ] behavior as well on my talk page here with . | |||
| :After Jytdog bared his teeth, I was still able to find some common ground and establish some rapport with him/her. However, I felt it necessary to explain the problem of intimidating new users, as gently as possible. I did so . The situation I explained is that user Alexlikescats explained the same lack of NPOV at 21:45, 29 March 2014 (another user:107.2.182.250 chimed in, in agreement ). Only 32 minutes after Alexlikescats said the article was biased, Jytdog accused Alexlikescats of having a single-purpose-acccount , which violates the rule of ], especially the section, "Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute ". That was the last thing the user did on Misplaced Pages. See Alexlikecats, . | |||
| :When I had confronted Jytdog with the problem of intimidating new users, Jytdog admits in the box (show more detail above), that s/he 'freaked' out and struck out ALL the correspondence between us and archived all discussion. I don't think that is a mature way to address the very relevant concern I had raised. | |||
| :Another example of Jytdog's similar treatment to a new user is | |||
| :This behavior of Jytdog's is what Viriditas describes as “poisoning the well”, scaring off new users who do not share Jytdog's POV. | |||
| :When I saw yet another new user (MaxwellBarr) who tried to make good faith edits to address NPOV in a GMO article getting hit by accusations by Jtydog , I did indeed tell Jytdog again I saw that as a problem , and , while urging the user not to give up on editing the page . Unfortunately, this user appears to have been scared off as well and has not made any further contributions to Misplaced Pages . Again this is a problem with ]. This last incident pushed Jytdog to bring me to this forum claiming this confrontation was "canvassing.". I am happy to accept advice from 3rd parties on what I should do if I see a problem like that. I continue to be concerned about Jytdog's behavior of treating new users like this and having ownership behaviors like reverting any new additions and refusing to take seriously new ideas, but I am not sure what I should do about it. Even though I have been on Misplaced Pages for quite a while, I don't really know much about resolving disputes in the forums. I generally just try to talk it out with the people involved. Until I tried to add sourced material to articles in the GMO suite, I had never encountered such vigorous and tendentious opposition. | |||
| :The incident Kingofaces43 describes was resolved and . I said on the talk page, that I intended to add material another user had suggested , for which neither had specifically objected except for a blanket rejection . The two working together reverted my inclusion without discussing on the talk page and without giving a valid reason of reverting (too old and "not true" ]] are not valid reasons for rejecting material IMHO), which to me seemed like edit waring and unnecessary obstruction on their behalf as part of a ] team to accomplish 3RRR. | |||
| :In summary, I think there are some real ] and ] behaviors on the GMO pages, and serious problems with ] that can not be addressed because of that. I have tried in good faith to address those problems and am looking towards 3rd party admin(s) who have no investment in the GMO articles to give some guidance on how I might address the problems. | |||
| :Instead of a block or warning for me, I think the deserving person for sanctions should be Jytdog for biting (]) new users who do not share his/her POV and thereby "poisoning the well." ] (]) 10:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: That's unlikely to happen, because the allegation of biting relies on the idea that anti-GMO views have parity of esteem with the mainstream view. The articles right now reflect ] as a result of many years of debate between people of all shades of opinion. I understand that some people are not familiar with a lot of this, and you perhaps you don't know about the practices of ] that historically plague contentious articles. Your best bet is to offer new users advice on policies and how to stay on the right side of them (though I have to say I'm not convinced you know, fomr a sample of your edits in this area). | |||
| :: We do know that people cast themselves as "consumer advocates" not anti-GMO. Antivaxers, climate deniers, creationists and many other activists opposing the scientific consensus, do the same, with some success, in that in recent years some segments of the media have fallen into the trap of believing that science and cranks are valid opposing views. Recent outbreaks of preventable disease have seen some changes here and it's becoming slightly less common to interview an antivaxer and put them up against a lone scientist representing the tens of millions who support the consensus view. The nature of a scientific consensus is that it encompasses all known facts and valid opinions about those facts. | |||
| :: Misplaced Pages notes that there is no good evidence to support most of the harms claimed by anti-GMO activists (a few of the economic ones are entirely valid but that is a different debate). I'm a fan of the precautionary principle, but I've had to accept this view of GMOs over time. They are actually in many ways safer and less environmentally damaging than non-GMO crops: less pesticide, less fertiliser, less preservative, less chance of toxic breakdown products in the produce. It doesn't help that much anti-GMO activism comes from scientifically illiterate "chemophobes" like the Food Babe, or from the organic movement, which is prone to all kinds of irrationality due in no small part to its Steiner "biodynamic" heritage. | |||
| :: This is not Misplaced Pages's problem, it's the anti-GMO movement's problem, they need to find better arguments. Obviously we also need to patiently explain the facts, but in general we already have, in talk page headers and the articles themselves. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Responses ==== | |||
| ::articles under discussion here. broadly stated, are: | |||
| ::{{la|Genetically modified food controversies}} | |||
| ::{{la|Genetically modified food}} | |||
| ::{{la|Genetically modified crops}} | |||
| ::{{la|Genetically modified organism}} | |||
| ::{{la|Glyphosate}} | |||
| ::{{la|Monsanto}} | |||
| ::{{la|Organic food}} | |||
| ::{{la|Organic farming}} | |||
| ::OP of this subthread, making a complaint, is {{userlinks|David Tornheim}} | |||
| ::I am the one against whom David is complaining: {{userlinks|Jytdog}} | |||
| ::The complaint is: violations of ] and ] | |||
| ::*some of what David writes above is about content; this is not the place to discuss content disputes so I will not respond here. | |||
| ::* With regard to claims that I ] the subject matter... | |||
| :::It it true that I watch them (I watch ~2500 articles) and in all my editing, I am keen that content be sourced from reliable, secondary sources per VERIFY, OR, RS, and MEDRS, and that content be NPOV. The GMO suite is no different. | |||
| :::And it is true that I am the biggest (or one of the biggest) contributor to most of these, and that they dominate my editing, if you analyze my edits by article. . i am aware of this. | |||
| ::: but I don't believe I do the behaviors described in OWN, ]. i ask myself the questions in ] all the time. But some things come close to the OWN behaviors, like | |||
| :::: *the "qualifications" thing (the subject matter is technical - science and law etc.) If an editor is calm enough to actually listen, those things generally can get worked through, as they have with David twice now when he slowed down enough to actually listen - you can see that in the two examples I linked to in my complaint (] and ]. | |||
| :::: *The "comments on other editor's pages" thing comes close too. I think I have generally stayed within both the spirit and the letter of this place in talking with other editors and especially new editors, but I could see how someone could have an issue with some of what I do there. I acknowledged that to David already and am thinking about this going forward. | |||
| ::* to state the obvious, GMOs are a subject matter where people come to the article with ''very strong emotions and views'' and make changes that violate NPOV, OR, RS, etc. We get lots of "driveby" edits adding bad content (violates NPOV, OR, etc) in the articles because of that. The new editor Maxwell discussed above is ''very typical'' - editors come, want to add some UNDUE matter, and never talk back. it is '''not my fault''' if people do not understand WP and do not talk back. ] does ''not'' say that "anything new editor adds is OK." It just doesn't say that. | |||
| ::* That said, I try ''very hard'' to engage in civil, PAG-based discussions with editors who are willing to talk on these pages and have received several barnstars, '''specifically''' for my efforts working with people on controversial subjects, (and this is just some of the feedback along these lines): | |||
| :::] from {{u|7%266%3Dthirteen}} | |||
| ::: from {{u|Yobol}} | |||
| ::: from {{u|Brangifer}} | |||
| ::: from {{u| DocumentError}} | |||
| ::: from {{u| IRWolfie-}} | |||
| ::: from {{u| Epipelagic}} | |||
| ::: from {{u|SandyGeorgia}} | |||
| ::With regard to "engaging with new ideas" I am very happy to hear new ideas and see them implemented, or implement them myself. On the GMO suite, most people who come by are not bringing up anything new. Maxwell's edit, for example, was about the ], which was worked on vigorously as it is unfolded and is now integrated into the suite and has its own article. I'm always happy to discuss re-arranging things and have offered to discuss with David, which he has taken up. | |||
| :: I am really proud that ~in general~ these articles have stayed off the drama pages, and we have not gone to Arbcom. (although there was a really bad period back in August 2013 when it got to so ugly (especially with unfounded claims of COI on my part that I took myself to COIN (none of my accusers had the sense or graciousness to even bring a case in the proper forum) and I revealed my RL identity to an oversighter - results of that are .... and that it looked like this might go to Arbcom. We avoided that. | |||
| :: I have interacted with lots of folks over the past three years on these articles. I've attracted some haters. For the most part these are folks really committed to an anti-GMO POV. I will ping some of them here, to be sure they are aware of this. {{u|Viriditas}}, {{u|Petrarchan47}}, {{u|Canoe1967}}, {{u|El duderino}}, {{u|The Banner}}, I would say are key people who have said I am a bad presence here and might like to comment. There are other editors whom I know have strong concerns with my GMO editing, for example {{u|Gandydancer}} and {{u|Groupuscule}}, but have generally not personalized it (especially not groupuscule who is always a paragon of elegance and civility). There are other editors who have generally had different perspectives from me and have really engaged in Talk discussions over the years, like {{u|Semitransgenic}}. {{u|IjonTichyIjonTichy}} and {{u|Dialectric}} have shown up more recently. | |||
| ::{{u|Lfstevens}} is fairly new to the topics and recently went over the GM Controversies with a very fine-toothed comb (thanks again for that) and may have input on this. {{u|Guettarda}} also recently came by. | |||
| ::Then there are those who have really collaborated on building the articles - {{u|Sunrise}} (not so active on them anymore), {{u|Aircorn}} (not so active on them anymore), {{u|SylviaStanley}} too, and Kingofaces, who has already weighed in above. (the article analysis tool is broken or i would list more) | |||
| :: {{u|Tryptofish}} (away on personal matters) has been invaluable in mediating some of the conversations. I wish he were around as his feedback is wise. | |||
| ::What I am trying to say, is we have managed to keep the conversations civil enough, and focused enough on PAG based discussion of content and sources, that we have been able to resolve issues on the Talk pages or through RfC. David - a newbie, community activist - is breaking that. Making personal attacks of COI etc all over WP, trying to whip up opposition, instead of simply dealing with the content and sources in the article. | |||
| :: I am glad David finally brought this here, however. This '''is''', finally, the proper forum for raising his concerns, especially since RfC/U is now dead. . As you can see, I am taking the initiative to open this up wide. Let's get this dealt with. | |||
| :: finally, i ask myself the questions in ] all the time. I am human and fuck up sometimes. When I do, I acknowledge the mistake, apologize for it, fix it, and move on. If there is consensus that I am acting badly on this more meta-level, I look forward to hearing that. I do expect some '''strong''' accusations that I am acting badly. I do not expect that to be the consensus, but am opening this up, since we are all trapped in our own limited perspectives on the world; feedback is good. Thanks. ] (]) 12:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} I was pinged to this discussion. Which is such a mess I can't tell who is saying what about whom. <p>As a tangent/rant, I don't know why we did away with RFC/U, and instead get these long rambling incoherent threads on ANI, where everyone with an ax to grind piles on with little regard for subsequent readers or relative actionable evidence requiring admin intervention. There are frequent references in here to a "David"; for readers who don't know this "David", how about using usernames? <p> One thing that stands out to me in this discussion (because I've seen it now twice in just a few days, reference the recent thread about {{u|Formerly 98}}) are these two statements:<blockquote>This behavior of Jytdog's is what Viriditas describes as “poisoning the well”, scaring off new users who do not share Jytdog's POV.</blockquote> and <blockquote>] (]) wrote about this ] behavior as well on my talk page here with .</blockquote> Both Viriditas and Petrarchan47 are mentioned several times in this discussion, which is not surprising considering that both of them have long been grinding an ax with medical content (ref threads about a year ago on marijuana, and recent threads about {{u|Formerly 98}}-- they both seem to show up whenever controversial medical content is involved). That Viriditas wrote negatively about a medical editor on someone's talk page is not evidence of anything, except, well ... that Viriditas frequently does that. In spite of a long-standing ax-grinding with me, Viriditas nonetheless posts to my talk page when he wants to go after another editor.<p> Is any admin action required? I don't know, because I haven't read through yet another long incoherent discussion here that would have been better served at RFC. <p>I do know that something should be done about Viriditas and Petrarchan47, though. ] (]) 13:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|SandyGeorgia}}, I asked for a short block and warning for David Tornheim way above, which is still an open matter. He responded by making a complaint about me, which is in this subsection. I expected this, and made my original request in part to provoke this, to get David to finally raise his concerns in the right place. I do want the short block and warning, however and think it is warranted - my posting was not POINTy. ] (]) 13:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks for the subsequent clarification. But more generally, I just do not understand how ANI is supposed to result in anything productive in the absence of RFC/U. Multiple RFC/Us are long overdue on several editors, and yet, we no longer have such a forum. I agree with you that ANI is ''now'' the only place to raise issues, but don't think engaging here is likely to be productive. It will result in useless section headings and drahmaz like the section just below this, though. ] (]) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I see the offensive section heading has now been removed-- thanks to whomever. ] (]) 12:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ;SandyGeorgia's concerns | |||
| SandyGeorgia, I have no idea what you are talking about. With that said, I would like to clear up some of your glaring misconceptions: | |||
| *Petrarchan47 retired a year ago from Misplaced Pages. My understanding is that she recently dropped in and made several comments and then went back into retirement. I fail to see what she has to do with any of this. | |||
| *David Tornheim recently left me a message on my talk page, and I responded to him on his talk page in regards to his dispute with Jytdog. I also commented about Jytdog's treatment of David Tornheim on Jytdog's talk page. However, '''I have not edited in the GMO topic area since 2013 and I would ask that you stop trying to bring me back into it.''' | |||
| *As for your extremely bizarre claim that I am involved in some kind of "long-standing ax-grinding" with you, I'm afraid you flatter yourself as I have no idea what you mean. You appear to harbor deep grudges and then project them on to other editors. | |||
| *Your claim that I post to your talk page when I want to go after other editors is simply absurd. Your diff shows that I was offering you support in a conflict with another editor that I had the same experience with, as I felt I could offer a corroborating opinion. It shows nothing about going after anyone, and I've never pursued the matter. | |||
| Now, please stop drawing me into your petty squabbles and role-playing fantasies. I have not edited in this topic area since 2013 and I have no desire to be pulled back into it. ] (]) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for weighing in, in any case, V. I won't ping you since you don't want to be involved. ] (]) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The point is, I'm not involved. And yet, SandyGeorgia has created this fantasy world where I'm somehow the evil ringleader lurking in the shadows. This is bizarre behavior. ] (]) 14:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::and you are the 2nd person who is unhappy with David for having tried to drag them back into this. I am sorry for that. I've seen some of the work you've been doing since you stopped being involved, via watching Trypto's Talk page. happy editing to you. ] (]) 14:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I admit, I've criticized David Tornheim's methods on his talk page. I think he needs to take a rest from the GMO battlefield for a bit and focus on improving ''one'' article. He's scattered all over the place and that makes it seem like he's less interested in improving an article than in fighting the good fight. On the other hand, he's had a lot of trouble editing in this area because of the guardians. It might go a long way, Jytdog, if you could offer to work with him on a single article in a collaborative manner. ] (]) 14:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've dealt straight and clean with any objections or ideas he has had, on specific content or sourcing, and will keep doing so. There is no way to respond to Big Global Statements, as you pointed out. thanks. ] (]) 14:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Jytdog and KingofAces43 both revert too much in my opinion and Jytdog has done so to some of my edits. The intense emotions that accompany the GMO controversy pushes everybody involved to their limits. That said, when I identified RS material that suggested a problem with glyphosate, Jytdog added it to the article unbidden. I'd just like everybody to spend less time on this controversy and more time on the articles. ] (]) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::thanks for that feedback. ] (]) 03:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * My name was included in the above sections, so I guess I ought to respond. In my opinion, the GMO articles were a mess before Jytdog reworked them. Often they were eye-wateringly one sided, the same information was repeated in several places, poor English, poor references, information out of date, and so on. Jytdog has made a marvelous job of re-writing them in a neutral factual tone in Misplaced Pages style in spite of massive attacks on him. He has reverted several of my own insertions but I can always see the logic behind what he has done. I congratulate him on the vast amount of excellent work he has done.] (]) 14:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC | |||
| * Regarding a block: '''Oppose''' (will not solve the issue); regarding a warning: '''support'''; regarding a topic ban from GMO and organic subjects: '''support'''. I have first hand experience with the rather bullying way Jytdog applies to get things his way with the effect that the neutrality and reliability of articles is impaired. That, and his behaviour, needs to be stopped. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) <small>Moved from section above, wrong person</small> | |||
| * '''Oppose''' Block/Ban Having read through the supposed "bullying behaviour" of new editor MaxwellBarr, I find it not to be any sort of bullying at all. The editor (MaxwellBarr) first puts in a spam link to gopro.com that is bot deleted. Then the editor immediately puts in a bunch of material that is unref'd. Jytdog reverts but fully explains his (proper) reasoning. Then the editor inserts a random citation at the bottom of the article, and Jytog civilly removes and explains. That is how this is supposed to work. ] (]) 21:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * I am preparing further response.] (]) 12:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC). (It is now posted below. ] (]) 22:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| ::If you do I suggest you keep it brief. We have both already left ] here, which is probably why we are getting so few responses. ] (]) 13:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jytdog, I appreciate your desire for brevity and to avoid worsening the ]. I wish you had considered that <i>before</i> creating the problem by posting a wall of text. I am glad you said something here, because it is indicative of your attitude in the general case: Your contributions are held to be more valuable than other people's contributions. The rules do not apply to you as much as they apply to other contributors.] (]) 21:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': Based on my own experiences, I feel obligated to acknowledge that Jytdog does demonstrate behavioral issues that require an admins attention as other editors have noted above. I included a few diffs which will help confirm the bullying behavior mentioned above: | |||
| * <---Bullying? | |||
| * <---passive aggressive bullying of a newbie with mention of ARBCOM because they disagreed? | |||
| :Despite Jytdog's good intentions, he has a rather skewed interpretation of ] and ] guidelines in that he believes those guidelines supersede policy. I imagine there are quite a few editors who have been targeted under the pretense of ] and ], and would gladly provide more diffs to demonstrate same, but I see no reason to include them all here. It also appears we've been getting a ] as it relates to the ongoing abuse of WP:MEDRS by the same select few. | |||
| * <---reverted ''(Undid revision 650497838 by 2602:306:836F:A3E0:A17D:786E:1D03:BE85 (talk) revert content based on WP:PRIMARY source per WP:MEDRS)'' Excuse me, but the passage he reverted was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and according to ], {{xt|Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or '''systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals'''.....}} . How is that revert not an abuse of the guideline to control article content? | |||
| * <--- reverted (Undid revision 646440329 by AmiLynch (talk) revert addition of content based on WP:PRIMARY source that violates WP:MEDRS) Same song second verse. The excuse that the passage ''violates a guideline'' is not cause for a revert. How does one ''violate'' a guideline anyway? Furthermore, the passage came from the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine 26 (2014) Again, it appears as though he is controlling article content per ] which actually is a violation of '''policy'''. | |||
| :Granted, there are vandals and CAM spammers who need curtailment, but some of Jytdog's targets have been GF editors, including newbies who actually added passages citing RS in adherence to ]. In most cases, all it requires to become a card carrying bullseye of the ''quack-watch cabal'' is to express a little opposition or criticism of certain interpretations of mainstream views regarding ], ] and/or related categories. It reminds me of the trials and tribulations of ] and his sheriff's posse, only now we're subjected to a 21st century ] which actually determines what information will or won't be allowed in articles regardless of PAG. Hello ] and ] - is anybody home? I don't doubt that the majority of editors on both sides of the isle have good intentions - most are highly intelligent experts in their respective fields - unfortunately (and representative of what happens when power corrupts), innocent editors inadvertently fall victim to the demands of the cabal, and open collaboration is replaced by censorship in a "]" environment. Quite frankly, few editors survive such an onslaught. The result is an encyclopedia that reflects a one-sided view via censored topics. | |||
| :In the interim, Jytdog says whatever he wants to say, apologizes to those he has offended whenever he gets around to it, strikes what he says, hats and archives it, resumes bullying and his normal pattern of tendentious editing, attempts to baffle admins hoping they will swallow his BS diffs and misinterpretations of MEDRS because they're inundated with work and are less inclined to analyze the material presented. | |||
| :I can't help but believe it's part of his baffling exercise which usually precedes the dazzling. For example, it may be difficult for some admins to see his strikes as a tactical measure. If there were only a few, I might be inclined to believe he was being sincere, but are the strikes a true representation of regret for the right reasons? Admins will only see the one or two diffs he might provide in his own defense with a statement something like, ''I thought about what I said, realized it was wrong so I struck through it.'' The admins and/or reviewers may think, "Ok - he acted in GF by striking through that comment." Are you sure about that? I think it requires a little more research to see just how many strikes are involved in his repertoire. I find it hard to believe such behavior is a common practice among GF editors. Perhaps I'm wrong in my evaluation. If I am, I will gladly strike through my comments and archive them. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 21:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*These observations are in alignment with my own, and with several others. For example, in the midst of a year-long, intense debate at ], Jytdog joined the discussion and essentially tried to take over the process. and he apologized, exactly as Atsme describes above, and then left the page. In the comments on the page I've linked, ] said this about Jytdog's approach: ''I notice that you tend to characterize editors who disagree with what you're doing here as people who are "arguing" with you, in contrast to the nice people who are producing a "positive vision."'' and ''some of the editing has bordered on the tendentious and violative of WP:OWN, especially the hairtrigger reverts that I've seen. But the solution is not for one editor to appoint himself as impartial editor, "negotiating" an "apportionment" agenda''. | |||
| ::I do agree that his tactics deserve an impartial look from *uninvolved* admins. It is my opinion and personal experience that Jytdog come across as a bully/dictator and may be inadvertently working against WP's goal of retaining editors. I had an experience similar to David's in that I was editing here for a few years and hadn't seen the inside of a noticeboard aimed at me until I had the misfortune of editing a GMO-related article. This is a tactic Jytdog and his buddies use unabashedly. It serves to scare off editors who question the neutrality of his work, if nothing else, and the articles go ignored and remain unchanged. (It is not a done deal that the GMO articles are perfectly NPOV, and the claim is ridiculous on its face.) Even when no action from an ANI is warranted, the editor's reputation has been sullied - with David in this instance being lumped in, sans evidence, with the "anti-vaccers" (read: crazy and not to be trusted). '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 01:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{reply to |Atsme}} And excuse me, but the most damning evidence you can find is Jytdog reverting the addition of ''primary studies''? We don't use the thousands of primary studies published daily peer-reviewed journals; we use the secondary sources, and you already noted that according to ], {{tq|Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals}}. If you don't understand that publishing a single trial in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make it a literature review or a systematic review, you shouldn't be criticising the actions of editors who do. Jytdog was absolutely right to remove , , and because they are case studies - primary studies and not of value for making medical claims on Misplaced Pages. The only {{tq|"BS diffs and misinterpretations of MEDRS"}} are yours above. --] (]) 02:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{reply to|RexxS}} no, it wasn't the most damning, there are way more, but those two were enough to demonstrate behavioral issues. FYI - the 1st revert sourced a published article that was cited in 2 different reviews - 1 systematic review - Migraine in Adults: Preventive Pharmacologic Treatments and 1 PubMed Central article Italian guidelines for primary headaches . The 2nd revert sourced an article that mined data from 120 reports and summarized the findings in a report published in ''The International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine'', a book published by IOS Press, which would fall under {{xt|A secondary source in medicine '''summarizes one or more primary''' or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, '''or to combine the results of several studies.'''}} <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 06:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: That's complete and utter nonsense. Two of the three sources are clearly '''primary''' and the other is dubious. If you even bothered to look at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19667978 you'd see "Publication Types: Comparative Study, Randomized Controlled Trial". '''Studies and RCTs are primary sources'''. http://iospress.metapress.com/content/1021h330k91qv844/?genre=article&issn=0924-6479&volume=26&issue=2&spage=109 is a '''report by the authors based on a website they set up''' to collect self-reported data. It's neither a systematic nor literature review - PubMed doesn't even classify it - see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24902508. If you read the third source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18173768 it says "Publication Types: Case Reports". '''Case reports are primary sources'''. Jytdog was absolutely right to remove them. If you think these are the sort of sources that should be in our medical articles, you need to be banned from ever touching a medical article article again. Competence is required. --] (]) 08:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{od|:::}}Utter nonsense is believing dubious justifies a revert, or that the suggested guidelines in MEDRS must be followed explicitly, or that they should be treated the same way we treat BLP violations. Let's not forget that today's mainstream science was yesterday's fringe. ] reads: {{xt|It is a generally accepted standard that editors '''should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.'''}} It further explains: {{xt|The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge.}} You don't revert just because it doesn't follow MEDRS. Who came up with such a nonsense idea? The most important aspect of editing is having the '''freedom to do so in an open editing environment'''. Bottomline, the passages Jytdog reverted in the examples I provided above were not themselves considered policy violations as was Jytdog's ] behavior. DS, blocks and topic bans are not initiated because an editor wants to add information to improve an article and didn't cite a particular source Jytdog determines to be a RS. If other editors question a source, we have a ''citation needed template'' for just that purpose, and I'm pretty sure Jytdog knows how to use it. If I may recommend the following passage in the quote box at ]: {{xt|...This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. '''Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries."'''}} I find the latter to be valuable information to keep in mind before your next revert. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 21:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: So you've shifted your stance again. This time it's "give us the freedom to stuff articles with today's latest fad as illustrated by this single case study". Well, no. Here's what the opening line of ] states: {{tq|"Misplaced Pages's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, '''it is vital''' that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."}} (my emphasis) That has to be the first and foremost consideration for including content in any article that has medical claims. MEDRS has the consensus of the community and it spells out that it is '''vital''' to base our articles on secondary sources. Not "optional", not "preferable", but "vital". So of course the proper action is to remove dubious claims sourced to primary sources. And yet you want to pillory Jytdog for simply insisting that we only use the best quality sources for medical claims. I've seen far too many SPAs trying to undermine MEDRS to sit back and watch you try to do the same as them. MEDRS is the bulwark that prevents every pharma shill from stuffing our articles with "subtle" advertising; or every "true believer" from promoting their peculiar view of medicine - all based on readily available primary sources. Bottomline is that the edits that Jytdog reverted were clear breaches of MEDRS and he not only had every right to revert them, but a duty to Misplaced Pages to do so. --] (]) 23:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * <b>Reply</b> by David Tornheim: | |||
| :I am glad that Jytdog is reflecting on his/her behavior that I raised about new users, when he said above: | |||
| ::"comments on other editor's pages"... I could see how someone could have an issue with some of what I do there. I acknowledged that to David already and am thinking about this going forward.” () | |||
| :I do feel ] by Jtydog and this feeling continues from these allegations and the vigor which he continues to fill my talk pages even during this ANI ( and )—he has put more than twice as many edits to my talk page as I have. () | |||
| :How can I be stalking him/her, when s/he keeps showing up on my talk page with endless allegations like those lodged here? This is not about me: Jytdog appears to do this to anyone who tries to edit the GMO suite of articles in ways that he does not approve of, in particular new users who can be scared away. The only reason we are here (in ANI) is because I have been editing on Misplaced Pages for a while, and cannot be accused of ], and have not been intimidated in letting Jytdog ] the articles. | |||
| :I disagree that a determination of whether ] has occurred is dependent on the outcome of a content dispute. New users should be welcome even if other users think correctly or incorrectly that the new user's POV is ]. Please note that a consensus can change, but organic consensus can be stifled by ] people who do not agree with a consensus achieved at one point in history. Also, a consensus can be achieved that does not adhere to other Misplaced Pages policies: For example, it may be based on inaccurate information, use of unreliable sources, original research or insufficient use of all reliable sources, ], etc. | |||
| :It has been stated that that some GMO articles are “mature” articles. However articles on Misplaced Pages are never “done” (] and ]). I am not aware of any policy that says a “mature” article requires a higher threshold for changes or improvement than a brand new article, and Misplaced Pages policies make it quite clear that users should be ] and correct articles that have problems (]). That an article has a long history is not a reason to avoid correcting errors and problems with it (]). ] includes “adding other points of views to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced." | |||
| :To <b>]</b> <small>(])</small>: you said, “Your best bet is to offer new users advice on policies and how to stay on the right side of them (though I have to say I'm not convinced you know, fomr a sample of your edits in this area).” | |||
| :Jytdog has accused me of canvassing by talking to new or existing users anywhere but the article talk page (although sometimes my attempts to do that are censored by Jytdog and/or KingofAces ). Jytdog has said I am stalking him/her if I interact with a new user after Jytdog scolded them and I have tried to encourage them not to feel intimidated. | |||
| :What do you propose I do if I were to see this behavior of ] from Jytdog or any other user? I noted this ] behavior in Jytdog and all attempts on my part to address it only made things worse. I am very open to any suggestions about the proper way to address it in a way that would not cause the reaction I witnessed from Jytdog, which is to accuse me of canvassing and stalking. | |||
| :I think the behavioral problems here are likely to go away if Jytdog learns that his ] , ], and POV pushing behaviors are in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. I think he is a good editor who sometimes forgets that we are all here to make an encyclopedia, not to be the 'guardians of Truth” ] | |||
| :-] (]) 22:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal to close=== | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer per the excellent comments by Lfstevens above. This thread no longer serves any purpose. There are problems with David Tornheim's edits in as much as there are issues with Jytdog's behavior. Dispute resolution is the best way to handle this, as ANI is ''not'' setup to deal with this current issue. Use the RFC process to resolve content disputes on the talk page. ] (]) 01:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. There is a distinct imbalance between the evidence of problems with David Tornheim's edits and the evidence of Jytdog's behaviour. In fact the evidence adduced by diffs of Jytdog's behaviour was a completely unfounded misrepresentation of ] as I've shown above. You can't simply brush away the clearly documented problems with David Tornheim's edits by calling them equal to Jytdog's policy-compliant actions (that Atsme tarnished through Atsme's lack of understanding of the difference between primary and secondary sources). --] (]) 02:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::You might want to read my response to you above regarding primary and secondary sources, and what '''guidelines''' are applicable to the actual passages that were reverted. Sometimes verifiable requires more than a click and a revert. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I've read it and it's clear you have no clue what a primary source is. If you can't tell the difference between case studies or RCTs and secondary sources, you have no business criticising someone like Jytdog who can. Your intervention here is spurious at best. --] (]) 08:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Read it again. You are confusing a suggested guideline with adherence to policy. Bullying people into using RS you and a few others consider acceptable is not acceptable, and neither is reverting another editor's contribution simply because you don't like the source. I think it contributes to the reason we are here now. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: You read it again. There's nothing "suggested" about ]. They enjoy the consensus of the community and you'd better have a damn good reason to claim your edit gets to be an exception to them. What was so extraordinary about the edits that Jytdog reverted that they shouldn't be subject to MEDRS? It's the community that agreed MEDRS, so it's you and your tiny band who find MEDRS inconvenient who are pushing the limits to see what they can get away with. It's not my judgement of what's acceptable; it's the judgement of the community. It's not a dislike of a source; it's a dislike of POV-pushers who try to make medical claims based on feeble evidence. If you make a habit of pushing dubious medical claims based on primary sources - assuming you can figure out what they are - I predict you'll be back here soon enough. --] (]) 00:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::On the contrary, guidelines are guidelines, and they are suggested best practices. No matter how good the intentions of MEDRS are, it's a guideline that can be abused to promote biased views. The same is true of the FRINGE guideline. Neither of these things are policies nor should they be treated as such. What tends to happen is that editors like yourself yell "MEDRS!" and/or "FRINGE!" when there is the slightest bit of criticism against a medical view or perspective that has substantial opposition and or alternative views. Often times we find that these so called "establishment" medical views are corporate-funded and distorted, such as AAAS uncovering the manipulation of NIH health guidelines by the sugar industry from 1959-1971. Sorry, but medical content is not immune from corporate bias, and both MEDRS and FRINGE are abused to perpetuate this bias, which is why we rely on the NPOV policy above and beyond any project-promoted guideline. It is of note that GMO critics have made the same claims about corporate bias in the "established" GMO literature. MEDRS and FRINGE are frequently cited to prevent other perspectives from being presented. '']'' covers the specifics of how this works in the real world. This is why, at the end of the day, this is a content dispute, with some editors trying to falsely elevate guidelines in order to bypass the NPOV policy and filter out critical viewpoints outside the consensus established by Big Pharma. ] (]) 03:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: There's nothing contrary about it: guidelines are indeed documented best practice, as agreed by the community. There's nothing "suggested" about guidelines; they are not optional to be disregarded at will as you seem to think. Don't bother deflecting by going off on tangents, just concentrate on your campaign against MEDRS and your attempt to criticise an editor who followed "best practice" by removing claims that cited only primary sources. Let's be clear: do you support the notion of using primary sources to insert medical claims into Misplaced Pages? Yes or no? Then we can see what your agenda is here. --] (]) 02:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{od}}I will not belabor the point that guidelines are not policies because the tone of your responses is somewhat elevated, so I will end my participation in this sideline discussion by suggesting that you review ] wherein it clearly states: {{xt|The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see: Misplaced Pages:No original research).}} I try to adhere to '''policy''' and use guidelines for...well, guidelines. You might also want to read: ] and ]. To keep reverting and/or deleting the edits of others simply because you think the passage isn't properly sourced according to a specific guideline could very well be considered disruptive. Not following a guideline isn't the same as violating policy, the latter of which is subject to enforcement. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 00:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' to close and move to more appropriate venues such as dispute resolution, per Viriditas. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 02:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** This is ]. Look at the page -> the box on the right -> third heading: "Conduct disputes" -> first entry: "Administrator assistance (Request)". That's here. The only other venue for conduct disputes is RfArb. Is that what you want? Are you going to file the case? If not, perhaps it's better to let the community come to a conclusion here, even if it takes a few days. --] (]) 02:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***Stop the badgering, RexxS. You know very well that DR in this context refers to "civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages" ''about content''. ANI is not the place for that. ] (]) 02:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***** Don't accuse me of badgering when that's exactly what you're doing. ANI is one of the only two venues left for DR of conduct issues and you're simply trying to close down a discussion that's not going the way you like. This isn't a ''content'' issue, it's a '''conduct issue''' and it's disingenuous to pretend it's not. --] (]) 08:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ******It's a content dispute about GMO. You are badgering people who disagree and I and others see no purpose or reasonable outcome to this discussion, which is why I've proposed closing it. I have ''zero'' involvement in the GMO debate. The extent of my involvement is from ''two years ago'', when I covered the protests that took place where I live and when I wrote about the larger movement from a journalistic perspective. Get a grip. ] (]) 09:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ******* It's a conduct dispute about David Tornheim's behaviour, although I can see you'd like to pretend it's something else. Here's a clue: the title is "Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO". Canvassing, hounding and allegations of bad faith are '''not''' content issues. So you can stop your badgering and attempts at deflection. If you want to talk about content, clear off to the article talk page and let those who understand the difference get on with discussing the behavioural matters. --] (]) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: guys, fwiw, you have each made your points and are unlikely to convince each other. Whoever closes will take your arguments into account. thanks. ] (]) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' in agreement with DR. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Support; overdue. It is ''not'' the function of ANI to sort out which of several problematic editors is more problematic than the other. I encourage all parties discussed here to reflect upon their ''own'' behavior and take steps to address the concerns raised, and worry less about the shortcomings of others. See ]. <small>]</small> 11:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * I would be fine with a close if folks feel that there has been enough discussion. However I '''disagree''' that this is a content dispute. I do not raise ANIs spuriously; I think David's canvassing and NPA '''behavior''' is at least warn-able. I came here looking for that; continued accusations of COI are DISRUPTIVE and I feel I am being stalked. David is doing these policy-violating behaviors because he believes I am corrupt (which is out of bounds) and that I have problems with ] and he doesn't know how to address problems in WP, and instead seems to be resorting to the kind of community activism tactics that he uses in the RW (per his user page). His attempts to raise BOOMERANG issues is normal, and I expected it and indeed hoped for it, so that whatever might be legit in David's concerns could be addressed in the appropriate forum, '''which is indeed this forum.''' There is no other place where it could be addressed. I am interested to get community feedback on OWN ( maybe the community will judge that I have issues with that - just because David doesn't understand WP doesn't mean he might not have a point, and we can all be blind to our own faults. I do think my behavior is OK. but I could be wrong. I expect random haters to pop up here and add garbage to the thread). I would appreciate if folks focus on the issues actually being raised and examples provided, as hard as that is with the TLDR posts, off-topic stuff, and our busy lives. Thanks. ] (]) 13:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::You can pretty much consider that David has received a warning here. But in all of the above, do you know if anyone pointed out the proper channel's where David might get assistance, instead of canvassing? Like adopt-a-user, the teahouse, and what ever? If not we could gather up a few links to what ever and give them to them.] (]) 15:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks {{u|Serialjoepsycho}} I explained to David how concerns about COI are handled at the bottom of (in response to David's question about how COI is handled in WP). Dialectric gave more advice about dispute resolution and . The canvassing warning I gave David points to ] and that article explicitly tells you how to bring up concerns in various forums as well. One can lead a horse to water... I don't see that anybody pointed David specifically to Teahouse or adopt-a-user.] (]) 16:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think its ] and ]if he's not.] (]) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::fwiw, {{u|Serialjoepsycho}}... responding to what you wrote above ("You can pretty much consider that David has received a warning here"). David pretty much views my posting here as "bullying" - so while ''i'' might take what has been said here as a warning for David, what I would like, is that ''David'' take at least a warning from this - a warning from the community, not from me. The closer will judge if that is warranted or not, of course. ] (]) 18:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No doubt. I agree with alot of the positions you have highlighted. I only mention the above so that if he does canvass again this can be pointed to. Also so that he can be informed about these places where he can seek help, whether or not he's banned.] (]) 19:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support close''' with part of the resolution being that David seek help through either ], ], or ], or some similar venue regarding matters of policies and guidelines. ] (]) 17:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support close.''' This has gone on enough and is looking to just be a drama-fest for those with a chip on their shoulder. A formal warning at the close for David could still be helpful if it doesn't seem like the point is getting across that his behavior was problematic (not sure where he's sitting currently). It's hard to deal with folks pushing ] ideas into articles, and they often don't react kindly when they come in strongly with their own point of view to get it rejected. There are always going to be people that get ticked off about that in science topics especially, and I don't think there's much we can do about that unfortunately. Doesn't seem like there's anything more to do here. ] (]) 21:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * This is really confusing. Yesterday, I saw this was closed. I mistakenly read that to mean it was like a court case, that it was closed, over, final, done, resolved, a decision was made, etc., and I (and others) could continue other more productive work without having to monitor it. I mistakenly also believed that if a new case or issue was to arise, I would get notice and new arguments would begin there. I am really glad I looked again, or I wouldn't have known that the resolution had unraveled and that a whole new set of voices have appeared shifting the balance yet again with old voices taking new positions vying for a resolution more to their liking hoping the new voices would side with them and those who disagreed might lose interest. To be honest, it seems pretty chaotic. I like the legal system a lot more where you have a <s>non-partisan</s> neutral judge who is an expert in the law and is supposed to give decision based on the law, work on specific time constraints and limits on the amount of material submitted and the relevance of that material rather than this chaotic free for all <s>that is very partisan</s> that seems to keep going on as long as anyone doesn't like the result... That said, I guess I need to respond yet again...] (]) 07:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) (<i>struck word "partisan" per and my response . My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.] (]) 23:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)</i>) | |||
| * As you can tell above, I am frustrated this was re-opened. However, there may be some value to that. I have done some more research and learned some more things. I carefully read the ], and see that I misunderstood it and that ] (]) interpretation is more correct than mine, that it is indeed okay to revert <i>without</i> going to the talk page. I did go to ], ] and ] and utilized all three as recommended above. <s>As I said above, partisanship seems to be compromising the resolution process. It seems Jytdog and his supporters want me punished/warned and Jytdog to not be punished/warned, and my supporters want Jytdog punished/warned and me to be off the hook.</s> (<i>struck word "partisan" per and my response . My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.] (]) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)</i>) From looking at what Jytdog wrote , it looks to me like both Jytdog and I will be willing to admit responsibility for the problems between us if the other does the same. I will be willing to go there if: either: | |||
| ::(1) neither of us is punished | |||
| ::(2) or both of us is punished/sanctioned/warned equally. | |||
| :It would be grossly unfair if one was sanctioned and the other not sanctioned. <s>That will only infuriate the side that loses and cause more drama down the road. I am hoping there is a way so that we can all be on the same "side". This does not need to be a "war" or a "battlefield".</s> (<i>struck word "partisan" and suggestion of "sides" per and my response . My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.] (]) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)</i>) | |||
| :SO INSTEAD I PROPOSE THIS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES HERE: | |||
| ::<s>(1) Everyone who has been partisan stops adding material and arguing with each other, including my supporters (<<<THANK YOU!)and Jytdog's supporters: | |||
| :::] (]) | |||
| :::] (]) | |||
| :::<b>]</b> <small>(])</small> | |||
| :::<span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> | |||
| :::<s>] (]) | |||
| :::] (]) | |||
| :::] (]) | |||
| :::] (]) | |||
| :::<font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] | |||
| :::'''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' | |||
| :::] (]) | |||
| :::] (]) | |||
| :::] (])</s> (<i>struck word "partisan" per and my response . My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.] (]) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)</i>) | |||
| ::(2) No new users come into the discussion except by mutual agreement of ] (]) and me. | |||
| ::(3) Other than ] (]) and me, only those who have shown a strong middle ground (i.e. noting problems of both parties) stay: | |||
| :::] (]), ], <small>]</small>. In fact, I would be okay with just a discussion between ] (]), <small>]</small> and me | |||
| ::(4) The goal of further discussion per <small>]</small> "is not...to sort out which of several problematic editors is more problematic than the other." Indeed. That will not accomplish anything. However, I also think that to "reflect" on behavior will not make the problems go away. | |||
| ::(5) Instead, the goal of continued discussion here will be to IMPROVE COMMUNICATION between ] (]) and me, using a NEUTRAL 3rd PARTY. I propose <small>]</small> for that. | |||
| :Jytdog: What do you think? With the help of neutral third party (<small>]</small>) and possibly also Lfstevens, A1candidate, I think I could answer the question you asked me . | |||
| :] (]) 10:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Haha. -] (]) 11:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::David, there are many things wrong or just odd about what your write above. Generally, you just don't understand how this place works, and you haven't listened to the advice that people have given to you. I won't address everything, but I really object to your (again, and wrongly again) guessing about my motivations and what I will do; you speak only for yourself when you write "That {namely one of us being sanctioned and the other not} will infuriate the side that loses and cause more drama down the road." And there is no competition here; nothing here is about "winning" or "losing" and I am sorry you view it that way. I have brought up issues with your behavior; the community will decide if those are real issues or not, and if so what to do about them. Your behavior is yours, not mine. The same thing is true the other way around. All that said, if you want to talk with me through some third party - if that would help you somehow - I would be open to that, as weird as that is. I recommend that you do not try to work with A1 on that, as A1 and I are often on different sides of disputes over alt med health content. But this is not a content dispute where mediation would be helpful. The two times you have actually raised content issues at articles, we have worked through those fairly well; we don't need DR/mediation. My issues are with your campaigning/canvassing, and your following me around accusing me of COI. You think I have issues with OWN. Those are things the community can and should look at it and make decisions about. ] (]) 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you really need to talk to me in such a condescending manner? That is not helpful saying "you just don't understand how this place works" and "you haven't listened to the advice that people have given to you". I have listened to plenty of advice and used it, even in this discussion. Guessing about motivations? What about you and all your claims here that I am an "activist" and that I am applying activism to the articles? While you are a self-admitted biology scientist working at a University in real life and are practicing your slanted views of the science of GMO's in the articles, and trying to convince everyone you are neutral and objective when many can plainly see that you are not? You said to me that at Misplaced Pages "we don't care what you do in real life". Well, if that is so, why did you bring it up? It's a double-standard. | |||
| :::I have not gone around accusing you of COI. You don't need to have a COI to put PR materials supporting GMO's in the articles any more than those who put Arturo's work on BP into the BP article. The people who did that might think BP can do no wrong and that everyone else who has something negative to say about BP is an "activist", a "charlatan", "crank", "Luddite" or ] or anti-BP, anti-Oil and part of the conspiracy of the "War on Oil". If you believe the PR materials from industry are true and incorporate them, that doesn't mean you have a COI. But the article becomes slanted if it is composed of PR work from the industry. That's what I said on Jimbo's page--that the articles are slanted and pro-industry. I have never accused you of COI. I said the material is slanted. And when new users try to add material critical of GMO's I tell that that you and your colleagues will oppose addition of material that is critical of GMO's, why and how, which is telling them the truth about what happens on the GMO articles. I don't see why the users should not be informed of what is going on, why they are going to receive unreasonable opposition to reasonable proposed changes, and why they are getting allegations, threats and hints not to be BOLD on their talk pages. I think they have a right to know that when you show up trying to scare them off. | |||
| :::"Your behavior is yours, not mine. The same thing is true the other way around." You speak as if the two are *completely* unrelated. They are not. That's why BOTH of us are here. I have said time and time again that my behavior that you call "stalking" and "canvassing", is my attempt to mitigate the damage you do in dealing with new users. Something quite a few others have noticed as well and brought plenty of supporting evidence for. I have asked others here specifically the best way to deal with that if you or anyone else treats new users inappropriately or condescendingly or with threats of ugliness as you did early on with me, and I am awaiting advice on that. Calling it "stalking" and "canvassing" is not useful feedback. I do not understand why that is not obvious. It seems to me you think you have a right to talk to new users on the GMO articles as you please, but if I talk to the same new user, that's not okay, then it is "canvassing" and "stalking". If rather than accusing me of stalking you said, "Yes, David, maybe I was too rough on the new user. I'm sorry for that", this entire ANI could have been avoided. But instead, you got mad at me for confronting you about it and can't see that the two are directly related.] (]) 13:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ec}} is David's post to the teahouse, which ends with "In other words, when we see the PR materials have not only infiltrated an article but have dominated the article, is there any hope of doing anything about it, or is Misplaced Pages been corrupted beyond repair to be just a new kind of advertising space for various industries?" And is the new coop project David started - a project to "deal with industry slant in Misplaced Pages articles." Oy... '''more of the same campaigning behavior.''' But maybe someone will give good advice. ] (]) 13:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I hope they do give some good advice. Back when this was happening with the BP article, and if you were as new as me and wanted advice on how to deal with the ]ers of the BP article who insisted on the BP PR materials, and you knew the owners were going to drag you to ANI accusing you of "canvassing" if you tried to talk to anyone but the owners about the problem of slant, how would you word it when asking for advice?] (]) 13:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::First, if i were inexperienced as you, i would be way more tentative than you have been, and would hold back from drawing big, strong, global conclusions. I would go ask at the teahouse, "I think article X is messed up and not NPOV...how do I fix it?" They would tell you to ] - the same advice you have been given many times, which is focus on content, not contributor. '''Deal with actual content, one thing at a time.''' If you think some content is missing from an article, or some content is being given UNDUE weight, try to fix it, one bit at a time. One bit at a time. If people object to your edit, listen to what they say, ask for the basis in policy or guideline. Go read the policy or guideline, and try to understand its heart. Go back and look at the source and content under discussion, and really consider it again, in light of PAG. Let the source and PAG and what other people say, speak to you. If the objection still doesn't make sense to you, '''ask (really ask) more at the article Talk page.'''' If the responses still don't make sense, start working ], which is usually to go ask at the Talk page of the relevant policy or guideline, or relevant content noticeboard, and '''try to understand, and really listen to what other editors say'''. Once you have done all that, and the objection still doesn't make sense, use whatever next ] process makes sense, to deal with that specific content. One thing at a time. If in the course of that, you find that some behavioral policy or guideline is being broken, bring ''that specific behavior'' up to the editor at his or her talk page, focused on the concrete behavior, supported by diffs (not focused on their motivations- as I have told you, we do not do psychoanalysis here, we don't speculate about what motivates somebody - we focus on concrete behavior, and actual content and sources) and citing PAG. If the editor doesn't change his or behavior, and you are able to establish a pattern of that behavior, you can bring a case here, at ANI, about that editor's pattern of behavior, concisely, supported by actual diffs showing the behavior, and citing the actual PAG that is being violated. Simple, concrete, step by step. Without all the dramatic, global language. Simple. Concrete. That is how we work here. Instead, you have charged into this topic with a very strong, glaring even, pre-existing POV on GMOs, and have thrown around these big claims around about corruption, POV, etc. in every place you can find. You are a campaigner and you have made me the target of your campaign. It is ugly, icky, and profoundly un-wikipedian. Not what we do here, not how we act here. ] (]) 14:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<u>responding to .</u> david, you alone are responsible for your behavior, as I am for mine. I am not a Big Evil Thing that You Must Defeat and we are not locked in some mortal combat. I am a human, and an editor here, just like you. Your focus on me is bizarre and is your choice, and the way you are dealing with your concerns about my behavior, is not how we do things here. And you do not understand how WP works. I and others have kept asking you to deal with actual content to which you object, instead of running around making these big global statements and trying to whip up support to Fight Evil. And again, ''the only two times you actually have engaged with content, we worked through it, and you saw that you were wrong.'' I am getting close to asking for an i-BAN or topic ban; you show no signs of respecting the community and its norms, or allowing the community to judge and act, and instead you are continuing your campaign, full steam ahead. ] (]) 13:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC) (note what this is responding to ] (]) 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| :::::I was not continuing any "campaign". I followed the advice of two users above who said I should ask my question at the forums they suggested. "I am not a Big Evil Thing that You Must Defeat and we are not locked in some mortal combat." I never said you are. And neither am I. "I am a human, and an editor here, just like you." And so am I. Where did I suggest otherwise? You are imagining things. Talk about ascribing motivations to others. "making these big global statements and trying to whip up support to Fight Evil." I am not trying to fight "evil". I am trying to deal with the case where the ]ers of the article, lead by you are unreasonable. ''the only two times you actually have engaged with content, we worked through it, and you saw that you were wrong.'' That's not true and you know it. We talked a number of times, and nearly every time you rejected anything I suggested adding using the same reason you almost always do, it's written by an "activist" organization. Therefore they should have no voice. Anyone who criticizes GMO's can't have a voice. So then, all you can get in the article is things filtered through the people who support GMO's. At some point we need to go to RS and/or NPOV forums to address that. I don't know enough about those forums to do that at this time. Anyway, this discussion is not productive. All you do is lodge more allegations as you always do. More intimidation and I'm really tired of it. I hope neutral moderators can see how difficult it is to try to talk to you. ] (]) 13:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I gave the links to the two actual edits that you have made. Two. And on the other stuff, your words speak for themselves: "in other words, when we see the PR materials have not only infiltrated an article but have dominated the article, is there any hope of doing anything about it, or is Misplaced Pages been corrupted beyond repair to be just a new kind of advertising space for various industries?", and see the difs and what you said in them, in my original post, way, way above. Really, go read them. Canvassing, campaigning, from day 1. This thread is about your behavior. It is not about content. You are not dealing with how bad your behavior has been - you just keep making excuses for it - and '''you keep doing it, even today at the Teahouse'''. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and you alone are responsible for what you do. Just like I am for my behavior. As always, I will be happy to discuss content with you, at the articles and their talk pages. ] (]) 14:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - {{u|David Tornheim}}, I joined this discussion as an uninvolved editor, and have never collaborated with you to my knowledge. I have collaborated with Jytdog, and will admit that we have not interpreted policy the same, but that does not make me partisan against him. The only partisanship I have or have ever demonstrated on WP is to ], particularly to policies that affect BLPs. Your list gives the wrong impression of me as being partisan to a particular cause or editor, and I imagine others on that list may feel the same or similar. Please remove or strike my name from your list. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 12:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::To <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>]: Sorry. Thank you for the feedback. You are correct, "partisan" was the wrong word, is far too charged and an unfair description of your participation and that of others. The idea of two sides is also equally problematic. I especially regretted my use of the word "partisan" shortly after I posted it and have since contemplated how to fix it to convey what I meant in terms of why resolution of the conflict between Jytdog and me would likely go smoother and be less charged if just <small>]</small> was mediating it without further evidence brought in and without new conflicts between various people who have entered the discussion making it even more complicated than it already is. | |||
| ::For simplicity, I will strike the reference to both partisan and sides. I thank you for your input into the discussion and apologize for using an unfair negative label to describe you and others.] (]) 23:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you, {{u|David Tornheim}}. I wasn't asking for an apology, and will humbly accept the one you volunteered. It was an extremely nice gesture considering a strike would have been adequate. I hope my typewritten words didn't sound harsh, but if so, I apologize to you. Happy editing! <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 20:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' {{u|Jytdog}} I've been meaning to ask you to provide evidence for your categorization of me as "anti-GMO", or correct your initial statements to reflect your mistake, lest this branding follow me around WP masquerading as fact. You are now the first and only person, both online and IRL, to refer to me as anti-GMO. You already apologized for doing this at BP, when you became the only person to ever call me an environmenalist, but no lesson was learned. As Core a couple years ago, "I strongly resent effort to pigeonhole editors in this fashion, while he in effect positions himself as a kind of Kissinger-like mediator who is the only fair party here." '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 19:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Petrarchan. First let me say that I am sorry that David's canvass of you woke up all these old conflicts. I don't want to extend this already too-long thread, so (you asked me not to post on yours, I think) ] (]) 14:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You have highlighted cases where I challenge industry slant in GMO articles, your control over GMO articles (with your thousands of edits), and where I show that the idea of "scientific consensus" has been called into question. None of this can be construed as having any idea as to my personal view on GMOs, but rather my view about NPOV on WP. I haven't come to a personal conclusion about GMO's, so I am sure that there is no evidence proving I have. If you want to categorize me as "anti" industry slant, I accept. But no, I am not anti-GMO. I am pro-NPOV. WP readers come here to read about all sides of the story, but instead we are engaging in censorship, as Atsme mentions above re MEDRS. The first time I heard of MEDRS was when I attempted to update the Monsanto article , and was quickly by you. At the noticeboard you suggested, I am told that MEDRS prevents this addition. MEDRS is meant to protect readers from bad medical advice - but in this case the only ones protected are Monsanto stockholders. Your opinion seems tethered not to WP rules, but to how GMO's and biotechs are described to the reader. I have observed that you use drama and bullying to distract from this fact (David's talk page is a good example). I hate that people have to deal with this, but I don't hate you, as you claim on your talk page. :) '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 00:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The diffs on my page are plenty clear as to where you come from. MEDRS is about health, not just medicine, btw. And that Seneff article you wanted to add, that I reverted, that was . As long as you keep wanting to push that kind of content into WP you are going to be frustrated. I am sorry about that. ] (]) 05:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::'''I deny having an anti-GMO stance and ask again for you to strike that claim.''' From your edits previous to the above, I see you are ambivalent about how to avoid responsibility for your ad hominem label. First you decide it is about "scientific consensus" and compare me to <s>Nazi's</s><u>WP:REICHSTAG(?)</u> . Then you decide that I had baited you and you are not taking the bait wisely removing the Hitler reference. But you can't help but compare me to <s>Nazi's</s><u>WP:REICHSTAG(?)</u>, so it comes back in . Then you decide that the reason you can't be held responsible for name calling is that I am here to "right wrongs" and predict the future. . An hour later, that all has to go, and you conclude these are not the real problems, that the real problem is that I'm helping Atsme with "conspiracy theories" and "Fringe" theories. . '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 09:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) (amended by Petrarchan47 in , but changes were made without redaction marks; I showed redaction. ] (]) 21:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| ::::::Errm - nowhere were you called a "nazi" and I strongly suggest you retract that accusation. I take it you are not familiar with ]? It has nothing to do with nazis. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 09:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::WP:REICHSTAG has just as little to do with Nazis as it has to do with Misplaced Pages. It is a joke essay and has no reference to this discussion. However, the ''Reichstag building'' is associated with Hitler's rise to power. I'm not sure how you know what Jytdog meant by his comment, nor why you seem to speak for him and, along with his other buddies, fight his fights. Your participation here and at J-dgos' talk page does little to help your friend fight the accusations of WP:GANG behaviour and bullying. Indeed, it exemplifies them. I will correct references to Nazis and assume that I misunderstood his motivations. I doubt that I will receive the same treatment for my simple request. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 20:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::writing screeds on jimbo's page has been linked to that essay . i referenced it myself to David's continuation of . ] (]) 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::the level of cheap-shotting (citing comments I over-wrote as my thoughts/feelings evolved) and sheer ignorance, all twisted up into a self-destructive angry ball is typical and makes me sad every time I see it. it is just sad. ] (]) 18:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} '''would an admin please close this thread?''' it is just devolving. Thanks.] (]) 18:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == User:Tumadoireacht and Circumcision == | |||
| {{archive top|result=The '''support'''s have it by a wide margin and supported by diffs that indicate personal attacks, sniping, battleground behavior, and general uncollegiality: ] is indefinitely banned from editing circumcision-related article and their talk pages. For appeals, please see ]. ] (]) 01:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{u|Tumadoireacht}} was ] last year for tendentious, disruptive and combative behaviour on the ] article. Since then, things have not improved. The latest example is this obvious attempted baiting of an admin ({{u|Zad68}}) for warning another editor about the ]s. In view of this continued uhelpfulness I propose that it would be for the good if {{u|Tumadoireacht}} were blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 10:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::As Alexbrn is one of the small but co-ordinated group of editors maintaining the main Circumcision and other related articles in an unbalanced pro-circumcision state, as I have pointed out in recent edits, it may not be public spiritedness that leads to this call for a ban.--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 11:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Alexbrn, could you offer some evidence of the problems that are persisting? I'm sure {{u|Zad68}} is quite capable of handling themselves but beyond that can you substantiate current misbehavior?]<sub>]</sub> 11:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Is this the same JodyB who states "Marginal ideas and thoughts have a place but should be plainly shown to be marginal. If sourced, the reader can investigate for himself and determine whether the thoughts are correct" on his home page - even if not that JodyB - WP policy is positively disposed towards including the views of "activist" groups that is, in this case, those who question, from a scientific or human rights or other perspective the cutting off of the tips of male child genitals.--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I linked to which by itself is sufficient I'd have thought. But for more just review the previous few Talk pages edits such as this (reference to a "small but well coordinated group of editors and admins") or this where the use of anti-Circumcision groups' web sites and primary sources is being advocated, despite Tumadoireacht knowing that ] applies. Or just look at the problematic response above here ... ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 11:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support topic ban'''. Tumadoireacht has been engaging in personal attacks and general battleground behavior on the topic of Circumcision for a long time now, as a short persusal of ] and its archives will demonstrate, but here are a few examples from the past few months: | |||
| *: | |||
| *: | |||
| *: | |||
| *: | |||
| *: . | |||
| *: Tumadoireacht seems to have given up on proposing actual changes to the article entirely in favor of vague complaints and talk page sniping. It is time to see if he can be more productive on some other topic. - ] (]) 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Proposing worded changes to the article is the last of a list of eight ways the Talk Page Guidelines mention under the title "How to use article talk pages" | |||
| ::In his eagerness and haste Mr Ollie has failed to notice that at least one of my contributions which he chose to quote from most selectively IS PROPOSING A SPECIFIC WORDED CONTENT CHANGE. Is it" time for Mr Ollie to see if Mr Ollie can be more observant and productive on some other topic ? | |||
| ::My proposals for article content change are evident and numerous not "vague" There are about an equal number of cogent pertinent aspects of Circumcision which about a half dozen editors refuse to permit mention of. These same editors on patrol misrepresent WP policy on Primary Sources and on non medical aspects of the subject to any editor attempting to address this obvious imbalance. The WP policy for instance on both scientific and human rights activist groups ( in this case those who are against this from of genital cutting ) is a good example- it is quite contrary to the picture painted by Alexbrn et cetera. It is not "problematic" as Alexbrn chooses to label it, to point out these aspects of the article, in an attempt to improve it. --— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' I have been half-heartedly monitoring ] and its talk for years and Tumadoireacht is not helping. As MrOllie shows, current activity is centered on sniping. ] (]) 03:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' Users editing is ]. They have not made constructive suggestions with good references. ] (] · ] · ]) 05:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''' The situation has to be understood in the context of the protracted, bitter content dispute that is Circumcision articles. It has already been said several times that topic-banning me would help. Yes it would help- it would help those editors that have been in a content dispute with me for months on end. I think almost everybody who has supported this proposal so far is either moderately or highly involved in the said content dispute. I think that I have raised some genuine issues here, and did in fact, originally raise some genuine issues on the article talk page. In the interests of attempting to find consensus I have largely stopped editing the article - all gets reverted by the patrol. On the question of proposing worded content - the pattern of the concerted pro circumcision group is as follows - "we/i have reverted or refuse to allow your edit because your source is too old ( older sources already used for pro C content) your source is a primary source( primary sources already used for pro C content) your source is non medical" ( non medical sources already used for pro C content) - then "your content is 'against XYZ policy" (which often has no relevance but serves the purpose of putting off the would be editor) and then when such inhibitings fail - sarcasm such as this to a new editor | |||
| :"Either get the journal to change there statement or publish you own review in a high quality journal and we will cite you." | |||
| :'''Send to ArbCom''' - This has been going on from time to time for months. This is the sort of content dispute compounded by allegations of conduct issues (tendentious editing) for which a full evidentiary hearing by ArbCom works better than letting the loudest and the heavily content-opposed editors from the subject area gather at a noticeboard and attempt to establish a false consensus.--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''' I feel a lot of the editors of the circumcision article are blatenly biased in favour of circumcision. It is helpful to have editors from both sides of the debate. For a cabal of those same pro-circumcision editors to ask for his dismissal is typical. ] (]) 17:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Note: Tremello is a ] (SPA) regarding circumcision and related topics; please refer to the user's edit history, and the linked page for Misplaced Pages's definition of an SPA. <small><code>]]</code> 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)</small>'' | |||
| :::Do not poison the well zad. Assume good faith. I am here to create a neutral article. ] (]) 12:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''' Hello, I was discussing secondary sources for the part of the article on economic benefits with Tumadoireacht. I don't know what happened before but it seems this specific complaint here is that Zad came in to the discussion to tell us to stay on topic . . . kind of ironic because he could have just made an on topic post, such as showing what he might think a secondary source was. And I think instead of trying to get someone topic banned, everyone who has voted here could help wikipedia better by going to the talk page in question and discussing the topic. I read the guidelines here <ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Topic_ban#Topic_ban</ref>. I think if anything, give Tumadoireacht a "final warning". To Tumadoireacht: I don't think there is any kind of "criminal cabal" on wikipedia that is pro circumcicion. I think the cabal exists in real life and gets trickled down to wikipedia. Either way, this isn't the battleground to fight a great wrong. What do the sources say? You have many good sources. If any other ediots on wikipedia make you angry, I say "kill them with kindness" by that I mean be helpful by giving good sources that they cannot deny. ] (]) 19:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| *'''Support topic ban from ]-scope content''' as first choice, and from this topic in particular as a second choice. {{u|NuclearWarfare}} blocked Tumadoireacht just three months ago for disruptive editing (see discussion ]), but the editor has returned to the exact same problematic editing behavior as before. He simply cannot or will not accept or understand Misplaced Pages's standards for sourcing, personalizes nearly every comment to the point that it seems he's incapable of just holding a conversation about the topic and the sourcing, and regularly uses the article Talk page to air his personal views on the article topic with highly-charged rhetoric. Most of his comments are just paranoid complaining about what he perceives as a "cabal"; when asked repeatedly to actually provide a specific, actionable article content change suggestion, backed by a genuine reliable source, he never delivers. Overall, dealing with this editor is a huge time sink for no benefit. <code>]]</code> 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Zad is an industrious,productive, meticulous and often painstakingly helpful editor and admin. Unfortunately he has a blind spot when it comes to this subject. He can be regarded as the leader of the group of editors who maintain this article in a currently highly both positively and medicine focussed selective stance on the subject of `circumcision. He exhibits a mean spirited obstructive streak when the unbalance of the article is explored, attempting to characterize good faith teasing out of the articles weaknesses with the worst either mistaken or deliberately misdescribed negative interpretation. This habit is uncharacteristic, but still unworthy of such an eminent and valuable editor. Zad's proposal to ban me from all medical related articles is interesting. It dovetails neatly with Alexbrns idea to ban not just from this article but from the twenty or so related Circumcision and genital cutting articles, the two lads thus presenting a sentencing spectrum. The really funny part is that one of our chief bones of contention is whether Circumcision is primarily a cultural rather than a medical act - a conversation which is currently occurring on the talk page but which Alexbrn's shunning proposal seems to be inhibiting his and Zad's participation in. Lets list the points Zad has raised | |||
| 1/Previous "conviction" | |||
| 2/No change | |||
| 3/Non acceptance of WP sourcing standards | |||
| 4/Personalizes most comments | |||
| 5/Incapable of holding a conversation about the topic or the sourcing | |||
| 6/regular use of talk page to air personal views | |||
| 7/most comments are paranoid complaining about the cabal | |||
| 8/never delivers actionable content when asked | |||
| 9/this editor a useless waste of time. | |||
| I suggest any editor can find these charges to be exaggerated or plain untrue by reviewing my many engaged and good faith practical proposals and conversations/debate on the talk page of the article. Further I suggest that Zad himself engages frequently in the numbers 3 and 4 and 5 behaviour which he professes to abhor. | |||
| On a more general point it might be a positive influence on the article quality if those editors or groups of editors for whom circumcision has a religious, cultural or ethnic imperative or for whom it is second nature, made a conflict of interest declaration, or if not willing to do this, then at least allowed themselves (and thus the talk page and article) to examine ideas about its downsides.--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 10:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I have no objection to the type of content that Tumadoireacht, by and large, generally attempts to add to the article. However, the way he is going about it is unhelpful—routinely using non-] compliant sourcing, casting aspersions to other editors, and most importantly, not changing their behavior in response to requests from other editors. This is a serious matter, and I think it merits a block if not a topic ban. I have acted before as an uninvolved administrator, and I reserve my right to continue doing so in the topic area even despite this post. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 14:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''oppose topic ban''' I don't see the behavior issue as per these diffs. They are just opinions. Discussing views is not a basis for topic banning. Zad's comment here "Overall, dealing with this editor is a huge time sink for no benefit" seems more of a behavior issue (PA) than info (diffs) presented here. If there's more, please enlighten. (UTC)--] (]) 17:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support for topic ban.''' I'm only coming into this glancing at the diffs provided at the beginning of this post without looking into the actual article and I am seeing some decent amounts of ] and ] towards other editors. It's one thing to bring up perceived problems about other editors in appropriate venues, but not to do so in that manner while trying to affect content as well. If this user hadn't been blocked already (and very recently) I would have wanted to see very clear diffs showing even stronger disruptive and tendentious behavior than I'm seeing now to suggest the ban, but given the past block, it seems apparent that the editor's behavior isn't improving. ] (]) 20:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::It may be that I mention too often the possibility that there is a group of editors staging a co-ordinated campaign to present a positively selective view of Circumcision within this and related articles. I can stop doing this. --— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban'''. Tumadoireacht barely focuses on the article content, except to call it biased, and usually negatively focuses on the editors he disagrees with. Almost every time a Misplaced Pages rule is validly put forth by editors that Tumadoireacht considers part of "the cabal," he does not seem to understand the rule and/or disregards it, and instead rants about the editors' supposed biases. ] (]) 03:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban.''' Crusaders have to be sent away. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Flyer22's assertions are easily disproved - look at my edits and talk page entries and judge for yourself. There is a habit that some editors engage in -mentioning a WP policy when they encounter content they disagree with and then getting cross or going silent when the actual content of that policy is brought to their attention. The undue weight policy may be the best example. Those who love to use it as an inhibitory tool do not realize or choose to forget that it applies mostly to proportionality and not to utter exclusion of minor views on a subject. | |||
| As for Baseballs Bugs cryptic quip - no crusader here folks - just looking for a balanced article that references all aspects of Circumcision -not just the medical ones and not just the positive ones.--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :What you call "negatives", i.e. unsterile conditions or botching it, are issues with ''any'' surgery, they're not peculiar to circumcision. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| @BaseballI think you are misunderstanding the use of the word negative and misunderstanding the difference between medical and societal circumcisions also.--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban from ]-scope content''' per Zad. ] (]) 15:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I'd have thought that you had enough on your hands defending your own behaviour and reputation on this page at present Jytdog but I am not surprised to see you here chiming in.--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I looked at the difs presented and your behavior; the topic ban is well warranted. I hope you can find happier fields to work in within Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| And I,Jytdog, in turn, wish you the same happiness in attempting to successfully carry out your undertakings to modify your aggressive behaviour towards other editors, given elsewhere on this page. The many areas of health related articles, including Circumcision, where you have had problems in the recent past will undoubtedly benefit.--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Even as this thread runs, Tumadoireacht's tendentious contributions continue. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 18:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Do you really know what tendentious means Alex? {{Shortcut|WP:TENDENTIOUS}} - it does not mean another editor on a talk page proposing content that you yourself or your friends simply do not like. Are you aware that accusing others of tendentious editing thus may be naughty? {{Shortcut|WP:AOTE}} ?. On those now very rare occasions when I edit the Circumcision article, I work the 1RR which is the opposite tendency. Please re-examine your own recent behaviour here and elsewhere after revision. "Like sands through the hourglass.. so are the Days of Our Lives."Blah blah et cetera--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This proposed ban is totally wrong. That will not solve the real problem, which is draconian censorship of negative information about male circumcision. I oppose the ban. | |||
| ] (]) 13:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Ban Zad68 and DocJames=== | |||
| The editors who should be banned are Zad68 and DocJames. They evidently have religious bias in favor of male circumcision that causes them to exclude all content that is negative on male circumcision. | |||
| ] (]) 13:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Boomerang'''. If would be helpful if the closing admin could go "two-for-one" and TBAN this obviously unhelpful circumcision POV-warrior too. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 14:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes a '''boomerang''' indef topic ban of ] would be reasonable. The came here making claims without evidence stating that I have a "religious bias in favor of male circumcision" and "exclude all content that is negative on male circumcision". However, the article in question states "The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering neonatal circumcision as having no benefit and significant risks to having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks. No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure" Hardly a statement in favor of the position. ] (] · ] · ]) 15:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Doc, I've no doubt this section was bad faith, and a poor attack but do you really think Sugarcube needs a topic ban or are you just responding to the personal attack with calls for procedural strikes. (because there's no tone on the internet I want to be clear I'm not judging either way just want to be clear)] (]) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sugarcube is attempting to comment on the religion of editors on Misplaced Pages. I have never disclosed a religion. ] (] · ] · ]) 15:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''oppose and boomerang''' terribly POINTy and disruptive. 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| ==doxing attempt report== | |||
| User 70.83.108.59 has attempted to dox me on the trajan vuia page. . His attempt, including a link to a picture which he thinks is me. Probably the same vandal who was using 70.83.124 to post on this page, but was blocked for 6 months for doxing a user on the wright brothers' page on Feb 1. I can't supply a diff for that because Binksternet immediately erased that, unlike the current case which he has let stand on a page he is monitoring. Interesting how he only observes the rules when they don't interfere with his own personal campaign of obstructive edits and abuse.] (]) 18:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Note, I have the comment per TPG and NPA. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 20:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure if this qualifies for ], but I think ] should apply. Any thoughts on the matter? <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whatever is going on here , the truth about User:Ion G Nemes is that all hs editing is disruptive: he persistantly attempts to edit ] to reflect his own higly biased view of the subject, and does not engage on the talk page. Not that there is any point in blocking him as a disruptive SPA who is clealy not here to build an encyclopedia, because I'm sure he'd pop up under another name.] (]) 15:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::And here comes the doxers pal to wikistalk and abuse me! Do I have to make ANOTHER report for this too? Longtone's abuse is RIGHT HERE FOR YOU TO SEE. I really want to know what this kid's problem is. And I'd also like to know why he's so sure you won't do a damned thing about his wikistalking and abusing me RIGHT HERE ON THE ADMIN PAGE. ] (]) 04:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] behavior at ] and related pages == | |||
| I'm not sure what to do with this case, but I believe it needs attention. | |||
| User Rhode Island Red is angling hard for the Helmut Diez article to be deleted, and is attempting to make it as worthless as possible in an attempt to get the deletion to stick. | |||
| I don't know who Helmut Diez is, nor do I know if we should have an article about him, but I do know that as long as Rhode Island Red is in the dispute, any intelligent debate is going to be lost in a flood of bad-faith wikilawyering. | |||
| Why am I not assuming good faith here? | |||
| #Rhode Island Red deletes material from the article. Compare a {{oldid|Helmut_Diez|619945568|good version}}, albeit roughly translated from German, to the {{oldid|Helmut_Diez|651147615|current incarnation}} being discussed at ]. Yes, I am aware that a bad translation needs to be made better. But I'd like to see some sort of discussion as to whether or not the article or its subject is worth that sort of time investment before tackling what would in the end turn out to be a fruitless endeavor. | |||
| #Rhode Island Red not only {{diff|Helmut_Diez|prev|650018460|PRODs the article}}, but {{diff|Helmut_Diez|next|650018460|seconds his own PROD}}. | |||
| #When Rhode Island Red finally ], he not only deletes material to make the appearance seem worthless, he {{diff|Helmut_Diez|next|650881093|stuffs the ballot box by voting on his own motion there, too}}. | |||
| Whether or not Rhode Island Red is intentionally acting in bad faith, I cannot say. All I can say is that he is preventing any discussion and attempting to force his will by taking it upon himself to get this article deleted, by any means necessary. ] (]) 00:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't say I'm familiar with it, but for context it looks like there's a recent ] on the subject. — <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 03:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's mindboggling that Jsharpminor would call attention to his violation of ] by filing a petty and baseless grievance like this. Material was deleted from the article, consistent with ] because it was poorly or improperly sourced or failed verification and was written incomprehensibly about a subject with no apparent notability. It was deleted long before the article went to DRN 2 weeks ago and before it was nominated for deletion. JSharp seems to be implying that I removed acceptable conetnt content from the article to gin-up the deletion nomination process but that's demonstrably false. | |||
| ::I find it offensive that someone would petition against an editor in this manner, particularly when I was acting in good faith and engaging constructively on the talk page and at DRN, when the issue is nothing more than a content dispute in which the other disputant (Hans) has yet to make a compelling case to support the notability of the bio subject or the inclusion of poorly written, poorly sourced, and irreparably badly written material. I explained at great length how/why the material conflicted with WP policy and that the onus is on the editor who wishes support the inclusion of contentious material in a bio. I nominated the article for deletion, after going through lengthy but fruitless discussions, because doing so would bring much needed additional scrutiny to the article from other editors and finally resolve the issue -- a complete logical part of the WP process. I made the nomination right after Hans abjectly failed to make a compelling case for his edits at DRN. All one has to do is read the admin's conclusion to the dispute 2 days ago. | |||
| :::''"The general finding was first, that all of the sources provided were in German which, though permitted on WP, is not ideal. Second, many of the sources provided did not appear to meet WP guidelines (ie the YouTube source) or contained only minor mentions of the BLP subject. Furthermore it is not clear to me that the sources being offered are about the same Helmut Diez. It may be they are sources for the same person, but because no biography of the life of Helmut Diez has been presented, the various sources are like pieces of a German puzzle. Thank you Hans, for your good faith attempts to provide reliable sources but unfortunately, DRN is designed for "small content disputes" and not for prolonged analysis of sources and text that you are still in the process of being developed and researched at your local library. My feeling is that RIRed has some legitimate concerns about the sources and text you have proposed both here and at the BLP talk page. I suggest this issue be taken to another more appropriate community forum such as a WP:RfC on the article talk page or WP:AfD. At either of these forums Hans could provide a link to his sandbox with a list of sources and members of the community could review them and give an opinion as to whether or not the BLP subject is notable based on those sources and qualifies for a WP article. Based on the sources I've seen here in this DRN discussion I think notability is in question and a legitimate concern and consideration."'' | |||
| ::Needless to say, this grievance on the part of Jsharpminor is completely unfounded -- obnoxiously so. In other words, nothing to see here (except one editor abandoning ] for no reason and making a bewildering attempt to intimidate another productive editor who's following proper procedure). ] (]) 07:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you Jsharpminor, I see that you have described your impressions very precisely. A kind of behavior, which I would also call detrimental for our collaborative project. One of his ways is to invent one reason after another to make us believe that the article's subject is not notable. First it was the language of the sources, then their notability, even in which library you can find the sources became a core argument (he seems to believe that only the library of congress has got adequate literature in its magazines) and so on. If he really believes what he is telling us all the time, he is probably too illiterate to understand, what we are talking about. I never thought of lawyering, becausse I don't know the exact meaning. So, I cannot decide, if you are right or wrong. Destroying an article is no good thing, destroying it during a discussion of this kind is one of the reasons why people of that kind keep good authors far away from participation. --] (]) 14:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hans, you know full well that I did not "destroy the article" during discussion. The page was edited prior to your bringing up your dispute with DRN -- the chronology of events and the diff edits I posted above make that abundantly obvious. Nor did I "invent" anything. You're completely ignoring the fact that the outcome of the DRN went against you and echoed the concerns that I had raised. I'm following procedure to the letter. If you think the subject is notable, which the evidence strongly indicates is not the case, then you must make an attempt to prove it, and so far you have failed to do so. But this isn't the place to argue about notability. The article has been nominated for deletion so you had best make your case at the deletion discussion page rather than attempting to pile on in this non-incident witch hunt. ] (]) 15:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Rhode Island Red, now I'm absolutely surprised: You see yourself as a victim of a witch hunt? I really do not know why I have the same impression, but exactly the other way round: You are the witch hunter, and you try to intimidate me, whenever you can. You make use of your advanced knowledge of the incredibly complicated processes here, and whatever I bring forth you don't accept it - with a variety of "reasons". And you seem to believe that anything is allowed here. Simply compare the article and my ], or have a look at the step-by-step destruction with the help of the article's history, and everybody, who is capable to read can see what you are doing here. --] (]) 16:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Once again Hans you're ignoring the writing on the wall. The moderator at the DRN made it clear that the material you were proposing was problematic for a a variety of reasons, seconding what I had told you. When you ignore the outcome of the process you initiated, try to make yourself look like a victim, and blame me for the result, you do a disservice to yourself and all other editors involved. Again, I urge you to focus on trying to demonstrate notability of the bio subject lest the article disappear forever. Concentrate on content instead of personal attacks. ] (]) 19:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Given that Jsharpminor violated ] and made a completely unfounded ANI report and personal attack (i.e. "as long as Rhode Island Red is in the dispute, any intelligent debate is going to be lost in a flood of bad-faith wikilawyering", an apology is in order. I'll be waiting. ] (]) 19:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| Okay, where do I begin here? | |||
| #Assuming good faith ]. | |||
| #When an article is up for AfD, notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed]]. Blanking the page first, and then submitting it for AfD second, is just a way to lawyer around the rules. | |||
| #BLP only justifies removal of '''controversial''' content, not just content that you happen to think doesn't pass ]. | |||
| #Edit warring to delete large blocks of information from a page is not constructive; it is vandalism. | |||
| #Some of the sources are problematic, this is true. Some are not ], others don't make significant mention of Mr Diez. However, deleting the references for the article along with everything else, is problematic because it doesn't allow anyone to see what's going on. | |||
| #You are not "following procedure." You may be following the letter of the law in some instances, but you are clearly violating it in others, and certainly violating the consensus spirit of it. | |||
| #The moderator at DRN gave up and said that the article needs to be taken to AfD. He said that there are notability concerns here, and this is a point ''about which you and I are in agreement''. The only point on which I disagree with you is that you are trying to take it upon yourself to turn a C-class article into a stub for the express purpose of proving that it is bad. This is circular and unethical. | |||
| You are free to wait as long as you like for your apology. I will accept one only if it is accompanied by your ceasing of the specific behaviors mentioned here. | |||
| It would be much more productive if you would actually allow the community to view the actual article in question and decide whether to keep or delete it; not the bastardized stub that is left after you get done decimating it. ] (]) 01:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*''"Assuming good faith does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary"''. | |||
| :::Except there is no legitimate evidence to the contrary. You just gave yourself carte blanche to dismiss AGF at will. | |||
| :* ''"When an article is up for AfD, the article must not be blanked, and notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. Blanking the page first, and then submitting it for AfD second, is just a way to lawyer around the rules."'' | |||
| :::The article was not blanked after it was nominated for deletion. Questionably sourced, trivial and illegible text was removed weeks prior to it going before DRN, where it was then reviewed in detail, and then subsequently nominated for deletion. You’re ignoring the actual chronology of events to suit your own manufactured narrative and egregious violation of AGF. | |||
| :*''"BLP only justifies removal of controversial content, not just content that you happen to think doesn't pass WP:N."'' | |||
| :::Your assertion is demonstrably false (and I never cited WP:N as a reason). The relevant WP policies refer to “disputed” not “controversial” content, and there is a world of difference between the two. You would have known this had you bothered to read the diff edits I posted above, talk page, or DRN where I reiterated the policies that justified the content deletion. I’ll make it easier for you and post them again, lest you keep repeating the same off-base accusation: | |||
| ::::]: “''To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.''” | |||
| ::::]: “''Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy''.” | |||
| ::::]: “''The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content''.” | |||
| :::: ] “M''any Misplaced Pages articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are ] enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality ]''.” | |||
| ::::]: “''Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page''.” | |||
| ::Is that clear enough for you now? | |||
| :* ''"Edit warring to delete large blocks of information from a page is not constructive; it is vandalism."'' | |||
| :::Were you just sharing a bit of well known WP trivia or was that a backhanded accusation? I didn’t edit war and I certainly didn’t vandalize the article. You’re the first to make such a charge, and it was scrutinized closely by a moderator just last week during DRN. Is your logic that making 20 false accusations might create the perception of one legitimate one? That's some questionable calculus. | |||
| :* ''"Some of the sources are problematic, this is true. Some are not WP:RS, others don't make significant mention of Mr Diez. However, deleting the references for the article along with everything else, is problematic because it doesn't allow anyone to see what's going on."'' | |||
| :::Virtually all of the sources were problematic. Of the 27 hyperlinked references provided by Hans previously all 27 failed a verification check, and when challenged during DRN to provide even a single sentence of content that was reliably sourced, comprehensible, and noteworthy about the bio subject, he was unable to do so. This too should have been painfully obvious to you had you read the DRN that I pointed out. As for not being able to see what’s going on, how hard is it to go back and look at a previous version in the edit history? Hans already provided the link. It’s not like it’s hiding. Mercy, what a burden! About 1/100th the effort it’s taken me to respond to this ANI. | |||
| :* ''"You are not "following procedure." You may be following the letter of the law in some instances, but you are clearly violating it in others, and certainly violating the consensus spirit of it."'' | |||
| :::I am in fact following procedure – i.e., the letter of the law -- as well as the spirit. I’m not sure what sort of personal standard you hold editors to or how you assess spiritual violations, but the standards I adhere to assiduously are WPs policies and guidelines, and I have done so in this case. There has been no consensus to violate. The closest thing to a consensus was reached at DRN and it echoed my sentiments to the letter. I have clearly NOT violated the consensus spirit of anything. | |||
| :* ''"The moderator at DRN gave up and said that the article needs to be taken to AfD. He said that there are notability concerns here, and this is a point about which you and I are in agreement. The only point on which I disagree with you is that you are trying to take it upon yourself to turn a C-class article into a stub for the express purpose of proving that it is bad. This is circular and unethical."'' | |||
| :::He gave up because despite pleading for days on end, Hans couldn’t provide a single sentence of decipherable text that was noteworthy and supportable by reliable references. You shouldn't speculate about what you think my motives are. I did not delete material to prove that the article was “bad”; I deleted material because the material was "bad". In conclusion, I call BS on every accusation you made. Your charges are so off base that it begs the question as to why you would even bother to file such a superficial and petty ANI. It's still not too late to atone by apologizing. ] (]) 05:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| :Okay, let's have another go at this. | |||
| :I'm starting the arduous process of sifting through the article, and I'm slowly being able to sift through the data. However, you would do well to keep the following in mind: | |||
| #Sources for English WP do not need to be in English. | |||
| #BLP does not require deletion of ''all'' unsourced material – only what's contentious and possibly untrue. No one is disputing that anything in the Helmut Diez article is factually incorrect; in fact, it likely is all correct, though possibly colored with a bit of marketing puffery. | |||
| #It looks bad to second your own PROD nomination. | |||
| #It looks bad to vote "yes" on your own AfD. | |||
| #It is unconstructive and possibly even vandalism to continually wipe a page that another editor is actively working on. | |||
| :In the end, you're probably right when you contend that Helmut Diez is an unsuitable candidate for a Misplaced Pages article. However, the manner in which you're trying to run around and force the issue is likely to generate responses from uninvolved editors. It throws up big red warning flags, and invites editors to ask you to stop. I suppose if you thrive on conflict, you're welcome to keep going the way you are, but you should expect to meet lots of resistance at every step when you try to steamroll process. The wheels of Misplaced Pages justice turn slowly, and trying to circumvent process to make them go faster will only cause unnecessary pain and distraction. | |||
| :Let the AfD go forward with the article fundamentally unchanged from how it is. If you want to make minor corrections, I won't tell you not to. The article will probably be nuked. In the mean time, please refrain from blanking it further. ] (]) 01:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, everyone who abandons the assumption of good faith seems to have an excuse that in their mind that justifies it. You've managed to misrepresent pretty much every relevant detail in this case, and it serves no purpose since the situation is now resolving itself through proper channels -- as a direct result of my input on the DRN and my nominating the article for deletion. For now, I'll simply refer you back to my original rebuttal which negates the bulk of your accusations. No point wasting more time responding while you clutch your pearls about non-existent conduct issues, acknowledging that the article is likely to get nuked. I wish I could say it's been fun. I'll still accept that apology when you're ready. ] (]) 03:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Interesting. Wasn't it you, who started dreaming of a witch hunt? After all this, nobody except you can Assume good faith any more on your side, and I could imagine that Jsharpminor is not completely wrong. --] (]) 10:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| And again, Rhode Island Red, one of your contortions: It was me who put the case on DRN, and the result - only a little bit different from what you expected - can be seen here: ]. In short: "Although clarifications were made based upon WP guidelines, there was no clear resolution ..." --] (]) 10:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Hans, instead of doubling down on this BS ANI, you should be concentrating on the editorial issues at hand -- i.e., defending your claim that the bio subject is notable by providing the requisite details that have repeatedly been requested of you on the talk page and during the DRN, which you have so far failed to provide. I don't dream of a witch hunt as you suggested; I dream of no longer having to waste WP resources on a substandard article about a non-notale subject that should have been deleted long ago. Additionally, you now seem to be alleging that I "contorted" something about the DRN. Would you care to elaborate on that, or are you content to just sling mud from the sidelines? If you're going to accuse someone of doing something improper, have the decency to be specific. Once again, I'll post the conclusion of the DRN so there's no ambiguity, as you now seem to be trying to misrepresent what was said: | |||
| ::"The general finding was first, that all of the sources provided were in German which, though permitted on WP, is not ideal. Second, '''many of the sources provided did not appear to meet WP guidelines (ie the YouTube source) or contained only minor mentions of the BLP subject'''. Furthermore it is not clear to me that the sources being offered are about the same Helmut Diez. It may be they are sources for the same person, but because no biography of the life of Helmut Diez has been presented, the various sources are like pieces of a German puzzle. Thank you Hans, for your good faith attempts to provide reliable sources but unfortunately, DRN is designed for "small content disputes" and not for prolonged analysis of sources and text that you are still in the process of being developed and researched at your local library. '''My feeling is that RIRed has some legitimate concerns about the sources and text you have proposed both here and at the BLP talk page'''. I suggest this issue be taken to another more appropriate community forum such as a WP:RfC on the article talk page or WP:AfD. At either of these forums Hans could provide a link to his sandbox with a list of sources and members of the community could review them and give an opinion as to whether or not the BLP subject is notable based on those sources and qualifies for a WP article. Based on the sources I've seen here in this DRN discussion I think '''notability is in question and a legitimate concern and consideration'''." ] (]) 23:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Support -- <b>Rewrite of Article with RELIABLE SOURCES that are VERIFIABLE</b> | |||
| :I saw this claim early on by the user who brought in the allegations: | |||
| ::Rhode Island Red deletes material from the article. Compare a {{oldid|Helmut_Diez|619945568|good version}}, albeit roughly translated from German, to the {{oldid|Helmut_Diez|651147615|current incarnation}} being discussed at ] | |||
| :It appears each is at an extreme. The "good version" needs to be better sourced as was pointed out by Rhode Island Red . My suggestion is that the user who brought the ANI close the discussion with apology for inadequate sourcing, fix the sourcing problems, show us a "good version" that is properly sourced, and let us see where we are then.] (]) 05:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == IP-user - disruptive editing on Current Events == | |||
| User 70.190.111.213 has multiple complaints on ] going back a few months. Recently, they have been adding excessively-detailed items about stories of questionable notability to the Current Events page, while removing valid & concise items posted by other users. {{History|Portal:Current events/2015 March 12|March 12}} and {{History|Portal:Current events/2015 March 14|March 14}} are good examples. User frequently opts to avoid discussion, and what discussion does happen is peppered with derogatory statements about both the person initiating the discussion and the actual subjects being discussed (see their ]). ] (]) 19:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ADD: Demonstrated bias on user's part by writing-off the logic which they used for deleting an item ({{Diff|Portal:Current Events/2015 March 14|651335278|651328907|Taiwan protests}}) when the same is applied toward their own contributions ({{Diff|Portal:Current Events/2015 March 12|651395052|651392919|Social Security scam}}). ] (]) 22:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::you add this into the middle of your statement way after the fact - its a miracle that i even noticed it - the logic you used is literally beyond contempt - in fact it reeks of contempt - your statemtent is non sensensical - how could i even try to refute it - you might as just said that red and green are the same colors--] (]) 23:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I have addressed each and every addtion or deletion that you question - NOT ONE SINGLE item have I not done so - seems pointless you now to come to the AN/I to cry that you did not get your way - have I been a prolific editor of the Current Events page?, of course, is that supposed to be a bad thing?--] (]) 21:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::the thing I dont understand about your move to the AN/I is that other editors seem just fine with my work over at the Current Events page - the problem I run into is sockpuppets and vandals that endlessly challange the page with bios, irrelevant material, or just general disruption - the general disruption is to be expected from kooky people so this does not bother me much - the other two does bother me - you in the last few days are the latter - you have attempted to remove material that clearly meets the notability requirements for the page and yet you also attempt add trivia like a few people pounding the pavement with signs to whatever crackpot ideas these tiny fractions of the population currently expose - but i have already covered all that on the talk pages and history as YOU WELL KNOW--] (]) 21:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::as for your most worthless statement that i quote "has multiple complaints on ] going back a few months" you well know that is rubbish - i have addressed each and every one of those sockpuppets and vandals on my page - any ADMIN that cares to do so can review them - almost everyone of the items came from a vandal or sockpuppet who could not get whichever of the types of items above i have already described (namely again bios, irrelevant material, or just general disruption)--] (]) 21:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::also i should address your statement about two recent additions to the current events page or as you say they are "Recently, they have been adding excessively-detailed items" - one of my biggest pevs is that sometimes to prove the notablity of a thing the story MUST be somewhat lenghty - i can promise you i have no interest to tire myself writing up such items - they take a long time - BUT if they are part of history that needs to be known later then they (1) do need to get written up and (2) do need to be lengthy - I will give you the two most common types of events that do often need to be lengthy - they are medical/science and legal - often i see others try to say write up an opinion of the US Supreme Court and they do so in just one sentence - such lazy activity is abosultely useless - the legal matter may have had special condiitons under which the law is only true and have been reviewed for then - other situations may not apply - hell sometimes the ruling is the most narrow and yet editors write it up as if it is a blanket - thus these editors do our readers no good service because they have actually done more harm then good - medicine write ups have the same problem - in regards to you statement that "RECENT" additions by me were too long - guess what? - they were both legal issues that would literally be completely false if someone tried to abbreviate them in a write up--] (]) 22:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The personal attacks at ANI and referring to somewhere as a ''Shithole location'' on your talkpage isnt really a good idea as per ]. Also can you provide some evidence of ] with regards to ], ], ] and ] as you have claimed at your talk page. ] (])(]) 22:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Removed word that you found offensive since has really nothing to do with discussion--] (]) 22:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It wasnt that I found it offensive it just didnt appear very civil. Can you address the sock issue I've mentioned above? ] (])(]) 22:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Statement from FourViolas''' I recently made 70.190.111.213 aware of ] on their talk page, where, in conjunction with ], my history with them may be found. I have not engaged in content disputes with this user beyond , so I am involved only insofar as I have tried to offer guidance and been accused of sockpuppetry. The user to have been editing for five years, but their contrib history only goes back to the beginning of the year; I believe it would be relevant to this discussion to know which accounts or IPs this user was editing under for the previous 4.75 years, and if they encountered criticism then. ] (]) 00:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| To clarify my concerns: this user has | |||
| *'''Cast unsupported aspersions''' of sockpuppetry ( ) and ignored suggestions ( ) to open a legitimate ]; | |||
| *Engaged in '''edit warring''' since their last block ( , all part of the same war); | |||
| *Repeatedly '''referred to other users as "vandals"''' and their edits "vandalism" in manners proscribed by ] ( ) since they acknowledged that it is "a violation of wiki rules to call someone a vandal" except where there is evidence of "wilfull destruction of wiki" (); | |||
| *'''Bitten''' and '''driven away''' a good-faith and potentially beneficial newbie by personally attacking them and stonewalling (], ]); and | |||
| *'''Failed to engage in consensus building''' (), often with uncivil edit summaries, e.g. referring to other user's contributions as "crap" or "worthless biased agenda crap", | |||
| all in the past three months of what they say has been a 5-year career. Their talk page shows that they have been duly and repeatedly warned about their behavior, and have chosen not to change it. Is this enough evidence yet? ] (]) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This guy now seems to think nationwide protests in Canada aren't notable for some stupid reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_March_14&action=history ] (]) 06:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :this from an editor with just five total edits - another sock of a banned user using a varialble IP address maybe?--] (]) 07:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Can you address ]'s concern about casting unsupported aspersions? This criticism isn't about your contributions to Current Events but how you interact with other editors. Regardless of the quality of your contributions, collaboration is the nature of editing on Misplaced Pages. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 15:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::The issues with regards to edit summaries and incorrect interpretation of policy appears to still be in effect . ] (])(]) 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm sorry have you EVER AND I MEAN EVER EDITED THE ARTICLE YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES??? no then how can you come over there and suddenly override my experience - what trivial background do you have there to make such a determination?????????????????????--] (]) 22:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I show you as having just begin in wiki in May 2014 and yet you override me there with absolutely no experience as to what if anything is notable in that article--] (]) 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::in fact that move just looked like a violation of ]--] (]) 22:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Your edit summaries are still ], you have claimed someone is not noteable however their article (which requires them to be noteable) does exist, if they are not noteable with regards to a specific incident or event then that may be true but purely claiming they are not ] when they must have passed the notability criteria for inclusion doesnt appear to be an accurate evaluation of their noteability. ] states that viewing a users contribution for places such as ] is a valid use of a contribution history, your edit summaries are part of the discussion here so this appears relevent. ] (])(]) 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::dude do you know how many times i have had to defend that article from trivial additions of that type?? I will go through it again since you have NEVER ACTUALLY EDITED That article before - the article could have any number of such trivia obit additions the problem is then the article about the only superpower on the earth would EXPONETIALLY MUSHROOM in length to some monolithic 1 to 10 mega bytes per year - and yes i have done the math to make that statement - if you had ever followed the article before you would know those numbers are correct - your addtion is one of trivia - the article would end up as some non sensical endless hodgepoge of data not fit for an encyclopedia--] (]) 23:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::just because someone has an article in wiki it is not notable enough for that article - and many other editor have already reviewed that article and AGREE with that - but you through STALKING did not ever review that - you just went over there with no experience and overrode me--] (]) 23:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::further, do you have any idea how wrong what you just did? - I will put it to you in very simple terms - do you have any idea how much work each and every day I have to do to keep an article about the only superpower looking as good as it currently does? and then someone like you comes along and alters it with no experience to back you up BUT EVEN WORSE you then force me to waste my little time on DEFENDING IT - I WILL ASK YOU FLAT OUT are you planning on taking over the good-sheperding duties for that article to keep it looking good - my guess you will need to put in at least 40 hour of your life per week - no? - what you have done is waste my time - and it is heinous--] (]) 23:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} Unfortunately you still don't appear to be willing to address the key points. This thread is getting far too close to being ] so I've pulled them out and added them below. | |||
| #Edit summaries being uncivil | |||
| #Unsupported accusations of socking | |||
| #Personal attacks in this ANI | |||
| #What appears to be ] issues with regards to the article you have accused me of making ''heinous'' edits with regards to my revert. | |||
| Anyone else is welcome to add anything I've missed ] (])(]) 08:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Evidence may be found in my bolded statement above. Per ], having edited a page in the past confers no special rights or immunities. ] (]) 12:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The allegations against ] (]) come with supporting evidence that is clear and convincing. The defense by the accused comes with unsubstantiated allegations and confirms problematic behavior of ] (]). What relief is being sought? ] (]) 06:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Admin's discretion, especially because most complainants, including me, seem to be fairly new. The user contributes content positively, but their failure to demonstrate collaborative competence constitutes disruption and must be addressed.. Options: | |||
| :::#1RR on ] and ], with a stern civility warning | |||
| :::#Temp block for incivility, aspersions, and edit warring (unlikely to improve their opinion of WP and not long-term helpful before) | |||
| :::#indef block until willingness to relinquish ownership and improve civility is demonstrated in unblock request. | |||
| :::I hope this discussion can have significant long-term benefits. Current events seems to attract newbies, and it's not okay to have an environment of biting there. ] (]) 11:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *<b>Support -- Relief (1)</b> "#1RR on ] and ], with a stern civility warning" | |||
| :<b>-or-</b> | |||
| *<b>Support -- Relief (2)</b> "Temp block for incivility, aspersions, and edit warring" | |||
| :I do not support Relief (3) as previous unapologetic responses of user would be repeated by a forced apology that would be unlikely to be sincere. User clearly does not see the behavior as a problem.] (]) 18:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User refuses to engage in discussion == | |||
| There's an unusual editor "]" on ] and various other pages. He does not engage in talk pages and refuses to provide any reliable sources to back his claims. Here he says that he wont provide any sources because it wont do any good. . I have provided the source for my addition on ] and in the article before it was removed. He seems to not want to discuss the matter. Can an admin intervene and force him to participate or initiate sanctions. ] (]) 03:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Links: {{Userlinks|AcidSnow}}. --] (]) 03:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : {{Nao}} After a quick look, and it looks to me like AcidSnow has engaged you on at least one Talk page... --] (]) 03:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::First of all, I have engaged in the discussion every since it started. You, on the other hand, had not for four days. In fact, you didn't return till after I called you out for it. Any admin or user interested in being involved in this issue, I highly advise you to check out this discussion on admin ]s talk page, here: . Or at least by attention to this part: | |||
| :::"I was the one who first , I was the one who , I was , etc......last article was on the ]; which I too was and the . Even then, I too was once again and the on the ] page. I didn't talk about consensus? Dude the whole point of going to '''the talk page is to get consensus'''; which you have consistently failed to receive. Isn't it ironic that you accuse me of not discussing even though I have been involved since day one? You, on the other hand, haven't in more than four days! But nonetheless, you still had time to ." | |||
| ::Anyways, as I, ], and ] pointed out earlier all your sources are fringe. ] (]) 03:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have been involved in all of them ]. ] (]) 04:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{Nacc}} Yep. A quick scan belies the claim that you do "not engage in talk" discussions, from what I saw. --] (]) | |||
| ::::What? ] (]) 04:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Never mind. I thought you were typing "believes" and not "belies". ] (]) 04:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| All sources are fringe? Can you provide your sources? Which you have not been doing at all. Your refusal has brought me to this board. ] (]) 04:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yup. Try to pay attention next time. ] (]) 04:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::] and ] are right. The various claims being made are fringe and are based exclusively on a handful of modern links. The actual historical documents on the ], particularly the medieval ''Futuh al-Habash'' (the main treatise on the kingdom), certainly do not indicate that the Argobba were one of the Sultanate's main populations or that its constituency was largely Afar. ] (]) 15:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Historical sources are not gold. Provide your counter claims on the talk page for the last time. ] (]) 16:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :We all have, but you don't care. Instead you have opted to edit war, make false accusation, break consensus and so on. ] (]) 16:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ok i hope admins see that you refused on ] even though another user dwpaul said that your suppose to. ] (]) 16:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : *Sigh*, once again I never refused to do anything. You just don't want to read any that goes against your fringe beliefs. Ironicaly, this made quite clear on the where after being proven wrong you have now refused to disscuse any further. It's been over a week now too. ] (]) 16:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Let me quote the other user '"Misplaced Pages articles cannot be used as reliable sources for edits in other Misplaced Pages articles. When introducing information here that requires a reliable source, the source must be cited here. If a source can be found in another, related, article, it can be copied here, but you cannot simply refer to its presence in another article and claim that your edit is reliably sourced"'. Do you understand? ] (]) 17:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : *Sigh*, if you had bothered to read anything that has been written here you would know that this . But this isn't surprising since consistently. Anyways, as the individual you quoted above states: "When introducing information here that requires a reliable source, the source must be cited here". Ahmad ibn Ibrahim being a Somali is well known and undisputable fact. In fact, it's already cited there. But sadly you don't care even the slightest. More importantly, instead of break policies why don't you try to follow them? I highly recommend that you check out ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 17:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Requesting sources is an attack? Perhaps you have me confused with another user. ] (]) 22:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::No I am talking about you. You have made numerous attacks against me and other users. Though, isn't ironic that you only dispute that one and not the other :)? ] (]) 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::False accusations have consequences. ] (]) 23:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hence why I told you to stop. ] (]) 23:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It seems to me that there are faults on both sides here: | |||
| :::::*It would have been better if Zekenyan had added FACT tags instead of deleting the information as in this edit: . I think we can assume that Zekenyan knows that citations can be provided for '']'' being Somali; so deleting the information for lack of a citation seems like gaming the rules to provoke a confrontation. | |||
| :::::*But having said that, why one earth did AcidSnow not provide a citation? ] backs up Zekenyan's demand for a citation - and given that some sources dispute that ''Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi'' was of Somali ethnicity, it is an issue that a reasonable person might want a citation for. | |||
| :::::--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 23:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::How are you Toddy? Anyways, it's well known fact that Ahmad ibn Ibrahim was an ethnic Somali. However, the dispute is based off his Arab Genealogy which all Somalis. So it's hard to actually despite that he wasn't Somali. Anyways, the source for him being Somali was provided months ago. See here: . I would also like to inform you that Zekenyan deliberately removed that Nur (Ahmad's nephew) was Somali. See here: . Shockingly, he acknowledged that Nur himself was a Somali: . ] (]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Let me clarify the edit mentioned by Toddy. That particular revert has nothing to do with Ahmed being somali but the Adal sultanate being somali. Which is why i brought up a source on ] that explains the adal sultante is afar. And no you cant find a source that says adal sultanate was "somali". Emir Nur is not notable for being an ethnic "Somali" per say. He is actually noted for the Harar walls being erected during his rule. ] (]) 00:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Both books you provided have already been proven fringe by three users. Nur being an ethnic Somali, an Emir of Harar, and the founder of the walls of the city were all already noted prior to your arrival. See here: . More importantly, are you seriously claiming that there's no source for Adal being Somali? Hahaha, please stop with these foolish claims! Numerous sources for the Walshama Dynasty, as well as both Adal and Ifat have already been provided. See here: . Though, as several users have already pointed out . You have even opted to abandoned the talk page for the last eight days! See the revision history: . ] (]) 00:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::All you are doing is refering to other talk pages and showing previous versions of articles. It seems you will not cooperate. ] (]) 00:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::At this point I can't tell if you're either trolling/completely oblivious to what's going on around you or not. ] (]) 00:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I really don't see the point in arguing with "Zekenyan" as he clearly just has an agenda of some sort. Anyway, for any admins reading this, here is your evidence that they were Somali with sources: | |||
| "''Zekenyan-> there are plenty of sources on the page showing the genealogical traditions that trace them back to Somali figures such as an ancestor shared with the ] clan which was shared by such figures as ] </nowiki>]. Hell, you should know that a ] historian claimed they were descended from a Somali saint (]) </nowiki>]. ] also noted down this fabled origin from the Somali saint from a Harari record with I.M lewis taking note </nowiki>]. And as I said in an edit-> I.M Lewis does refer to them as ''Somalized Arabs'' or ''Arabized Somalis'' & even for example touches upon their fabled connection to Yusuf/ "Aw Barkdhadle (meaning; Blessed Father)</nowiki>] and Ethiopian historians somewhat unfamiliar with a good part of their history at best considered them Arabs such as in the case of Asma Giyorgis </nowiki>]. | |||
| The more generally accepted and shared by most historical sources genealogy is the Aqeeli one via Isma'il al-Jabarti, the fabled Somali Darod clan ancestor whose only known descendant to have ever affected the Horn in anyway is ] (Darod clan founder) whom everyone associating themselves to "Jeberti/Jabarti" including the ] tie themselves to. To claim this dynasty was anything but Somali after the plethora of sources tying them to such figures is practically dishonest. Anyway, you wanted sources so I gave you some. | |||
| You will never find a legitimate source claiming they were "Argobba", Braukämper is as Acidsnow said; a fringe figure with wildly incorrect notions about a good number of things. He once claimed the ] were likely Ethio-Semitic only to immediately concede that he had absolutely no evidence for this claim...''" | |||
| The only sources that ever even try to claim they were Ethio-Semitic are Braukämper and one other source who also tried to claim the ] was ethio-Semitic (Do I really need to explain how retarded that is?). Again: there is no discussion to be had here. When both of a dynasty's genealogies (as even shared by Harari historians) clearly point to Somali ancestors-> they're Somali. | |||
| It's only icing on the cake that the majority of their soldiers were Somalis (read any source on the matter on the Adal, Walashma or Ifat or pages) but of course all of these legitimate sources mean nothing to Zekenyan who wants the truth to be what he wants it to be (real truth and those clear cut genealogies be damned). I advise any admins to deal with an editor accordingly when he has enough of a bias to him to say that "historial sources aren't gold" (but your fringe sources are, yes?) when the Futuh was written by a man who was in Adal territory (Shihab Ad-Din) and described the origins of the troops in question clearly (it's also been studied by a plethora of scholars). He's not looking for a discussion here... ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned"> — Preceding ] comment added 04:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Once again Abdi, I thank you for your assistance. Shall we make a block/ban proposal? ] (]) 05:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is well know that ] is promoting his POV in certain articles, engaging in edit wars and stalking other users. I have reported this to the administrators.] (]) 09:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Haha, is this coming from the block avoiding Ip? ] (]) 13:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your not providing any direct sources that says adal was somali. I have provided on ] a reliable source that directly gives Afar credit for the Adal sultante. BTW dont spam this forum take it to the talk page. ] (]) 14:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::We did. You have a clear case of ]. ] (]) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| It seems to me like the 3 users are associates of some sort as user awale abdi has started to personally attack me now here calling me a "moron" ] (]) 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Insults others but cries when he's insulted. ] (]) 15:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Provide evidence like i did, for your accusations. ] (]) 15:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You never provided diffs for my accusation, let alone did I ever make any attacks. ] (]) 16:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::::I meant I have provided diffs for the user Awale Abdi's personal attack. I am asking you to provide diff of the personal attacks that you claim I have done against you. ] (]) 17:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Guys, this is petty. Please take the content dispute to the talk page and work it out there. Also, bear in mind that all actual historical documents on the Adal Sultanate indicate exactly what ] does above; especially the main such treatise, the ''Futuh Al-Habash''. ] (]) 18:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| It wasn't a "personal attack"" -> I frankly don't know you well enough to want to try to verbally abuse you especially here in this conversation or on your page. But when a poster tries to claim a historical document (a detailed one at that) left behind by a man who was alive and present at the time (the ]) is not valid; he or she is clearly just spewing nonsense that supports their view whilst ignoring clear historical evidence, this is to me "moronic" indeed but I didn't call you a moron '''here''' or in some public conversation like on a topic's talk page or on your talk page which would be a direct "personal attack". I made the comment on my own talk page and Midday's during a conversation entirely between me and him (anyone can go read it-> and I'm simply being frank as you are being blatantly irrational and disregarding clear evidence for your own agenda), it was petty of you to follow me to my talk page and read what was on there only to use it to "help" your "argument" here. Can't merely address any of the points I've made validly? Anyway, I apologize if that was bad conduct on my part. | |||
| Also, I'm sorry but it's a well-established fact that the majority (not the '''entirety''') of the Adal's soldiers were Somalis and since you emphasize sources (a good habit ;) ), here are but some: </nowiki>] , </nowiki>] , </nowiki>] , </nowiki>] <- all based on research either mostly on the Futuh or even at times using other sources and knowledge from the time. Again, you want the two '''clearly''' known genealogies for the dynasty as shared by Ibn Khaldun, Harari historians, various Islamic world scholars and so on? Here: this is the one that ties them to Yusuf bin Ahmad Al-Kawneyen as noted by I.M Lewis and taken down by ] from a Harar chroncile: </nowiki>]. You want a book mentioning how they're tied to Aqeel Ibn Abi Talib and Isma'il Al-Jaberti? Here: </nowiki>]. You want books claiming they're | |||
| Argobbas? Oh, wait... There are none... | |||
| There's no evidence of any sort that they were Argobbas or Afars. Just conjecture from some historian who got published once (and he said "Ethio-Semitic" never ''Argobba speicifcally'') and he was attemtping to argue that the ] and various ] sultanates were Ethio-Semitic too (which is bonkers) based on ] saying certain peoples of "Ifat" were speaking "Abyssinian" (rightly imho assumed to be Ethio-Semitic) </nowiki>] which makes sense because at this time the Sultanate was stationed I believe around Dakkar/ around Eastern Ethiopia where a substantial Ethio-Semitic demographic was definite, Adal-Ifat and so on while they were ruled by a clearly Somali dynasty and mostly soldiered by Somalis were as Middayexpress often points out-> '''Multi-Ethnic'''. Afars, Arabs, Ethio-Semites (ancestral to Argobbas and Hararis) and Somalis were all to be found </nowiki>]. These weren't at all borderline ''homogeneous Somali societies'' like you'd find with the ] or some early modern coastal Somali sultanates. | |||
| Oh and just to say this again; Braukamper is indeed "fringe" in nature and often made conjectural statements like thinking the ] were Ethio-Semites/ Harari despite Hararis clearly speaking of them as a distinct group from their own ethnicity (there might be a connection; who knows) and of course; he had zero evidence. It's not like there are inscriptions in "the Harla language", all we know about the Harla is that they once occupied areas of Eastern Ethiopia, served as a sizable part of the Adal's armies (Ahmed Ibn Ibrahim's) and were seemingly swallowed up/ likely assimilated by Somalis, Afars & possibly Oromos too who have certain subgroups in Eastern Ethiopia who call themselves "Harla". There's a strange one among Somalis that isn't even known in the clan genealogies but claims to be of Darod origin while Cerulli found that they spoke an odd variant of Somali that reminded of the dialects spoken by the Midgaan and such; they lived pretty much very close to where the original Harla did. ] <- We really know little of this group and the grandiose assumptions Braukamper made about them only to immediately admit he lacked evidence were embarassing to say the least. | |||
| Anyway, this discussion is petty indeed and pointless since we've already shown Zekenyan adequate and ample sources. If you're unhappy with what they say; that's your business. Take care, man. Also, if you are truly hurt by that quick comment of mine on mine and midday's own pages then I apologize, otherwise, that should be it with this conversation. You want to alter the Walashma page? Come up with adequate sources that aren't nonsensical like that "Hadiyas were Ethio-Semitic" one and start a discussion on the walashma talk page-> otherwise we shouldn't drag this out. ] (]) 19:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Stop spamming the noticeboard. Your completely off topic. ] (]) 22:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Bryce Carmony and civility == | |||
| Background: {{userlinks|Bryce Carmony}} had been trying to merge most "Criticism of..." articles into the main article, with no concern for why they had been split in some cases such as ]. I and a few others, including ] and ], tried to discuss the mergers in ]. Bryce removed several attempts to communicate, ] ]. I ] to keep an eye on him, because she had blocked him last. | |||
| At 21:07 UTC yesterday, she blocked him for 24 hours with the rationale "argument is getting a little WP:POINTY". Since then, we've had ] ] ], ], , and ] ] ] ]. Apparently Bryce feels that IAR covers ] of ]. , this user has just been uncivil, and I want a resolution. ]<sup>]]</sup> 04:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Bryce simply will not listen to anything anyone has to say, and any attempts at discussing issues with them will eventually be dismissed as - which is ridiculous, because there is no way on earth that ''anything'' has been spam, and the claims of harassment are almost as unfounded. They seem incapable of understanding that the issue centres around their lack of ], in that they were nominating large pages for merger every 10 minutes or so at one point - a rate that clearly shows they never even attempted to look up the histories of each article, or to determine whether a merger may actually be appropriate. And the actions of ], such as , have been little better, and have only made the situation worse. I'm not sure if any further sanctions are warranted for Bryce ''yet'', but someone needs to talk some sense into them - I tried, but failed. ] ] 10:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Bryce Carmony is a truly terrible editor who has no place on Misplaced Pages. This is the second time in two months that his behaviour has been discussed here, and since January he has been blocked four times. His edits are often very clumsy, his manner is irrational and extremely aggressive, he wilfully misrepresents (often abusively) any attempts to discuss or challenge his actions, he refuses to follow guidelines and he is quite prepared to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. The worst thing is that he (wilfully?) misunderstands fundamental issues and will not accept that he might be wrong - in many ways the apparent stupidity of people who disagree with him seems to be one of the sources of his anger. | |||
| :His activities on Misplaced Pages have fallen into two phases, both based on irrational notions. | |||
| :#Until his 1 month block last month he spent his time removing "unnecessary words" from articles. In some cases this led to improvement by removing verbiage but in many cases it damaged the articles. He even edited direct quotes. It came to a head with a row over a single word which led to a short block. When the block ended he deliberately damaged the article in question, leading to a one month block. | |||
| :#In his current phase his target is articles with the word "criticism" in the title, on the bizarre grounds that since in the phrase "criticism of X" the word X is the subject then so too in an article with that title the subject must be X, and since criticism is of necessity POV then that article must be a POV content fork of the main article about X and should be merged into the main article. This idea led to a wave of drive-by tagging and now to a sustained effort to merge some major articles including carrying out one merge against consensus. When challenged his response was a disruptive edit that earned him his most recent block. He pretends not to understand the reason for the block. | |||
| :We dare not leave him alone to have his fun since experience shows that he will take silence for consent. We cannot persuade him since he rejects all discussion. Blocking makes him froth at the mouth but does not drive the message home. | |||
| :We should show him the door. ] (]) 10:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Andy I would like to take this oppurtunity to engage in you the discussion that you feel I try and avoid. NPOV puts forward 3 standards. I apply these standards to every article. The idea is that every article meets these standards not two articles combined meets them. This is the discussion I try and have with you. ] (]) 10:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I've had no interaction with this person and no involvement in any of the articles under dispute, but I've just read through the user's talk page since January (It's not archived so you have to keep checking past revisions). What I see is a shocking refusal or inability to listen to anything anyone says, coupled with an apparently unshakeable conviction that he can't possibly ever be wrong, and repeated personal attacks on anyone who tries to engage in discussion. I hate to say it, but this looks like someone who is simply incapable of working collaboratively with other people. ] (]) 12:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| As a matter of process, I hope no action will be taken until ] has the opportunity to respond to these complaints. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 13:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I ] him the chance to write something on his talk page that I'd put here when I notified him about the discussion. Response was negative in tone. ]<sup>]]</sup> 14:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes, I see he removed your comment. And judging by his recent addition to his user page, it appears as if he wants to focus his editing on merging "Criticism of" articles with their primary subject article. I think properly merging articles, even when warranted, is a tricky job and should be undertaken by more experienced editors. But that's just my 2 cents. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 14:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::A huge issue, irrespective of experience and attitude, is that he is a very clumsy editor and frequently writes very poor English. is typical, introducing a grammatical error and a spelling mistake in two short sentences. And which leaves a single, almost meaningless sentence as the sole content of the article. I doubt that he ever checks what he writes, and as has been pointed out he simply will not accept that he makes errors. ] (]) 15:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course I make the occasional error. No one is perfect and the point of Misplaced Pages is that no post is the last. When I see an editor make a mistake like say that Isaac asimov is "the most prolific writer of all time" I'll chuckle to myself, think of how I can improve it, and edit accordingly. I'm not perfect but I never have claimed to be. ] (]) 10:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That makes my point, I'm afraid. The article in question never did contain the phrase "the most prolific writer of all time" but merely said that he was ''one of'' the most prolific writers. You deleted this without checking, as you so often do. In fact this claim was made in a wikipedia article about prolific writers and was properly sourced. You edit clumsily and without any kind of checking, frequently damaging articles, and then say anything you like to try to justify your actions. ] (]) 10:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Isaac_Asimov&diff=prev&oldid=590127928 "One of the most prolific writers of all time" Which is impossible to verify since the future is unknown. the point is that when someone writes something like that, it's not a big deal. we can easily improve it. Andy I feel like you're upset. I'm sorry if I offended you. ] (]) 12:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I certainly agree with Liz here, that nothing should be actioned until Bryce Carmony has had the chance to examine what's being said here at ANI and respond as he sees fit. He clearly wants to contribute constructively, and we shouldn't close the door on anyone who wants to help until all other avenues have been exhausted. ] (]) 16:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Also, something I feel I should have put in my original post is his insistence that ] and ] ] are the reason that women don't edit Misplaced Pages. Personally, as a woman, the implication that we're more likely to run off than men in a mildly hostile environment is insulting. The gender imbalance has a number of causes, none as simple as this. ]<sup>]]</sup> 14:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :If you look back in his Talk to February you'll see that his problem at that time was with Irish admins rather than misogynistic ones. He wasn't, as it happens, under attack by Irish people at that time, AFAIK, any more than he is currently under attack by alpha males. The problem is that when he feels cornered, which is frequently, he says anything that he thinks will gain traction. Sometimes he's ultra-reasonable and compliant and sometimes wildly aggressive, but whatever it is he then goes straight back to doing what he wants. So don't waste your time thinking about the sexism thing - he doesn't mean it anyway. ] (]) 15:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have made him aware of the discussion, , which it should have by now.--] (]) 23:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fellow editors,This is Bryce, I hope I did not keep you waiting I had family over for dinner. Let me start of by saying that I assume that your criticisms, and proposed bans are all made in good faith, that while I disagree with you, I know that you all have wikipedias interest at heart no matter if any of your actions are misguided. That being said let me say that my intentions are only to make Misplaced Pages better. | |||
| *I have been accoused of disrupting Misplaced Pages, an accousation I feel is without merit. My actions have been in the interest of and informed by the Neutral Point of View Policy. for the sake of the discussion I will recap the policy for you. | |||
| *The Point of view article is the the bedrock of Misplaced Pages. the ideal that has enabled us to coordinate millions of individuals to creating the greatest 💕 that the world has ever seen. Due to it's importance the NPOV policy can not be supersede by a consensus of editors, and it cannot be overridden by any other policy (Including Ignore all rules). | |||
| *There are 3 standards laid out of how information in an article must be presented. 1- Fairly 2- Proportionately and 3- As far as possible from bias. the conjunction And is used (as opposed to or) so all 3 standards must be met, a violation of any of these 3 things is sufficient to create a NPOV conflict. I submit evidence that "Criticism of..." Articles violates information being portrayed fairly. | |||
| *under article structure a warning is given that"Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." | |||
| *Criticism of articles are not only in a different section but go so far as to remove text into completely different articles. making the main article disproportionately portray non criticism and unfairly resigns criticism to articles that are void of the structure and information needed to create an encyclopedic article. defenses of this practice have been offered such as WP:article size, but as NPOV has a supremacy clause article size is void as a defennse for violating NPOV. | |||
| *The solution is easy to achieve. instead of breaking up a single topic into 2 articles ( criticism and non criticism ) we break up a large topic into smaller subtopics. For example, Apple could have ( Apple Controversies, Apple Litigation, etc ) Often lawsuits are put into "criticism of articles" implying that lawsuits in themselves are crticisms. Criticism of articles include "Controversies" as criticism. Criticism of google states that simple the existence of a competitor is a "criticism" posting the information for "Scroogle" as a criticism. | |||
| *NPOV is just words on a page, the only way it is given power is when we as editors take the words to heart and act on them. If we abandon NPOV when an article gets long or when someone sources an unflattering reality, then we resign wikipedia to fail. I do not believe in personal criticism, but I do believe in editor criticism, any editor who violates NPOV should be reasoned with and persuaded. If you feel that "Apple Inc." is fairly protraying all sources by banning criticism, if you think Google is proportionate when it bans criticism from the article, then say so, and we can discuss the matter. ] (]) 02:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :This doesn't really address the point of this ANI, which is your behaviour. ] (]) 05:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not here to get into a petty argument, if anyone thinks I'm rude I apologize , I never insult people personally I just disagree with editors and I respect any editor who disagrees with me to voice their opinion. I want to make wikipedia more inclusive not less so I'm not here pushing for bans. If people's feelings are hurt I suggest they be bold, wikipedia needs every single editor here and 10x more so I'm done wasting time talking about non issues. If you are assuming bad faith just say so now] (]) 06:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Bryce, you claim you "never insult people" - I'm sorry, but that's a clear lie. . Also, you are still making these merger proposals, such as . ] ] 08:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bryce, regardless of whether or not what Luke has pointed out above is a personal attack, it is still a civility issue. --] (]) 23:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Luke, I don't insult people personally, there's a difference between a personal attack, and a criticism about someones capacity in their job. I'll use an example to try and help you understand. "George W. Bush is a bad president" is not a personal attack. it is a crticism. "George W. Bush looks like a monkey" is a personal attack. I have the right to think certain admins are bad admins, you have the right to think certain editors are bad editors. If you need more examples to help understand the difference I'm happy to help you out. I assume good faith and that your concerns about avoiding "personal attacks" are well intended. ] (]) 09:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*How dare you respond in this arrogant and self-important way? Several serious-minded editors have called your behaviour into question and your response is to say that they are all "misguided", the accusations are "without merit", this is a "petty argument" and it is a waste of your time. And you have the presumption to lecture us on the principles of wikipedia? I agree with user Squinge: "this looks like someone who is simply incapable of working collaboratively with other people". ] (]) 09:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Andy, let me start by saying I assume good faith, that everything you have written here comes from an earnest desire to improve Misplaced Pages. There's not a doubt in my mind, however, I think your actions are not productive. I am trying to focus on a important topic. If your feelings have been hurt, I earnestly appologize that I made you feel bad. But let's focus on what's important. we have 500+ articles titled "controversy" a article format I strongly favor, and 150 articles with "Criticism of" a title I believe undercuts Misplaced Pages NPOV by segregating a single topic into two POVs creating a content fork. If you would like to write a few more posts that I'm arrogant, if that would make you feel better, by all means let it all out I encourage you. But I would really value your feedback on this. ] (]) 09:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposals=== | |||
| ====Topic ban==== | |||
| *Since Bryce is ''still'' continuing to propose these mergers despite being advised against it, and is clearly not listening at all, I think we have only one option here (short of throwing an indefinite ban hammer); For persistently creating barely-valid merger requests after being told not to, whilst showing no signs of following ], Bryce Carmony is indefinitely prohibited from making any merger requests, broadly construed. ] ] 08:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. ] ] 08:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::How are the merger requests invalid? I've gotten support in multiple articles supporting the merger. see ] for a case where people agree that we need to merge. Everyone says that my mergers have no merrits but no one will answer these questions: | |||
| *Does banning criticism from ] give readers of the ] Article all information presented fairly? | |||
| *Does banning criticism from ] represent all information in the ] article proportional coverage? | |||
| *Does banning criticism from ] show a lack of bias in the ] article? | |||
| take a moment to answer those questions honestly. I assume good faith that your concern over these mergers is well founded, but I think you are misguided, I'm happy to engage in a conversation but if you refuse to discuss NPOV then there isn't a lot I can do. ] (]) 09:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I was on the verge of supporting this proposal until Bryce Carmony's most recent edits. This is not a person you can do business with. He will simply find another way of "fixing" wikipedia which will be equally disruptive. It also does not address the substantive issue, which is his attitude. His responses in this discussion show that he neither understands nor cares about our concerns. So I'm going to make a counter-proposal for a ban. ] (]) 09:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Andy, once again, I assume good faith, I believe in my heart of hearts that everything you're saying you believe to be in wikipedias best interest. I care about your opinion, I have repeatedly reached out to you in article talk discussions to try and get your opinion. If you feel like NPOV is best represented by segregating a topic into two articles with different POVs please say so, we can start from ground level. and take the policy page sentence by sentence and discuss the meaning, whatever it takes for us to see eye to eye. ] (]) 09:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fine, then why not reach out to me one more time by explaining ]? | |||
| ::::Absolutely, Andy I have been working on trying to find a way to increase the amount of female editors on Misplaced Pages, a local coffee shop I frequent I've had multiple discussion with friends about why they don't edit Misplaced Pages, one of the reasons I got was the hostile environment, I think 5AS is a hostile admin, I think you're a hostile editor. I assume good faith and know that both of you have the best intentions for wikipedia, but I want to extend a challenge to you, to be less hostile, and to be more inviting at Misplaced Pages, if someone starts a discussion about a core policy, engage them. I do my best to respond to any discussion from anyone here because I want you to know that I care about what you think. Just because we disagree doesn't mean I don't. Andy you are willing to ban editors over a single word in an article. I don't mean this in any way personal but as a professional opinion, I think you are hostile. ] (]) 10:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I don't believe that this will resolve the civility issues.--] (]) 23:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Six month block ==== | |||
| '''Proposal: Six month ban.''' There is no evidence that this user has learned from anything that anyone has ever said to him on wikipedia, nor from any previous bans. There is plenty of evidence that he could not care less about our concerns. His arrogance is breathtaking, his attitude to other editors is deplorable and his editing is mediocre at best. Clearly, no sanction short of a ban will have any effect at all but a lengthy ban might, just might, make him stop and think. I doubt it, but for sure nothing else will work. ] (]) 09:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' I assume good faith in Andy, I know that he feels this ban proposal is best for Misplaced Pages, I politely disagree. As editors we are encouraged to be Bold. I do not consider my actions reckless, if you look at my merger proposals you can see an evolution to them, I take every objection and consider it truly. I try and make the mergers as easy as possible and break them down into small workable units. Look at the proposal for ] for an example of this. I am being bold and starting discussions on an issue. do we want these 150 "criticism of" articles to become 5,000 Criticism of articles 5 years from now. I think its important that we take a moment to really think about it. to truly go over our policies and look at what we want to do. If I have offended Andy in my boldness, I do apologize, but let's use the opportunity to look at this discussion. ] (]) 10:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Whilst I would rather go with the topic ban to give Bryce one last chance to sort themselves out, I also '''support''' this as a second option, particularly in lieu of their responses here. ] ] 10:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I assume good faith in Luke, I think he means what's best for wikipedia when he suggests I be banned for 6 months. that being said, I have to disagree. I ask questions about articles and NPOV. Luke if you could indulge my question, do you assume good faith in me and my actions? do you think I have wikipedias best interests at heart or do you think I want to make wikipedia a worse place. I value your feedback and would love to hear your response. ] (]) 10:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*You can cut that kind of sneering tone, thanks. That's one of the many reasons why you are a disruptive presence. ] ] 10:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I assume good faith, when luke says that my tone is sneering, I know he means it in the best interest of wikipedia, that being said I have to disagree. I am being sincere Luke, sometimes when we read words on a screen we put our emotions into those words. I want to avoid that and be as unambiguous as possible. I value your opinion, every edit I make is to improve wikipedia, if my boldness has offended you I sincerely, truly, and wholeheartedly apologize to you. I hope you don't read this as a sneer. it is not how I intend it. If you would like to discuss NPOV we can, if you aren't interested in that that's alright as well. ] (]) 10:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*You can also drop the trolling as well, because no one is going to buy the rubbish you're writing above. ] ] 10:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Luck, I assume good faith in you, when you call me a troll I know that it is because you have Misplaced Pages best interest at heart. The only thing you could do to make me stop my good faith in you is if you were to blatantly vandalize articles. You've never done that so my faith in you is complete. I have to disagree with you, I am not trying to troll you, I am not trying to sneer at you, I am not trying to disrupt your work at Misplaced Pages, the only thing I am trying to do is work with you if you'd like, or without you if you wouldn't like. To improve the work in progress Misplaced Pages. You say that my mergers are without merrit, but when I look at mergers that gain support for example ] agreed that we should merge ] and ] , my meger for ] has 100% support so far. I hope you see that my efforts are sincere. ] (]) 11:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*This is another example of the way that you lie and misrepresent in order to make a point. I certainly did not agree to that merger. You carried it out without consensus but since it was a very short article anyway I did not object. I confined myself to cleaning up the mess that you left behind after a clumsy series of edits (which points up what Liz was saying earlier in this discussion). ] (]) 11:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm sorry I didn't mean to misrepresent you. It's hard to tell what you mean sometimes. Do you support creating "Criticism of communism" as an article? returning it to the 100 words that it had? I don't want to "lie" about what you mean. If you want to revert the edits and go back to it. Let's go back and we can take it up in discussion. I assume good faith in you Andy ] (]) 11:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Bryce, when you repeatedly say things like "''I assume good faith, when luke says ...., I know he means it in the best interest of wikipedia, that being said I have to disagree''", can you really not see how condescending that is? ] (]) 11:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also, this discussion isn't about the merge proposals themselves, it's about the way you interact with other people. And your style of interaction over the past few months has been truly horrible. I think that's what you need to focus on here, and not the actual merges. ] (]) 11:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't find it condescending at all, being 100% honest if Luke were to tell me that he had good faith in me, I would appreciate it. Squinge, I have good faith in you, I don't mean that to be condescending I mean it sincerely. I want us as editors to look at these words on these pages and to take them seriously. I attend a university where professors mock wikipedia every day, I wear my Misplaced Pages sweaters and Track sweater ( the blue one I dunno what it's called ) becuase I'm proud to be apart of Misplaced Pages. I want people to realize how amazing wikipedia is, and I want wikipedians to believe in the words. when we say "neutral point of view" I want us to mean it. I am bold, in my boldness I might have been over critical of other editors, if that is the case, I don't know how many times I can apologize, but what I can say is I'm open to the NPOV discussion. I don't want to hack it in broad strokes. I want to reach a mutual understanding. The way I interact with people is with respect. Users like andy have a different style, if you add a broken link by mistake they might be hyper critical, call you sloppy, say it's "incredible" that you don't get it, and be hostile. I understand that is his style. My style is different. When I see mistakes of others I try to fix them not criticize them. I'm a sucker for that Dale Carnegie style of working. When someone disagrees with me, I respect them enough to give them 100% of my full opinion why I may disagree with them. I hope everyone respects me enough to give me 100% of their opinions if they disagree with me. when you say that I am "horrible" I know that you have wikipedias best interest at heart. ] (]) 11:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I didn't say *you* are horrible, just the way you have been interacting with people. Anyway, I've told you how I think you're coming across, and several others have offered their thoughts too. If you don't want to listen and instead keep on insisting you've done no wrong then that's entirely up to you, but I'll spend no more time trying to help. ] (]) 11:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I am not saying I've done no wrong. Why would I appologize if I haven't done anything wrong? I'm being bold, I know that, and I know that some people think my ambitious merger of 150 out of 4.7 million articles is ambitious. but when I read the NPOV policy its the direction I see, I hope to discuss and convince you of that vision. 10 years from now how many Criticism of articles do we want in wikipedia? do we want every company to be able to white wash their "main" article and make it look great while their "criticism" article looks horrible and therefore uncredible, that isn't the Misplaced Pages that will best serve the reader, that's what this is about I hope to rally your support. If you don't want to work with me I understand, but I hope we can come together to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. The way I interact is when you call me a sneering troll , I chose to be bold, I chose to not take that personally. Luke isn't "personally attacking me" he is just frustrated, I cut him slack because there's no point in arguing over stuff like that, he's a good guy, that is what matters. ] (]) 11:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Bryce, I have every confidence that you are trying to improve Misplaced Pages in the way you know best. However, we are a community. We have to work together to work on articles. When you saw how many people were against your mergers, why didn't you stop to consider if we were right? Instead, you made personal attacks and were just inconsiderate as a whole. Anyway, one of the reasons I started this was to get other people's input on the situation. {{ping|Andyjsmith}} and {{ping|Lukeno94}}, why don't we step back for a bit and see what other people think of this? ]<sup>]]</sup> 11:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Origamite, NPOV is immune to consensus. I am willing to discuss the NPOV policy. I keep asking the question if people feel that Crit of articles meet the 3 standards set out in NPOV. but they have been reluctant to engage in the discussion. When I'm called a "sloppy" or "terrible" or "Horrible" or "mediocre at best" or "clumsy" editor, I don't take it personally. I chose to be bold, learn from my mistakes, take the feedback , and move forward. A recent edit I mistakenly posted a broken link, I didn't realize it, a editor pointed it out, I checked how to see if links are broken, and then removed the links since they were broken. I learned and now I know. I'm open to learning, I open to any single person telling me I'm wrong. But I have to go by policy. NPOV has a supremacy clause, so when you say WP:Article Size. that doesn't matter, NPOV trumps it. So we have to get down to a discussion. is segregating a topic into a criticism and non criticism article NPOV appropriate. we need to ask ourselves the 3 standards we have. You say my attacks are personal, I don't think I make personal attacks, I think any criticism I have towards anyone here is in their capacity as an admin or an editor. I am not inconsiderate I just consider the NPOV policy. Origamite I assume good faith in you, I know you have the best interest of wikipedia. I'm glad you feel the same way about me. I want to move past this so we can get on to more important issues. ] (]) 11:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: I would like to point out that I have appologized multiple times to multiple people. If anyone is offended that I think this sort of hostility towards boldness is off putting, I'm sorry. I don't think this is a very welcoming community right now. If an editor was passionate and bold and proposing ideas to make wikipedia better, I would be thrilled, that editor is needed, can we at least agree on that? that 125,000 editors is not enough for 4.7 million articles? We need to band together and bolster our numbers not turn on one another and hack down our ranks. Andy wants to "show me the door" but I wouldn't ever dream of banning him. I value his contributions, I hope to convince him to be less hostile. but every single person here is needed, I can't stress that enough. ] (]) 11:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This article is getting pretty long but I would like to add some discussions I've really been enjoying these merger proposals: | |||
| *] a user had a great idea to create an article to address length + NPOV . | |||
| *] a user agrees with the NPOV interpretation. | |||
| *] this user strongly disagrees but the discussion is really bringing out some cool stuff. | |||
| I know some people here might feel that my mergers are without merit but I disagree. and I think looking at these discussions is a fair look to how I interact with fellow editors. ] (]) 11:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' - Bryce clearly doesn't understand how to work within a community. He has continued to blatantly disregard community agreements. Assuming good faith only goes so far; once a user repeatedly continues an action after the community disagrees with that action, good faith can no longer be assumed. - ] ] 16:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: What has the community agreed on? 1 - there is no agreement that the community has reached. some people support these mergers some don't, I'm facilitating discussion and particpating. what "agreement" are you referring to? 2 - NPOV cannot be overwritten by a consensus, so if there is an agreement that says "we won't merge any crit of article with any other article" and people ( like me and others ) view that as a NPOV conflict, consensus doesn't get to mute that. I am trying to work WITH the community, not against it, which is why I am proposing merges not cutting and pasting entire articles together. ] (]) 19:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly support''' - Unfortunately, I am now coming to the conclusion that a topic ban isn't going to be enough. Bryce's persistent walls-of-text and wikilawyering is just getting absolutely ridiculous now, and enough is enough. This is now my preferred sanction. ] ] 22:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' A topic ban would not be enough as it will not stop the civility issues. I support this and would suggest that if the same behaviour happens once the block has finished that the next block be indefinite.--] (]) 23:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''': I oppose this on several levels (having been already ]ed above, probably the ], actually). | |||
| :#I thought the sanctions were designed as escalating. The next block, I thought (I admit I could be wrong), would be a 72 hour block, not a 4,392 hour block, would it not? | |||
| :#Wondering aloud, because I'm not an advanced comprehender of admin policies, to what extent is Admin 5AS "involved" having led the previous block regimen applied to the subject of the discussion, and do we not need an "uninvolved" admin to make a measured proposal here? | |||
| :#I've yet to see any diffs here, having tried, that have so offended another editor as to justify such a draconian sanction. Indeed, much of what has transpired is actually a content dispute, and belongs at ], not here. | |||
| :#I can be against Bryce's proposed merges, and argue in favor of his actions, to which he has now ascribed quixotism, an apt description, at the same time. One does not preclude the other. I cite ] in my defense of this "oppose" to the proposal here discussed, in order to argue in Bryce's favor. | |||
| :#It seems nobody will defend Bryce, including those who've experienced this same, or a similar, strife in their own life. So I will. Call me "Sancho". | |||
| :#The proposer refers to a "block" in the title, and a "ban" in the proposal. As this is basic, not advanced, policy, I do not think the proposer knows what he/she is talking about in the first place. Which are we, the above, supporting or or opposing? I call the proposal on procedural grounds, as improperly proposed in the first place. | |||
| :#While I agree with ]'s argument above that "AGF only goes so far", I disagree that this is the time to drop that faith. In another (totally different) context, I recently did drop my faith in the case of proven spam by an editor. That's the time to drop that faith, not this. | |||
| :For these seven reasons, and others here not yet argued, I "oppose", and request of ANI in general and Admins in particular, a more measured and well considered sanction against ], if any at all. —] (]) 03:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bryce has previously been blocked for a month (for edit warring, a very similar sort of thing), so they were ''very'' lucky to only receive a 24 hour block this time around. Every time they've come back from a block, they've almost immediately resumed some kind of disruption. 5AS is not involved. Trying to wikilawyer around a user being confused between the differences of bans and blocks is lame. I think Bryce has shown that they can't be trusted to respect the community's wishes, and I don't really buy the so-called apologies - I view them as a last-ditch attempt at getting away scot-free. Call ''that'' a lack of AGF if you will, but people this stubborn don't just cave in like that without an ulterior motive, and experience has shown it to happen over and over. ] ] 11:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' I started this discussion partially because I wanted other, more experienced opinions and partially because I wanted Bryce to realize what was wrong with his mass mergers and civility. I feel that the second has been accomplished, and that instead of getting other perspectives old debates have been rehashed again and again. As he seems to have learned from what has been done, I am against sanctions on Bryce. ]<sup>]]</sup> 15:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat}} | |||
| NPOV Discussion | |||
| '''Proposal: We discuss NPOV''' It has become clear that among us there is a difference of opinion on interpreting the Neutral Point of View policy. The policy is vast so this isn't entirely surprising, however, The best thing for us to do, is to discuss this. I propose that we sit down, and go over the policy and find common ground, make a plan, and act. ] (]) 12:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''] (]) 12:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you seriously believe that this fatuous suggestion is the best way to answer the well-founded concerns and criticisms of so many editors? Surely you cannot have managed to convince yourself that this discussion about your lack of civility and aggression is actually a debate about wikipedia NPOV policy? This is pretty much your last chance to sort things out - there can be little doubt that a sanction of some sort is impending. I suggest that you acknowledge these concerns and accept that the fault lies with you, and make it clear on this forum that you are now prepared to edit collaboratively and within the guidelines and above all to behave civilly and without contempt towards other editors. ] (]) 12:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Andy, I respect you, I want to have an open and productive conversation with you. if you feel like I am being aggressive, I apologize that is not my intention. I don't want to make this a fight at all. I feel like you are being the aggressive one, but it doesn't need to be that way. I am being civil towards you, I am exercising good faith, will you do the same? ] (]) 12:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Also, I have more than apologized for any offense I've given you, I know that I'm not perfect and I have faults. But I am not being uncivil. I think we need to state what our objectives here are. My objective is to apologize to anyone who has been offended and to promote the open discussion about a serious look at the NPOV policy as it relates to certain articles. What is your objective here? so we can get on the same page and understand one another. ] (]) 13:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ==== Indefinite ban from creating merger proposals or anything related to merging ==== | |||
| *'''Support''' - This user just came off his <u>4th block this year</u> and doesn't appear to be finished -- It's clear to me that he doesn't fully comprehend what is being asked of him by the community and therefore I see no other solution than a ban. -- ] (]) 12:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''oppose''' , I understand that what I'm proposing is difficult for some people. I understand 100% how it is easier to create a "Criticism section" that grows and grows , we chose not to weave in the content into a single narrative until finally it's so big we make it it's own page. it's happened a few times, not that many, only about 150 (give or take) times. Turning back now will be difficult, I understand that 100% but if we continue the trend, of allowing Criticisms to be segregated instead of integrated, we won't like the end result and it'll be even harder to stop it. We have the opportunity as editors to correct course, to sit down, consider NPOV, discuss the best course of action, and act. I respect Somedifferentstuff, but I disagree that I should be banned forever because I have proposed a few mergers. People say that Misplaced Pages is a mob rule rabble, but I disagree, I know that we respect our policies and our rules. If Somedifferentstuff or any other user would like to have a discussion about Articles that purge criticism into a separate article and if they pass the 3 standards of NPOV. I am happy to have that discussion. I don't mean to offend. I don't mean to disrupt. i'm here to make wikipedia better. ] (]) 12:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am going to sleep, I want to say to origamite, to andy, to luke, to somestuff, to 5as, to liz, and anyone else I might have forgotten. I am not trying to cause problems. the merger workload I have right now is a lot. I'm not planning on adding more since I have a lot of work getting the current ones completed. The ] merger is unopposed and I suspect will begin soon. I won't lie, my goal is to reach a wikipedia with 0 "Criticism of" articles. but it doesn't have to happen over night. I respect every single one of you, i respect your opinions, I respect your feedback, I read everything you write to me and I offer the invention to anyone, if you truly in your heart of hearts feel that I am wrong on NPOV. I want to discuss this civilly and openly. Years from now wikipedia could look a lot different depending on how we act today. I don't want to cause trouble, I never have. ] (]) 13:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::before I go to bed, here's how I think I like to interact with others. here's a post of mine from 3 days ago about a merger to Aladdin Sane ( who disagrees with the merger ) | |||
| ::Even if we don't end up merging "criticism of linux" and "linux" together, I like that you have done a lot recently to improve "criticism of linux" you don't need my approval by any means but I wanted to express my gratitude I think you're awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why, thank you. I've some other suggestions I may bring up on the Talk page. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::] (]) 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Yahoo! merger has '''''1''''' other person's views. Why not let some others weigh in? ]<sup>]]</sup> 18:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::] has some clear guidance on merging, including advising other editors and usually waiting for at least 30 days. Given the tone of this discussion, a merger on Yahoo! or any other article "soon" would clearly be intentionally disruptive. ] (]) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Andy, you have refused to wait 30 days, you've taken down the merger banners before the 30 day mark, I feel like that is a little disruptive, but I'm not here to argue with you. I haven't taken any action in Yahoo and I don't plan to until the discussion is complete. | |||
| :::::I am waiting for others to weigh in, that is why I have taken NO ACTION about the merger. what I have done is repeatedly link to that talk page here to try and get additional feedback on that merger. If you want to criticize me and say "you don't care what anyone thinks" then why do I try so hard to facilitate discussion? You can call me a sneering troll, an arrogant editor to and ask me "how dare I talk about NPOV" you can say all those things if it makes you guys feel better, I don't care if that's what you say about me, what I do care about is is getting your feedback on the issues. Also, WP:NPOV has a supremacy clause, there is no supremacy clause in WP:MERGEPROP, I'm not trying to be disruptive, I'm just trying to address an NPOV issue but I am the only one. when I propose discussion I'm greeted with "how dare I" ] (]) 18:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*It's worth reading the comments by ] at ] - they illustrate the issues that Bryce Carmony is wading into, and the need for these matters to be handled by an expert and well-informed editor. He gives strong reasons for not merging based on the specifics of the subject and the article's history, but Bryce Carmony's response is to sidestep this and instead deliver a homily on how "writing NPOV is hard but it is something we can do". ] (]) 19:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I respect User:Rjensen, we're lucky to have him here at Misplaced Pages, and I agree that some of these mergers will be hard, some are pretty easily ( criticism of communism wasn't hard at all ) but the question is NPOV. I'm going to quote from NPOV a section I quoted before and I said "how dare I" but let's look at the text. "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure" That is what is happening here. I'm not trying to work against RJensen, I'm trying to work with RJensen. ] (]) 19:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', as this is in essence just an expanded version of my proposal, and Bryce is still spouting falsehoods above and continuing with their same-old disruptive behaviour. ] ] 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::When you chose to use language like "spouting" instead of "stating" to me it shows that this is becoming personal to you. You've made repeated personal attacks at me, and in response all I have to offer you is my apology, I am sorry luke. I can tell something I did really seemed to hurt you, you don't have to accept my apology I wouldn't dream of demanding that, but I do offer it. ] (]) 19:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', as before: it won't stop him and it doesn't address the issue of behaviour to other editors. ] (]) 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know what it is about my behavior that bothers you so much. when I ask you direct questions to try and resolve an issue you lie or play games or insult me or say it's justification to ban me. I feel like you might not have good faith in me, the same way that I have good faith in you. ] (]) 18:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it is worth noting that Andy might have an agenda, he has taken me to ANI before and called me "hysterical" along a few other insults. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#Edit_warring.2C_disruption.2C_incivility_and_harassment_by_user:Bryce_Carmony ] (]) 19:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' -- Bryce Carmony has a bee in his bonnet-- several bees. Worse, he has been unable to learn anything from his too-intensive and too-frequent interactions. All that buzzing means he cannot recognize a consensus when it is against him. That inability to learn, in my opinion, has been highly disruptive. It disqualifies him from proposing mergers, especially regarding controversies. ] (]) 21:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've never proposed a merger of a "Controversy" article. I have proposed a few mergers of articles that split topics by the POV ( Criticism vs non criticism ) an article ] is not the same as ] ] (]) 21:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''oppose''' As before. It won't address the civility issues.--] (]) 23:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat}} | |||
| Clarification request from ] | |||
| Andy J smith when asked what the subject of "Criticism of Libertarianism" is, stated : Eh? The subject of the one article is libertarianism and the subject of the other is criticism (specifically, criticism of libertarianism). In general, the subject of a wikipedia article is given by its title. andy (talk) | |||
| Then when he wrote to 5 albert square he said that the topic of "Criticism of Libertarianism" is in fact "Libertarianism" I just am confused, since he is saying that his advice to me on what the topic was is his justification that I have disrupted wikipedia. I want to know what the topic of "criticism of libertarianism" is. is it criticism? or is it libertarianism? thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide andy. ] (]) 12:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| === I officially redact all merger proposals === | |||
| Fellow editors, I appreciate your feedback and agree. my mergers are not appropriate for wikipedia at this time. I have begun the process of removing the proposals, It took me a while to see the light but I realize now that you guys are right. These mergers aren't the way to go. ] (]) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :That's a breathe of fresh air Bryce, good job. -- ] (]) 23:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks some, I know it took longer than it should have been I see that you guys are right. I was trying to argue against the consensus which isn't the way we should do things. I have removed all the tags. I want to apologize to everyone for being too zealous. ] (]) 00:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Although this change of heart followed immediately after my intervention ], I'll wait a little while before concluding that the leopard has definitely changed its spots. ] (]) 09:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === I apologize for being incivil === | |||
| in my zeal I was tilting at windmills, I got caught up in the moment and in that lapse I didn't treat you with the respect and civility you deserve, I realize that now, I was in the wrong. I am sorry for letting this escalate so much. ] (]) 00:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Bryce, there are ] equally important pillars (or bedrocks), and none has supremacy over the others. | |||
| Others: ANI is not <small>supposed to be</small> Misplaced Pages's version of the ] where we engage in the ] of thumbs-up, thumbs-down ''block this editor''! (e.g. ]). Additionally, in general neither the veracity nor the persuasiveness of a position is enhanced by repetition; on ANI specifically it's a good way to help a thread devolve into a wall o' text few editors are going to wade through. <small>]</small> 09:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Throwing up walls of text is one of Bryce's standard tactics... ] ] 12:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User removing content from RSN discussion == | |||
| User {{userlinks|Formerly 98}} has repeatedly removed content ({{diff|Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard|diff=651066484|oldid=651064270}}, {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard|diff=651431836|oldid=651431485}}) from a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. I believe this content is relevant to the discussion, as it provides context for the question being discussed. Formerly 98 apparently considers the material a personal attack, per his edit summaries. Regardless, this user should not be deleting comments from an ongoing discussion. Please advise. | |||
| Note: This user has an extensive history of what I consider disruptive editing, for which I will probably create a separate posting eventually. This posting is specifically for his disruption of the RSN discussion. ] (]) 06:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Further information: we had a brief, unproductive exchange about this ]; also Formerly 98 has a ] on his user page in which he (mistakenly) claims that this behavior is justified by ]. ] (]) 07:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Boomerang'''. The removed content ''is'' a personal attack, and has no business being at RS/N. It's your putting it there (not its removal) that is disruptive. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 07:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *: I contend that my comment was directly relevant to the discussion. Users had expressed confusion over why such an obvious issue was being brought up. I cited a specific example of disruptive editing to clarify why this was being discussed -- i.e. we have a problem editor on our hands, this user is is willfully misinterpreting the policy to support his disruptive edits, how can we explain to him that what he is doing is inappropriate? ] (]) 08:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::RSN is '''not''' the place for discussing "problem editors". ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 08:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hmm, fair enough. Sounds like the best thing to do would be to remove portions of content regarding Formerly98's conduct and rephrase the comment to focus on the portion relevant to the discussion, to wit: "This discussion is getting rather abstract, but in practice the answer is usually obvious, as in this example: ". ] (]) 16:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What I would like from you is a discussion of content and sources. Content disagreements can usually be handled without making assumptions about other editors motivations. If we don't agree, we can do an Rfc, and of course will both be bound by the opinions of the overall community. | |||
| :::::I am as concerned by your editing style as you are by mine, but that is neither here nor there, and questioning your motives will not help us reach consensus. Let's debate the sources and their interpretation on the article Talk pages, and do an RFc if we cannot agree. And lets keep the discussion on the Reliable sources page limited to whether sources are reliable. If either one of us violates 3RR, vandalizes pages, or calls the other a "ninny", that is suitable material for ANI. | |||
| :::::If we can agree to work together on this basis, I think we can get along and not waste our time battling it out here. ] (]) 16:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ok, {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard|label=this diff|diff=651526671|oldid=651525816}} removed the accusations of user misconduct, leaving only the facts and my position on the question at hand. ] (]) 19:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thank you. I appreciate the gesture of goodwill and look forward to working with you to address our differences. I would also like to apologize for my comments on the Criticism of Coca Cola Talk page, which were unnecessarily provocative and which undoubtedly contributed to this conflict. I have struck the same. ] (]) 20:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I am privy to this discussion thread on the noticeboard. On the one hand, I am slightly dismayed that the IP editor feels the need to go straight to AN/I with this. It seems like something that could be resolved with a bit of discussion. The IP editor must know that they aren't coming here with clean hands: the material which they posted (and which Formerly 98 removed) assumes bad faith on the part of ] and accuses him of "clear deliberately disruptive editing" in a case that is not clear at all. Why was that obviously disruptive editing? There are many reasons why material might be culled from articles. Furthermore, I do not see how that was even relevant to the discussion on the RSN. The fact that the IP editor feels so certain that s/he is correct and that administrator intervention may be needed for ''that issue'', too, shows, in my opinion, an unwillingness to engage in the normal dispute resolution mechanisms on Wiki before jumping to the AN/I noticeboard. Did you even attempt to discuss those other edits with ]? | |||
| :On the other hand, it is arguable if these are clear-cut "personal attacks" which would entitle Formerly 98 to summarily remove them himself -- in their entirety -- per ] There is an actual point in those comments about Formerly 98's editing history (however possibly irrelevant or badly stated). There is a good argument to be made that this was really an ]. Uncivil comments are different from personal attacks, and according to ]: "In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it may be appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording . . . ''It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment.''" (Emphasis added.) Even if we assume that it was a personal attack and not merely an uncivil comment, I don't see why Formerly 98 would remove the entire text himself (despite its possible irrelevance) instead of only the phrases which directly accuse him of bad faith. So, possibly some room for apology on both sides. ] (]) 08:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Response by Formerly 98''' - | |||
| * I don't believe I removed material other than the personal attack. If I did so, I apologize for having done so. It was my intent to remove the ] violation only | |||
| * On the other hand, the removal of personal attacks is justified by ], which states in its very first paragraph: | |||
| ::"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Misplaced Pages community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. '''Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.''' Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." | |||
| * If 67 disagrees with my edits, I am more than happy to discuss these on the relevant Talk page, and to cooperate in an RFC if we are unable to come to agreement. What seems unacceptable to me is that every disagreement should immediately be met with unsupported allegations and personal attacks. | |||
| * I respectfully request that this discussion be closed immediately with a warning to 67 to abide by ] and ]. Respect and civility are not merely guidelines, but policy. They are part of the 5 pillars of Misplaced Pages. I've been a contributor here for over a year, working in good faith to improve the content of the encyclopedia and trying to follow the rules. I have never been blocked or even warned. I deserve to be allowed to edit in peace without personal attacks. | |||
| ] (]) 09:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :These were neither uncivil comments nor personal attacks. Rather, the IP violated AGF quite blatantly. This was bad, of course, but it wasn't a proper basis for removal of their comments. Their comments should be restored and Formerly98 should be warned not to edit other editor's comments in these types of circumstances. The IP should be warned not to jump to easy conclusions about their fellow editors' motivations. --] (]) 10:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: I am happy to discuss my behavior with the community and I respect and appreciate Dr. Fleishman's opinion in particular. However, | |||
| ::* ] defines personal attacks as including "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." | |||
| ::* 67's accusation was a serious one: "t's clear that the user is deliberately misinterpreting this and other policies in order to remove criticism from corporate articles." He presented no evidence in support of this accusation other than diffs of some edits he disagreed with. Yes, this was a presentation of evidence, but not of serious evidence. At some point the point needs to be made that "disagrees with me" is not evidence of COI or ill intent, and that making serious accusations based on "he disagreed with me" arguments is not acceptable. | |||
| ::* Even accepting Dr. F's premise that this was a ] violation and not a ] violation, it is difficult to understand why he thinks it should be restored. (67 has already restored it). In either case it is a violation and at a minimum, 67 should be asked to strike | |||
| ::I am trying my best to deal with a difficult situation in a way that is respectful of the rules and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. There is a cadre of editors here with whom I have frequent content disputes, who respond to every difference of opinion with accusations of COI and bad faith editing. I have not responded in kind. . I request that the decision at the ANI board be respected and that I be allowed to edit without continuously being required to address the same unsupported allegations over and over again. | |||
| ::Respectfully, ] (]) 12:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You'll note that I did present evidence for the accusation in the form of a diff, etc. It seems that the real problem is that I chose the wrong forum to raise my concerns. I would be glad to correct this in the RSN discussion per my reply to Alexbrn, above, and raise my conduct concerns elsewhere at a later time. | |||
| ::: Also, I hope it is not the policy of Misplaced Pages administrators to grant any user a "free pass" for future scrutiny of their behavior. It would seem like the frequent complaints about Formerly 98's behavior indicate if anything a need for ''greater'', not lesser, oversight. ] (]) 16:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I noted above, I am as concerned about your editing style as you are about mine, but have not made any assumptions or accusations regarding what motivates you. You are unhappy with my edits, but this is a content dispute which I believe can be handled by good faith negotiations, and if necessary, and RFC or two. There are good reasons for the rules ] and ], as comments about the editor rather than debating content and sources is usually energy intensive and non-productive. I respectfully request that you strike your comments on the reliable sources board (which I have not re-reverted) and discuss specific concerns on the Talk pages of the articles in question. It is very difficult for me to provide a specific response to a broad accusation such as "Formerly 98 is a POV editor who is misusing the sourcing rules". thanks ] (]) 17:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*'''Comment''' Formerly98, the ANI concluded that no action was necessary ''at the time''. That is not a statement about your future editing, or about your history, but only about the specific diffs brought to the noticeboard. There exists no policy to support your request that you "be allowed to edit without continuously being required to address the same unsupported allegations over and over again" based on a past ANI. No one is immune from scrutiny. To attain NPOV takes a village. Welcome the feedback - this is fodder for a more well-rounded editor. No human is perfectly neutral. You shared with me (on Gandy's talk page) that you are very closely connected to the pharmaceutical industry; it seems possible that you may have a blind spot regarding your own POV in that area. As I stated previously, your edits could be described as nothing short of "spindoctoring on steroids". I've never seen anything like it since I've been here. I see why it would be desirable, but I highly doubt that you will be 'left alone' unless a more neutral editing style is attained (and perhaps things have changed, I am referring to edits in May/June 2014). Thank you for hearing me out. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 06:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: P, I think the problem here is that bias is in the eye of the beholder. Your suggestions that | |||
| ::::::* That my editing style is not "neutral" | |||
| ::::::* That my that edits could be described as nothing less than "spin doctoring on steroids" | |||
| ::::::* That I have a "blind spot regarding my own biases | |||
| ::::::Are all based in your implicit definition of your own POV as "neutral" and assumption that the "bias" of others can be measured by the extent to which their point of view differs from your own. I'm sure that if you think about it, you will recognize how indefensible such a definition is. I am also sure that upon further reflection, you will understand how inappropriate it is to attempt to use the ANI process to deal with differences of opinion. Rather we discuss, and compromise on the article Talk page. There are no Thought Crimes at Misplaced Pages. Thanks, ] (]) 10:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::. You should probably be editing articles outside of this realm so that your contributions are more neutral. A strong passion either way can make NPOV impossible. I am not surprised that I continue to see you at this noticeboard. Your "blind spot" is evident with every response you make. It's worrisome. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 17:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Not that it should actually matter, but I haven't worked for a pharmaceutical company for close to a decade. In any case it would only be a COI if I wrote about a current employer. Following your line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, we would not allow doctors to write about surgical procedures or the diagnosis of illness. Expertise is not the same thing as COI. | |||
| :::::::::Please think about what I said. Disagreeing with your POV is not evidence of COI or "biased editing". It is instead a sign of the diversity that makes Misplaced Pages effective. ] (]) 19:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Continued ignorance of policies/guidelines by ] == | |||
| Before I begin, I must admit that I have not handled this in the best of ways, and would not be surprised if a partial ] occurs and I end up with a block for some of ]. | |||
| Simply put, MaranoFan is a ] and a ]. I'm sure several editors will agree with me that this editor has been stirring up a lot of unnecessary drama at various locations since late last year. That may sound harsh, but I (and others) have made many attempts to assume good faith, but there comes a point when someone simply becomes too stubborn to collaborate with. I could list a number of problems with his/her editing, but I'll save everyone the time and just get to the main issue at hand: | |||
| :'''Willful ignorance of policies and guidelines,''' mainly in regards to non-free file uploads. A month ago, ] for repeated problematic uploads – specifically, replacing JPGs with PNGs when there is no difference in the files beyond a different format and a larger file size, and not tagging orphaned files for deletion, despite multiple warnings from other editors. These warnings were typically responded to by ]. | |||
| :Eventually, MaranoFan stopped trying to fight the block and ], without demonstrating an understanding of what led to this block. Now that they are returning to similar behavior (uploading non-free album covers at an arbitrary size of 300x300 px, even if this ] – violating ] – or ], or both), it's apparent they're just going to continue on with their ways until they end up blocked again. | |||
| :Not that this applies exclusively to file uploads. ], s/he restores an unhelpful acronym dab for a subject not known by its acronym after being made aware of ]. As noted, attempts to discuss on their talk page are usually ]. | |||
| My recommended course of action, since this user is clearly going to ignore temporary blocks and ] without regards to policies and guidelines, is to indefinitely block him/her until s/he agrees to a ] from non-free files (both uploading them and altering their use in articles). –''''']''''' (] / ]) 15:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Admins, see discussion at ] which was brought to my page in the last 24 hours. I've sent the discussion here because I'm not looking to get heavily involved in this on-going drama. I hope others are willing to look into this and take action. I think all three users (Chasewc91, MaranoFan, and Winkelvi) are disrupting the project with edit wars and personal attack-laced debates across multiple pages and action must be taken to prevent further disruption. ] (]) 15:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please remember that blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I have acknowledged that some of my recent behavior (namely, the warring with MF) was in the wrong, and I have also stopped it. I brought this here to sort this out so that hopefully no further action will be necessary (including for MF, should s/he properly address the problematic behavior). At the moment, I do not see how MF's continued ignorance of P&G can be prevented without a block. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 16:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Non admin comment: I would strongly suggest an interaction ban between all three users involved (MF, Wink, and Chase). They clearly don't want to play nice with each other. ] 16:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::First of all, the problem is between myself/MF and WV/MF – WV and I have no problems with one another. Second of all, the problems I have with MF (I cannot speak for WV) stem from MF's inability to accept criticism of their edits or abide to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Anytime any editor has a problem with MF's edits, s/he is quick to cry "bully!" and announce bans from their talk page. Imposing interaction bans for attempting to correct MF's errors is going to send us all down a slippery slope where MF will exaggerate any conflict with any user, which will in turn require interaction bans for anyone who doesn't edit to his/her liking if we're going to follow such a precedent. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 17:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oppose IB proposed by Calidum. The facts show otherwise. ] (]) 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Support interaction ban between Chasewc91 and MaranoFan as well as ban between MaranoFan and Winkelvi. Nothing to warrant a ban between Winkelvi and Chasewc91, though. We don't need anymore arguments between them. ] (] / ])</b> 20:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I oppose your proposed IB per ]. When one looks at the history in depth, the problem is MaranoFan, not these other editors. I admit this has not been easy to see, considering that I supported your proposal in the recent past. However, it has become clear over time that MaranoFan isn't willing to conform to what's expected of him. ] (]) 21:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you, Viriditas. While I admittedly have not handled my own behavior in the best way in my interactions with MF, the root problem is their inability to edit according to guidelines. To restrict me and WV from cleaning up after MF when s/he edits contrary to P&G would harm, not help, the encyclopedia. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 21:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Fine, I'll withdraw my initial idea and limit it to a interaction ban between MaranoFan and Winkelvi. ] 23:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Is that necessary? Why can't we just deal with the problem under discussion? I don't see how Winkelvi has contributed to the current situation. The solution here does not involve any kind of IB, so I wish other editors would stop bringing that up. I think this is a case of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". No hammer is required here. MaranoFan has a problem that does not involve anyone else. ] (]) 01:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, it is. If you think more needs to be done sanction MaranoFan, that's fine. But that doesn't excuse Winkelvi for the actions he's taken. is just one example. ] 03:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Given that you participated in the RfC on the talk page and voted in favor of MaranoFan's image choice (and against Winkelvi), as well as participating in a very minor "hatting" war on the talk page, you may not be the most neutral party here. In other words, you are ''involved'' in a content dispute with Winkelvi, and may be proposing this IB to gain an upper hand. I don't think Winkelvi should edit war, and I believe he should try to hold himself to 1RR, but that has little to do with the problem under discussion. ] (]) 03:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{unindent}} Glad you think so highly of me. I previously backed Winkelvi when he filed an ] and defended him in a related thread . ] | |||
| *'''Comment''' As {{U|Chasewc91}} pointed out at the beginning of the AN/I and {{U|Viriditas}} also noted, MaranoFan has a definite problem working with other editors and following guidelines and policies. None of us are perfect, but I think a quick once-over of the history of MFs edits, edit wars, talk-page postings (on others' userspace as well as his own), and various other questionable actions (listed above by Chasewc91) gives a complete picture: something needs to be done about his attitude and approach. He just came off a month-long block and is already back at AN/I? That's the sign of something more than the usual "doesn't understand Misplaced Pages", in my opinion. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 03:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Non-admin comment''': {{ec}} There are a lot of things that I noticed when going through this discussion. I realised that MaranoFan disliked people calling him/her "MF", but it seems like nobody gives a damn about that here. MaranoFan tend to call just anyone a "bully" and used the term "]" incorrectly. Replacing JPEG files with PNG files are common, but the users usually change the file to 300px (if it can be) and upload the new one with a lower file size, before removing the old one and replacing it at the article. This one misconception is that users tend to use the {{t1|db-f1}} template, but they are just supposed to tag the original JPEG file as orphaned. I can name you editors who do that, including me, but I will just not waste time. I think the interaction ban is a great idea, as I do not think Chase would want to meet with this editor anymore. MaranoFan is a really troublemaker editor. S/he tells people to "assume good faith" when s/he him/herself does not do that, and even calling Chase's action as "vandalism". Such hypocritical acts cannot be tolerated, regardless of gender, religion or size. However, Chase might really have been wikihounding MaranoFan too, or it just turned up to be pure coincidences that Chase just kept bumping into MaranoFan. MaranoFan also asked at my talk page, regarding on whether a website is a reliable source. This shows that the user might be gradually improving on his/her demeanour, which serves as great news for us. Please ping me if any of you replied to this comment. Thanks, ] (] | ] | ]) 03:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Note: MaranoFan is on a ] through April 10, likely to "lay low" and avoid sanctions as a result of this ANI. I do not see how s/he will change their ways upon return, thus I still think a preventative block / topic ban would be helpful. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 17:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*Agreed. We are just going to be back here in a month. If there's no consensus for a block, which I would support, then what about preventing the problem, such as a ban on image uploads and image editing? ] (]) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not a supporter of draconian solutions such as topic or interaction-type bans, but I think in this case -- since the editor has apparently bolted, isn't taking part in this discussion, and refuses to change his behavior -- it's about all that can happen. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 00:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *MaranoFan has been a problem editor for a long time, that much is clear. Interaction bans are typically more trouble than they're worth. As far as I'm concerned (since we don't do "preventative" blocks) one could decide if MaranoFan should be blocked indefinitely for a battleground attitude and for, frankly, lacking the competence required to edit here. But if they're really on some sort of a break right now (first time I heard of that--{{U|Bishzilla}}, a javascript pocket?), what's the point of it? Or did this break start while this was going on? ] (]) 04:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{U|Drmies}}, the "break" started not long after this report was filed. Which is interesting to me, because I thought it strange he was able to come up with the script so quickly. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 05:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*It's a kind of ragequitting, I suppose, or a variety of closing one's eyes so the monsters will disappear. (Speaking of monsters: holy shit, we have '''70''' articles on Taylor Swift?) As Chase points out below MaranoFan is troublesome and misguided, but that that would be a reason ''not'' to block is news to me. The non-free bit is not the only area where their edits are problematic, though it might warrant a topic ban: it's the overall behavior that I've found problematic--the edit warring, the refusal to listen, the oscillation between and . None of it is productive. ] (]) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Because I've had people call variously for a long-block, topic and interaction bans where I am concerned, I know how it feels to have people discussing ''me'' in that fashion. As a result, I'm always hesitant to comment in favor of such bans/blocks. Then again, I know that in my case, every time that has happened, I have learned something from the experience and have made a real effort toward positive changes in my editing/attitude/behavior because of it. This kind of thing has been discussed before where MaranoFan is concerned (the same with his counterpart and wiki-buddy, ], who has also mysteriously disappeared off the radar) and nothing changed positively. He just came off a month-long block, nothing changed positively. All of this plus the script induced break in addition to his talk page and edit summary taunts ''does'' seem like he's flipping us (the community) off. Is an indef/VERY long block or topic ban the answer? Even so, I'm still hesitant to say 'yes' (for the reasons stated above). I trust wise administrators (such as yourself, {{U|Drmies}} to make the right decision. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 15:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::], I feel the same way (well, I haven't been suggested for a permaban as often as you have...), and my efforts here are kind of half-hearted and half-assed. I'm not going to make any ''decision'' here since a. I don't know what's best and b. MaranoFan and I have had an interaction or two, and while I think I can be pretty objective, appearances are important too. I'd like for a (closing) admin to see if, for instance, there is enough evidence and consensus here for a "smaller" solution--if those non-free things are problematic (they already were a few months ago), then a topic ban there might be appropriate for now. Thanks; I appreciate your reluctance. ] (]) 16:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::] after the report was filed, to be exact. | |||
| :::A indefinite block could certainly be in the cards, but I don't know if that would be most helpful. MaranoFan is troublesome and misguided, but I'll give credit where credit is due: s/he at least ''tries'' to edit constructively. Edit warring and problematic uploads aside, s/he does have a strong focus on bringing articles to good article status (] was briefly listed as a GA, and s/he attempted to bring ] to GA as well). That's why I propose the topic ban from non-free files – keep them away from their most problematic area of editing and let them carry on as usual otherwise. (And if edit warring continues to be an issue – not right now – impose 1RR sanctions.) I'm also concerned that blocking would just lead to sockpuppetry, seeing as MF is a domineering editor who has frequently threatened to leave the project only to keep coming back. –''''']''''' (]) (] / ] / ]) 14:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''' - I don't know about MaranoFan, but I find {{user|Winkelvi}} to be a problematic editor, prone to ], ], ], over reliance on "rules" (i.e. rules lawyering), and inflexible. Just sayin'. ] (]) 16:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You have ] to support those accusations? <small>]</small> 23:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Refresh=== | |||
| MaranoFan has frequent mood swings, as shown from his ] once at ]. It is not a surprise if MaranoFan replies with anger peppered in his/her messages. I also agree with {{U|Chasewc91}} that blocking might not work, as it might lead to sockpuppetry, and I also agree that MaranoFan tries to edit constructively, but still need to work a little bit more, specifically on knowing the policies and guidelines. Recently, MaranoFan (for some reason), reverted my edit at ], with no explanation. As seen at ], he changed the current format of PNG to JPEG again. If you carry on, you should realise that I uploaded a PNG version of the file, as 300px PNGs are preferred over JPEGs. MaranoFan just simply went to the JPEG file and uploaded a 300px one, and then did not nominate the one I uploaded for deletion, which troubled Chase to do it. Firstly, that user knows that PNG is preferred over JPEG, why did he do this? I am perplexed by this situation. As for {{U|Lips Are Movin}}, s/he is a great editor and a tireless contributor. I can understand why she felt demoralised when the GA nomination failed, as s/he really spent the effort to make the article better. And, let me reiterate, '''MaranoFan ''has'' mood swings frequently'''. Therefore, we might have to handle this situation in a firmer way. ] (] | ] | ]) 09:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User: SPIKE SPIKE BAD (again) == | |||
| {{archive top|status=user blocked|result=User indef blocked for ] by ]. {{nac}} --] (]) 01:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| There has been a previous ANI discussion about User: SPIKE SPIKE BAD - it was effectively ended because they claimed to have retired. However, this user is now back, and their conduct doesn't seem to have improved. | |||
| He claims to have uncurated one of my edits , without giving reason for it. Doesn't look like it was actually uncurated either.<br> | |||
| Attacks on ]: , , .<br> | |||
| Strange replies on ]: , , , , | |||
| Given that the user admitted to abusing multiple accounts in the , I believe that they should be blocked. ] (]) 13:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Note, the userpage Vanessa Shoshaj was an attack page (speedily deleted by {{U|RHaworth}}), including accusations of being a sex worker. These "reviews" were entirely inappropriate. This user is NOTHERE. Recommend indef block. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 13:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Links: {{Userlinks|SPIKE SPIKE BAD}} --] (]) 14:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've revdelled part of the history of the ] talk page as continuing the allegations on the now deleted article ] and I suspect that this user might be SSB anyway. ] (]) 15:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : {{Nao}} An indef block definitely seems to be warranted here. This is certainly a ] case. --] (]) 15:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I have blocked them indefinitely for persistently disruptive behaviour. ] (]) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Frequently incompetent editor promotes himself to page maintainer == | |||
| {{archive top|Non-admin closure by OP, issue seems resolved, discussion seems off-topic ] (]) 21:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{user|Winkelvi}} proved to be a frequently incompetent editor on ], and worse, usually edit-warred first, Talk-paged second on matters that he clearly knew nothing about. | |||
| *He deleted biographical details on the grounds they were "trivia", when in fact they were significant details that Santmyer incorporated into her fiction in a major, unforgettable way. | |||
| *He rewrote prose, changing the meaning into versions that went beyond the sources, or worse, contradicted the sources. | |||
| *He even claimed to have never read the online linked-to NYT obituary—the utter bare minimum reading even the laziest of those claiming knowledge about HHS have read—as a not very plausible defense against plagiarism. | |||
| These are all in ], and the Edit Summaries. | |||
| I wish to emphasize he made many good edits along the way, removing puffery, finding the right words, and so on, but overall these were at the level of copy-editing skills, not expert knowledge on HHS or any of the sources. And worse, he preferred to revert/edit-war first, ask questions later over anything which ''he'' couldn't figure out its greater purpose, rather than ask first. | |||
| There is also history. WV has the atrocious habit of mini-] editors who cross him, finding one (and only one) article and then locking on, just so he can Template their Talk page and more. So far as I can tell, that is WV's only interest in HHS. About two months ago, WV received his second edit-war ban, and more or less swore off of interacting with people he edit-warred with, at which point he stopped editing HHS. Now he has added his name to the maintained-by Template on ], in open contradiction to the documentation for ]. | |||
| More precise links will be added upon request, but as usual, it's extremely boring. | |||
| Incidentally, there has recently been a discussion on ] to delete this Template, just because of this sort of issue. ] (]) 14:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The same sort of issue on ]. I it's a good thing he has taken charge of the article improvement, but it really does start to feel like ownership and then with an edit summary of ''"+"''. I think ] needs deleted honestly, unrelated to WV. Or maybe a rewording of some form. ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 14:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::] specifically rules out articles subject to POV-controversies. That could be broadened, like requiring consensus, but yes, WV has obnoxiously self-nominated himself in other articles for maintainance in the past. And yes, it does look like deletion is the way to go. ] (]) 14:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Feel free to comment at ]. Now this discussion should focus back on the editors behavior, and template discussion should happen over there. ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 14:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Is this a case of an editor wearing his disability like a badge and expecting special treatment? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::By which you mean ? I don't know, but this discussion reminds me of monster from a few weeks ago. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Not "good with vagueries or ambiguities" but then violates one of the clearest rules in the book (]). Hmm okkk ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 19:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': Do ''not'' discuss personal issues (at least not before the editor himself plays the relevant card). Really, it's disgusting and frankly irrelevant. ] (]) 19:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **The editor has already played that card, with his user page essay, which reads like a pre-emptive excuse to rationalize anything the editor does wrong. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***It reads like a heads-up. No more, no less. He has been known to misuse it—including a waste of bytes with me on ]—but it's still off the table. As ] advised WV in the previous pile-up we had here, keep your eye on the ball, not the players. ] (]) 20:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ****What do you call ? I recall a similar statement at the large AN/I discussion from January. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *****I don't call it anything. It's not part of this instance until he makes it part of it. I'll also point out that he has ''not'' gone for more edit-warring on ] since I've posted here and notified him on his talk page. I'm willing to AGF and assume that he is now familiar with ] and before he was not, believing it to be a "howdy stranger" tag. I'll probably non-admin close this discussion, especially if it turns into a train wreck or if he acknowledges my guess is correct (which including a Thanks here or there). (As a hint, I've been studiously avoiding WV discussions no matter how tempting.) ] (]) 20:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ******{{small|Until now. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Disruptive editing by {{User5|Timothyhouse1}} == | |||
| {{archive top|This can be continued at the talk page of the now registered user.]] 03:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| This user keeps posting false information in the ] pages and he did the same on the ] page several months, if not years ago. I'm absolutely certain they're the same person as both seem to love to edit/vandalize pages about Singapore stuff like transports and such. The false information include imaginary ports/remakes of games to console on imaginary release dates, all without sources. If you also take a look at his talk page you'll notice that it's full of people complaining about his edits, including myself. | |||
| Sorry for how i've written the report but it's the very first one for me. I was redirected here by another editor after i posted it in the wrong section (for vandalism). All those commands are still too obscure for me. I just hope that you take severe actions against this person.] (]) 22:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{nonadmin}} You neglected to do something, IP: | |||
| {{cquote|'''When you start a discussion about an editor, you <u>must</u> notify them on their user talk page.'''}} | |||
| :, however. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 23:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, something else is odd here, considering an IP's is an ANI thread. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 23:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you, like i said, i'm a noob at using Misplaced Pages for reporting people. I think he's not going to get the message, anyway. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *The IP makes a good revert , but I don't see any reason for an ANI thread. IP editor, you're not so new that you can't find your way to ANI immediately; what you should have found first is that editor's talk page. Now, if you can present some evidence of this age-old pattern of disruptive behavior, produce it--if you can't, well, look up ]. Thank you, ] (]) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, i'm not so "new", i've done small edits for years, but when it comes to report problems, i AM new. I did find the spammer's talk page, though. I am CERTAIN the guy from years ago was from Singapore, and the new guy is also from Singapore. Look here, it's the same nonsense: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Time_Crisis&diff=593233833&oldid=583781837 (search for "Remake" and "Soundtrack"), then search for the recent edits in the ] page. That guy is also blocked, under the same username, on other wikis. Sorry again for the trouble. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :And now this response is coming from a ''different'' IP? If this is indeed the same user, logging into your account would really help. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 17:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah, the IP is different, but i'm the very same person. Anyway, i've just registered. I didn't really need any account before. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == User repeatedly adding unsourced lists of samples to album articles == | |||
| {{User|Madvillain2009}} has been repeatedly adding unsourced lists of samples to album articles. Even after I warned him not to add unsourced content () and some other users also tried to stop him from adding unsourced content to album articles or BLP articles (), he keeps adding unsourced material (). I'm not sure if he is the same person as {{User|Madvillain2010}} or {{User|Madvillain2012}}, but I believe it is time to seek administrator intervention for Madvillain2009's lack of understanding of ]. ] (]) 23:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Editor on a reversion/spam spree == | |||
| Can some admin review the recent edits of {{ul|Gamera1123}}, who seems to be on a reversion/spam spree? Posting without attempting prior discussion with user, because the fast pace of edits may require a quick response. {{ping|Ohnoitsjamie}}. ] (]) 01:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Note:] has blocked the user (don't know if they saw this report or not). The edits need to be reviewed to see if a mass-rollback is required. ] (]) 01:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Temporary block applied: 48 hours while we figure out if this is a kind of sock of User:Factsearch (those edits looked eerily familiar!) or if there's something else going on, like someone just hating on {{U|Ohnoitsjamie}}. Factsearch didn't care for whales, nor did Gamera seem to care for energy companies and policy. Note that I rolled back a number of their edits but not all of them--I stopped before I got to the whales, I think. ] (]) 01:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| From what I can tell on their talk page, they were given a regarding their addition of external links which might have set this revert spree in motion. I've rolled back a handful of the reverts as well. ] 01:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Question is, how did this go on for so long without attracting attention by any of those vandal-fighting RC patrollers that have their automatic Twinkle weapons locked and loaded constantly? Don't they see someone reverting the edits of someone older than Methusalem without edit summary? {{U|Nakon}}, thanks--it may have been that Ohnoitsjamie saw and reverted. Anyway, I strongly urge {{U|Gamera1123}} to start talking (on their talk page): please explain what's going on. Thank you. ] (]) 01:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe the account was compromised. ] (]) 02:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'm always suspicious when I see any user canvassing links to some sort of atlas/almanac/area code page. Apparently I struck a nerve when I reverted a few link additions from Gamera1123 that looked spammy. I highly doubt this is related to ] or Bignewsnetwork; it looks like they were just reverting all edits of mine where mine was the most recent. Given how ] and time-wasteful Gamera's edits have been, I think 48 hours should be extended to indef. <b>] ]</b> 02:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Collect == | |||
| {{archive top|Querulous complaint remitted to AfD and ] if the OP refuses to ] after that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| User {{u|Collect}} has been involved in a very lengthy conflict (going on for more than a month now) over the article ]. Recently, this dispute has spilled over into other articles as well, most notably spin-off list article and the . It's been a long, messy, and complex debate so I could write a novel here, but I'll try to keep this as concise as I can: if more context/evidence is needed I can produce it. | |||
| '''Misrepresentation of Others' Position/Arguments/Actions:''' In edit on Jimmy Wale's talk page, about the , Collect recently stated that "the group pushing this" (by which he apparently myself, {{u|Ubikwit}}, {{u|MrX}}, and {{u|Jbhunley}}) had "brought me to a bunch of drama-boards for being 'obstinate,'" and that "I got a block for standing on this." Both statements are falsehoods. I had made ''one'' post to NPOVN shortly after my first entry into the debate over the PNAC article. All of the other "drama board" posts about the article (that I'm aware of) have been created by Collect: see , , , , and . Collect was also the one who the report that resulted in his block, which was for edit warring, not for "taking a stand". | |||
| He has also the same group of editors with supporting the creation of the list article. This is untrue in both and Mr. X's case, I'm not sure about Ubikwit. More importantly, however, Collect also charged all four of us with "preferring" this old version of the article, repeating that charge . This is a willful misrepresentation of all four editors edits and ideas: | |||
| *My to the PNAC article characterized it as "a bit of a mess," and I have put into the article from its original state in the past few weeks, ''removing'' much of the content that Collect that Collect also opposed, but which he has now claimed that I support ''adding'' to the article. Collect knows this - since he me for my edits. | |||
| *As Mr X has correctly , he had ''no'' role in creating the list article, and has never edited it. His involvement has been limited to his response to at BLP/N, providing and that he thought might be helpful. | |||
| *JBH also to Collect's characterization of his position, and Collect's quoting him out of context without a ping or notification of any kind. JBH has also pointed out that Collect has compared the creation of the article to , and implying support for McCarthyism . Like me and Mr X, JBH also noted that his with the PNAC article took place nearly a month ''later'' than the version which Collect has claimed all four of us "prefer." | |||
| *Ubikwit also that the list had been in the main PNAC article for years. | |||
| All four of the editors that Collect misrepresented (without even informing us of the discussion) have asked him to retract his false/misleading statements and apologize. '''He has refused,''' responding with posts like , and . | |||
| '''Other Incidents:''' The above is just the most recent event in the dispute over the PNAC article were I believe that Collect has acted in bad faith, and failed to listen to reason, or been uncivil. I could point to many other examples, such as on talk pages without informing involved parties, his practice of adding ''more'' of the content that he objects to in order to make a point: ( and and ) and his refusal to respond to or acknowledge arguments (or just simple questions) that are earnestly presented to him - some of which I detailed at length in over at BLP/N. | |||
| '''Vague Aspersions:''' I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that while Collect rarely makes an ''outright'' accusation (he's very careful with his words), he has kept up a steady drumbeat of comments and edit summaries which backhandedly imply that his opponents are promoting anti-semitism, conspiracy theories, or McCarthy-style "guilt by association." Some examples: . | |||
| I've asked him to stop doing this repeatedly, , and , for example, as have others. He has refused to acknowledge that his insinuations are an issue and continues to make them constantly. | |||
| '''Full Disclosure (Collect and I have argued a lot):''' Finally, in the interests of full disclosure, I have taken Collect to task several times for what I perceived as unacceptable behavior. He is likely to suggest that I'm harassing or hounding him here, and I want to stress that I have nothing to hide. I have told him in no uncertain terms what I think of his behavior , and , and engaged in an ill-advised debate about what is/isn't FRINGE and and reliable source . I also mistakenly accused him of sockpuppetry , which I promptly apologized for once I realized I was wrong. | |||
| Thank you all for your time, sorry this was so long. ] (]) 02:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Endorse''' - {{u|Fyddlestix}}'s general characterization of events as well as the specifics relating to me. I will comment more tomorrow on the issues raised. ] (]) 02:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''' I see no specific request for administrative action here. Personally, I have disagreed with Collect a few times openly and even more often silently, and am sometimes quite irritated by the editor's style. But never once have I doubted the editor's sincerity and commitment to upholding BLP and NPOV on this encyclopedia. Without editors like Collect, some of our more "progressive" editors would take far too much delight in pillorying conservatives in Misplaced Pages's voice. I am progressive in my private life but strive for NPOV here on Misplaced Pages. Thanks to Collect for forcing us to think seriously about real people's lives instead of simply going with the flow of conventional thinking. ] ] 04:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Close''', per Cullen328 and policy, as this thread makes no request for administrative action. In fact, Collect has been the only editor still trying to stop a huge POV-push with the PNAC list, which was worse at the beginning and which now is still being opposed by the majority of uninvolved editors. No doubt that Collect is tired from being the only editor to care about BLP issues and intellectual integrity enough to try to prevent the most egregious BLP violations and tortured misrepresentations of sources and use of shady sources , . The solution is not to punish Collect for his delusion that he should behave like an editor of the world's most widely used reference and for the rest of us to start acting like encyclopedia editors. A sign of hope for the latter wish is the community's comments on the POV-pushing PNAC list. <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 07:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think {{ping|Fyddlestix}} is new at this and did not know that they should ask for a block or a ban from editing in a topic area or specific type or class of article for some number months or some other administrative action. As I noted above I intend to comment tomorrow and <em>I</em> do have specific and appropriate sanctions to request. I feel it would be inappropriate to ask for sanction before presenting my own evidence. I am, however, willing to do so if asked by an un-involved administrator - (please ping if requesting me to do this so I get a notice) I also believe, from comments on Jimbo's page, that there is another editor who might want to address {{U|Collect}}'s behavior here. ] (]) 07:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::The timing is poor. Administrator {{user|MastCell}} is already discussing behavioral issues with {{user|Collect}} and other editors at the appropriate talk pages, and I suspect that MastCell's attention suffices. Why do you think that additional action is needed? Which action? Even if MastCell were not already quite active, a question that ANI must face is whether any action against Collect allow BLP-compliance to suffer. <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 08:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The discussion you refer to shows Collect once again denying the problem that many editors are telling him about. That's why this ANI is needed. To summarize: the continuing misrepresentation of other editors and his refusal to admit there's a problem. This has been going on for far too long and needs to stop. That's why there's this open ANI on Collect. It's entirely unclear, however, if Collect is purposefully engaging in personal attacks or if he has a reading comprehension problem. I'm in the middle on this question, but I'm leaning heavily to the latter. He simply doesn't seem to understand what other editors write, and this leads to the current problem under discussion. I really don't think we can block other editors for confusion, but when it borders on competence issues, that's when others start talking about a topic ban. I think if he was prevented from continuing to work on American politics article and would simply confine himself to, let's say, writing about gardening and houseplants, everything would be fine. Since the American politics topic area is under arbcom restrictions, we should be considering an enforcement action if the problematic behavior continues. ] (]) 08:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your passive-aggressive personal attacks about "reading comprehension" continue the harassment of Collect for which you were recently warned by {{user|Newyorkbrad}} and by other administrators. Please let MastCell discuss issues with the relevant editors, and let MastCell come to ANI if more input is needed. <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 08:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Fyddlestix claims he and Collect have been in a lengthy argument. I would say this should be rephrased and admitted as what it is, which is that Fyddlestix doesn't agree with Collect so he's going to seek sanction against Collect. In his 1500 edits since starting in earnest last November, Fyddlestix has already filed a misguided SPI claim against Collect and has committed 20% of his edits to various venues surrounding the PNAC debate. Most annoying is the unreadable walls of text and diffs that show zero except the normal back and forth one is likely to encounter if they decide to participate in POV pushing on hotbutton topics. If this witch hunt by Fyddlestix persists, the block and or site ban should probably be leveled against Fyddlestix. Please stop seeking sanctions against those that have the right to oppose your POV pushing.--] 09:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **In my experience, Collect usually gets it right, especially on BLP issues. It would be helpful if he could provide some diffs to reinforce his statements about certain editors being anti-Semitic and whatever else. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 09:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Close this and let the AfD run it's course. I believe Collect is correct that a new spinout list about an organization that died out 10 years ago and statement of principles that was signed 20 years is a POV fork with BLP and NPOV issues (the controversial bullet points are basically US foreign policy now and adopted by both parties post 9/11 so list inclusion criteria are rather unworkable). It's obvious that some editors disagree but it's already playing out in AfD. This type of canvassing is not much different than the canvassing charges leveled above. --] (]) 09:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problems predate the AfD, as has been indicated above. These diffs may not represent canvassing, but they show Collect attempting to get an administrator to intervene in a content dispute.</br>Collect complains about my edits at PNAC to {{u|Swarm}}, making unsubstantiated BLP violation claims, etc: | |||
| :# | |||
| :# | |||
| :#</br> | |||
| ::Only one other editor commented in that thread | |||
| ::--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 11:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Nice to see yet another drama board section-- again '''at no time and in no place have I called anyone here an "anti-semite" nor have I accused anyone of being a McCarthy supporter'''. I consider my posts - including a bunch of RfCs I initiated to be within what ] actually requires. I note the AfD which arouses ire was ''not'' started by me, and (quite oddly) appears to indicate that a ''strong consensus of other editors'' agree with my view on the "list" article. The above seems, in fact, just another example, in my opinion, of misuse of the stated purpose of this notice board. I, in fact, editors here to examine the discussion at the AfD ] and the discussion at UT:Jimbo and examine the unanimous nature of what appears to be a quite vocal and iterative minority at the AfD page. Cheers to all and Happy Saint Patrick's Day to all. ] (]) 11:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| For funsies: an editor did not like the fact that a source he insists ''supports'' a particular claim, does not actually do so. Therefore the part he does not like in his own source is "clearly a mistake." Um -- if the part of a RS which does not support a claim in a BLP is "clearly a mistake" is it remotely possible that someone found the source by google-], and the source actually does not support the claim? I have this horrid and admittedly annoying habit of actual reading ''more than a single sentence'' found in a google search, and if the source clearly contradicts a claim, I do not assert that it supports the claim, but that ''it has a mistake when it does not do so'' <g>. It is a tad embarrassing when anyone points out absolute misuse of sources, no? ] (]) 12:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| ===The specific sanction request I said was coming=== | |||
| Well before the close I said I presume {{u|JzG}} simply did not notice it. I am posting this as I said I would. | |||
| <br> | |||
| My initial conversations with {{u|Collect}} were, I believe, good enough. We had a long conversation on his talk page a week or so ago. While we got frustrated with each other it stayed restricted to the topic and we finished, I believe, on good terms. As late as two days ago we were working together on ] even through the nastyness. Then I found he had been ] <small><small> Not for AfD for the thread he opened at BLPN</small></small>on . This thread was started, without notifying the editors he was discussing, at while he misrepresented editors and cast aspersions on them. He opened the thread <em>nine minutes</em> before he opened ] at 7:52 am, 13 March 2015. Again without notifying any of the involved editors. None of his statements were neutral as the diffs show. And I can think of no good faith reason to open two threads on the same subject minutes apart without providing notice to involved parties.</p><p> {{u|Fyddlestix}} has presented diffs above to show some of his misrepresentations there. If this post is considered a different ANI then I include that material by reference. | |||
| <br> | |||
| '''Please note''' - This is not just, or even particularly about ] it is about misrepresentation of others edits, repeated implications<small> and some direct accusations</small> by {{u|Collect}} that his 'opponents' support McCarthyism or even anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. ] is an issue as well. I also have no ax to about the AfD. I came into that situation at BLPN where I stated said the information in the table under discussion is OK from a policy point of view but the table itself was probably UNDUE . My first edit on the PNAC article was . My first edit to the PNAC talk page was when the same issue {{u|Collect}} failed to engage on in his own BLPN thread come up again. | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| That his ] has the desired effect is evident. When it was suggested he Collect replies <small>'''Note''' - As has been shown in earlier {{u|Fyddlestix}}'s ANI post {{u|Collect}} opened <em>all</em> of the "drama board" discussions bar this ANI. This shows either a propensity for 'untruths' or an inability see his own actions. Neither is conducive to a collaborative editing environment such as Misplaced Pages.</small> ({{u|GabrielF}} then replies . {{u|Collect}}'s response to this is - <small>'''Note''' - He directly states that the earlier named editors desire to return the article to the state he indicated earlier in the thread (diff in opening statement) which was, in my opinion, riddled with BLP and well prior to my and {{u|Fyddlestix}} massive clean up. I do not remember {{u|MrX}} being involved in editing the article at all. This, in my opinion, shows {{u|Collect}} is unable to differentiate those he sees as opponents, differentiate their views or recognize/acknowledge incremental change. Again these are very bad characteristics for an editor in a collaborative project like Misplaced Pages.</small> I see no good faith here particularly since this was all happening in the very public space of Jimbo's talk page, without the knowledge or participation of the other involved editors, <while there was on ongoing BLPN discussion {{u|Collect}} had opened '''in parallel'''. Here I make a direct accusation that this was '''bad faith''' on the part of {{u|Collect}}. | |||
| <br>I want to draw particular attention to times where Collect's inability to address the issues at hand rather than his own personal construct of the issues led to over the top aspersions: (both from the AfD but similar aspersions were cast in the '''very public forum''' of Jimbo's talk page. Diffs are in the opening statement of this ANI as well as {{u|Mastcell}}'s close of the thread quoted below. | |||
| * - Imputing I had a bad motive for creating article . | |||
| * After telling Collect that personal anecdotes are not a useful argument in AfD Implying support for McCarthyism and attempting to place his objections on some meta moral level. | |||
| *{{u|Collect}}'s claim when paired with this, in reply to a question of , this is unquestionable slander <small><small>In a not-legal sense. NLT being made.</small></small> of those named. <br> | |||
| His continual claims of 'guilt by association' and comparisons to McCarthyism, even after being told repeatedly by other editors that that comparison is inappropriate, rather than using detailed policy based arguments shows me an editor who either (1) Can not separate the subject from the analogy. or (2) Uses hyperbolic analogy, repeatedly, to disparage those he sees as opponents and try to claim some unassailable moral high ground for the purpose of 'winning' rather than compromise. Neither of these options is good for a place where collaboration is key. | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| {{u|Mastcell}} Closed the thread after it went "well of the rails" with this:<br> | |||
| <small>* Does any (uninvolved) editor object to closing this thread, which has evidently gone well off the rails? The article in question is ], where it seems very likely to be deleted. That seems entirely reasonable to me, not because it violates ] or ] (it doesn't), but because these sorts of lists are inherently non-neutral by virtue of their framing. (Compare, for instance, ], or a hypothetical ]. While such lists may be well-sourced and compliant with BLP and SYNTH, they nonetheless make poor encyclopedia articles because their framing is inherently designed to make an ideological point).<p>The take-home point is that repeatedly comparing other editors to Joseph McCarthy is a poor rhetorical tactic, and one which results in a disproportionate volume of unconstructive dialog (cf. this entire thread) obscuring a valid underlying point about the utility of this list. At a minimum, Collect has invoked McCarthy , , , , , and (with a bonus implication of anti-Semitism), and that's just in the last couple of days. Collect then that other editors should "take umbrage" at having their work compared to that of McCarthy. One is left with the conclusion that the discussion surrounding this article would have been far healthier without such participation. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)</small></blockquote> | |||
| I do not care about the content or the subject of the AfD. This is not about that. What I am concerned with is that an experienced editor's behavior has changed from 'confidently sure of his position' to doing things that, I perceive as contrary to what editing Misplaced Pages is like. In particular I consider repeatedly implying other editors support McCarthyism and arguably even antisemitism, misrepresenting others to imply they support reprehensible positions or out right accusing them of promoting conspiracy theories, most of this in the most public forum on Misplaced Pages, to be so far beyond acceptable behavior as to require sanction by the community. All of this, including the material in the opening statement lead me to request that {{u|Collect}} given a long time to reflect on why the actions detailed in this ANI are not acceptable behavior. Since he is an established editor and blocks are should be preventative only, I propose a six month ban on political BLPs broadly construed. ] (]) 16:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * As I said in the comment quoted above, I think that Collect's participation in the debate in question was unhelpful and inflammatory. I also think that this episode is part of a long-term conduct issue on Collect's part, but I don't believe that pursuing the question here at AN/I is likely to be helpful. Having observed this episode play out, I think that Jbhunley's complaint, while wordy, has merit, but I think it's extremely unlikely that any meaningful sanction will be applied to a long-term established editor as a result of an AN/I post. I would therefore recommend closing this request, although without prejudice against the filer. As an aside, I should be clear that I have been involved in various content disputes with Collect, and on a personal level I find interacting with him in the context of a content dispute to be a reliably frustrating experience. Because of those interactions, I am not unbiased here and I would not take any significant administrative action with regard to Collect; I am commenting as an editor and not an admin here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** Seconded, word for word. --] (]) 17:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Will someone kindly close what appears at this point to be a somewhat bootless exercise per the prior close? Cheers. ] (]) 16:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *The common request by anyone who finds their POV challenged is to inflate their supposed grievances to make them look disproportionately bigger than they are so they can work to eliminate their opposition instead of working on compromises.--] 17:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * On general principles, I think that a thread that is not obviously without merit or ]ED should be open at least 24 hours, to give editors from all time zones a marginal chance for considered participation. --] (]) 17:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| . MONGO's is meh... But {{u|Dear ODear ODear}}'s is too close to a physical threat. The video is funny and if I knew him better I would not be concerned. Since I do not I want to nip this in the bud. ] (]) 17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:MONGO's name is MONGO. <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 17:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::Exactly....the ...--] 17:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::: Great... Funny... When someone says "I think that might have been a threat" The only proper response is something along the line of "No stupid... I was making a point using a funny clip when MONGO beats a dead horse" to which a reply might be "OK, the clip was funny but in the context or a conversation where MONGO has just said: | |||
| :::: {{talkquote|"You radicals keep POV pushing your baloney and decide to file an arbcom case I'm going to add all your names to the case and show up with a laundry list of diffs...all named parties will be scrutinized and I won't shut up until you're all sanctioned. It might be best if the lot of you cease posting here with your sanctimonious attitudes. You can take that as a formal warning and I don't make idle threats" <small><small>diff above</small></small>}} | |||
| :::: it feels an awful lot like I am the horse here" to which the reply might be "No. Sorry about that." then "OK, no problem" and it is done. Doubling down with 'the full MONGO experience' just was not the smart way to go here. | |||
| :::: Let us try it one more time. I feel like that video might imply a threat of violence would you please strike it here and on the talk page where this started? ] (]) 18:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Matter closed with ODear Thank you {{u|Dear ODear ODear}}. ] (]) 19:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *It is abundantly evident that there will be no resolution here with respect to Collect's conduct (good, bad or otherwise), partly because the underlying conduct issues are complex and subtle, and partly because it has become an opportunity for insults and threats from folks who should know better. Today, I tried to engage Collect on his talk page, but was rebuffed, as is his prerogative. The issues at hand seem to require a more formal approach, which I am in the process of crafting. I would urge the OP and others involved in these recent events to please be patient while this takes shape. Stepping away and letting tempers cool probably wouldn't hurt either.- ]] 18:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yes, we can examine everyone's conduct. To narrow down what this is all about, some liberal or progressive or maybe radical editors don't like having Collect disagreeing with them, so to silence their opposition all they can figure out is to take him to court. MrX, you underestimate the value of your contributions...and disagree with your edit summary about this being your .02 cents. I give it a value of .03 cents. I am also not classy at all, even though you have for which I offer you many hugs and kisses in return.--] 19:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I fail to see what the alleged political affiliations or positions of other editors has to do with the demonstrable pattern of problematic conduct by Collect. Misplaced Pages is an international project composed of editors from all over the planet, comprising many different backgrounds. Poor conduct is not attributable to any political belief or position in this case. If an editor consistently misrepresents and attacks others, they have to own that behavior. So, it seems to me that you are distracting us from the real problem. ] (]) 23:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Ah Viriditas...perhaps we should not be distracted and instead start examining you. We're you or were you not cautioned about harassing Collect just last week?--] 23:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*I've never harassed anyone on Misplaced Pages. Some editors are fond of yelling "harassment", which is why the guideline discusses such false claims. Again, you're distracting away from the central issue. Discussing conduct issues is not harassment of any kind. ] (]) 23:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' this sanction, '''support''' application of the ] tot he filing party. You want measured in-depth conversation? ANI is the last place you should go. And actually I think you know that perfectly well and are banking on the ] not coming back your way. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** You're absolutely right about AN/I, but I think you're being a little bit unfair to Jbhunley. Unlike Collect, you, and I, he appears to have virtually no experience with on-wiki conflict or dispute resolution mechanisms before this episode. You and I know that AN/I is not a useful venue for this sort of thing, but I don't think we can project our experience onto Jbhunley (or onto Fyddlestix, the original poster for the first section above). There is a real problem here, in that Collect is very hard to deal with in the context of a content dispute—that's what led to his ArbCom-imposed topic ban, and his recurring blocks for edit-warring (the last one, a week long, was just earlier this month), and so on. With the closure of ], there are basically no venues to address user-conduct issues besides AN/I and ArbCom, so I don't think it's fair to fault an editor—especially one who's new to our byzantine unwritten rules of conflict resolution—for raising a concern here, with supporting diffs. In my view there is a real user-conduct issue identified here, and while I don't expect it to be addressed at AN/I, it will blow up sooner or later as long as people continue to enable Collect's less constructive behavior, or fail to call him on it. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***JBH lost me at his assumption that a link to a comedy film where a man (or manbeast) punches a horse and that this was to be construed as a physical threat to him. Looks like he's throwing darts to see if any make a bullseye.--] 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***Editor {{u|MastCell}}, don't just be a cynic, put something on the table, then: Ban from Wales talk page? Prohibition on commenting on other editors on article talk? Prohibition from opening a discussion on a dispute resolution board with permission of an uninvolved admin? <small>]</small> 23:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **** I'll put something on the table when we're in a venue where it has a chance of being considered seriously, and where it might make a difference. In other words, not here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *****Here works: ]. <small>]</small> 00:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *** {{ping|MastCell}} I have read a lot of these over the years, even a couple Arbcom cases but I have not participated beyond commenting on one case. If there are other ways of conflict resolution I am all for them. I tried 'talking', providing sources to address the concerns I 'thought' were being raised only to have the concerns change, asking a for a restatement of the issue, asking for a statement of what he thought my position was, through all of the conflict resolution techniques I could think of and I see being unable to find a way that works as a wiki-personal failure. The article, the AfD none of that made me concerned enough to bring up this issue here, that is all just what I see as part of Wiki-work. The misrepresentation of my words and the and the constant tying of my and other's positions to reprehensible beliefs in a very public forum is something that I think no person should be allowed to do no amount of good outweighs that kind of bad. I guess that is idealistic and unreasonable. I am discouraged that others do not see these as issues but if the community says it is hopeless I guess it is. Oh well... So what should I do with all of these ]?? :) ] (]) 00:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Oppose''' of sanction, '''] Support''' of ]s. No comment on past actions by anyone. ]'s suggestion that the article in question should go to ] seemed reasonable to me. I may be wrong in my !vote at that AFD, but we'll see what ] brings. I suggest that everyone else involved with that article take the same approach, drop the ]s, and move on. ] (]) 23:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::* {{ec}}I accept your ] but with no RFC/U it was this or Arbcom. The problems with misrepresentation of other editors by {{u|Collect}} has become, in my opinion, persistent and pernicious, ] says this is a BANable problem so just letting it slide seems to be a long term bad idea. Being directly or indirectly called a supporter or McCarthyism, antisemitism or promoting conspiracy theories is unacceptable. That Collect denies doing this when multiple people tell him that is what they perceive him is doing tells me he will keep in doing the same thing in the future. This will hurt the encyclopedia in the long run and allows him to impose his POV, knowingly or not, on any article he decides to just by saying BLP over and over and not engaging in a meaningful way with editors that disagree with him simply by recasting their arguments in his reply/objection. Quoting people without using diffs and editing those quotes to remove context, particularly on Jimbo's talk page should earn him an admonishment at least and a ban on cut/paste quoting without diffs at best. All that I said here is supported by the diffs above so please forgive me for not digging them out again though I will if asked by you or another admin.</p><p>I <em>know</em> there is no real way to sanction a long time prolific editor here but a month or more of Arbcom is even worse that ANI on the Barnum&Bailey scale. If a BOOMERANG is due me I will accept that to. I have done what I have done and said what I said and I am willing to be held accountable for those things. I have a hope, a very faint and weak hope, that something positive will come out of this and Arbcom can be avoided. ] (]) 00:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*You don't want to do the arbcom dance. If you're not even getting resolution here, all should expect there is a train wreck. I recognize you spent much time on preparing your argument here, and I do not think that it should simply be ignored, but Collect is likely a person afterall, not some cyborg. If you gave it a few days and stepped back and considered that your position may not be the only right one, you may find him more reasonable than you suppose.--] 00:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* {{ping|MONGO}} I have no intention of starting an Arbcom case. No way! No how! I may be naive but not <em>that</em> naive. On the AfD subject I can see <em>some</em> of what may be his concerns but only because other people presented the actual issues as they relate to the topic at AfD. I'm having problems with the aspersions and misrepresentations though. If they were not intended the issue would be acknowledged and it would not be repeated, at least not in such short order.</p><p> I admit the possibility that I may be in my own offended headspace but others seem to recognize similar issues. I am more than willing to meet him half way. For me that means an acknowledgement that at least other people perceive what he is doing as an issue and a willingness to address that issue when it is brought up to him. All I have heard from him boils down to 'I have done no such thing'.<u></u> <small><small><u>] (]) 02:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)</u></small></small> Resolution will never come from that so sooner or later, someone with bigger brasser ones than I will open an Arbcom case. Drama will ensue and at the end of the <small><small>very metaphorical</small></small> day no one will be particularly happy.I have found that that is nearly always the outcome of enforced rather than negotiated settlements. ] (]) 01:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Added diff above with <u>underlined</u> text. ] (]) 02:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' sanctions. Support trouting for basically reopening the closed discussion. It's at AfD. It will be resolved or transformed regardless of action here so all this is moot court. --] (]) 00:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' any sanction that would prevent Collect from dealing with unambigous BLP violations. I don't have a dog in American political fights (and the reputation of the GWB administration in much of the world is such that any accusation of being involved with it would itself be a BLP violation without a bloody good source) but have found Collect to be helpful in cleaning up BLPs of comparatively little-known people where it's hard finding experienced editors who both know about the people concerned, and can still give a flying frog about the BLP policy. ] (]) 05:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''' Collect is currently continuing his campaign of disruption on yet another PNAC/neoconservatism related article, ], filling another ] RfC and misrepresenting sources. I will wait for MrX to take the action to which he referred above.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 12:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:Reply to Ubikwit: Your comment here is telling , a diff that should necessitate a responsible encyclopedia to review your editing on PNAC and related topics. <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 16:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::] If you don't specify anything objectionable in my comment, then you are simply ]. </br><s>Go ahead, make another false accusation against me. I dare you.</s> </br>]</br>--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 17:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===and here it is!=== | |||
| ] | |||
| With MrX as the OP. Even while this AN/I is running, of course. Can trouts be issued on the ArbCom case proper? :) ] (]) 21:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring, vandalism, and legal threat by ] == | |||
| {{archive top|status=user blocked|result=User indef blocked for ] by ]. {{nac}} --] (]) 15:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|Anticomintern}} has edit-warred against two other users on ] ( ). When warned by {{u|STSC}}, he replied with a legal threat . More recently the user replaced the Chinese flag on ] with the Nazi flag (). His username also implies pro-Nazi sympathy (see ]). The user is clearly ] to build an encyclopedia. -] (]) 03:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The legal threat is kinda irrelevant. This is a troll. Show him the door, with prejudice. —<font color="228B22">] ]</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::User was indef blocked about an hour ago by another admin. -- ] (]) 09:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Nerdypunkkid == | |||
| *{{Userlinks|Nerdypunkkid}} | |||
| *{{Userlinks|SimpleBlueBlazer}} | |||
| ] is an editor who has created a several promotional articles about non-notable or barely notable subjects. () The editor has also gone on a couple of sprees adding very spammy links to articles without any common connection (it was another editor's recent warning which brought my attention back to the problem). I think this is an undisclosed paid editor. I've tried to ask the editor about the spam a couple of times, once in October during ], and once again today, but no response. After cleaning up I think this editor is doing more harm than good. In addition to that, there may also be sockpuppetry involved. ] readded some links to the same site to the same articles just today (new: old:; new: old:). This was a couple hours after Nerdypunkkid finished his/her batch, although there was no other overlap between the two accounts. I think the promotional editing is more serious, which is why I'm taking this here. Thanks. ] (]) 05:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Willy Moon == | |||
| Follow a bit of controversy on the New Sealand X-factor show the article for ] has been the subect to vandalism this has made its way to a FB page with 100,000+ fiollowers can we get some more eyes watching this page Though I suspect that full protection may be a necessary option. ]] 07:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>{{nonadmin}} See below... ] (]) 10:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)</s><small>revdelled, nothing to see, anymore ] (]) 11:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == "Vandalism" == | |||
| {{atop|Vandal blocked, talk page access revoked--] (]) 11:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Just to let you all know that "palestine" does not exist, and I'm removing it from Misplaced Pages. Thank you.] (]) 09:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :There is a Misplaced Pages article called ], and it appears to be a real entity, not a hoax. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 09:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Bugs. IP has been blocked for vandalism. -- ] (]) 09:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Very good. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 09:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The IP account needs its user talk page access revoked as well, as it's using it to make personal attacks. —] (]) 09:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == Can you please help? == | |||
| == 122.148.163.131 / Pabdelma / SweetPoet345 : disruptive, vandalism, incompetence == | |||
| ] got moved from ] (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at ], and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at ]. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. ] (]) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, ] would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - ''was'' there a dab page at ] before? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|122.148.163.131}} | |||
| ::Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at ]" or something similar. I appreciate the help. ] (]) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading ] correctly. | |||
| {{userlinks|Pabdelma}} | |||
| :@], can you confirm what happened/fix this? – ] (]) (]) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works. | |||
| {{userlinks|SweetPoet345}} | |||
| ::Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. – ] (]) (]) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::(edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - ] - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at ] could be reinstated/used. ] (]) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Repeated attempts to create articles with insufficient competence, beginning with lack of minimum English language skills. An example of their idea of a good Misplaced Pages article can be found . Multiple disruptive/vandalism warnings by multiple editors. Significant disruption at ], creating at least seven sections, two of them containing nothing but profanity. I was prepared to ignore until they came back with a brand new username. {{redacted}}. Help. ―] ] 10:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged {{-r|William_Swainson_(disambiguation)}} (which has no significant history) for speedying under ]. ] (]) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Note, the aforementioned user page has been deleted, I guess because it contained the user's full name and address. ―] ] 10:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I emailed ]. -- ] (]) 10:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::And I've just blocked SweetPoet345 as an ] sock account. —] (]) 12:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Which colours for band members timeline? Closure requested == | |||
| {{archivetop|status=PROCEDURAL CLOSE|1=Discussion has been moved . {{nac}} '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 17:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| We could use an uninvolved editor to gauge the discussion and determine consensus so as to close the RfC at ]. Thanks in advance! ] (]) 12:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == |
== POVPushingTheTruth == | ||
| {{atop| |
{{atop|1=The truth may set you free, but ] will get you blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | ||
| ] is clearly NOTHERE. <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> 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Judging by his userpage hes a definite troll. I say an admin needs to indef him. ] (]) 12:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked. -- ] (])| <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup> | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion == | |||
| == Single-purpose accounts making promotional edits to a specific article. == | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{pagelinks|IMG (company)}} | |||
| '''Key Points:''' | |||
| Specifically, ]. I'm not sure whether this is the right place, but something suspicious is going on here. <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 14:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Big ol' sockdrawer there. I've blocked the most obvious culprits but would appreciate it if another checkuser could also take a look; I'm going offline in a moment and don't have time to do a thorough drill-down investigation. ] ]] 15:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:''' | |||
| == {{user5|Kris,_Victoria_%3d_5}} == | |||
| #* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides. | |||
| {{archive top|status=user blocked|result=User blocked for ], etc. by ]. {{nac}} --] (]) 20:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| #* 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. | |||
| I believe Kris, Victoria = 5 is engaged in disruptive editing. | |||
| #* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus. | |||
| # The user that talk page comments go on the bottom of talk pages, and they seem to be deliberately ignoring this | |||
| # '''Ongoing Disruption:''' | |||
| # User to themself, making it look like editor OnlyOneRaider applied it. User , claiming that Davey2010 issued the award. User then . Davey , asking that the reported user not attach Davey's name "to that crap above". Kris then by reporting the "crap" to {{u|AmaryllisGardener}} for some unclear reason. On this alone, I think there's a strong case to be made that the user is trolling and spreading their unconstructive behavior to other editors' pages. (For nail-biting background nonsense, see discussion on , but it's not mandatory reading) | |||
| #* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors. | |||
| # In the user adds unsourced content, including the statement: ''Last Appearance: Akuc Bol as ].'' This statement is attached to an episode that isn't slated to air until September 2015, making it extraordinarily unlikely that this user would know that. User has also added the content and . Per ] they would have to provide a source for this content. | |||
| #* 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'm not confident the user is here to contribute constructively, since they continue to do things that are both annoying and contrary to normal protocols. They seem to be testing Sylvester's patience through the repeated submission of unsourced information, they have proven to be a liar, and their other strange behavior seems like outright trolling. Thanks, ] (]) 19:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :About all of that "crap", I was watching Dave's talk page, I saw , then I ] a message to Kris' (Victoria? Shared account?) tp. Then they posted to my tp. Then they (?) replied with . (I must say I found their taking offence to the word "crap" quite funny, because 1. I don't consider it being profanity while I dislike actual profanities and 2. "Crap" is very mild language for Dave) --] <sup>]</sup> 19:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Personally I believe this user is trolling I honestly do, Perhaps unrelated here but I also believe they're related to {{noping|Linde (T1) Gaytri (T2)}} but other than the timings being roughly the same I don't have much evidence hence not visiting SPI...., As for the whole "Crap" kerfuffle.... Well I was speechless {{p|grin}}, I think crap was putting it nicely lol. –]<sup>]</sup> 20:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues: | |||
| *I get the impression this may be a child. They're not necessarily trying to be difficult by posting in the wrong place. I've written some advice for them, and also pointed out that they need to start listening to what experienced users tell them. And I agree the username sounds a bit like a shared account; I've asked them about that. ] | ] 00:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::I would say that's possible, and I'd also like to point out that ] is far far ''far'' away from ] (I think it includes ]?) --] <sup>]</sup> 01:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| # Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions. | |||
| ::Davey's hypothesis is highly likely given the and the bizarre name scheme. Whether this is a child or not is of no real consequence, as basic competence is required even of young contributors, and lying and trolling is not acceptable no matter what your age is. I admire Bishonen's assumption of good faith, but I don't think the facts justify it. ] (]) 02:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| # 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. | |||
| :::I share {{ping|Cyphoidbomb}}'s concern regarding this editor. I've been watching their edits for a while now, I'm very concerned about their editing pattern now given that I've just seen . That to me indicates that they would consider violating the 3RR rule etc etc.--] (]) 02:32, 18 March 2015 (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) | |||
| == Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources == | |||
| *Blocked indefinitely. One of their last edits was to delete this ANI thread. ] | ] 09:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| {{Atop|Content dispute.--] (]) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :*P.S. And look, literally the ]! What a ''complete'' user. ] | ] 10:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| Hello, | |||
| :*{{u|Bishonen}} Seems they've gone to an IP ({{User5|119.160.116.139}}) seeing as I've just been trouted for what I can only assume is rollbacking there crap, I've never had a random IP leave one so I'm assuming it's them, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 10:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @] over the content in the the "]" article. The editor removed significant content, citing ] as justification. Here are my concerns: | |||
| ::*What a delight. Still, I do believe that starting by assuming good faith is not merely appropriate but actually useful in these cases. It doesn't necessarily imply ''optimism'' about the user. Anyway, IP blocked for a month. ] was already blocked for a month by the editor who uses the pseudonym ]; I've extended to indefinite per ]. Compare . ] | ] 12:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::::Though incorrectly, they've asked to be unblocked, claiming it's all their ]'s fault. My opinion on ] is to let them go after the first time with a clear warning, and then take further action if it happens again, but this user's claims do not match up to their edit history. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks Bishonen for the blocks, As for the unblocking - I think the whole brother thing's BS and honestly... I'd say they're 12(They claim there "brother" is) and are incapable of understanding editing constructively as well as the policies here, I have no objections to them requesting unblock in a year or 2 when they've grown up but for now I think unblocking them will only cause more disruption here and thus will probably end up reblocked. –]<sup>]</sup> 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''1. Misapplication of Policy''': | |||
| ::::I've fixed the unblock template for them, so it'll call up an uninvolved admin. As for causing more disruption... never mind, I won't ]. ] | ] 14:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow ], ], and ]. | |||
| == Abbreviation deleter == | |||
| {{archivetop|1=IPs blocked and {{u|King Shadeed}}'s talk page protected (all for three months) by {{u|Bishonen}}. {{nac}} '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 01:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{ping|King Shadeed}} and I have been dealing with a user across multiple IPs: | |||
| '''2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources''': | |||
| * {{IP|65.130.211.225}} | |||
| * {{IP|71.219.22.154}} | |||
| * {{IP|75.162.203.151}} | |||
| * {{IP|75.169.30.183}} | |||
| The removed content was based on ]-era sources, which are neutral and historically significant. The editor claims these are unreliable without specific evidence or discussion on the article’s talk page. | |||
| The user started deleting abbreviations used later in the article from article leads (for example, removing {{xt|(SPT)}} from {{xt|Sony Pictures Television Inc. (SPT))}}, calling it "clutter." Those edits were reverted, and I left a message pointing to ]. | |||
| '''3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior''': | |||
| They questionied the reversions, saying that some articles had such abbreviations and others didn't, then, apparently to ], began | |||
| adding unnecessary abbreviations to article leads, for "consistency." | |||
| Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "]" and warned me about sanctions under ] and ], discouraging collaboration.] | |||
| The user has also been leaving abusive comments and edit summaries—for example, "" ] (]) 23:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Evidence''': | |||
| :Err, just see this <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 23:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*I'll block the disruptive IPs for a few months (they're supposedly static) and semiprotect ], not for the first time. Very stubborn vandal. Thank you for the report, ]. You can take this guy straight to ] next time you see them, or indeed straight to me. ] | ] 00:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC). | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == User:Kamek98's refusal to accept consensus == | |||
| *{{Userlinks|Kamek98}} | |||
| The page in question is ]. The page was moved from {{no redirect|Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope}} on January 14, 2014 following a ] on the talk page along with {{no redirect|Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back}} → ] and {{no redirect|Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi}} → ]. A ] to undo the Star Wars move was started on the page on October 12 by {{u|Emperor001}}, which closed in resounding opposition. Around three months later, {{u|Kamek98}} began to undo all three moves as well as to move ] to {{no redirect|Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark}}. The proposal was, again, met with resounding opposition and as eventually closed against moving. I was a participant of the discussion, and Kamek later ] to continue to discuss the issue. He spoke as if he was gearing up to continue to fight the issue, after I strongly urge him to ] and even with his disclaimer that {{tq|I}} (Kamek) {{tq|see no problem in eventually bringing it up again. . Not anytime soon, at least, I will drop the stick right now.}} One week later, he of his proposal, not arguing that the close was against consensus but instead continuing his same arguments. Today, he for the same three Star Wars moves, which was immediately closed as disruptive by {{u|Timrollpickering}} with a 6-month moratorium against reproposal and a year moratorium against same-user nominations. Kamek has since to belabor the issue further, arguing for the proposal to be reopened. | |||
| ] | |||
| This is the most severe case of ] and ] I have seen in a long time. The consensus is so clearly set that anything Kamek does regarding Star Wars is an automatic waste of time. Whether his conduct merits a tban or a warning is for the community to decide, but it is beyond disruptive and ]y by now. <code><span style="font-family: consolas;font-weight: bold">]]]</span></code> 03:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: While I'm a big believer in Consensus can change, Kamek98's not making a case for his beliefs at all, quite the opposite. I'd agree that a TBAN might be a good thing for him. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 10:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: How am I not making a case for my beliefs at all? I provided evidence from reliable sources run through Ngrams as suggested before that have proved favorable in many consensus's claiming COMMONNAME and therefore I opened another RM. I'm not trying to "make a point" or "beat a dead horse". Not everyone who wanted a say in the last discussion had the opportunity to do so, one user made a new section following its closure who agreed that it should renamed. I don't see how strong opposition in the prior consensus decides that evidence backing up claims that merits reopening of the discussion overrides the RM and merits a topic ban. ] 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Also don't believe ] should be reflected for a ban. It's an essay and not a policy. ] 19:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''Request for Administrative Action''': | |||
| ::No firm opinion on a TBAN so far but the RMs and the MRV show all the classic signs of a user who just won't accept an outcome they don't agree with and will keep trying and declaring their latest argument to instantly set aside the reasoning that previously carried the day. In the February RM other users were pleading for them to drop the matter but instead they kept bringing it back in classic ]. Certainly a warning is at least needed. ] (]) 13:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't understand how the MRV worked and I wouldn't have used if I knew what is what for. '''I acknowledge that using the MRV was a mishap on my part''' I'm not agreeing with the accusations of me ]. I ''have considered the discussions''. I have ''weighed the information''. I have ''considered the reactions I would get''. I'm ''not trying to upset anyone''. ] 19:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification. | |||
| :Update: '''I'm done. Have it your way. I apologize and it won't happen again.''' ] 20:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: So, {{User|Kamek98}} has "permanently retired" with a message of "This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages as of March 2015 due to victimized bullying." and "This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages as of March 2015 due to being a victim of bullying." Is this allowed? Or should this message be struck from this user's pages? --] (]) 20:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page. | |||
| == ] and bogus book sources == | |||
| {{archivetop|1=Blocking; cinches it IMO; real books don't change title randomly. Thankfully, there aren't that many edits to clean up after. — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Many of the edits by {{user|Samuel Cunningham}} and {{user|198.47.97.49}} make use of references to books that I cannot locate in ] or elsewhere. This goes back at least to . I'd appreciate some assistance in making sure I haven't missed anything that needs reverting. --] 03:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : {{ping|NE2}} See also as Garth Carlos Fellers: Talk about passive-aggressive...zinging the president via the nickname article at Misplaced Pages? Wow. ] (]) 10:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration. | |||
| * This is an extremely serious charge and there are alarm bells ringing over the "Last September" diff above, which makes use of stacked footnotes attributing the pejorative "Obamination" to apparently phantom books by "John Elgire" and "Mark Legire." Note spelling of the last names. Please prepare a proper list of diffs; if this case is proven there will be a major clean up project needing to be done following an indef to Vandal Island. ] (]) 15:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 4. Prevent further disruptive edits/vandalism by IP editors (which hasn't happened yet) And from Autoconfirmed users(e.g. @GrilledSeatJet , -) and even from Extended Autoconfirmed users(@]) by banning such editors and putting an extended protection on the Article which I have once put request ] for but it got denied and now the results are as follows. | |||
| *The User page of {{u|Samuel Cunningham}} appears at a glance to be a bad hoax, including a much-too-long list of "works," including such obviously idiotic titles as ''Spelunking on Orcas Island'' and ''The Klan and Shaw Island: A Century of Violence and Isolation.'' Neither of these are to be found in WorldCat, or listed for sale on ABEBooks, or mentioned anywhere on the internet other than the hoax User Page in question. '''''I'm gonna HOAX tag the user page, which is going pretty IAR. Would some administrator see to this matter and take the appropriate action?''''' ] (]) 15:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed. | |||
| * IP 198.47.97.49 geolocates to the San Juan Islands, it would seem, and needs to be included in a block. ] (]) 15:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ----Best Regards | |||
| --- ] (]) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The user page is written as if it were a biographical article. The policy ] states that such pages are usually deleted via MFD. I have nominated the page for deletion. ] (]) 15:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{ |
{{Abot}} | ||
| == Nothing to say about me really bot == | |||
| == JesseRafe == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Locked {{nac}}. <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> 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| *{{vandal|WilhelminaBlosse}} | |||
| I regret bringing this here but see no alternative now. I have been encountering unacceptable behavior from ], an editor I had never encountered before until a recent disagreement at ]. The user took exception to an edit I made there and (admittedly with some provocation from me) has started directing a stream of abuse and insults at me. I honestly don't care about that, but I do care about the fact that he now sees fit to vandalize the article's talk page by making edits such as , repeating word for word a previous talk page comment by me. The user should be told firmly that that is not an acceptable use of a talk page and generally advised to cool off. ] (]) 04:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per ]. Thank you! ] (]) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I regret replying even once to FKC's baseless claims and haughty attitude because I dared correct him or her once. I should never have engaged in this sloppy behavior, but since this is basically a playground fight, "Teacher, he started it!". I copied his/her edit summaries to make my point about how ridiculous someone who had violated WP:CIVIL would be so quick to brandish it as a threat to getting me blocked. I mean RonBurgundy.gif, that escalated quickly! FKC was wrong, the article was fixed, and yet FKC kept up the personal attack on me, as well as making threats to block me (at that time I had made ONE reversion). It was just too much. I couldn't take the absurdity of it, and over re-acted. ] (]) 04:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::You say that you copied an edit summary I made "to make my point." There's a whole policy, ], about that behavior. Do you intend to make similar points that way in future? Hopefully, the fact that you didn't repeat that talk page edit shows you realize that it was vandalism. ] (]) 04:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Once again, you need to read more carefully. WP:POINT is irrelevant in your example, completely and utterly confusingly irrelevant. What are you even trying to say by pointing to it? What I did was almost unavoidable as you were suffering from a severe case of pot-calling-the-kettle-black denial. And you still don't get it, do you? That's why I used your own tirade of WP:s and you didn't pick up on it. Whatever, it's over. I fixed the article, and there's no more beef. | |||
| :::There's no reason to bother anybody else about this. The article is fine now. Unless you want to argue that "Movie (1999) is a movie" is the common use of a film lede. Oh wait, you already argued that, but then got needlessly aggressive and pedantic when you were told that that is non-standard, and every other film article states the year in prose. But this is over, your edits were undone and I think that's the only sore point. Why else start an ANI for it? To vindicate your feelings? You admitted you started the hostility, so admit it's over. Bye! ] (]) 04:32, 18 March 2015 | |||
| ::::You are continuing to behave inappropriately by removing part of my post above, and that shows that there is an ongoing issue here, unfortunately. Removing part of someone else's comments is justified only in rare situations (BLP violations and similar things) that do not apply here. Unless it was simply an accident, it's further provocative behavior on your part and you need to be told to desist. The summary of ] is, "When you have a point to make, use direct discussion only", so it does seem to be relevant. ] (]) 04:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hilarious. You're just making things up now. You accuse me of editing your post, when ''YOU'' edited mine. What in the name of what is going on here? Please, give it up. It's over, there's no issue. Don't add random "+" to my posts, and then say that ''I'' was editing your posts. Amazing. ] (]) 04:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's quite possible you removed part of my comments simply by accident; I don't know. Under the circumstances, it's not unreasonable to suspect it might have been deliberate. The only reason I edited your posts was to undo your removal of part of my comment. ] (]) 05:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You need a break from wiki, seriously. You make up a thing that I removed your comment when you make an edit that just puts a giant boxed "+" in the middle of my post, and then make an apology saying I did something by accident completely ignoring how you did something else. The EXACT THING you accused me of? You are off your rocker, or I'm being pranked. What did I do deliberately? I responded. With paragraphs. To you. I didn't use any +s in the middle of a paragraph break and I didn't start any lines with a space to give them that weird box. These are things that ''YOU'' did. Unbelievable I'm even replying to you again. Seriously, take a rest because you make no sense. | |||
| :::::::Also, for the record, ] is now following me on other pages and blatantly undoing my edits just to undo them. Continuing the pattern of making no sense, responds with things like "no reason given" when my edit had an unambiguous edit summary. This user is, as I noted from the beginning, the type to take supreme umbrage at being told they are wrong and not act mature about, but to get high-and-mighty and respond to everything the person they disagree with with "no, you're wrong". Just putting this out here for corroborative evidence. ] (]) 05:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I edited a single article that you previously edited, not "other pages." I am now happy to leave your edit in place, as you have finally given a plausible justification for it. So long as we are discussing you and your edits, it seems appropriate to note that you recently violated ] at Kaadu (1973 Malayalam film). ] (]) 05:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}If either of you want an admin to look this over, you'd do best to stop bickering. ] (]) 05:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I know; I'm sorry. The evidence of 3RR violation is perfectly clear, though. See , , , and . ] (]) 05:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Both of you need to stop now, disengage and move on to something else productive. Calling this spat childish is unfair to sweet children worldwide. ] ] 05:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ec}}<small>Damn, and I was silently placing bets with myself as to when someone OTHER than the two disputants would finally comment on this. Too bad we didn't let it keep going. In a perverse way it was entertaining watching these two bicker back and forth with no one else giving a shit. I'm not sure anyone still doesn't give a shit, but it was more fun, in a kind of schadenfreude way, when we were all ignoring them. --]] 05:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::Do you have any comment on the 3RR violation, Cullen328? When did it become inappropriate to point that out? It's a blockable offense, as you know. I would direct the same comment to Jayron32: do you consider it OK for JesseRafe to violate 3RR or not? He is not new and should know better. ] (]) | |||
| == Concern About a New Contributor == | |||
| I first encountered JesseRafe last February while looking into a ]. He was blocked for ] on ] by ]; I had also reported JesseRafe to ] (Spinningspark had before he saw it). Normally, this would be a done deal, but for the discussion that had ensued at JesseRafe's user talk page, where attempts at explaining the block were met with incivility (, , ). While some frustration might be expected following a block, it was not the first incident where JesseRafe responded to an adverse situation with incivility. See generally ] and ]. | |||
| {{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}} | |||
| Dear Wikipedians, | |||
| I would argue, however, that we are looking at something larger than a civility issue. JesseRafe's response to being blocked for 3RR following the Götaland incident indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of ] and ] (), as well as , and how consensus may be implemented (specifically, an apparent presumption that ] is policy and that enforcement thereof falls under the aegis of vandal-fighting). | |||
| 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. | |||
| My point in bringing back up this admittedly old material is that this is not an isolated incident for JesseRafe. He also has a ''long'' track record of mislabeling good faith edits as vandalism. Compare ] and ] (where it was noted that JesseRafe had violated 3RR and was still calling the IP's edits vandalism) with his very recent reverts such as (describing a good faith edit as vandalism, though it was promotional). | |||
| I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively. | |||
| All that said, I'm not sure what the answer should be. In light of his woeful participation on talk pages (), I had previously considered proposing a long-term 1RR limitation. In light of JesseRafe's proclivity for incivility, however, that probably would not substantially prevent him from driving away other editors. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 06:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed. | |||
| :This is ridiculous and thoroughly beside the point, as well as moot and old. Double jeopardy? | |||
| :1. Look at the background and resolution of the Gotaland article, and all the other editors who came to my defense, both on the article and my Talk Page. I was standing up for propriety of the page, and was vindicated by others despite my block because admins couldn't look to the substantive issue, but focused on myopic rule-reading. Others fixed it, no harm done, what's the relevance here/now? | |||
| :2. Jesus Gonzalez??? Are you kidding me??? That guy was OBJECTIVELY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY using racist language and reasoning and I called him out on that and AGAIN look at how quickly I was vindicated. My block was lifted almost instantly. Again what is the relevance to here and now? That was, what, 4 - 5 years ago? | |||
| :3. There ''was'' consensus. This is attempted character assassination. Only a single editor had unsourced false information, and three total editors (of which I was the most frequent) were undoing his/her work (together, whoever happened to catch it again as it were) that was undermining the credibility of the article, namely putting CN tags on the article itself and arguing (without any data) that the subject of the article didn't exist. It was absurd and was dismissed rightfully. Again, how is this relevant? | |||
| :4. I have a long track record because I have a long track record? You've cherry-picked what 5-6 instances out of nine years of edits? I don't care for Talk pages for the sake of talk pages, you using that data like it makes some sort of point in and of itself is completely off-base. Better data would be to see how many edits I make to talk pages on talk pages I've edited at least once. I'm active when I choose to be, but I mostly make substantive edits because wikipedia is for the reader, not the editor. | |||
| :I'm thoroughly disappointed in you, Mendaliv. You're lying and misrepresenting cases throughout this screed. ] (]) 06:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you have violated 3RR in the past, that's quite relevant. You should stop immediately "accidentally" removing my comments here, as you did with edit. ] (]) 06:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Comment from someone with subject matter experience on my block''' | |||
| :: This right here is a picture showcase of one of the biggest black marks on wikipedia's reputation. The admins here don't know anything about the subject matter Geats and don't want to know. They don't care who is correct and who is incorrect, or what justice is. They only apparently care about treating those who know about the topic Geats like children, wielding authority and handing out blocks while coddling the editor who says the Geats never existed and all scholarship is wrong and he is right (or WHATEVER lame WP:POINT he is trying to make) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: As I said, I took the punishment, I was the whipping boy, but the better version of the article came about. Everybody wins! Except the person who reported me and got me blocked because the rules favor the squeaky wheel, not the person who has reason. This is Mendaliv's shining example. ] (]) 06:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm happy to restore your comment, but I won't tolerate you "accidentally" removing my comments here. Stop. ] (]) 06:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| !!!!! This is my point!!!! This user keeps deleting my comments while simultaneously accusing me of that! What is going on? Please someone tell me. This is such a level of bullshit, how is this person not letting me to respond to Mendaliv's baseless claims? How can a defense in an ANI be reverted? How/Why? Unbelievable.] (]) 06:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Comment from someone with subject matter experience on my block''' | |||
| :: This right here is a picture showcase of one of the biggest black marks on wikipedia's reputation. The admins here don't know anything about the subject matter Geats and don't want to know. They don't care who is correct and who is incorrect, or what justice is. They only apparently care about treating those who know about the topic Geats like children, wielding authority and handing out blocks while coddling the editor who says the Geats never existed and all scholarship is wrong and he is right (or WHATEVER lame WP:POINT he is trying to make) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: As I said, I took the punishment, I was the whipping boy, but the better version of the article came about. Everybody wins! Except the person who reported me and got me blocked because the rules favor the squeaky wheel, not the person who has reason. This is Mendaliv's shining example. ] (]) 06:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Comment from the admin who unblocked me for that unrighteous block when I was dismissing an obvious racist''' | |||
| :::Accept reason: | |||
| :::This is a conditional unblock. I understand why you feel Valencian's comments to be ill-considered – and frankly I agree with you – but at this point there is no benefit to further critiquing them. I am therefore unblocking on the condition that you not comment further on them, or on Valencian or his motivations and/or alleged prejudice, and focus only on the notability of the article. If this condition is acceptable to you, then you can go ahead and resume editing. I will also be leaving a note to Valencian urging him to be more judicious with his comments in the future. 28bytes (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, vindication from when I am blocked, and I took the penalty, but I don't see how it is relevant here. ] (]) 06:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You made an edit that removed my comment from this page. It seems deliberate, as it is not the first time you have done that. The history of this page shows as much. I reverted you because your edit was vandalism. Note that I restored your comment, after restoring mine. ] (]) 06:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|28bytes}}, it would seem that , where he states that his block was for "dismissing an obvious racist" (namely, Valencian), violates the terms of your 2011 unblock of him (which he helpfully quotes in the same statement), specifically that he "not comment further on , or on Valencian or his motivations and/or alleged prejudice". —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 06:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec|2}} {{ping|JesseRafe}}, . The reverts and counter-reverts that ''both'' of you did were wrongful. Both of you should stop reverting and stop commenting so others can somehow get involved in resolving this case. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 06:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I haven't reverted a thing. Are you serious? I "undid" a revision because I got a ping that FKC "reverted" my edit when I was reacting to your spurious claims. Is that wrong. My summary shows a big negative -870 characters, that was FKC deleting my entire response so I undid that. What else, just let him delete my defense? What is going on? This is not a rhetorical question. Please. ] (]) 06:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|I haven't reverted a thing. Are you serious?}} . You made it about twenty minutes ago. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 06:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That says "undid". I just explained that. Literally. I took time to find that entry and type it up here and FKC ''reverted'' it. How is that not clear. That user deleted my entry in this charade and I reinserted it. I NEVER reverted ''or'' undid anyone's comments here. | |||
| '''A plea to common sense and the substantive issue''' Namely that the article ] has been fixed and resolved. End of story, let's all go our ways, no reason anyone needed to involved. Yes, FreeKnowledgeCreator was uncivil first (as he/she admits here) and yes I responded in kind. But end of story. And again, Mendaliv, how can blocks already enforced be enforced again for the same infraction. You know perfectly well that this is not what 28bytes meant by that. Please, as with Gotaland and the Geats and Jesus Gonzalez and Jewtopia, let's keep this to '''''substantive''''' issues, not backdoor politics where defendants get railroaded and can't even re-instate their unjustly deleted defense without being accused of acting maliciously. ] (]) 07:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The link I provided above shows what happened. JesseRafe removed a comment I made by pasting his own comment over it, evidently deliberately. The issue is not a single article, but a pattern of vandalism and edit warring (including 3RR violation) by JesseRafe. ] (]) 07:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is a lie!!! Oh em gee, what is happening? I removed no comments. Never. Look at my Talk Page. It has everything on it. Even the vandals who call me "a little bitch" because I remove their vandalism (am I using it right now, Mendaliv?) In fact, that's what made it so easy for Mendaliv to see those blocks. I NEVER REMOVE COMMENTS. Try to find something better to lie about next time. Absurd. Please, what is going on here? Pasting over? What in the world does that even mean? Explain to me then, how I am the one getting pings that you have been reverting me if that's what you're accusing me of??? ] (]) 07:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|I removed no comments. Never. Look at my Talk Page. It has everything on it. I NEVER REMOVE COMMENTS.}} , using an inaccurate edit summary. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 07:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ec}} {{tq|That says "undid". I just explained that.}} You have been here for ten years, but do not know that an "undo" is the same as a revert? | |||
| :::::{{tq|And again, Mendaliv, how can blocks already enforced be enforced again for the same infraction. You know perfectly well that this is not what 28bytes meant by that.}} You misapprehend. You made a new comment above that Valencian was a racist. 28bytes said that you were being unblocked '''on the condition that''' you no longer comment on Valencian, or any prejudice that his comments may have shown. We're getting well into ] territory here... which is nothing new for you, as these diffs show: ("John, this is completely Kafkaesque.") as ("Why was I punished for '''enforcing''' the rules, and SW exalted for '''violating the rules'''?") ("Previously anyone who blanked an entire section was marked a vandal, and this must have changed.") ("I really want to know the new rules."). —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 07:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Nope, it's no lie. See edit, an obviously deliberate removal of a comment by me. It's clearly not accidental, since it isn't isolated. ] (]) 07:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Actually, it probably wasn't deliberate. Clobbering happens to the best of us with high-traffic boards like ANI. But what's more telling is that JesseRafe apparently hasn't looked at the diff we've repeatedly linked where his comment clobbers your comment, and is just insisting that he was right. This refusal to listen to criticism is at the core of his problem, and is something that needs to be corrected if he is to continue to be a part of this project. It does real, concrete harm in the form of driving away contributors and perpetuating the ridiculously steep learning curve of Misplaced Pages. It's everything this project has fought, tooth and nail, to distance itself from in recent years. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 07:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::1. Undo and Revert are different buttons, so therefore different things to me. I know that I pressed undo (BECAUSE FKC reverted me) and I know that I did not press revert. Do not tell me I pressed revert when I did not, and do not tell me that is OK for FKC to delete my comments but not OK for me to restore them. | |||
| :::::::2. Those are serious questions. And again you are dismissing them. I asked re: Gotalund is 3-1 not a consensus, and you didn't respond. I said, and you quoted me, "I really want to know the new rules", and you didn't respond. I get the point, but please, can we look at the substantive issue? For once? Not the backroom drama, but the facts as they pertain to the articles? ] (]) 07:21, 18 March 2015 (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 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. | |||
| ::::::::{{tq|Undo and Revert are different buttons, so therefore different things to me.}} There isn't even a revert button! There's undo, rollback (which you don't have), and Twinkle's rollback features (which you have ). Stop making frivolous arguments. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 07:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :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. | |||
| :::::::::How am I supposed to know what buttons I don't have are or are not called? I don't have them. So when I get a ping it says so-and-so reverted my edits, that means (to me, an English speaker) that they ''reverted'' them. If they had undid them, I would expect the ping to say that. Sorry for the confusion, and yes, if did "clobber" or "paste" (???) it was not deliberate. But it was not a fun experience, doing a bit research to defend oneself and then get told it was undid by the accuser. Doesn't seem very sporting, does it? ] (]) 07:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Also, the fact that you have to go back to 13 months to prove an incident I couldn't've told you had happened for a billion dollars isn't exactly the strongest argument. Yes, I've erred, and I've been punished. But what's your point? ] (]) 07:35, 18 March 2015 (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) | |||
| == Darkwarriorblake making aspersions == | |||
| ===Proposal: Block JesseRafe indefinitely=== | |||
| Frankly, this is a long time coming. JesseRafe has engaged in a pattern of disruptive conduct over the course of years that I have documented above (, and ). His responses to that documentation, , provide undeniable evidence that JesseRafe ] to participate on Misplaced Pages, and that he is committed to making frivolous, vexatious and circuitous arguments in order to prevent a consensus from being reached in a discussion involving him. | |||
| Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Let me just leave this to one point: JesseRafe, , . I'm sorry, but that goes beyond all possible assumptions of good faith. | |||
| ---- | |||
| 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. | |||
| We must act to prevent further disruption. Therefore, I propose that JesseRafe be blocked indefinitely. | |||
| The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 07:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .'' | |||
| *'''Comment''' I might possibly support this, but I am not convinced yet. Are you really sure an indefinite block is the only option? ] (]) 07:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| **Well, bear in mind that an indef block is not an infinite block, and that what's being proposed is not a community ban. I'm usually in favor of automatically expiring sanctions, but if you look at how long this has been going on, I'd be more comfortable seeing some vetting take place before JesseRafe returns to editing... but I don't think that vetting need rise to the level of an unban discussion. And as I said above, I'd previously considered proposing a 1RR limitation, but that would do little to address the disruption of discussion that JesseRafe causes. What does that leave us? A topic ban wouldn't do anything because there's no singular topic. An interaction ban wouldn't do anything because there's no individuals with whom his behavior conflicts. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 07:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Really? Because I don't know "revert" and "undo" are the same thing I deserve to be blocked? (Despite it not being apparent at all, seriously how could anyone be expected to know that? They don't even share anything as much as an etymology or even a letter, one's positive one's negative, they're completely different meanings.) Also, did 28bytes respond to you? Because that is certainly not what he meant re: the block; you're taking his condition completely out of context. You accuse me of making circuitous arguments when on one hand you disparage me for making a paucity of my thousands of edits on Talk Pages and then admonish me for being unfamiliar with Talk Page protocols and nomenclature? I told you before, I make substantive edits. Thousands of them. And good ones. Look through them. I don't skulk around on Talk Pages for a reason. And my two blocks I cited support from the community and proof that the side I was on was correct. Substantively and MOS/guideline-ly And had consensus, but whatever, I was blocked, OK. Punishment served. Lastly, all those diffs are moot as you yourself said I had no idea what was going on above. How many times did I explicitly ask someone to explain it to me? And no one did. I was just further railroaded. It was very confusing -- All I knew was I was adding content to a Talk Page about me and someone was reverting it, so I deleted it. Not with malice, nor deliberately removing content, but merely reinstating my comment that I was pinged had been reverted. The secret cabal of the back room of wikipedia is very offputting, and ignorance of it is charge against one? Really? To use that as evidence is again, circuitous. Further, the wording on what pings say and how edit conflicts are treated should be a lot more clear, maybe because that ANI page was so long, but I was very confused what went where for most of it. But by all means, honest mistakes deserve being banned. Sure. Also, does it matter to no one that the initial issue has been resolved? Yes, I responded to WP:UNCIVIL with further uncivil, but I did so in the guise of preserving wikipedia for the better, namely the insignificant film in question has a lede that conforms to the MOS and with every other film article. I didn't pick a fight, I saw a mistake and I fixed it. ] (]) 08:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Just some of the recent substantive content-based edits I've been thanked for recently. , , , , and . There are hundreds of others of pages that are constant vandalism targets that I monitor, as well as as chart-fixes, links, peacockery and weasel words removing, etc etc, but your solution is I disagreed with folks 5 or 6 discrete times over nine years and 9000 edits and I should be banned. Brilliant. ] (]) 08:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your behavior at the article at which I first encountered you makes it pretty clear to me that you wanted a fight with another editor, and that is why I'm currently seriously considering supporting having you indefinitely blocked. ] (]) 08:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's BS and that's a fight that you picked. Absurd. ] (]) 08:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::An unbecoming response, and not one conducive to persuading me you shouldn't be indefinitely blocked. ] (]) 09:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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'': | |||
| * '''Not just yet''' I did a random sample of JesseRafe's edits and see edit warring , and within the last 6 hours. I'd like an explanation of why that's ''not'' edit warring before I recommend a disruption / competence block. I'd also recommend that FreeKnowledgeCreator stops responding to this thread right now as his rhetoric is also disruptive. ] ] ] 09:29, 18 March 2015 (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.}} | |||
| **'''Comment''' For shame. That is ''not'' a random sample, but exactly the reason why we are here. After FreeKnowledgeCreator and I had a spat on Jewtopia FreeKnowledgeCreator decided to follow me to undo my other edits just to irk me. There is no other possible reason for that user to have been on that page, and that wasn't edit-warring that was edit-restoring as per WP:CASTLIST. Absolutely abominable that such shoddy "research" can be passed off in this instance. The laziness in making a case with a supposed "additional example" when it's the "example we are currently discussing" is appalling. Please look at an actual sample of my edits. 8600 good ones, and 5 or 6 disagreements in 9 years is a problem? ] (]) 13:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I was brought to this thread because I was pinged earlier in it. I have to agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator that the case for an indefinite block has not been made. That is not to say that there is not a problem here, but I am not seeing it at the level of needing complete exclusion. Mendaliv says he ruled out 1RR but that seems like an option to me, or even 0RR. The ] over whether an undo is a revert is astonishing for such an experienced editor. Especially so considering the repeated complaints that administrators have been more concerned with the minutae of policy rules than the substantive issue. JesseRafe, the substative issue here is that you have been repeatedly removing the contributions of other editors instead of discussing in a civil environment. It is of no consequence whatsoever how that reversion was actually achieved. That has to stop, and banning you from making any revert at all may be the solution here. ]] 10:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''Question''' How am I supposed to know what wikilawyering is and that undo/revert are the same thing? Those didn't exist in 2005. Where are they posted on the main page? Seriously, y'all. I look at ''articles''. It's an unfair double standard to assume that I know what goes on on Talk Pages (which most editors regard as secret bureaucrative cabals) because I've been an editor for so long, yet also disparage me as an editor because I've made so few edits in Talk Page namespace. And the fact that you think the outcome of the articles if of no consequence at all is terribly sad. ] (]) 13:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **I just don't see 1RR fixing the problem because what we're seeing from Jesse isn't just reverting, but it's badgering and wikilawyering when he ''does'' deign to discuss (whether on talk pages or here). My fear deals with the "invisible losses" of incivility: Those inexperienced and anonymous editors who would be receptive to in-depth work with our system if they weren't being driven away by incivility. However, I hadn't really thought about 0RR... that might be worth thinking about. My only remaining concern would be that we'd find ourselves back here in short order with yet another argument about what qualifies as an exception to a revert restriction (whether 3RR or otherwise). On the other hand, the principle embodied in ] suggests that we shouldn't worry about the overhead of going through escalating sanctions. It's something to think about, I guess. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 11:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***The user is clearly incapable of distinguishing vandalism from good faith mistakes. If we do go down the 0RR route I would suggest that it is an absolute—no reverts at all, no room for arguing the toss over it. ]] 11:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''. | |||
| Well I'm all for people spending more time on article space (who fancies improving ]?) than on the dramaboards ... but if disruption turns up, we need to address it. Jesse, just calm down and take a deep breath. I get the impression you have said edit warring is okay, because you were right. ''Everyone'' who edit wars thinks they were right! You were told that you were edit warring, and because the admin didn't think you understood, you didn't get unblocked. A shame - being blocked is no fun, and having unblock requests declined is even less fun. Anyway, I'll assume you now understand what edit warring is and what the 3RR is. For the record, you can see that , nearly 6 months before you created an account. My advice is - you are okay for one free pass at a revert, and then if it gets reverted back, step back and think "is my change really important to the sum of human knowledge?" Chances are it's not. Then find another article to edit. I see you're in ] - now I like a nice pint myself and I could really do with ] having some spit and polish, and some of the breweries mentioned in ] could be polished up to GA status along with the parent article. Something to think about. ] ] ] 14:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Slight clarification. I never said edit-warring was right, and I never said it would be because I thought I was right. The events proved I was right, the other editors proved I was right, the MOS proved I was right, etc. The chips fell independent of me and the side I was reverting to was the correct one. That's slight vindication, no? On a lot of articles someone will spurious and (they think) clandestinely make a fundamental change, and then they get reverted, they revert their change back, I try to return to status quo, they make a complaint, boom, 3RR - it's bad policy to leave the false or misleading version of the article up for ''any'' amount of time as far as I'm concerned. Why? Because I care about wikipedia too much. And to me, wikipedia has ''nothing'' to do with any of this brouhaha backroom shenanigans that literally only 10 or 20,000 human beings even know exist. Misplaced Pages articles are for the reader, who at any given instant is potentially viewing that page. So, yes, everytime I have done so I have taken blame for 3RR. Why? Because the facts matter more than the politics. If the squeaky wheel gets their grease and I get banned, but while the article is being discussed (for a ''week''! Two whole lifespans of a fruitfly!) the frozen version is the correct one, not the spuriously edited one, then, yes, that extra reversion and its consequences were worth it. So, yes, please don't misconstrue my words, but from an external viewpoint I am labeling situations like this (like Gotaland, Jesus Gonzalez, etc) instances in which I "was right", but am not claiming my reversions were right. It was a sacrifice, really. A sacrifice due to poor policies and practices that don't look at substantive issues but rely on a "who got here first" victors write history approach. I gave ] a good look. I don't see how anyone could make it better. I think it's a plain turkey sandwich with nothing else in the fridge but grape jelly. It's not gonna be good, no forseeable way to improve it, but it could certainly be worse. ] (]) 20:37, 18 March 2015 (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.() | |||
| :'''Comment''' If the behavior is that big of a problem, it should go before the Arbitration Committee. I have grown a severe dislike for the mob mentality that frequent these boards over complicated cases by editors who only have a passing or one sided knowledge of the situation which often results in more severe actions that are warranted. —''']''' (] | ]) 21:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Another comment''' I would like to note that even if JesseRafe does not yet deserve an indefinite block, he definitely deserves a temporary block for having violated 3RR. ] (]) 22:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This is ridiculous, this case should have been closed after the first few paragraphs when the two parties appeared to resolve their conflict. If 3RR has been violated, take it to ] but this proposal has escalated beyond the original complaint and even the remedy FKC was suggesting. An indefinite block is an extreme overreaction to these circumstances. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have already presented all the evidence that 3RR was violated on ANI, but the admins have notably failed to take action. Were I to take up the matter at ], as you suggest, that would leave me open to accusations of forum shopping. ] (]) 23:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I see two edit warring blocks, and one block for personal attacks/harassment, in their block log. None of this warrants the jump to an indefinite block just because you disagree with them. The basis for the proposal is so unsound, it may as well be quicksand. ] ] 22:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as a draconian solution to a non-existent problem. The person at issue ''now'' knows that "undo" and "revert" are the same - which is the reasonable goal for us to set for this noticeboard. This board is not intended to be the French revolution's ]. ] (]) 22:48, 18 March 2015 (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;...}} | |||
| == Proposed block of == | |||
| {{archive top|], IP hasn't edited this year anyways. ] ] 13:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Regarding User:{{IPvandal|76.217.158.64}}, his only contribution has been to insert a number of unsubstantiated and undiscussed insertions of {{tlx|NPOV}} templates, for example . Sneakily inserted, they have been not noticed. --] (]) 09:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No need. The IP hasn't edited since October. I'm not even sure it's disruptive: The IP only templated 3 articles, and at ] the IP commented and at least articulated a reasonable concern about neutrality. Unless I'm missing something, drive-by tagging, while frowned upon and disruptive when done in excess, isn't vandalism. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 11:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *<b>Oppose Block -- Support addressing NPOV concerns for ]</b> | |||
| :I strongly concur with ]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>. The user explained the reason for putting the tag, was not "sneaky" about it, and it appears the user's assertions are correct. In fact, the problems with NPOV should be addressed. I think this is the wrong forum and this should have been brought to the NPOV Noticeboard, not here.] (]) 11:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Not sneaky at all - Alot of IPs don't give any hint to tagging but most are legit, Plus they've not edited since October 2014 so seeing no point to blocking ?.... –]<sup>]</sup> 11:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', and what are you thinking? Please define "sneaky" for us in a way that includes putting a big banner at the very top of the page. ] (]) 11:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', hefty trout to ] for this report, strongly recommend closing this promptly. ] ]] 12:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| 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'' | |||
| == Student editing ] to get a good grade == | |||
| 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.'' | |||
| {{User|Michael Liao Sax}} has been making edits on ]. He has been reverted by various editors, and in response he has left a message at the top of these editors' Talk pages , , , asking that his edits be left alone for one week, because that's when his school quarter is over. The edits consist of summarizing a few primary references from the last 10 years on the subject for no apparent purpose other than his assignment. He has also edited while logged out, as his message to my Talk page was obviously in response to my reversion of {{IPuser|75.82.171.62}} on ]. | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{User|Spokoyny}} was adding to Sax's edits. He has exactly one previous edit from two years before. ] (]) 12:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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''. | |||
| :May be better to raise this at ]? (Or at least in addition, I'm not certain how well that board is watched.) ] (]) 13:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've mentioned it there. ] actually seems to be somewhat active so may be ] is as well ] (]) 13:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks, I did not know. (For the record, it's ] and ].) ] (]) 13:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Its a recurring problem. In chemistry Misplaced Pages, we periodically see long and mediocre contributions from students who seem almost graded on word count. Furthermore. the instructor is uninvolved and nonparticipant in Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 13:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't have additional information to provide, unfortunately, and don't know the class, but I left a message at ] and will be trying to connect with the instructor. --] (]) 13:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*Meanwhile, what is the response policy, besides reaching out while they continue to make lame edits? I don't think the user is the least bit interested in "joining WP" as such. Do reversions of such edits count as part of 3RR/edit-warring? Are they blockable, topic-bannable, or what? I mean, it seems likely this particular fellow will go away in one week, until his next assignment. ] (]) 13:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Same rules apply as to anyone else. Best we can do is try to connect to explain what's happening and to avoid these problems in the future, really. It doesn't seem like something blockworthy at this point, but we'll see if the problems continue :/ --] (]) 13:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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 ]'' | |||
| I wonder if this is related to two new articles on a similar topic: ] and ]. ] (]) 13:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I see that ] has already been redirected. There's also ] but that's long standing. ] (]) 13:58, 18 March 2015 (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 . | |||
| I think I may have found the instructor. Emailed to check. If so, it's fortuitous it's a school WikiEdu is visiting for a workshop soon. --] (]) 14:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| *After a further round of reverts, I placed an edit-warring Template warning on MLS's Talk page, and he has posted on my Talk page his willingness to stop. Assuming he does cooperate and this discussion remains quiet, I'll non-admin close here in a day or so. ] (]) 21:06, 18 March 2015 (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 ]. | |||
| :*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 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) | |||
| == Extremely Annoying situation == | |||
| == SantiLak's behavior == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Blocked for one week. ] (]/]) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| I reverted by ]. They then times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a ] and informed them of it. | |||
| The user SantiLak has been harassing me since his inappropriate actions removing tags on en.wikipedia.org/The_Truth_About_Guns on a page he wrote himself. | |||
| When I warned him about reverting the tag he started reverting the warnings and harassing me on my own talk page. I have asked him to stop repeatedly and finally asked for help on the prior edit war AN/I, which he deleted. | |||
| The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions. | |||
| I've noticed from the AN/I he has a pattern of 3RR, edit warring, and COI complaints against him. I've also noticed he now has been reverting other user changes on The_Truth_About_Guns entry. From the history a anonyous IPv6 IP went and made a number of changes and removed misleading uncited information from the page. SantiLak reverted all the changes indiscriminately. And has now done 2RR on them. | |||
| ] | |||
| With this ongoing pattern of abuse, I think this calls for admin intervention. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ] ] | |||
| they also used a ] to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough. | |||
| {{u|24.16.30.8}}, you didn't notify SantiLak, I've done it for you. I would recommend a boomerang on this one. 24.16.30.8 placed a speedy delete template on ] as seen ]. 2 minutes later it was remove by sysop {{u|Michael_Greiner}}. He reposted the same Speedy Deletion a few days later ], it was at '''that''' point that {{u|SantiLak}} removed it. The same user replaced it again and called SantiLak's removal vandalism ] The IP went to 2 RR as did SantiLak, replacing and removing the speedy delete tag. As the speedy delete tag can be placed once only, and anyone can remove it, and because it was removed first by a sysop, I'd say the I.P has no case and should watch out for boomerangs here. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 16:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Linkspamming etc. by Pi-gimjiRu == | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ] has been creating dozens of nearly empty articles on fish, consisting of a taxobox and a link to an online database at thaibiodiversity.org. Example: . Pi-gimjiRu's edits so far have consisted mainly of that, along with linkspamming entries from that database to existing fish articles, e.g. . Repeated explanations at Pi-gimjiRu's talk page from ], ], ] and then me, don't seem to have dented Pi-gimjiRu's resolve to keep churning out nearly empty articles. ] has also asked the editor at Pi-gimjiRu's talk page about what appears to be use of multiple accounts, with no reply, but many more articles created. Advice on how best to handle this would be welcome. Thanks, ] (]) 17:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I just came here via ] and the user's talk page, with the same concern. Others have tried to talk to the user but they seem either uninterested in discussion, or ] they are not English. Good faith notwithstanding, we now have a large number of articles on fish in Thailand which are nothing more than a taxobox and a link, as Dai Pritchard explained above, and they are also spamming this link into other fish articles (e.g. ) with little or no context. I was going to try to help the user myself, but based on the existing unanswered discussions on their talk page and the existence of this thread, I think that a ] block is an appropriate course of action here. At least until the user responds. ] (]) 20:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm guessing what you meant to say was that the editor might not be fluent in English? shows him responding in English to talk page comments but I don't believe he's returned to editing Misplaced Pages since the notices were placed there. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This user, both as the above name and as ] has constantly and consistently been posting non-English translations of ], and has refused to discuss with other editors who're warning her, both with templated and handwritten messages, on their talk page. User either does not have a working command of English or is more concerned about exploiting en.wp's visibility; either way they are blocked now and ], since I have no doubt that most of the issue here is a language barrier and I would rather have it explained to them before they sock again. —<font color="228B22">] ]</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :So, you are asking for an admin or editor who speaks Marathi to issue her a warning? Is there a WikiProject talk page related to this language area or ethnic group where you might make this request? <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know where you could publish such a request, but perhaps asking a user in the ] would be a start? ] (]) 21:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive editing and persistent incivility at ] == | |||
| A slow revert war is being waged by an editor blocking content not to his liking: More than 50+ very high end RS’s have been presented (lists ], ], and ) evaluating the effects of the ], but ] reverts any and all mention of any of them (e.g., , , ). | |||
| Despite the several months and multiple requests, Mongo has presented no policy, no RS, nor any text in support of his opposition to including RSs about the Adam Walsh Act. Instead of proposing any potential resolutions, Mongo simply has resorted to name calling, from SPA and POV-pusher to pedophile apologist (e.g., | |||
| ). | |||
| Other attempts to resolve dispute: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Because the Adam Walsh Act is primarily about sexual abuse and RS’s come largely from sex researchers, this page might fall under the discretionary sanctions for ]. | |||
| ] (]) 23:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Please correct me if I've got this wrong. A brief review indicates: | |||
| # There is a desire on the part of some editors, including the OP, that the article in question include a Criticism section because there's a lot of reliable sources that offer criticism of the law, particularly (mostly?) in the area of mandatory sentencing. | |||
| # Other editors agree with ] (yes, I know it is an essay) that one should "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies" | |||
| # Additionally, editors feel that the criticism section is in fact a ] advocacy section. | |||
| # Finally, there have been some harsh words exchanged. | |||
| :My thoughts are: | |||
| :* I disagree with point 1. | |||
| :* I agree with points 2 & 3. | |||
| :* No comment on 4. | |||
| :Cheers, ] (]) 23:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::If in fact criticism of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act can be found in reliable sources, then it does not seem unreasonable to mention that criticism somewhere in the article, whether in a "criticism" section or not. Objections to "criticism" sections are a strange rationale for excluding the information. I am a little confused why anyone would want to keep that information out of the article, though a look at its revision history shows that Mongo is not the only editor opposed to inclusion. ] (]) 23:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *No idea why Cantor brings this now....my last comment was on March 6th . Previously I but they crafted a massive POV pushing to use the article as a venue to advocate for change. Perhaps since Cantor and {{u|ViperFace}} feel that this issue is this big maybe they can craft a side article where they can expand all they wish in POV FORK land. My take as a trained anthropologist is that Cantor and Viperface are apologists for deviant behavior and want to misuse the article as a platform for their agenda. Viperface is a SPA....a quick glance at that accounts contributions makes it clear they are here for one purpose only. This isn't about anything other than my efforts to deal with aggressive POV pushing by those that advocate that sex offender laws need to be changed to protect sex offenders! All I can say to that is go vote, or protest somewhere in which your protest might make the difference, but don't try to misuse the website as a platform for your agenda. How Cantor, with his strong POV on the subject, survived the Sexology case without sanction is bewildering.--] 00:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:09, 24 December 2024
Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles 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- A request for adminship is open for 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 | |||||||||
Globallycz
This problem was over a few days ago. There's no point in keeping it open.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has been on disruptive edits and bad faith reviews. I as an bystander can't help with these edits as this user used only mobile phone edits to edit he please and his edit summaries was rather harsh and accusing editors of bad faith. He only joined Misplaced Pages for three months, and this is rather concerning for the accord. Please investigate. 122.11.212.156 (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Have you looked at majority of my edits? Or are you basing your views here of me based on narrow baised view. I offered mg reason for reverting your edits which removed the age content without explanation. You failed to respond adequately and now instead of addressinfmg my feedback on good faith, you dropped a baseless accusation without any proper qualification. Stop nitpciking editors jus because we are a few months. That is irrelevant. And dont abuse the words "good faith". Cite specific examples where there is a basis. Otherwise, i am sorry. It will be disregarded. Globallycz (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is your majority of edits, and two, Your talk page also shows it and so was edit summaries, and you felt like you want to confront readers. 122.11.212.156 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The talk page represented a small percentage of all my edits. Have you considered whether these few editors were reasonable or unreasonable when they brought issues to talk page. Sadly, most were behaving unreasonably or without basis. Some are somewhat like your case; no explanation was given to remove content. I suggest you put away personal feelings. I offered my reason(s) for reverting your edits which primarily removed the age content without any explanation. Again please do not nitpick editors just because they are a few months. That is irrelevant. Quality of edit matters more. Again, i will not defend myself further. I just hope Adnin will be fair and look at the issue broadly and openly. Admin: If this particularly editor using the IP address as his user id continue to edits or remove content without adequate reasons or source, i will try to put them right again. Globallycz (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- IP, as the notice at the top of the page says, "please provide links and diffs here to involved pages". Globallycz has made more than 1500 edits in the last few months and we're not going to shift through them all trying to guess which edits you might think are a problem. Give us some examples. See H:DIFF if you don't know how to make a diff. Meters (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, here it is one of them, and even accused that one of irrational behavior. I am not. here 122.11.212.156 (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's the best you can come up with? Globallycz's edit summary is uncivil, as is your retaliatory edit summary where you used the same term in reference to Globallycz. You might want to read WP:POTKETTLE. The disputed content is simply a matter of a difference of wording, which neither of you has attempted to discuss on the talk page. In general I prefer your wording, but it has some minor grammar and punctuation errors that need correcting, and you introduce the error "0Viet" as part of a reference elsewhere. The more important thing is that both of you are edit warring over this material. You have both broken WP:3RR. Meters (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just like to highlight that the disputed content was not just a matter of wording. Please review carefully. I dont think i was being rude nor uncivil. The person accusing me of this and that has used strong words like asking me to get a life and daring me this and tbat. On my part, i only insisted that all WP edits should be properly justified. Suggest you reviewed the edits again.
- i dont wish to add to your burden unless necessary. The irony is that he had earlier removed the space between a full stop and two references along with other age content on the WP describibg serious crimes in Singapore between 2020 and 2024. When i did the same thing to remove the space between full stop and reference, he undid it. That is not rational. Being civil means respecting others by following basic rules like justifying each edit reasonably. I dont see him doing that. You wont hear from me anymore. Globallycz (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that the related edits in the 122.11.212 range are yours too. Meters (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's the best you can come up with? Globallycz's edit summary is uncivil, as is your retaliatory edit summary where you used the same term in reference to Globallycz. You might want to read WP:POTKETTLE. The disputed content is simply a matter of a difference of wording, which neither of you has attempted to discuss on the talk page. In general I prefer your wording, but it has some minor grammar and punctuation errors that need correcting, and you introduce the error "0Viet" as part of a reference elsewhere. The more important thing is that both of you are edit warring over this material. You have both broken WP:3RR. Meters (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, here it is one of them, and even accused that one of irrational behavior. I am not. here 122.11.212.156 (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- IP, as the notice at the top of the page says, "please provide links and diffs here to involved pages". Globallycz has made more than 1500 edits in the last few months and we're not going to shift through them all trying to guess which edits you might think are a problem. Give us some examples. See H:DIFF if you don't know how to make a diff. Meters (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The talk page represented a small percentage of all my edits. Have you considered whether these few editors were reasonable or unreasonable when they brought issues to talk page. Sadly, most were behaving unreasonably or without basis. Some are somewhat like your case; no explanation was given to remove content. I suggest you put away personal feelings. I offered my reason(s) for reverting your edits which primarily removed the age content without any explanation. Again please do not nitpick editors just because they are a few months. That is irrelevant. Quality of edit matters more. Again, i will not defend myself further. I just hope Adnin will be fair and look at the issue broadly and openly. Admin: If this particularly editor using the IP address as his user id continue to edits or remove content without adequate reasons or source, i will try to put them right again. Globallycz (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is your majority of edits, and two, Your talk page also shows it and so was edit summaries, and you felt like you want to confront readers. 122.11.212.156 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
You have both broken WP:3RR
- Indeed they have, and thus they've both been blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)- Frankly if you admin people are more informed or less lazy, you will check the edits by IP user 122.11.212.156 and notice most of his edit were reverted by others due to vandalism or unsubstantiated edits. This is partly why I.dont have any kind of respect to the check and balance system in WP. Globallycz (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing "most" of the IP's edits being reverted as vandalism. In fact, you're the only person I'm seeing reverting them. Also, lashing out at the admins as
lazy
is not a good look. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)- Well, that is not honest. If you are unhappy with being labelled as lazy and deny several reverting of past edits of IP user 122.11.212.156 by other editors, that is not being objective. I cant do anything if you deny them. I only reverted 2 of this edits which involved removals of content without reasons. Your response is the reason I dont have respect for the work Adminstrator do. Globallycz (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Globallycz, nobody said you're obligated to "respect the work admins do", however you do have to abide by WP:CIV and WP:NPA, which are policies (in fact, one of the five pillars), and not some optional motto or decorative set of words. Calling people "irrational" or "lazy" is uncivil, and as an uninvolved observer I would suggest you stop. NewBorders (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is called criticism and not an attack. WP Administrator needs to do a better job when carrying out arbitration of complaints or disputes. I am fine with being blocked one day for breaking the 3RR rule but Admin should look deeper into the IP user 122.11.212.156's track record. He got off too lightly.
- Sorry, i disagree that using the words lazy and irrational is deemed uncivil. It is not personal. It is my general observation from this episode. If Admin does a bad job, are we suppose to pretentiously thank or praise them? I can easily cite examples to support my claim about IP user 122.11.212.156 unconstructive edits. I just couldnt understand why Admin let the user off so easily.
- Of course, I am not obligated to respect the work Admin does. Nobody needs to tell me that. Globallycz (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just giving you advice here, in line with what multiple different people have already told you.
- Though if you choose not to hear it and dig your hole deeper instead, that's of course your prerogative. I will now disengage, good luck. NewBorders (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Globallycz, it's interesting that you think the IP "got off too lightly"" seeing as how you were both given identical blocks for edit warring with each other. If that's the case then it appears that you also got off too lightly.
- Stating that you prefer a block to discussing the contested edits, and doubling down on your incivility/personal attacks does not bode well for you. WP:DROPTHESTICK before EducatedRedneck's following call for an indef is accepted. Meters (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly highlighted to look into the track record of IP user 122.11.212.156. But it seems none of you wish to do so and cant bother to look deeper and beyond just the single snap shot on his edit warring with me over WP on serious crimes in Singapore 2020 onwards. Please do not misinterpret what I said. I am fine with the 24 hours block over the edit warribg incident but 122.11.212.156 has a history of unconstructive edits that were reverted by others. 122.11.212.156 knowingly edited the disputed WP without citing any reasons and still has the audacity to complain about me. His or her action are done to disrupt others. Just check his contributions in the past and you will notice many others were reverted either manually or using undone function. On that basis, he got off too lightly. Well, if Admin refused to check the IP user track record, I cant do anything but label it as lazy. My comments are nothing personal but directed at the actions. Even my comment that 122.11.212.156 is irrational was directed at his or her actions. I dont even know any of you. Why would I be personal? I am just voicing my unhappiness with the way dispute are decided here by Admin which I feel are sometimes too superficially done and decided. I would sign off here on this topic too. Globallycz (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I looked at the contributions of 122.11.212.156 and I don't see anything like the record you are describing. That IP has made a total of 14 edits in the past year, all in the last 2 months, of which only six have been to article space. Five of those edits to article space have been reverted, and all of those reversions were done by you; no reversions have been done by any other editor. It's not very meaningful to look at edits further back than a year since it's likely the IP address was reassigned so the old edits may not have done by the same editor. But even looking back at the older edits, there were a total of 15 edits from this IP before 2024, of which 5 were reverted. This all hardly shows a pattern of widespread disruptive edits or "many" reversions.I also looked at the edits to List of major crimes in Singapore (2020–present) that Globallycz is so worked up about and is calling disruption. They are very minor, basically the argument is just about whether to include the ages of some people involved in a crime. Ironically, 122.11.212.156's last edit was to restore Globallycz's preferred version, yet Globallycz still can't let this drop and continues to call for sanctions. Given their uncollaborative and uncivil comments here and elsewhere, I would support an indef, or at least fairly lengthy block, especially since they have repeatedly indicated that they are ready to accept a 24 hour block as a price they're willing to pay in order to get their way. CodeTalker (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are not being reasonable and fair
- (1) when you discount the explanation I gave to revert the two edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 pertaining to removal of age content . I had repeatedly asked 122.11.212.156 to explain the age content removal but it was never given. I justified the reversion of his edit by explaining that the sources listed the age of the suspect and victim along with their names.
- (2) when you did not considered that the multiple reversions in 2024 were pertaining to the same WP and same disputed content while those earlier were of different WPs and content. I quote 3 WPs below which had edit by 122.11.212.156 reverted by other editors. Reason given by those who reverted the edits are quoted below too.
- 1. WP Osmanthus fragrans:
- Date: Jul 2022
- Undid revision 1100529442 by 122.11.212.156 (talk)-repeated disruptive edits
- 2. WP Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)
- Date: 1 Nov 2021
- Undid revision 1053014105 by 122.11.212.156 (talk) unexplained removal of material and change of references
- 3. WP Wunmi Mosaku
- Date: 17 Sep 2021
- Reverting edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 (talk) to rev. 1045008960 by 42.188.141.191: unsourced BLP birth date
- In your eagerness to see that I am banned indefinitely, you have conveniently claimed it is not meaningful to look at edits beyond one year since IP may be reassigned and past edits may be done by a different person. This is so convenient since there is no need to provide proof.
- I can also conveniently claim that there are different people manning the IP address and their common objective is to disrupt WP edits. Likewise, I dont have to prove what i say too and there is no way for you to disprove this possibility too.
- He decided to undo the reversion after knowing he has beem exposed for irrational behavior. I have explained why he was irrational. And I dont wish to repeat here again. If none of you wish to take that into account, I cant do anything. Please be objective. Globallycz (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, I have just looked at the edit by IP user 122.11.212.156 in Oct 2024 pertaining to WP Jurong Group Representative Constituency. The content introduced by IP user 122.11.212.156 was illogical and unsupported by any source. As such I have reverted them. Globallycz (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to add, if we just look at 2024 contributions of IP user 122.11.212.233 involving 7 edits of mainly same content on just 2 WPs (Major Crimes in Singapore 2020 - Present and Jurong GRC), it is hardly representative of the disruptive behavior. A telltale sign that he is possibly from the same person was the evidence that in Nov 2021, he edited WP page related to Singapore MRT and in 2024, his edits were also pertaining to Singapore related WPs on major crimes in Singapore and Jurong GRC. Globallycz (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I looked at the contributions of 122.11.212.156 and I don't see anything like the record you are describing. That IP has made a total of 14 edits in the past year, all in the last 2 months, of which only six have been to article space. Five of those edits to article space have been reverted, and all of those reversions were done by you; no reversions have been done by any other editor. It's not very meaningful to look at edits further back than a year since it's likely the IP address was reassigned so the old edits may not have done by the same editor. But even looking back at the older edits, there were a total of 15 edits from this IP before 2024, of which 5 were reverted. This all hardly shows a pattern of widespread disruptive edits or "many" reversions.I also looked at the edits to List of major crimes in Singapore (2020–present) that Globallycz is so worked up about and is calling disruption. They are very minor, basically the argument is just about whether to include the ages of some people involved in a crime. Ironically, 122.11.212.156's last edit was to restore Globallycz's preferred version, yet Globallycz still can't let this drop and continues to call for sanctions. Given their uncollaborative and uncivil comments here and elsewhere, I would support an indef, or at least fairly lengthy block, especially since they have repeatedly indicated that they are ready to accept a 24 hour block as a price they're willing to pay in order to get their way. CodeTalker (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly highlighted to look into the track record of IP user 122.11.212.156. But it seems none of you wish to do so and cant bother to look deeper and beyond just the single snap shot on his edit warring with me over WP on serious crimes in Singapore 2020 onwards. Please do not misinterpret what I said. I am fine with the 24 hours block over the edit warribg incident but 122.11.212.156 has a history of unconstructive edits that were reverted by others. 122.11.212.156 knowingly edited the disputed WP without citing any reasons and still has the audacity to complain about me. His or her action are done to disrupt others. Just check his contributions in the past and you will notice many others were reverted either manually or using undone function. On that basis, he got off too lightly. Well, if Admin refused to check the IP user track record, I cant do anything but label it as lazy. My comments are nothing personal but directed at the actions. Even my comment that 122.11.212.156 is irrational was directed at his or her actions. I dont even know any of you. Why would I be personal? I am just voicing my unhappiness with the way dispute are decided here by Admin which I feel are sometimes too superficially done and decided. I would sign off here on this topic too. Globallycz (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Globallycz, nobody said you're obligated to "respect the work admins do", however you do have to abide by WP:CIV and WP:NPA, which are policies (in fact, one of the five pillars), and not some optional motto or decorative set of words. Calling people "irrational" or "lazy" is uncivil, and as an uninvolved observer I would suggest you stop. NewBorders (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that is not honest. If you are unhappy with being labelled as lazy and deny several reverting of past edits of IP user 122.11.212.156 by other editors, that is not being objective. I cant do anything if you deny them. I only reverted 2 of this edits which involved removals of content without reasons. Your response is the reason I dont have respect for the work Adminstrator do. Globallycz (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing "most" of the IP's edits being reverted as vandalism. In fact, you're the only person I'm seeing reverting them. Also, lashing out at the admins as
- I don't think Globallycz has gotten the message. Their denial that calling editors (admins or otherwise) "lazy" is a WP:PA seems to suggest an incompatibility with a collaborative project. On their talk page, they state:
Frankly, i rather get blocked for 24 hours rather than go through dispute resolution
. They double down:For me, it is fine to be blocked. I rather take that route.
Finally, they seem to admit to using personal attacks to prove a WP:POINT in this edit, where after being told to not attack editors, they state:I am highlighting a problem here
If they won't even pay lip service to following community guidelines, I think an indef is appropriate. If they change their approach and convince an admin, they can be welcomed back. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Frankly if you admin people are more informed or less lazy, you will check the edits by IP user 122.11.212.156 and notice most of his edit were reverted by others due to vandalism or unsubstantiated edits. This is partly why I.dont have any kind of respect to the check and balance system in WP. Globallycz (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Obvious sock threatening to take legal action
VPN socking blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP 2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range block has been blocked for 6 months. Liz 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This IP range has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to Jats . This range belongs to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthfindervert and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User
" . - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of Jat article see his latest revision on Dudi you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating Jat articles but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this User:TheSlumPanda who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while 2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- But wait a second as per WP:NOPA i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk)
- Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention WP:No personal attacks and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's both. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- At least in the South, an American would recognize Cracker as a pejorative. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --bonadea contributions talk 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Funny thing is you go far enough south it wraps back around again: Florida cracker - The Bushranger One ping only 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- At least in the South, an American would recognize Cracker as a pejorative. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention WP:No personal attacks and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Observation: the IP just tried to place a contentions topics notice on the talk page of the Dudi article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —C.Fred (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a Dudi caste? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that this person (Truthfindervert?) has taken to using VPNs. I’ve blocked a couple today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. LakesideMiners 01:08, 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)
User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm
Indefed until communication improves. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi, I recently came across the edits of Vazulvonal of Stockholm, who seems to be very stubborn in his editing. The user doesn't seem to understand the basic rules and policies of Misplaced Pages (such as the use of reliable sources and no original research), even after being alerted and warned many times. Problems include self-promotion; e.g., at Schüssler, some Swedish IP Addresses and himself, have tried to push the inclusion of 5 non-notable persons, of which I suspect "Lars Laszlo Schüszler" to be related to the user, as Vazulvonal seems to have created the article , which was deleted later. Other major issues include the use of very poor quality sources (e.g., Geni), poor grammar and spelling (e.g., ), pushing nationalist POV (e.g., ). At List of Hungarian Nobel laureates, the user keeps reinstating poor quality text and sources, and even had the nerve to call me anti-semitic and anti-Hungarian. At List of Hungarian Academy Award winners and nominees, some Swedish IP Addresses (which are very likely related to the user), have created this very odd section of very poor quality and original research. Per WP:COMPETENCE, I'm not sure this site is the right place for someone who doesn't take advice, warnings and policies very seriously... Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Update: The user keeps ignoring all manuals and rules of Misplaced Pages, and keeps adhering to his own rules, despite being reverted and/or warned almost every time (diff diff). I don't know if it is a case of serious incompetence or just trolling. I would appreciate it if someone would take a look, because it does not seem that he is stopping with these shenanigans. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have also had problems with this editor, on a specific BLP (Tünde Fülöp), to which they insist on adding unsourced details (for instance on December 14 diff) after a 3rd-level BLP warning on November 27 diff). They also appear to be somewhat indiscriminate about putting ethnically-Hungarian people of other nationalities into Hungarian-nationality categories (such as in this case, where we have sourcing for Fülöp identifying as Hungarian but being born in Romania and emigrating to Sweden). I would be unsurprised to find that these issues are more widespread than this one article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The excessive additions to List of Nobel laureates by country and List of Hungarian Nobel laureates, based on original research and overbroad definitions of what it means to be from one country (Hungary) have continued unabated despite this thread. I see no sign that VoS has ever replied to anything on their user talk. They have made a lot of contributions on Talk:List of Hungarian Nobel laureates but it is of a piece with their article-space edits, broad original-research-based categorization of people as Hungarian and not much listening to other editors.
- Is it perhaps time for a block to try to prod them into participating here and not continuing down the same path? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- They may not be aware of their own talkpage. I have blocked them indefinitely for persistent addition of unsourced or badly sourced content despite warnings, and for non-responsiveness on their page, adding a note in the log linking to their talkpage and encouraging them to communicate there. Bishonen | tålk 18:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC).
Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192
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)
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)
user Stan1900 and the films of Shannon Alexander
Right, we're done here. Stan1900 (talk · contribs) is indef blocked for WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND among many other issues. Four !votes for topic ban below, four !votes for indef ban below - with all of the most recent !votes being for indef overall - so splitting the difference while bearing in mind "ban" is often used when "block" is meant. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm posting here in an attempt to get admin oversight on a situation playing itself out over threads at COIN, NPOVN and the relevant article talk pages.
user:Stan1900 is a WP:SPA dedicated to producing articles on the films of Shannon Alexander, an individual who they admit to having had dealings with . The user previously made a small group of edits back in 2017/18 on the same subject, but the account was then dormant for 6 years until recent activity commenced. Recent activity seems to coincide with the US release of one of the films.
Concerns were first raised when the user opened multiple threads trying to hurry the articles through AfC and talking about when the articles would appear on Google searches (raising concerns about a possible SEO motivation).
The articles created have been consistently identified as being of a promotional nature, primarily due to being composed primarily of quotes from positive reviews. See for example , and .
COI templates were added to the articles, which the user has created multiple threads in an attempt to remove, clearly forum shopping looking for a different answer.
The lengthy (and promotional) Reception sections were removed following talkpage discussion sufficient to indicate that there was no consensus for inclusion. However, it is clearly inappropriate for an article to be composed primarily of reviews (good or bad) so removal was noncontroversial in any case. Nonetheless the user has argued at great length for reinclusion in various locations.
The user is now proceeding in a highly confrontational and argumentative fashion in multiple different threads (diffs for which above) and does not seem capable of accepting that wherever they take their concerns they routinely receive the same response. Users including Cullen328 and myself have raised concerns that the user is a promo only account dedicated to the promotion of the films of Shannon Alexander.
I’d be grateful if an admin would take some action here. Axad12 (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900 has also initiated two lengthy and similar threads at the Help desk, one of which has been archived. WP:Help desk#Dispute over Paid Editing Tag on "It's Coming" and Review of "The Misguided" Draft is the other and taken together, these multiple discussions show bludgeoning in defense of a highly focused promotional editing campaign. I have interacted heavily with this editor in recent days, and so I prefer that another uninvolved adminstrator read these conversations and take appropriate action. I want to admit that I made an error in evaluating the copyright status of three movie posters, and I apologize for that. Cullen328 (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some further background here…
- The user has claimed that
My account was created to edit Katherine Langford's article, completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander
. However, all of the 2017/18 edits were actually directly related to Shannon Alexander, e.g. here . Note also that the 2017/18 activity coincided with the release of the Shannon Alexander film mentioned in those edits. - The user has also claimed:
I have a history of editing articles related to notable figures from Perth, Western Australia on Misplaced Pages
. - However, at that time (and now) the user had only made a small number of edits (all related to Shannon Alexander), so if true this would have required the use of an alternative account. Similarly, as pointed out by Cullen328 (here ), the user claims to have
been an active editor for 8 years, with contributions spanning a variety of topics
, but their edit history indicates 6 dormant years since 2018. - The user states here that they have only contacted Shannon Alexander for
fact verification
, although what purpose that was intended to serve is unclear given the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. However the degree of association between the two individuals would clearly appear to be greater than that given the persistency of the activity and the apparent interest in, for example, urgency of publication and search engine optimisation around the time of a film release, as per WP:DUCK. - The user has also used a great deal of very obviously AI generated posts (as pointed out in various of the threads that the user has started). The user consistently denies AI use, despite the fact that one subset of their posts consistently scores "100% likelihood AI generated" on GPTzero while the rest of their posts show up as "entirely human generated", clearly indicating two different origins. The user claims they have a very formal style of writing that GPTzero mistakes for AI, but if that were true GPTzero would consistently produce results suggesting "part AI/ part human". They then claim that GPTzero is not 100% reliable, which is correct, but that does not invalidate the very clear cut evidence above.
- So, it does seem to me that there is a consistent pattern above of statements which seem inclined to mislead. Axad12 (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Responding to these allegations which contain several misrepresentations:
- 1. Regarding contact with Shannon Alexander: As previously stated, my only contact has been for fact verification - a standard practice explicitly allowed by Misplaced Pages policies. The obsessive focus on the filmmaker rather than the articles' content is concerning. These are independent films that received critical coverage from reliable sources - their inclusion on Misplaced Pages should be evaluated on those merits.
- 2. The claims about 'promotional' content are misleading. The removed content consisted of properly sourced reviews from reliable publications, following standard film article format. No specific policy-based issues with the content have been identified.
- 3. The "forum shopping" accusation misrepresents proper use of Misplaced Pages venues:
- - Talk pages for content discussion
- - Help desk for process guidance
- - NPOV board for neutrality issues
- - Each serves a distinct purpose
- 4. Regarding GPTZero claims: The logic here is flawed. Different types of Misplaced Pages contributions naturally require different writing styles - technical documentation vs. talk page discussion being obvious examples. Using unreliable tool results to dismiss properly sourced content violates core principles.
- 5. Note that Cullen328 has admitted to error regarding the improper deletion of properly licensed images, which demonstrates the pattern of hasty actions being taken without proper verification.
- The core issue remains: properly sourced, policy-compliant content about notable films is being removed based on unsupported accusations rather than specific policy-based concerns. The apparent determination to suppress well-sourced information about these independent films is puzzling. Misplaced Pages exists to document notable subjects based on reliable sources - which is exactly what these articles do. I remain committed to improving them more than ever Stan1900 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- At the end of the day this is all very simple...
- Other users have interpreted your work as promotional in intent. Therefore COI/PAID tags have been added.
- Also, articles on Misplaced Pages do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews, so that material has been removed (and perceived again to be promotional).
- You have attempted, over and over again, in various threads to get the tags removed and the removals overturned - but no one in any of those threads has ever agreed with you.
- The appropriate course of action is therefore to accept that you are in a minority and that the changes you wish to make have no community support.
- Continuing to argue in multiple different places is not an appropriate response. Axad12 (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also see WP:BATTLEGROUND and assume in good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Misplaced Pages—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was correct about the fact that Stan1900 falsely claimed on Wikimedia Commons that the three movie posters in question are their "own work" and that false claim remains on the Commons file pages for those posters. Cullen328 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900 is currently arguing that the words 'own work' actually refer to their 'work' clicking the upload button. I'm not sure if this is all covering up for what looks more and more like an obvious COI, or a simple inability to admit to making a mistake. I think either is incompatible with the collaborative work needed for this project. I'm also very concerned about obviously dishonest statements such as this one, there they claimed edits were unrelated to Shannon Alexander when they were clearly about a film of Alexander's .
- I think a topic ban from the subject of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed, would be the best thing here. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was correct about the fact that Stan1900 falsely claimed on Wikimedia Commons that the three movie posters in question are their "own work" and that false claim remains on the Commons file pages for those posters. Cullen328 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also see WP:BATTLEGROUND and assume in good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Misplaced Pages—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your characterizations here fundamentally misrepresent both the situation and Misplaced Pages's purpose:
- 1. "Articles do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews" - Misrepresents standard film article format. Well-sourced critical reception sections are common in film articles. The removed content followed established patterns for film articles, with proper citations from reliable sources.
- 2. "Interpreted as promotional" - No specific policy violations have been identified. Proper sourcing from reliable publications isn't "promotional" simply because the reviews are positive. This seems to reflect a bias against independent films receiving positive coverage.
- 3. Regarding the "own work" designation on Commons - As DMacks confirmed, proper licensing documentation was verified through official channels. The template language about authorized uploads is being deliberately misinterpreted to justify improper deletions.
- 4. The underlying issue here seems to be a systematic effort to suppress coverage of certain independent films. My interest is in documenting underrepresented works that meet notability guidelines through reliable sources. Many editors focus on their own areas of interest - the hostile reaction to well-sourced content about independent films is very surprising and concerning.
- 5. Claims of "forum shopping" misrepresent proper use of established channels for different purposes (talk pages, help desk, NPOV board). Each place serves a distinct purpose in processes.
- The suggestion of a topic ban for contributing properly sourced content about notable subjects is inappropriate. This appears to be an attempt to use process to suppress legitimate content rather than address specific policy-based concerns.
- I remain committed to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of notable but underrepresented subjects through proper sourcing and neutral presentation. The aggressive opposition to this goal raises serious questions about systemic bias. Stan1900 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. User is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is bludgeoning the same flawed interpretations of policies over and over again. User also refuses to acknowledge that every other user in various threads disagrees with what they are trying to achieve, which is clearly contrary to collaborative work. Alternatively I would support a site block for what is obviously a promo-only account (but given their narrow focus on a single subject a topic ban would effectively be functionally identical to a site block). Axad12 (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your accusations and push for a ban are baseless personal attacks that ignore policy and precedent:
- The articles were already reviewed and the paid tags were removed. Restoring them without cause is disruptive.
- The image licensing was properly vetted via official channels, as confirmed by a Commons admin. Claiming otherwise is misleading.
- I've consistently engaged on content and policy, while you resort to vague claims of "promotion" without evidence. That's not collaboration.
- Consensus is not "everyone disagreeing" with sourced additions. It's built through policy-based discussion, not mob rule.
- WP:HERE is about constructive editing, not battle lines. My focus on notable films in my area of knowledge is entirely appropriate.
- A topic ban would unjustly exclude neutrally written, reliably sourced content about verifiable subjects. That's a heckler's veto against core policies.
- If you have specific concerns, raise them on article talk pages so they can be addressed. But unsubstantiated aspersions and ban threats are the real problem here.
- Stop edit warring against consensus to remove properly vetted content. If you can't engage productively, step back and let those of us who actually want to improve the encyclopedia get on with it. Stan1900 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The user is now claiming over at COIN that
Acting as an authorized representative doesn't constitute as COI
. I'll leave that comment for others to consider at their leisure. Axad12 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Note here that the user had previous claimed repeatedly that they had only engaged in
fact verification
with Shannon Alexander while operating in what they described as a journalistic capacity. That is not what any reasonable person would describe as being anauthorized representative
. Axad12 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note here that the user had previous claimed repeatedly that they had only engaged in
- The user is now claiming over at COIN that
- Support topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. User is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is bludgeoning the same flawed interpretations of policies over and over again. User also refuses to acknowledge that every other user in various threads disagrees with what they are trying to achieve, which is clearly contrary to collaborative work. Alternatively I would support a site block for what is obviously a promo-only account (but given their narrow focus on a single subject a topic ban would effectively be functionally identical to a site block). Axad12 (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. "As an authorized representative" the conflict of interest is crystal clear, despite the bludgeoning denials. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- 1. Yes, I acted as an authorized representative specifically for verifying poster copyright/licensing. This was a limited, transparent interaction done through proper Misplaced Pages channels to ensure images were correctly licensed.
- 2. However, this narrow administrative role for image licensing does not extend to content creation. My article contributions are based entirely on reliable, independent sources, maintaining neutral POV.
- 3. I have been transparent about fact verification contacts (dates, releases, etc.), which were conducted in a manner similar to how any Misplaced Pages editor might verify facts with a primary source.
- 4. The suggestion of a topic ban seems unwarranted given that:
- - All content is properly sourced from independent publications
- - Image licensing was handled through proper channels with full disclosure
- - I've engaged constructively in discussions and made requested changes
- - No promotional content has been demonstrated
- I remain committed to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of independent films while following all policies and guidelines. Being authorized to handle image licensing does not prevent me from making properly sourced, neutral contributions to related articles. Stan1900 (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- On December 15, at the Help Desk, I said to Stan1900
You are now behaving effectively like a one person public relations agency for Shannon Alexander on Misplaced Pages
. Stan1900 denied that, criticized me for saying that, and repeatedly denied any conflict of interest. Now that we have learned that Stan1900 is an "authorized representative" of Shannon Alexander, it is clear that my December 15 assessment was correct. This editor has been repeatedly deceptive. Accordingly, I now Support an indefinite sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- I need to address what has become an exhausting cycle of repeated explanations:
- 1. For what must be the 50th time: I served as an authorized representative SPECIFICALLY AND SOLELY for image licensing/copyright verification - a standard Misplaced Pages process that requires verification of rights. This was handled through proper channels and is documented. The images were challenged, reviewed, and officially reinstated.
- 2. Every single piece of content I've contributed:
- - Is based on independent, reliable sources
- - Follows NPOV guidelines
- - Has been properly cited
- - Includes balanced coverage
- - Has been verified through proper channels
- 3. This constant need to repeat these same points, which are documented across multiple discussion pages, is preventing productive work on Misplaced Pages. The evidence is clear:
- - Images reinstated through proper process
- - Paid editing tags removed after review
- - Content properly sourced
- - Constructive engagement documented
- The suggestion of an indefinite block for following Misplaced Pages's proper processes is both disproportionate and concerning. At this point, the repeated disregard for documented evidence and proper procedures seems more disruptive than any of my contributions.
- I suggest we move past this circular discussion and focus on actual content improvements. Stan1900 (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the specific phrase "authorized agent" in the specific context of file-upload license release does not necessarily mean they are generally an agent (for PR, general employment, or other representation) in the general sense. Here, they might merely have specific authorization or act as a conduit limited to those images. However, they have explicitly stated that they actually are the license holder themselves, which is quite different from acting as the conduit between the license-holder and the Wiki world. And that contradicts all assertions they might make that they have no COI or similar tight relationship with the subject, or are anything more than the conduit. DMacks (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900 is the undisputed champion of repeating themselves over and over and OVER again, under the mistaken notion that repetition is persuasion. The three movie poster files on Wikimedia Commons still falsely state that the posters are Stan1900's "own work", denying credit to the designer or designers who actually created the posters. Cullen328 (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- 1. DMacks: You've misinterpreted my role. I have consistently stated I am an authorized representative for licensing verification - NOT the license holder. This distinction is important and has been explained repeatedly. In fact, many production entitles who haven't created Misplaced Pages entries for their work are happy to authorize agents to handle public information and image licensing, as evidenced by this very situation. Film artwork is regularly made available through multiple channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits) - having an authorized representative handle Misplaced Pages licensing is neither unusual nor suspicious.
- 2. Cullen328: Your comment about "repeating over and over" is ironic given that you and others continue to repeat the same disproven accusations despite:
- - Images being officially verified and reinstated through proper channels
- - Confirmation by administrators
- - Clear documentation of my limited representative role
- - Proper sourcing of all content
- The fact that you're still focused on image claims that have already been resolved through official Misplaced Pages processes suggests you're more interested in casting aspersions than improving content. These posters were challenged, verified, and reinstated - continuing to dispute this is what's actually disruptive to Misplaced Pages.
- I'm happy to update template language to be more precise about representative status, but let's be clear: the licensing has been verified and confirmed. Repeatedly questioning this doesn't change the facts. Stan1900 (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900, the file information pages for the three film posters STILL falsely state that they are your "own work". Why is that? Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your continued fixation on this already-resolved issue is becoming tiresome. Nevertheless, I'll explain one more time:
- The "own work" designation indicates upload process handling as an authorized representative - not artistic creation. This has been explained repeatedly, the images have been verified, and administrators have confirmed their reinstatement.
- To spell it out yet again:
- - Not the creator
- - Not the copyright holder
- - Authorized for licensing verification only
- - Images officially verified
- - Reinstatement confirmed
- Your insistence on rehashing this same point, despite official resolution through proper channels, suggests you're more interested in finding reasons to object than improving Misplaced Pages. If template language is truly your deepest concern, I'm happy to update it. Otherwise, if we could focus on actual content improvement rather than this circular discussion about already-verified images would be great! Stan1900 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't a thread about content, it is about your conduct. Axad12 (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- My conduct has been straightforward: Basically creating properly sourced articles while following guidelines. The burden of proof lies with those making repetitive and outlandish accusations, yet you've been unable to demonstrate any policy violations. Instead, you're repeatedly removing verified content and making unsupported claims.
- The real disruption and misconduct here is the constant interference with legitimate article creation. Stan1900 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900, correct that false claim that those posters are your "own work" and give credit to the actual poster designers. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've updated the file pages to properly reflect copyright attribution and clarify roles. The changes align with the documentation in OTRS ticket #2024113010007335, which covers all three posters. This removes the "own work" designation while accurately reflecting the licensing chain. Stan1900 (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900, correct that false claim that those posters are your "own work" and give credit to the actual poster designers. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't a thread about content, it is about your conduct. Axad12 (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900, the file information pages for the three film posters STILL falsely state that they are your "own work". Why is that? Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support the topic ban, on Shannon Alexander, and her films, broadly construed. Stan1900 is clearly here for only promotional activities, and given the change from "only contact has been for fact verification" to "authorized representative but only for this thing," makes me even more skeptical that we're currently getting the whole truth, as opposed to what they were forced to admit when called out on conflicting evidence. The doublespeak about "own work" just confirms to me that this editor would present a great time sink on anyone trying to collaborate with them effectively, which is a bit of a death knell on a collaborative project. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan1900 is the undisputed champion of repeating themselves over and over and OVER again, under the mistaken notion that repetition is persuasion. The three movie poster files on Wikimedia Commons still falsely state that the posters are Stan1900's "own work", denying credit to the designer or designers who actually created the posters. Cullen328 (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Stan, I appreciate that you're keen on repeating yourself, but getting others to repeat themselves is rather unfair. The reasons that multiple users have considered you to be a promotional only account are given at the top of this thread, but to jog your memory:
- Since 2017, your account has been dedicated solely to editing around the films of Shannon Alexander.
- You have an obvious conflict of interest because you've admitted to having dealt with Alexander and being their authorized representative.
- You've created articles which other users have identified as promotional (mainly due to the articles consisting primarily of quotes taken from positive reviews).
- You've set up multiple threads to try to get the articles fast-tracked through AfC, with the stated motivation of getting the articles on to Google searches (presumably it isn't coincidental that this is at the same time that one of the films has its US release).
- You've then spent an inordinate amount of time, across multiple threads, unsuccessfully attempting to remove tags and reinstate the elements that others have found to be promotional.
- That is all the textbook activity of a promotional account. Indeed, whether this activity is being done directly on behalf of Alexander or simply off your own back, it is still promotional.
- However, if we look beyond all that, the continual WP:BLUDGEONING of multiple threads, the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and various deceptions have worn out the patience of those who have interacted with you. Hence we now have 4 users calling for you to be topic banned from the films of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed. Unfortunately that would seem to be the only way to get you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Axad12 (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Who are you to question editors' personal interests or timing of contributions? Many filmmakers haven't created Misplaced Pages entries for their notable works, and having authorized representatives handle public information and image licensing is completely normal - as evidenced by the very processes Misplaced Pages has in place for this.
- Of course I want these articles to be visible and indexable – the same way you want everyone to see your contributions and the articles you've edited. If visibility was suspicious, why do any of us contribute to Misplaced Pages? The whole point is to document notable subjects for public access.
- Film artwork and information is readily available through multiple public channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits). Creating properly sourced articles about notable films, regardless of timing or subject matter, is exactly what Misplaced Pages is for.
- Your continued attempts to paint standard Misplaced Pages processes as suspicious suggests you're more interested in finding problems than improving content. Stan1900 (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your tally of "4 users" consists of the same individuals who have repeatedly removed properly sourced content without policy justification. Tags were removed and images reinstated through proper channels because they met Misplaced Pages's requirements - that's not coincidence, that's following process.
- Your "coincidental timing" argument falls apart considering I'm writing about films from 2018 and 2022 in late 2024. If this was promotional, why wait years?
- I'm not getting others to repeat themselves - I'm providing the same answer to the same baseless accusations because you refuse to accept documented evidence. The fact that multiple administrators have verified and reinstated content you've removed suggests you're the one being disruptive, not me. Stan1900 (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually it is now 5 users calling for a topic ban.
- I'm not sure when you are referring to admins reinstating material I've removed, but I work pretty much solely on conflict of interest cases and it's fairly normal for material to be removed and reinstated on those sort of cases as discussions develop. I don't take that personally, it's just an occupational hazard that happens to everyone in that field from time to time as articles work towards a stable version. I'm not aware of having been reverted by any admins on the articles under discussion in this thread. In other situations I'd have thought it was a rare event for me to be reverted by an admin although no doubt it has occurred.
- My work in the COI area is, I suspect, fairly well known to a good number of readers here. I am a user in good standing who has contributed to the removal of much COI and promotional material from Misplaced Pages. All of my work on Misplaced Pages for the last year or so has been done on forums with significant administrator oversight and if my conduct was generally disruptive that would have been pointed out to me by an administrator at some point.
- I opened this thread in the clear knowledge that my own conduct might be placed under the spotlight, but instead it is 5 users who are calling for you to be topic blocked.
- For you to suggest that I am the problem here only serves to demonstrate your lack of self-awareness. Axad12 (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, re:
want everyone to see contributions and the articles 've edited
... No, actually I have no particular feelings on that score - probably because I resolutely avoid editing any article where I might be perceived to have a COI. With the exception of a few very minor edits I've only ever contributed to obscure articles (so hoping that "everyone will see them" would be a vain hope indeed). Axad12 (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- Axad12 CoffeeCrumbs
- 1. The paid editing tags were reviewed successfully. Their reinstatement without new evidence defies this original determination.
- 2. All images have been properly verified through Wikimedia VRT process and have valid licensing. Their deletion and reinstatement of them shows proper process was followed.
- 3. I have already addressed all questions about authorized agent status through official Misplaced Pages channels. This matter is resolved.
- 4. I have consistently followed every procedure to a T:
- - Using talk pages
- - Providing reliable sources
- - Following dispute resolution
- - Getting official review of tags
- - Verifying image licensing
- - Addressing repetitious concerns transparently
- 5. The suggestion of a topic ban - what topic exactly? Arts and culture coverage? That would be an unprecedented scope based on properly sourced contributions.
- 6. Regarding CoffeeCrumbs' claims of 'promotional activities' - I have several drafted articles about artists with similar encyclopedic gaps in coverage that I've had to delay working on due to this ongoing situation. The fact that a few users are trying to discredit me simply because I focused on documenting 3 films that had no Misplaced Pages presence is, frankly, pathetic.
- All of my edits are fully sourced, neutral, and follow policy. Each accusation has been officially reviewed and resolved through proper channels. If there are content concerns, they should be raised with diffs and policy citations, not broad accusations. Stan1900 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please see WP:BLUDGEON. You've said all of that stuff time and time again but other users still fundamentally disagree with you and find your conduct problematic. You just need to drop the stick now. Axad12 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Citing WP:BLUDGEON is ironic given you repeatedly make the same accusations after they've been officially resolved through proper channels:
- 1. (Some) paid editing tags - officially reviewed and removed (then slapped back on)
- 2. Image licensing - verified through VRT
- 3. Authorized agent status - addressed through proper process
- I've responded to concerns as they arise and made improvements based on constructive feedback (see discussion with Gråbergs Gråa Sång). Yet you continue repeating claims without new evidence.
- Repeatedly making resolved accusations while telling others to "drop the stick" is bad form. Stan1900 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, how have the issues in this thread
been officially resolved through proper channels
? This is an open thread and 5 users have called for a topic ban. The issues have not yet beenofficially resolved
by any definition of the term. Axad12 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- The tags WERE successfully removed through proper review
- The images WERE successfully reinstated through VRT verification
- The authorized agent status WAS officially resolved
- These are documented facts with clear outcomes through proper Misplaced Pages channels. See:
- - VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583
- - Discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång showing constructive collaboration
- Your reference to "5 users" is misleading when multiple official processes have already concluded in favor of the content and proper procedures were followed. A handful of editors repeating already-resolved claims doesn't override completed official processes.
- If there are new concerns, they should be raised with policy citations rather than attempting to relitigate resolved issues. Stan1900 (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- The thing is that the tags, the images and the authorised status issues aren't the matters under discussion in this thread (and they weren't resolved by "official processes" anyway). This is a thread about conduct, not about content. If you find it
misleading
that 5 users have called for a topic ban in relation to your conduct then there is no helping you. Axad12 (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- Your attempt to separate "conduct" from the actual documented timeline is misleading:
- 1. These issues ARE relevant because they demonstrate consistent proper conduct
- 2. You claim these 'weren't resolved by official processes' - this is factually incorrect:
- - See VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583
- - See constructive discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång leading to content improvements
- 3. My "conduct" has been consistently focused on improving Misplaced Pages through proper channels while facing repeated unfounded accusations and content removals without policy basis. Your Vague allegations while ignoring documented proper process is itself problematic conduct. Stan1900 (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- The thing is that the tags, the images and the authorised status issues aren't the matters under discussion in this thread (and they weren't resolved by "official processes" anyway). This is a thread about conduct, not about content. If you find it
- Sorry, how have the issues in this thread
- Yeah, I read this the other 15 times you said it. Getting you to follow procedure is like pulling teeth. There's no credit in disclosing things on the 10th opportunity after stonewalling the first nine. And it's clear what the topic ban would entail: Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. My only question is if this is enough, but I want to WP:AGF that the conduct won't continue in the event you actually make edits not related to Shannon Alexander somehow. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your accusations are baseless and contradicted by the record:
- I have engaged transparently and promptly through proper channels at every stage:
- - Used talk pages consistently
- - Responded to concerns promptly
- - Had tags officially reviewed and removed
- - Had images verified through VRT
- - Resolved authorized agent status
- - Made improvements based on constructive feedback
- 2. A topic ban on is a solution in search of a problem. The articles are properly sourced, neutrally written, and part of addressing gaps in coverage. It's absurd to suggest banning someone for documenting notable films following policy.
- 3. The relentless accusations regarding these 3 simple articles that previously had no coverage must stop. The paid editing and COI tags are demonstrably untrue based on the official resolutions through proper channels.
- I will continue to refute these baseless allegations because they are false. Please stop making unfounded accusations and let those of us who want to improve the encyclopedia do so.
- The documentation exists. The proper processes were followed. The official resolutions are clear. These constant attempts to relitigate resolved issues are what's actually disruptive to Misplaced Pages. Stan1900 (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be productive here for an administrator to review the contents of this discussion and take action based on the views expressed by multiple users. Further discussion is not going to advance matters any further (unless other users would like to add their voices to whether or not a topic ban would be appropriate). Axad12 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- CoffeeCrumbs Your proposed topic ban is arbitrary and unjustified. If you're concerned about my editing conduct, why limit it to Shannon Alexander specifically? Why not ban me from writing about films in general, or movies from the late 2010s?
- The fact that you're targeting a single filmmaker whose work I've documented following policies and guidelines exposes the lack of logic behind your argument. It's a transparent attempt to shut down coverage of notable topics simply because you don't like that I'm the one writing about them.
- Misplaced Pages's mission is to encompass all of human knowledge, not to censor editors who are working in good faith to expand that knowledge in accordance with site policies. If there were legitimate issues with my conduct, they would apply across topics, not just to one filmmaker.
- The reality is, there is no evidence of policy violations or misconduct on my part. The paid editing and COI tags were reviewed and removed through proper channels. The images were officially verified. My role as an authorized representative was documented and resolved.
- Your continued efforts to relitigate these settled issues and impose baseless sanctions are the real disruption here. If you have specific concerns about the content of the articles, raise them on the talk pages with policy-based arguments. But stop trying to game the system to get rid of content and contributors you personally disapprove of.
- Misplaced Pages is not here to indulge personal vendettas. It's here to provide free, reliable information to the world. That's why we're all here and love the platform greatly. Stan1900 (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I proposed it, not CoffeeCrumbs. And I proposed a ban limited to Shannon Alexander because that is the only area you have been disruptive - in fact it is the sole focus of 100% of your activity on Misplaced Pages. I proposed a limited topic ban in the hope that you could move forward and show us you could work collaboratively elsewhere on some other topic that interests you. But if you think we're better off just banning you from more, or even from everything, that is certainly workable as well. MrOllie (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is getting absurd. Let's be clear - you're escalating from topic ban to broader bans because I defended properly sourced contributions with documented evidence?
- Sure, I focused on documenting films that had no Misplaced Pages coverage - that's called filling a gap in the encyclopedia. I have other articles about artists in development too, but this constant barrage of unfounded accusations is preventing that work.
- At this point, an admin needs to review this situation. The escalating threats of bans over properly documented contributions has become farcical. This isn't how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Stan1900 (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that is a Straw man argument. I proposed a topic for the reasons I explained above. Kindly don't put words in my mouth. MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I proposed it, not CoffeeCrumbs. And I proposed a ban limited to Shannon Alexander because that is the only area you have been disruptive - in fact it is the sole focus of 100% of your activity on Misplaced Pages. I proposed a limited topic ban in the hope that you could move forward and show us you could work collaboratively elsewhere on some other topic that interests you. But if you think we're better off just banning you from more, or even from everything, that is certainly workable as well. MrOllie (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please see WP:BLUDGEON. You've said all of that stuff time and time again but other users still fundamentally disagree with you and find your conduct problematic. You just need to drop the stick now. Axad12 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, re:
Support T-ban at leastthe continued WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:BATTLEGROUND MENTALITY per the above bludgeoning by said user. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- Your comment perfectly demonstrates the circular logic being employed:
- 1. I defend against unfounded accusations with documented evidence = "BLUDGEONING"
- 2. I refute false claims about resolved processes = "BATTLEGROUND"
- 3. I provide proof of proper conduct = "continued bludgeoning"
- Supporting a topic ban while misapplying WP:BLUDGEON to silence defense against false accusations is what actually creates a battleground atmosphere. I will continue to refute untrue claims with evidence because that's not "bludgeoning" - it's maintaining integrity. Stan1900 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- After that response I strike my support of a t-ban and move to Support an indef it is clear that the behaviour will not change. I have never interacted with you before or even edited in the area and you are immediately attacking me. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- So you've never edited in this area or interacted with me, yet you're calling for a T ban/indefinite ban? Because I defended my contributions with evidence?
- I've had images verified through VRT, tags reviewed and removed through proper channels, and consistently improved content through collaboration. Check the documentation if you don't believe me.
- Why exactly are you proposing to ban someone you've never interacted with? That seems contrary to collaborative spirit. Stan1900 (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of this board is to get additional input from previously-uninvolved editors. If all you want to do is keep saying the same thing to the same people repeatedly, you'll keep getting their same response no matter where you say it. The fact that the new participants look at what's happening and still don't agree with you should tell you something. The fact that you object to their participation and reject their input because it doesn't say what you want definitely tells us something. DMacks (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless of any COI, the inability, or extreme reluctance, of this editor to:
- understand such basic site policies as WP:CONSENSUS;
- admit wrongdoing, or error, or even merely recognize the concerns of other editors as potentially valid in any way;
- take any sort of feedback on board, with Cullen328 only managing to get them to correct necessary attribution only after 4 long, tedious and frustrating exchanges (not even counting Cullen's related replies, or others' similar remarks on it, or even the original complaint raised on other pages);
- avoid hammering their own viewpoint repeatedly in response to every dissenting view;
- leads me to, unfortunately, also support an indef ban, at least until the user can show they understand how their behavior has not been collaborative, as well as commit to improving and also properly responding to other editors' concerns, while listening to what they're actually saying.
- To be clear, this is only based on the behavior observed here. I am making no comments about the original report. NewBorders (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I must firmly correct several serious mischaracterizations with documented facts:
- 1. Re: "4 tedious exchanges about attribution"
- This completely misrepresents what occurred:
- - The extended exchanges were NOT about attribution changes
- - They were days of me defending against unfounded COI accusations and false claims about my identity
- - When attribution format was finally raised as an actual issue, and I convinced them of my legitimacy, I implemented changes immediately
- - The record clearly shows this timeline
- 2. Re: "inability to take feedback"
- The evidence shows consistent implementation of suggested changes:
- - Gråbergs Gråa Sång's wiki-voice improvements implemented promptly
- - Article refinements based on additional verified sources
- - Format changes adopted when specifically requested
- - Image licensing properly verified (now restored through VRT after repeated proof requirements)
- 3. Re: "not understanding WP:CONSENSUS"
- - I fully understand and respect consensus processes
- - Current disputes involve content removals without proper consensus discussion
- - I have actively sought broader community input through appropriate channels
- 4. Re: "hammering viewpoint"
- What's being characterized as "hammering" has actually been:
- - Defending against continuous unfounded allegations (false claims about my identity as Shannon Alexander/affiliates, paid editing, COI, AI use etc.)
- - Having to repeatedly correct misrepresentations
- - Responding to new accusations after previous ones are disproven
- - Protecting properly sourced content from removal
- - Having to repeatedly prove already-verified image uploads
- 5. Re: "not being collegial"
- The record shows I have maintained professional discourse while:
- - Following every proper procedure
- - Implementing requested changes when actually specified
- - Using appropriate Misplaced Pages venues
- - Facing repeated unfounded allegations
- Suggesting an indefinite ban based on my defense against continuous unfounded accusations, while ignoring my documented policy compliance and willingness to implement actual requested changes, is deeply concerning. Stan1900 (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- After that response I strike my support of a t-ban and move to Support an indef it is clear that the behaviour will not change. I have never interacted with you before or even edited in the area and you are immediately attacking me. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can an uninvolved admin please implement the obvious consensus before Stan digs himself into an even deeper hole? And, if they are not using an AI chatbot, give them a job impersonating one, because they do a very good impression? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think a chatbot might explain why Stan hasn't answered my question about where he found a 9-year-old definition of COI. Schazjmd (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Phil Bridger Schazjmd Accusing me of being an chatbot for thoroughly defending sourced content is a baseless personal attack. Disagreement is not grounds for abuse.
- After countless policy citations and talk page discussion research over these last several days I don't recall where I found that outdated COI definition. I am only human. But it doesn't change my core arguments about content. Even if I were a cyborg (sadly I'm not), compliance is what matters.
- The reason I've had to repeatedly defend my work is the endless stream of unfounded allegations I keep facing. If there's an upside, it's that I've gained an even deeper knowledge of Misplaced Pages guidelines - knowledge I'd prefer to use improving articles, not battling more false claims. Stan1900 (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think a chatbot might explain why Stan hasn't answered my question about where he found a 9-year-old definition of COI. Schazjmd (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
IN THE NAME OF JESUS, MARY, JOSEPH, AND ALL THE SAINTS AND APOSTLES, WILL SOMEONE BLOCK THIS PESTILENTIAL TIMEWASTER? EEng 21:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support CBAN of this bludgeoning WP:SPA. They are a clear WP:TIMESINK. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This thread could be Exhibit A for the recent proposal at VP that LLM-generated posts be banned from talk pages . EEng 22:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- To take an example of Stan1900’s serial misrepresentations…
- Initially PAID tags were added to the articles. Stan objected and another user replaced them with COI tags. Later 2 further users expressed an opinion that PAID would be more appropriate so the tags were switched back to PAID in accordance with the developing consensus. Those PAID tags have remained in place since that time.
- Stan1900 has since claimed on several occasions, above and elsewhere, that the PAID tags were “removed following official review” (or similar words to that effect) and has presented this as a success for his point of view.
- Either the user is exceptionally deluded or is attempting to misrepresent matters to those without the patience to read through all the documentation elsewhere. Further evidence of the user's serial misrepresentation can be located here .
- And breaking news.. the article that was still in AfC was recently turned down for reading like an advertisement . Axad12 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Gender-related arbitration issue?
Removed from editing (indef'd). - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Masquewand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing "gender" from Sexual orientation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). First 02:48, 20 Dec 24 which I reverted then on 04:12, 20 Dec 24. Masquewand was left a gender-related contentious-topics notice and has been blocked for this issue on 7 Dec 24. The article has a hidden comment that explains the reason "gender" is in place. Adakiko (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This comment makes me think WP:NOTHERE applies. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The whole of that user talk page is a study in WP:IDHT. Someone for whom the concept of consensus is incomprehensible -- and throw in his charming assertion that a source as much as five years old is invalid -- is not going to be deflected from His! Mission! Ravenswing 12:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Take note of this comment they made. Seems to imply a threat of socking? 2001:EE0:1AC3:C498:84A4:3BCE:C7B7:9F5F (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Mgtow definition
Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of WP:GRENADE. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow". The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". Camarogue100 (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Camarogue100, you should discuss this at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. Canterbury Tail talk 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Camarogue100, you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where do I find the talk page? Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Camarogue100, I linked it for you in my comment above. Schazjmd (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where do I find the talk page? Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of "typo" indicates to me that they are here to play games, not improve the encyclopedia. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:33, 20 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)
- 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)
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)
Excessive range block
IP-using sockmaster complains that their IP range is blocked. Complaining IP-using sockmaster is blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 has been blocked for 3 years. For anyone unfamiliar please read User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64. You can also click on the contributions to see that this block affects editors literally all over the United States. I am not saying that no disruption ever came out of this range but this range is so massive it blocked countless editors who never did anything wrong trampling on the rights of far too many IP editors. Please unblock and in the future just block the 64. 2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300 (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- And yet, since May there has only been a single unblock request, one which did not use the template so no one responded, doesn't seem like a lot of collateral. It's an anonymous only block, so accounts (created in other ranges) can be used to edit from that range without issue.
- Secondly, this should probably be at WP:AN, or better yet the blocking admin's user talk page, as this is not an incident nor anything requiring urgent admin attention, seen as the block has been like that since May, and blocked for long lengths of time before that as well with no apparent issue. – 2804:F1...74:E386 (::/32) (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. And a new editor would be unable to create an account thanks to this block. We’ll never know how many would be wikipedians we lost. I don’t know why the fact that this range block is problematic needs to be explained. It affects way more people than the editor(s) they were trying to block. Literally the entire United States can fall on that range. 2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. Right, that's factored into the calculation that only one request means there isn't a lot of collateral damage. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, a total of one filing wouldn't be small, but minuscule collateral. Remsense ‥ 论 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn’t make any sense. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, we wouldn’t have a total of one filing. No one even responded to the unblock request, so we likely lost a would be wikipedian. The collateral damage is not small and can be minimized by blocking the 64 instead of a 40 range. There have been far too many editors that didn’t do anything wrong blocked. 174.243.177.85 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- We can't facilitate absolutely every case unfortunately. Every block might lose someone we could've known and loved in a perfect world. With experience, the evidence indicates that the trade-off here has been acceptable to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- No one has any "rights" to edit this website. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn’t make any sense. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, we wouldn’t have a total of one filing. No one even responded to the unblock request, so we likely lost a would be wikipedian. The collateral damage is not small and can be minimized by blocking the 64 instead of a 40 range. There have been far too many editors that didn’t do anything wrong blocked. 174.243.177.85 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. Right, that's factored into the calculation that only one request means there isn't a lot of collateral damage. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, a total of one filing wouldn't be small, but minuscule collateral. Remsense ‥ 论 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. And a new editor would be unable to create an account thanks to this block. We’ll never know how many would be wikipedians we lost. I don’t know why the fact that this range block is problematic needs to be explained. It affects way more people than the editor(s) they were trying to block. Literally the entire United States can fall on that range. 2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is actually a rather complicated subject. Firstly number of addresses ≠ number of affected users. Some very broad ranges are little used, some rather narrow ones are extremely busy. Secondly there's a tricky calculation involved with broad range blocks, but much as we want to limit collateral to as little as necessary, there are some extremely nasty sockmasters who have no qualms about abusing large ranges to their advantage, so that large rang-blocks really are the least bad option. As just one example the entire T-Mobile range has been repeatedly blocked. In fact blocks as wide as /29 are not as unreasonable as you may think.
- Getting back to this specific case, it's a Verizon Business range, and it wouldn't surprise me if individual users floated within a /40 making the block of smaller subnets of less utility. I don't know all the specifics of why Widr blocked that range, but then again you don't either since you didn't ask them first which you really should have done before bringing this here. That range has in fact been repeatedly blocked including for BLP violations and sockpuppetry. Ideal? no. Least bad option? Almost certainly. Those are experienced sysops; I would trust their judgement. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, OP is a block evader, latest socks here and here. Widr (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Figures, at least they were kind enough to bring their block-evasion to everyone's attention here; to the limited extent I have time available I'll try to keep an eye out. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, OP is a block evader, latest socks here and here. Widr (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Blocking a /64 on this IP range would be pointless. Admins can do blocks like this without disabling account creation, though. Unless there's logged-in disruption, such as the creation of sock puppets, vandals, or trolls, account creation can be left enabled on wide IP ranges like this. Personally, I'm not so sure that Mediawiki should make it so easy to perform range blocks. I think maybe there should be a user right required, like edit filter manager. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I came across similar thoughts a few days ago. Because of bot reasons, and others, a lot of the times I am in incognito mode - without logged in. I often need to see the source. And all this time (in last 2-3 years), all of the time my IP/range was blocked with ACB. Is it possible to block the IP ranges only from mainspace? or something similar? —usernamekiran (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is, I think, a mobile network with dynamically assigned IP addresses. It may be necessary to block a range if there is disruption by people whose IP address change frequently within that range. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- regardless ISP (mobile/DSL/fibre or anything), the default IP system in India is dynamic. Static IPs are provided upon request, which are done only by hosting service providers and similar people. So it is safe to say that 99.9 home users/individual in India have dynamic IP address which change a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 is in the United States, not India. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe Usernamekiran was referring to their own experience mentioned in their first comment rather than this specific case. Regardless, this thread was started in bad-faith by a sockmaster unhappy their favorite range was blocked and should now be closed. If I hadn't already involved myself by weighing in here I would have done so already. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is a sockmaster that is just unhappy with Widr in general, seeing the accounts Widr mentioned - may or may not make this report an attempt at harassment.
- Should be closed either way. Also on you closing it, IPs shouldn't really close threads, even when uninvolved - reverting a sock's unresponded post is probably the most an IP might do, closing just shouldn't happen. – 2804:F1...A7:86CC (::/32) (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is, or perhaps was the last decade or so has been a bit of a blur, a complex etiquette governing such closes, but if sentiment has turned entirely against them that would be news to me. At one point I might have ventured on essay on that and other many other facets of unregistered etiquette, but now I don't have the time and would probably just wind-up dating myself badly anyway. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe Usernamekiran was referring to their own experience mentioned in their first comment rather than this specific case. Regardless, this thread was started in bad-faith by a sockmaster unhappy their favorite range was blocked and should now be closed. If I hadn't already involved myself by weighing in here I would have done so already. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 is in the United States, not India. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- regardless ISP (mobile/DSL/fibre or anything), the default IP system in India is dynamic. Static IPs are provided upon request, which are done only by hosting service providers and similar people. So it is safe to say that 99.9 home users/individual in India have dynamic IP address which change a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j
Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user Rereiw82wi2j was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per WP:VANISH their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) 331dot (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. Liz 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could we revoke TPA per this? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- User has created another account Human82. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's also User:ResearchAbility now. win8x (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked by PhilKnight. GiantSnowman 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's also User:ResearchAbility now. win8x (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- User has created another account Human82. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could we revoke TPA per this? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 21 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)
there is wrong information on the article shia in iraq
Content dispute. Talk:Shia Islam in Iraq is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
in this article the editor saying that the shea in iraq 65% and Sunni in iraq is 25-30% this is totally wrong statement in Iraq we never have census established based on sect all the census was established based on Male and female please see the reference below, please remove this false information and corrected, wekepedia shouldn't publish Article backed by weak source the, the editor used the world factbook that belong to CIA , i cant believe this, how the hell that the CIA conducted a Census overseas and get the number of Sunni and Shia people in Iraq, this is the same fake information that the CIA told the world that Iraq have mass destruction weapon which leaded to occupied Iraq, so please edit and remove these false info . below are links showing Iraq Census database showing all the Census that been conducted since 1950 till 2024, was based on male and female never have Census based on Sect.
https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population/iraq?year=1978 https://www.populationpyramid.net/iraq/1978/ https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/IRQ/iraq/population https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/iraq-population/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iraq-hold-first-nationwide-census-since-1987-2024-11-19/ https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-11-25/iraqs-population-reaches-45-4-million-in-first-census-in-over-30-years https://cosit.gov.iq/ar/62arabic-cat/indicators/174-population-2?jsn_setmobile=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeman7373 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Freeman7373. This noticeboard does not resolve content disputes. Please discuss your concerns at Talk:Shia Islam in Iraq. That being said, estimates of religious affiliation do not require an official census. The CIA World Factbook is considered a reliable source for this type of information, as is the United States Institute of Peace which is also cited. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- how you gave population rate based on sect without Census, what you said doesn't make any sense and showing the ignorance, your CIA is not a reliable source they lied about the mass destruction weapon in IRAQ which leaded to the occupation and many people died from both side , i know people life doesn't mean anything to the evil side, so this is one example of your reliable source. see links below
- https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/the-iraq-invasion-20-years-later-it-was-indeed-a-big-lie-that-launched-the-catastrophic-war/
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims
- https://www.quora.com/Was-the-CIA-dumb-to-conclude-that-Iraq-has-WMDs
- Shame on your reliable source 2603:8080:2602:2000:34F5:E43C:C23B:E584 (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Quora isn't reliable, and please be civil. EF 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent
MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent was warned to cease this conduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent (talk · contribs) has been warned by several users about their improper short descriptions but has not changed their behavior. It unfortunately appears to be a competence issue. Remsense ‥ 论 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like they just committed to stopping. I'd be inclined to take a wait and see approach here. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Remsense ‥ 论 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Consistent unsourced changes by IP 2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329
Blocked the /64 for one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been changing composer fields across various movie articles with no sources. All of them have been plain wrong. Kline • talk • contribs 01:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: The user has persisted after I issued a level 4 final warning for continued deliberate insertion of incorrect information on the user's talk page Yutah|UPage|(talk)✶ 02:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This seems to be purely an AIV issue - especially since it's an unregistered user. Synorem (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good timing, I've opened a report on AIV just a few minutes ago Yutah|UPage|(talk)✶ 02:17, 21 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)
- 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
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64
Blocked for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Disruptive editing Movement for Democracy
I've protected the page for 24 hours. @Rambling Rambler and @Hellenic Rebel are both warned against edit warring, including during the course of this discussion. RR, HR, and .82 should follow dispute resolution processes. Further disruptive editing or edit warring after page protection expires will result in blocks. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Hellenic Rebel has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox. An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user Rambling Rambler and me, continues the disruptive editing. Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300
https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again
diff3 130.43.66.82 (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow dispute resolution processes, such as seeking guidance at WT:GREECE or WT:POLITICS, or going to WP:DRN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely WP:OR. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. 130.43.66.82 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
(nac) Movement for Democracy is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to Movement for Democracy (Greece). Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks
/24 blocked for two weeks. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 166.181.224.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
- Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear/Archive
Using the IP range Special:Contributions/166.181.224.0/19, Sugar Bear has returned to Misplaced Pages to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP Special:Contributions/166.181.250.216. Can we get a rangeblock?
There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username Banksternet. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
.I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. Acroterion (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
- Special:Contributions/166.182.84.172 was blocked in 2018 and 2019.
- Special:Contributions/166.182.80.0/21 was blocked in 2018 for one month.
- Special:Contributions/166.181.254.122 was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear.
- Special:Contributions/166.181.253.26 was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks.
- Special:Contributions/166.182.0.0/16 was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
- I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Locke Cole
No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. Star Mississippi 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Involved: Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 21. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include:
Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.
- I replied to this with
What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.
- I replied to this with
Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.
- And I replied to this one with
Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.
- And I replied to this one with
This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including six civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the hammer. :) EF 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently suffered a personal loss. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from Cancer of unknown primary origin in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. EF 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
bolding policies I've added at the end
- I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar WP:ABF, where I'm pretty sure you wanted WP:AGF) goes to Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay on policy. There's a difference. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. EF 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from Cancer of unknown primary origin in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. EF 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. Liz 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? EF 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. guninvalid (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. guninvalid (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
User talk:International Space Station0
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)
POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes
Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This this IP address engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this 1 and this 2, and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this 3, in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with this. I believe this person is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and also the 2024 Kobani clashes article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh also this. Des Vallee (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 72 hours (User talk:88.243.192.169#Block) and pages protected El_C 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Promotional content about Elvenking (band)
There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. @Elvenlegions: please be mindful of musical notability and what Misplaced Pages is and isn't for. Star Mississippi 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely Elvenking (band), with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg.
Aydan Baston and Damnagoras) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by User:Elvenlegions, which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. User:Neverbuilt2last). — Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. Elvenlegions (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If these musicians are not notable, you can always tag the articles CSD A7. Liz 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, Elvenlegions, but Misplaced Pages is not a webhost or a promotional site. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the standards we set for musical notability, then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. Ravenswing 07:51, 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)
Bunch of racist IPs/account
Sent packing. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Anti-Turkish sentiment
- GREEKMASTER7281 (talk · contribs)
- 112.202.57.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 186.154.62.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Beshogur (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. GiantSnowman 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Urgent need for page protection on BLP
Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. Star Mississippi 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is currently a content dispute going on at Kay Granger involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like User:Schwede66 got it. DMacks (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:27, 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)
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again
Genre warrior sent packing. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September (1, 2) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, Waxworker.) Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- /64 blocked for six months. Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
User:NoahBWill2002
NOTHERE blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- NoahBWill2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It looks like there's a pretty severe competence is required issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/derivative works, adding their own art to Fan art (and then doing it again after being warned), or adding personal opinion to articles. Lastly this comment is quite inappropriate and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this.
(As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)
I think admin action is warranted here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I 100% agree with The Squirrel Conspiracy on this. User:NoahBWill2002 appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV, despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy highlighted, followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. Opolito (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. Liz 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given this comment, I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- They added this grossly inappropriate religious screed to Babylon on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with more proselytizing. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made this non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) CodeTalker (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. Liz 23:09, 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:GDJackAttack1 mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places
GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. Star Mississippi 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GDJackAttack1 (talk · contribs) has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland (example), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal (example), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at this AfD. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are phantom settlements.
There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their talk page consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will stop creating these articles. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I tagged one as CSD A7 to see if that would work. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:20, 23 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)
TPA for 83.106.86.95
Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
83.106.86.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? LizardJr8 (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Can you please help?
William Swainson got moved from William John Swainson (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at Talk:William John Swainson, and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at Talk:William Swainson. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. Oholiba (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Done Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, WP:AN would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - was there a dab page at William Swainson before? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at WP:AN" or something similar. I appreciate the help. Oholiba (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading Special:Log/Shyamal correctly.
- @Shyamal, can you confirm what happened/fix this? – 2804:F1...60:4C25 (::/32) (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works.
- Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. – 2804:F1...60:4C25 (::/32) (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - William Swainson (lawyer) - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at William_Swainson_(disambiguation) could be reinstated/used. Shyamal (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged William Swainson (disambiguation) (which has no significant history) for speedying under WP:G14. Narky Blert (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - William Swainson (lawyer) - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at William_Swainson_(disambiguation) could be reinstated/used. Shyamal (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
POVPushingTheTruth
The truth may set you free, but WP:THETRUTH will get you blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:POVPushingTheTruth is clearly NOTHERE. C F A 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked. -- Euryalus (talk)| — Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 23 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)
- 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)
Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources
Content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @Ratnahastin over the content in the the "Kamaria Ahir" article. The editor removed significant content, citing User:Sitush/CasteSources as justification. Here are my concerns:
1. Misapplication of Policy:
Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFIABILITY.
2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources:
The removed content was based on British Raj-era sources, which are neutral and historically significant. The editor claims these are unreliable without specific evidence or discussion on the article’s talk page.
3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior:
Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "AI-generated" and warned me about sanctions under WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA, discouraging collaboration.Check here for the warning
Evidence:
Request for Administrative Action:
1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification.
2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page.
3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration.
4. Prevent further disruptive edits/vandalism by IP editors (which hasn't happened yet) And from Autoconfirmed users(e.g. @GrilledSeatJet , -Their Diff) and even from Extended Autoconfirmed users(@Ratnahastin) by banning such editors and putting an extended protection on the Article which I have once put request (please find it here) for but it got denied and now the results are as follows.
Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed.
Best Regards
--- Nlkyair012 (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Nothing to say about me really bot
Locked (non-admin closure). C F A 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- WilhelminaBlosse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per m:NTSAMR. Thank you! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Concern About a New Contributor
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)
Darkwarriorblake making aspersions
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 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.
Extremely Annoying situation
Blocked for one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I reverted this edit by this IP. They then trouted me multiple times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a PA and informed them of it.
The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions.
they also used a second IP to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough.
Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Category: